The Republican brand is toxic:
Democrat Travis Childers won Tuesday’s Mississippi special election runoff for Sen. Roger Wicker’s (R) former House seat, handing Democrats the biggest of their three special election takeovers this cycle and sending a listless GOP further into a state of disarray.
Childers led GOP candidate Greg Davis 53-47 with more than 90 percent of precincts reporting. Turnout increased substantially over the 67,000 voters who cast ballots in the April 22 open special election, with more than 100,000 voting in the runoff.
THIS IS GOOD NEWS! FOR REPUBLICANS!
jake
Change we deserve.
Heh.
Blue Buddha
Three for three in special elections for districts that have been GOP for at least two decades. Just another part of the Bush “legacy”.
TheFountainHead
I’m going on the record now saying that Obama’s choice of Vice-President will actually be the most important decision made in 2008 by any candidate anywhere. I’ve been mulling it over for at least a solid week now and I don’t have any answers I really like.
TheFountainHead
I’m going on the record now saying that Obama’s choice of Vice-President will actually be the most important decision made in 2008 by any candidate anywhere. I’ve been mulling it over for at least a solid week now and I don’t have any answers I really like.
Brett
Actually, it appears to be no news for Republicans. As of this morning, the story is not on the front page of the Fox News web site, and it’s not on the front page of the politics section. Guess “america’s election HQ” thinks that elections aren’t important. Strange, that.
TheFountainHead
Now, see, I only clicked once, damnit.
cleek
and i’m going on the record saying that no matter who he picks, it will not be good enough for the haters.
dslak
I can’t think of anything that wouldn’t be good news for them.
TheFountainHead
Well of course not, but in terms of striking the balance between NOT energizing the right, not enraging the independents, and giving the Hillary supporters an easy path to supporting Obama (and therefore the Democrats downticket) it’s a rather monumental decision, in my opinion. I think in previous elections there has been less riding on the VP slot’s strengths and weaknesses.
Jake
I’d say there isn’t one “perfect” choice for him, but that he’s got a lot of pretty good ones. Regardless, I’m sure the campaign is putting a great deal of thought into it.
I just don’t think HRC is one of the good choices. I’d say how that’s navigated is just as critical going forward.
JGabriel
John Cole, as someone who was on the ground there, what did you think of Obama’s campaign in WV? Should he have put more resources into the state? Creweeny at DKos had some criticisms of how the ground campaign was run; does his/her account match your experience?
More importantly, I’m wondering if Obama should have made more of an effort in WV. From what I saw among relatives in PA, Obama’s campaign there changed a lot of minds – not votes, but many people I talked to were far more open to the idea of an Obama presidency and to voting for him in the fall.
I don’t think Obama could have won West Virginia, but by campaigning more heavily, maybe he could have changed more minds in the Appalachian area in general – with down the road benefits in KY, TN, and NC for the general election.
Your thoughts?
.
Jake
One question for John this morning: how was the roughly 400k voter turnout for WV? Does that constitute “high turnout”?
Dennis - SGMM
“We must make every instance to distance ourselves from the fact that we followed Bush in lockstep off the cliff. A special committee to blame anyone but ourselves is now being formed.”
John Cole
I thought we worked pretty hard up here. I only volunteered for perhaps a dozen hours, but they had lost of committed folks working pretty hard for him here in Mon county.
Could he have done better? Sure. Would it have mattered? Probably not.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
I think the ‘perfect’ VP choice will be someone who can make effective Quayle insurance for any wannabe James Earl Rays.
Meanwhile, yet another GOP canary has entered the coal mine never to be seen alive again. Yet, somehow, I don’t see this stopping certain Hillbots from trumping Obama’s doom because he can’t win over Appalachian folk who’ve never seen a black man outside of 50 Cent and Cliff Huxtable.
Tom
I think Obama should consider widening the field for VP quite a bit. I meet the constitutional requirements and do not intend to run in 2012. I have a dark suit or 2 for state funerals. Just saying.
Dork
Fixed, cuz she’s now poised to win. Cable TV Newsfucks just told me so. And they never embellish, hyperbolize, or misconstrue, so clearly she needs to think about who makes a good VP.
John Cole
Turnout was steady to high, but nowhere near the record turnout they expected.
Really, though, the place you should go for this kind of stuff id WVBlue.
null pointer exception
This really is the best news of the week. Childers was attacked by Davis in TV ads because he was endorsed by Obama and Obama has a crazy pastor.
Glad to see folks in Mississippi did not fall for this BS. Interestingly, Childers won in a blowout – 20% victory margin.
August J. Pollak
FYI, Jeralyn’s now urging her readers to call up and threaten Superdelegates.
Apparently today they’ve switched from “Hillary HAS to be Obama’s VP” to “Hillary can still win” again.
JenJen
Deep thought: If the “scary-negro-bitter-pastor” strategy the RNC employed in this race doesn’t work in Mississippi, it’s not going to work anywhere.
Still, this is good news for Republicans. ;-)
raff
NRCC chairman, Tom Cole, had this to say after last night’s rout:
“Republicans must be prepared to campaign against Democrat challengers who are running as conservatives, even as they try to join a liberal Democrat majority.”
Wow, two perjoratives in one sentence. Classy even in defeat…
dslak
At least Cole saved his advice until afte the election.
Jake
Fucking brilliant strategy.
John Cole
So sad.
You know, yesterday, Nebraska held their primary. Obama won it, but by a much narrower margin than he won the caucus. If the Hillary campaign had been more competent, she might have a few more delegates from there, and not need to write nasty letters to superdelegates.
She ran a bad campaign. Why am I supposed to be convinced she will run a better one in the fall or run a better administration?
TR
I see three that I think work really well.
Wes Clark — a clear Clintonite, great military/national security cred, helps with whites in the border South
Jim Webb — again, great military/national security cred, and moves Virginia from a battleground to a Dem lockup
Ed Rendell — shores up the white working class vote, delivers PA and helps in eastern OH, and as a Jew, might help allay fears of elderly Jewish Democrats in Florida and elsewhere
My preference is Clark, largely because I want to keep Webb in that Senate seat forever.
Jen
If I had a new pet, I would totally name him Travis Childers. You could do a lot worse, you know?
BTW, I don’t know the context for that picture, but it always makes me smile.
Ugh
FYI, Jeralyn’s now urging her readers to call up and threaten Superdelegates.
Apparently today they’ve switched from “Hillary HAS to be Obama’s VP” to “Hillary can still win” again.
One of the saddest things about this campaign is Jeralyn’s loss of sanity. Armando was always a freak, but she seemed perfectly fine. Now, not so much. My own gut take (not necessarily specific to Jeralyn and probably completely wrong in any event) is that many feminists had so much invested in the idea that the first break from 43 straight white males was supposed to be a white female, that when it turns out a black male steps up and looks to break the streak, they lose all sense of reason and revert to “ITS ALL ABOUT THE PATRIARCHY!!” blatherings.
Ugh
Shorter Ugh: I’m a sexist pig.
Jen
Not to go all psychobabble on y’all, but I think Obama’s success over Hillary is in part due to his terrific ground organizational game, but the reason that works well is because he’s a superior product. He is somehow viscerally more appealing and more positive than Hillary, and as his exposure has grown, so has his base. A female relation by marriage out in Oregon puts it as: Hillary makes me feel like I’m in detention.
I think she faced something of a perfect storm this year — an unusually strong challenger, with superior organization, combined with some self-inflicted foot wounds.
PeterJ
They really should take a long look at all the male advisors surronding Clinton. They kept her down while taking all her money.
TR
By the way, the final margin for Childers was even higher — eight points.
JGabriel
The Fountainhead:
As someone who originally supproted Clinton, I don’t think the VP nomination is that important to most of her supporters. As long as Obama doesn’t pick someone who ‘enrages the independents’, most (>80%) of Clinton’s supporters will have no problem with pulling the lever for him in the fall. So appeasing Clinton’s base should only be a minor concern, not a major one.
Other than that, Jake sums it pretty well:
I can think of half-a-dozen candidates that would be a decent choice – Sebelius, Clark, Webb, Napolitano, Richardson, et. al., and even Clinton. None stand out as a great or obvious pick, but they are all good choices and I can’t imagine any of them would hurt his chances (except for Clinton, who might adversely affect his support in the Montain West).
.
Bot LaBeer
What’s the over-under on the amount of days before this blows up in Jeralyn’s face and she blames it all on Taylor Marsh?
Dennis - SGMM
The linked article also mentioned that the RNCC had 7.2 million in the bank as of March and that they spent 1.3 million of it in Mississippi. I’d estimate, based on a wild-ass guess that they’re packing less than on-fifth of the money they need to defend all of the seats that they need to. I’d say that Republican harrumphing about the “obscene cost of running for office” will start soon and that the R’s will produce a bill named something like “The Fair Campaign Financial Reform Act for Fairness in Fair Campaigning” whose main purpose will be to nullify the Dem’s financial advantage.
The Grand Panjandrum
I don’t agree. It works at TL and No Quarter.
It should be no surprise that Democrats are turning out in huge numbers.
1. 2000 election (many still feel the Supreme Court handed the Florida electoral votes to Bush)
2. Iraq War
3.Torture
4.Warrantless Wiretaps
5. Schiavo
6.Katrina
7.DOJ/US Attorney firings
8.Energy policy
9.Illegal immigration
10.The economy
Some of these are obviously very big issues that could impact an election individually, and others are confirmation that the Republicans failed miserably at governing. With Democrats, Independents and a few Republicans very unhappy, it has the makings for an election that could be pretty tough on Republicans.
Every Republican incumbent in an R+6 district, or less, better hope they have pictures of their Democratic opponent having dinner with Osama Bin Laden in a cave in Pakistan or they are in serious trouble.
scrutinizer
Can’t go along with you on the monumentalism of his choice, although I think it will be a difficult one. I think that it would take a lot to energize the fRight in this election—Obama is, after all, center right, as is Clinton. Even the Republicans I know (except for one or two dead-enders in my family) aren’t falling for the bullshit about the dreaded liberals who will turn the US into a socialist dungheap. The biggest problem that Obama faces is race. That’s not insumountable in this day and age, although the MSM is having a wankfest. But hell, if my city in the NC mountains can elect a black woman mayor—
In the GE, McCain isn’t going to attract that many independents, and even most of the I’ll never vote for Obama because his supporters were mean to Hillary crowd (except possibly for p.huk) will pull the lever or push the button or color in the circle for the MUP. For the others, NO choice for VP will be satisfactory.
Unless you subscribe to the Cheney theory of the powers of the VP, what difference does it make? The VP isn’t co-President, nor are they usually involved in day-to-day policy decisions. Certainly whoever Obama chooses for VP will have to be able to function as President after the Republicans gin up some reason to impeach Obama and remove him from office, but until then, the VP slot is there to do what it normally does—serve as a political tool to fill out deficiencies in the front-runner’s appeal. That’s not always a function of ability.
Lee
I live in Texas and I also want you guys to keep Webb in the Senate forever. He has been knocking them out of the park since his first day.
His GI Bill is fraking brilliant. Not only does it truely support the miliary but it gets the Republicans to have to go on record as the non-supporters that they really are.
JGabriel
Teh Grand Panjandrum:
I could be wrong – after all, I’m still pissed about 2000 – but I don’t think that’s going to be a decisive factor anywhere except maybe Ohio – where a lot of Ohioans are still ticked off about the 2004 election rigging.
.
Robert Sneddon
The question is, is Senator Obama willing to take a risk on this or not? There’s a outside choice for VP that, if it comes off, does all sorts of mischief to Senator McCain’s plans.
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano.
She’s not a Senator so there’s no Senate seat at risk when she is elected to the Vice-Presidency. She’s term-limited as Governor and will leave office in 2010 regardless. She’s popular in Arizona (2-1 majority in her last election), she endorsed Obama a long time before the tidal wave started, she’s young by comparison to the old white guys people have been pushing in Obama’s direction. Having her run would force McCain to spend a lot of time in his home state which otherwise would be a solid lock for him.
A black guy/woman top ticket (and Governor Napolitano has Oval Office ambitions of her own down the line) would be a powerful statement to voters that this is not your father’s Democratic Party and real change is coming.
bago
THIS IS SPARTA!!!
Except for those homos.
And those argula eating greeks.
And those elitist writers and readers.
…
Shit.
Jake
Wow. Milbank compares the Clinton campaign to the “Dead Parrot” Monty-python skit this morning:
Since the parrot was probably female, I’m guessing this too will be dismissed as sexist commentary.
TheFountainHead
I think a few of you have misconstrued what I meant. I don’t think the VP choice will be important once in office, and I don’t think that it will be important in terms of electing Obama, or at least not that important, but I do think where it will be important, perhaps ironically, is for the downticket dems in contested districts. It’s all about turnout. Obama has already proven he can do that better than anyone, so the VP choice is about magnifying that as opposed to sullying it. The reason it is the important decision of this election is not because it matters so much as it is that every other decision doesn’t change affect the outcome to my mind.
uh_clem
One interesting data point: even though Obama was “shellaced” in West Virginia, he still got more total votes than McCain. In and of itself, this wouldn’t mean much, but over and over in primary after primary the second-place Democrat outpolled the winner of the GOP primary.
If this is any indication of the turnout in the general, it’s really bad news for the GOP. (My take is that is is an indication, but not a strong one).
WV Total votes:
Clinton 239,062
Obama 91,652
Edwards 26,076
McCain 89,683
Huckabee 12,175
Paul 5,914
Romney 5,188
Giuliani 2,831
Keyes 1,426
Curry 727
Question for John: What’s up with all the protest votes? Edwards, Romney, Giuliani, WTF? Are West Virginians just contrary by nature?
Even with
Zifnab
Even before Cheney, Al Gore played a surprisingly important role in the Clinton Administration. He did a great deal of arm-twisting in the Senate and – given the tighter margins after ’94 – I think he even cast a tie-breaker or two.
Gore pushed his environmental agenda as VP under Clinton just as hard as he did in the Senate. He was no Dan Quayle.
That said, Cheney is an entirely different animal when it comes to being VP. I mean, this guy is literally Bush’s handler. GW doesn’t make any real decisions without going through Cheney or one of his cabinet. Neither Obama nor Clinton would function as that sort of President, so the VP would obviously have less power than he has today. We’d also probably have a little less mention of “Fourthbranch”.
Dennis - SGMM
Too funny! He only left out:
TheFountainHead
That Milbank article is the best thing I’ve read in the last year about this primary. It hurts because it’s true.
Soylent Green
She started with a built-in disadvantage, that many people just don’t like her. That didn’t affect the rest of her brand identity; she was assumed to have the requisite organization, experience, and smarts to prevail.
Only by comparison to a strong challenger did voters get to peel back the other layers. Campaign team? A disaster. Experienced? Not really. Mostly she was trying to take credit for her husband’s. Smarts? Not displayed by alienating Democrats with Republican tactics, moving the goalposts, etc.
As noisome as this interminable primary has been, it has allowed us to get up close and personal with our candidates. We’ve gotten to see what sticks to Obama and what does not. That knowledge should help in the months ahead.
cleek
it’s a nice change. i’ve people have been referring to her as the Black Knight (“it’s just a flesh wound”) since at least Feb.
uh_clem
Woudldn’t the
Black Knight be more appropriate?
//Come back here and take what’s coming to you. I’ll bite your legs off!
Jake
I would not be surprised if a good percentage of WV voters believed John Edwards was still in the race.
Jen
Sure, although I don’t think that was necessarily true for Democrats, one year+ ago. I don’t remember the polling offhand but it was quite positive for Democrats. So I think that effect would have been worse in the general than it was in the primary.
I never bought into the “experienced” idea, but she is a serious policy wonk, a very smart person, and she is right on the majority of the issues. As much as she has driven me completely bonkers during this primary, as much as I think she is inferior to Obama and would’ve energized Republican turnout while not energizing Democrats and would have depressed down-ticket races, etc., once she got into office I think she would’ve made a quite capable president. That sentiment has gotten very subsumed in me lately, but it is still true and I am feeling magnaminous now that I don’t see any way for her to win.
John Cole
Good to see John Aravosis is keeping a healthy perspective.
Jesus.
Not helpful. Not helping at all.
cleek
s/i’ve people have been/people (including me) have been/
stupid brain.
demimondian
Hey, WVA is great news for the Republican Party! It’s the thirteenth primary in a row where John McCain has gotten a higher percentage of the vote than Hillary Clinton.
I was disappointed in WVa. I thought she had a serious chance of beating his percentage there, even though she faced opposition, and he didn’t.
dr. bloor
John’s never been real big on subtlety.
zzyzx
You know, I was thinking this morning that p.l has a point. Clinton does have a better chance of winning PA and OH (albeit with a worse chance of winning WI, MN, OR, and WA). If he would stick to just talking about that, I’d be curious to see if he had a way for Clinton to get the nomination without pissing off some of the most loyal Democratic voting blocs; I don’t see it, but I’d be willing to listen. Unfortunately, he decided that insulting Obama supporters was more important so the one good point was lost under the anger.
Dennis - SGMM
I think that Aravosis should stop holding back and tell us how he really feels.
Tim F.
You have to admit, having a Jew, a Muslim and a Christian on the same presidential ticket would be pretty awesome.
Bot LaBeer
Far be it from me to be John’s apologist, but his resentment of Hillary is locked in on a single issue (GLBT stuff) and everyone else’s distain for Hillary on AmericaBlog is empowering him to say some pretty fucked up shit. Not all that different from Jeralyn’s situation, though.
Dennis - SGMM
Nah, sounds too much like a setup for a joke: “A Jew, a Muslim and a Christian walk into a bar…”
The Other Steve
It’s already begun. Yesterday on the local NPR, they had on a couple of campaign finance reform types, and they were lamenting on how horrible Obama is. How most of his money is coming from big donors and bundlers and such.
They never really put it in perspective, that just under 50% of his money is coming from small donors… and only 3% of his donors are maxed out. Or that by comparison, McCain has only received like 25% of his money from small donors, and the majority of his donors are maxed out at $2300.
One thing the Republicans can always depend on, is some stupid liberal somewhere helping them to make their stupid arguments.
p.lukasiak
well, its certainly good news for McCain.
Childers had to completely repudiate Mr. Presumptive Nominee because Obama was so toxic in his district….
“My family has heard the lies and attacks linking me to politicians I don’t know and have never met. “
by “politicians” childers means Barack Obama.
So while Childers win is bad news for the Republican brand, its also bad news for the Democrats when a Congressional candidate has to treat the party’s presumptive nominee like he was Louis Farrakhan.
The GOP is a lot less worried about losing one seat thanks to a ridiculously unpopular President than they are about what happens in November when they will have “maverick” McCain leading the party. If Obama is the nominee, the GOP’s congressional candidates will be able to run against the “Obama agenda” and the necessity of electing Republicans to Congress to prevent the “Obama agenda” from being implemented.
Billy K
Holy crap. Winning this seat was considered a long shot.
zzyzx
Ed Rendell showed an incredible inability to stay on message in PA. Pass.
Cyrus
And if I thought there was even the slightest chance the bill didn’t have a partisan slant, and if I thought there was even the slightest chance it would accomplish its stated goal, I’d be all for it. It’s really cool how Obama is getting all these small donations and related stuff, but it’s still unfortunate how much money it takes to run for office.
Rick Taylor
I use Americablog to remind myself pro-Obama blogs can go off the rails every bit as badly as pro-Clinton ones; he’s had a posts praising Maureen Dowd’s article, featuring the Hillary nutcracker, and awarding “Monicas” for bad behavior. He’s had commenters telling him, John I support Obama, and I’m no fan of Clinton, but you’ve got to take a step away from the edge. He pays no attention.
I snuck a peak. She’s only encouraging people who live in states that went for Clinton to apply pressure. Seems like a bad idea on two accounts; first her readers are unlikely to limit themselves, and second, if the super-delegates voted for the nominee according to their state, Obama would win handily.
Rick Taylor
That was the article from a few days ago, where she was saying Obama had to punish Hillary, and speculating she somehow sapped his energy.
PeterJ
He can’t thank Clinton enough for all the campaigning she did for him.
Tying a candidate to Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and even Wright has worked great as an election strategy. Especially in a R+10 district. They really were toxic.
Are you on medication? Perhaps you are getting “The Change that you Deserve”(tm)?
Killjoy
Yes, I’m sure they wouldn’t have had done the same if Hillary Clinton was the nominee, because as everyone knows she is beloved by all in the Deep South.
mark
I always mentally caption it with the last 2 sentences from 1984: “He had won the battle over himself. He loved Big Brother.”
p.lukasiak
It depends on which Obama supporters you are talking about. The Obots who infest the blogosphere are so invested in their Hillary hatred that it will be impossible to placate them — they left the reality-based community the moment they took that leap of faith required to support Obama, and would prefer hit the ground at maximum velocity rather than pull the cord for the Hillary emergency chute.
And except for the race-pimping minority like Brazile, JJ Jr, Sharpton, et al, the leadership of the black community will readily fall in behind Clinton as it becomes increasingly obvious that Obama is going to be an electoral college and congressional disaster.
Rank and file Democrats who supported Obama will breathe a sigh of relief — keep in mind that the whole “Wright” thing didn’t explode until almost 80% of states had held their primaries/caucuses. Nebraska — where rank and file Democrats voted last night in a statewide primary to select their candidate for Chuck Hagel’s open seat — shows just how nervous about Obama real Democrats (as opposed to all the Obama cultists who swamped the caucuses) are — he couldn’t even get a majority of rank and file Democrats to support him in the “beauty contest” election last night, despite the fact that this is the kind of state where he supposedly has far superior appeal to Clinton among voters, and has been touted as “inevitable” for weeks, and is now the “presumptive nominee”.
So, if/when Hillary gets the nomination, I won’t be here to try to convince the Obots that the right choice was made — the whiny-ass titty babies here will scream and yell and roll around on the floor in a tantrum regardless of what anyone says — and the best way to deal with a toddler having a tantrum is to let them scream and cry and yell themselves to sleep.
Tim Fuller
Happy in Mississippi today. Time to bust out my RECENTLY RECEIVED OBAMA08 Mississippi custom car tag!! Pics to follow. It replaces last year’s IMPEACH tag.
Enjoy.
Davebo
That’s better.
p.lukasiak
there is a reason why Childers’ opponent ran ads tying Childers to Obama, rather than to Clinton.
Your response is classic denial mechanism — rather than address the fact that Childers had to run ads like this to distance himself from Mr. Presumptive Nominee, and what that means for the Democratic Party, you attack Clinton.
The problem, of course, is that while Clinton is not wildly popular in places like Mississippi, she’s not toxic. Obama is.
Richard Bottoms
“We shall prevail—in peace and in freedom from fear, and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids.”
~ General Ripper
cleek
hmmm. that’s almost worth it.
Crust
John Yoo of all people thinks there are legitimate grounds to impeach Bush. (Frankly, I think FISA violations are a much better case than botching a war, but perhaps I shouldn’t complain.) Yoo also doesn’t think there were legitimate grounds to impeach Clinton (although he did think the investigation was warranted).
Hell has officially frozen over.
Bot LaBeer
That’s all good and fine – No wait, it’s not. Funny thing happened in NE last night. Nebraskans also voted in the state’s presidential primary and you know what? Obama beat Clinton.
Sorry to fuck up your little wet dream.
scrutinizer
Shorter p.huk–
The darkies will fall into line as soon as we get rid of that uppity nigger.
John S.
Spot on, Jen.
In the latest poll I read it had a portion that addressed the more you know about a candidate whether or not you liked them more or less.
The only candidate that had a positive gain the more people knew about them was Obama (McCain fared the worst).
Svensker
You know pluk, I am interested in what you have to say, sometimes. But you open your first paragraph with insults about Obama supporters, then immediately descend to slurs and poo flinging. Oddly enough, this just makes me mad and inclined to discount whatever point you were trying to make.
Apparently, according to you, “rank and file” Democrats support Hillary. Elitist snobs or racist negroes support Obama. So looks like there are more elitists and racist negroes (and some of THEM are elitist, too!) in the Democrat Party because Obama is winning.
Now, is your point that we should count out all the racists negroes (racist whites are A-OK, of course) and elitist snobs, but only count votes of the “rank and file” Hillary supporters, because they are right and the rest of us are wrong and goddamn it, if we don’t do this, the Democratic party is going to lose in November? Is that your basic argument?
zzyzx
“And except for the race-pimping minority like Brazile, JJ Jr, Sharpton, et al, the leadership of the black community will readily fall in behind Clinton as it becomes increasingly obvious that Obama is going to be an electoral college and congressional disaster.”
Well in the first place, it’s hard to see Obama as a congressional disaster since the Democrats have won 3 pick ups, two of which Obama campaigned for and the third was one where the Republicans tried to tie the candidate to Obama in a deeply red district. I’m not worried about Congress in the slightest with Obama. Then again, I don’t see a disaster. I’m worried that McCain might get to 271 and Obama only to 269. I’m worried the same thing with Clinton because if she loses Florida then she can’t lose one more state of the Kerry states even with an Ohio pickup; even NH would be enough to blow it.
Anyway, your argument basically boils down to, “Obama supporters can suck it!” I don’t see that as a winning argument in – say – Oregon where Obama is going to get a double digit win next week, after all of the scandals. Lose Oregon and Clinton’s strategy is toast.
I thought that maybe you had some sort of plan that would get Clinton the nomination but still would appeal to the majority of Obama’s supporters. Instead your strategy is to say, “We don’t need voters in WA, WI, MN, OR, MD, and DC.” I’m starting to see why the superdelegates aren’t rushing to your side.
EdTheRed
Hmmmm, now who does this sound like?
Davebo
Which explains why Hillary drew 36.7% in the primary while Obama drew 61.2%.
That kind of toxicity I can live with.
Do you ever actually, you know, think before you type this idiocy?
Shygetz
What percentage of the black vote has Hillary won again? Anybody? And based on what evidence do you think the “black community” will fall behind Clinton if she somehow manages to overturn the popular vote and the pledged delegate count in all races run under the auspices of the Rules Committee, especially after the “working class white people count the most” argument she’s been pushing?
Oooo, REAL Democrats(TM)! Are they anything like TRUE Christians(TM) or REAL Americans(TM)?
So one of the oldest and whitest states is where Obama “supposedly has far superior appeal”? Now you’re just straight-up lying; everyone knew for weeks that Obama was going to lose WV, and lose big. Bill Clinton even said they were shooting for an 80%/20% split. You’ve gone beyond pathetic spinning, now you’re willing to lie through your teeth to fool the ignorant. Pathetic. I really hope no one forgets your words here.
Sleep tight, Paul.
zzyzx
“there is a reason why Childers’ opponent ran ads tying Childers to Obama, rather than to Clinton.”
Yes, Obama is exceedingly likely to be the nominee in 2008 and Clinton isn’t.
Davis X. Machina
VP: Former chair of House Homeland Security committee, long-serving US Rep. Nita Lowey.
Killjoy
Yes, it’s the same reason they didn’t run ads tying Childers to Kucinich: Obama is the nominee, and Clinton is not.
p.lukasiak
do you have a link to support this claim?
I mean, if you look at the list of states that Obama won, and check it against congressional delegations and DNC membership, its pretty counter-intuitive. (If you look at the states with the largest Democratic congressional delegations, most of them went for Clinton.)
John S.
We already knew you were a liar.
Now we know you’re also a fool.
jnfr
Aravosis has obviously gone mad, but beyond that I think he’s wrong. While this long primary has been hard on us political junkies, I think it’s been good for the party and the people on the ground. Voters in the ending states are really excited to be a part of history. We’ve registered millions of new Dem voters in every state, and now have the strongest Dem-leaning generation since what, FDR maybe? A long time, anyway. We’ve gotten a head start on building a ground organization, and the 50-state strategy is paying off with these wins in formerly solid Republican districts.
Anyway, I don’t like the Obama hatred or the Hillary hatred. As I’ve said all along, I think they are both fine candidates, with very different good and bad points, and yes they both have their strengths and weaknesses. But like most of you I’m eager to get on to the general election, because I think it’s going to be a lot of fun this time.
John Cole
I was going to respond to PLUK, but I will just use the wise words of BIRDZILLA from last night:
You are being openly mocked by Birdzilla, Lukasiak. That has to hurt.
Jake
So if Hillary’s such a strong candidate, why didn’t she outright beat Obama in that primary? The fact of the matter is she lost, 49-46.
And what about upcoming Oregon? It’s a pretty lilly-white state the last time I checked. If Obama’s such a weak candidate among that set, what will you say if he beats her like a drum there?
My guess is that you will continue to spin like a drunken top. Asshole.
Davebo
I’m saying we need better Clinton trolls here.
Paul is just pathetic, and with so many supporters of Clinton out there surely we could get one who’s IQ surpasses his underwear size.
p.lukasiak
which part of the word “Nebraska” do you have a problem comprehending?
CFisher
Pardon me.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Dork
Which is why Obama won MS. Paul, face it–you’re one big racist fuck. You should get some help with that.
PeterJ
And how did that work out? Was he toxic? The election results seem to dispute that idea, even in a R+10 district. Or do you believe that Childers would have won by 65-35 if the GOP hadn’t tried to tie Obama to him?
It must be fun to have your own reality?
Shygetz
Oh, Nebraska where Obama won. I didn’t think you’d be touting a Clinton loss as a sign of strength. I misunderestimated you yet again.
JGabriel
PLuk:
Sheesh, Paul, it’s not even noon yet.
RP Count = 1.
.
Happy!
Love that picture! Saint McCain is saying: I love you, GB!
I predict he will come to regret that photo. It has the same potential impact as the photo of Dukakis standing in the tank back in 1988.
Please, show it often.
nightjar
Da bird is the word!
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Can we get him in a steel cage match with Jeralyn and Pup Tent Democrat? I’d pay to see that.
John S.
And the largest – California – has some serious buyer’s remorse.
Nicely done, cherry p.ick!
Shygetz
Yeah, he’s apparently as dumb as you are. And he lost. Go figure…
John S.
Paging myiq2xunderwear!
cleek
the Fafblog is blogging:
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
And here comes patronizing.luk to explode the thread. Has he found his pony yet?
D. Mason
Ummmm Jeremiah Wright FTW.
NickM
P. Luk – what do you say about these brand-new fresh polling stats, from ABC News’s Director of Polling, Gary Langer:
Any reality based answer to that?
The Other Steve
Didn’t Obama beat Clinton in Nebraska?
Twice even.
Apparently Hillary has a probablem with white rural voters. She couldn’t win Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, or the Dakotas either.
That’s a concern. No Democrat has lost Minnesota since like Eisenhower, and yet Hillary can’t win the state?
Even Walter Mondale won Minnesota. That’s pathetic that Hillary won’t even be able to surpass Mondale’s disasterous election.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
When you’ve lost the Fafblog, you’ve lost the nation.
Apsaras
Here’s something worth a good laugh, courtesy of The Onion.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/clinton_questions_obamas
cleek
ignore him
ignore him
ignore him
ignore him
ignore him
let him dominate the discussion on his own fucking blog.
Billy K
I find it interesting that p.uke’s reasoning sounds more and more Brooks-ian as this primary drags on. “The “real” voters think like me. It’s all about “heartland” and “rank and file.” Elites are bad. (even though I am one).”
Clinton and her supporters are becoming that which they once despised. What’s that about when you peer into the abyss?
OriGuy
Regarding the Edwards vote, Poblano had an interesting idea. West Virginia listed the hometowns of the candidates on the ballot. Maybe some of the last-minute deciders voted for Chapel Hill, NC over Chicago, IL or Chappaqua, NY.
As far as the parts of the blogosphere that have gone off the deep end for one candidate or another, how many people are we really talking about? There’s probably only a few hundred constant commentators on TL, H44, MyDD, AB, etc. Those are the ones with multiple comments on every thread, every day, or the ones that make front page posts. Maybe a few times that who drop in once in a while. Add in the lurkers and you’re talking about the turnout in a medium sized county in Indiana.
DK and HuffPo get more, of course, but many of those threads are not about the Democratic primary.
p.lukasiak
deal with the fact that Obama couldn’t even get majority support among the kind of Democrats that the party depends on year in and year out, in a state where he is supposedly far stronger than Clinton, despite being the “presumptive nominee”.
As someone else has noted, back on Super Tuesday Obama won Nebraska by 61.2% to 36.7% So what we are looking at here is a 12% loss for Obama, and a 10% gain for Clinton — and a margin that has gone from 24.5% to 2%.
Now, I don’t know how you explain this — my explanation is that most of the change here is really a reflection of how the caucus process do not reflect actual voter sentiment… that there has probably some fall-off in support for Obama, but the big difference you see is the non-representative nature of the caucuses themselves.
But any reasonable explanation belies the Obot argument that Obama is more electable than Clinton because he “expands the map” based on the results that came out of the caucuses. A very large part of Obama’s delegate lead is based on the distortions of voter sentiment that come out of the caucuses, we saw it in Washington State, we saw it in Texas, and now we see it in Nebraska.
Davebo
Hillary has shown she can get support from elitists (Scaife) media superstars (Limbaugh) and cable news networks (Fox).
p.lukasiak
I find it interesting that Obots are incapable of recognizing the distinction between rank-and-file democrats who show up to vote in party primary elections to choose their nominee for an open Senate seat, and a small but intense group of Obama cultists who overrun a caucus process that is designed to reflect the views of rank-and-file democrats in the state.
p.lukasiak
its indicative of just how moronic Obots are that they think they are being clever when they take a comment out of context….
John Cole
We do and say pretty much whatever we want. I think part of what you saw this week was evidence of that- I really don’t think West Virginians are much more racist than the folks of Kentucky, western Virgina, southwestern and central pa, or southeastern Ohio. They are, however, much more likely to say what they are thinking.
In general, though, West Virginians are also contrarian by nature.
Another thing people are missing in the dynamic is that West Virginians view themselves as underdogs and fighters, also part of the Clinton mystique this year. Many West Virginians will naturally align themselves with her for that reason among the many others. You should be around WV during football season- no matter how good the WVU team is, we think there is a conspiracy to keep us down in the polls because they don’t respect us, etc.
It is just part of our DNA (and I don’t ant any inbreeding jokes, you bastards).
jake
No way plukshake has a blog. If he did he’d be too busy deleting comments that question the greatness of Hillary or the awfulness of Obama.
Well at the very least he’d provide a link.
John Cole
Try to mask your sneering contempt for the majority of the party you belong to by just once calling them Obama supporters instead of Obots. It might help you adjust to your party’s presidential nominee.
p.lukasiak
apparently. Childers had to treat Obama like he was worse than Farrakhan, putting up ads denying ANY connection whatsoever to Obama.
4jkb4ia
Once I learned that Aravosis had quoted Maureen Dowd my respect for him went even more into the toilet. This was easy because I never read him anyway.
zzyzx
“Now, I don’t know how you explain this—my explanation is that most of the change here is really a reflection of how the caucus process do not reflect actual voter sentiment…
Svensker
Well, since the nomination seems to be hinging on the Obama cultists who overran the caucus process — why the hell didn’t Hillary & Co. figure out how to deal with that? Pretty piss poor campaign handling, if you ask me. She and her husband have known and worked under these rules for decades — why didn’t they figure out how to work the system? Or change it, if they thought it was unfair?
Nobody could have imagined that someone else would figure out how to run a campaign better! It’s not fair!
Excuse me if I don’t muss my mascara over this.
zzyzx
“Now, I don’t know how you explain this—my explanation is that most of the change here is really a reflection of how the caucus process do not reflect actual voter sentiment…”
That’s some. Some of it is that there wasn’t a massive GotV process; as a resident of a state that had a caucus that counted and a beauty contest primary, I saw the difference between the two. Remember that Obama came out of being an organizer. One of his strengths is getting out the vote. Prior to the caucus, three different people came to my house to make sure that I knew the date of the caucus, where to go to vote, and understood the process. None of that was present for the primary. I only knew it was happening because there was a thread about it on DKos.
gypsy howell
Obama/Kucinich ’08!
The Moar You Know
What the hell is “race-pimping”? Seriously – can you give me a definition, Paul?
John Cole
Nothing reflects actual voter sentiment. Unless it is good for Hillary. Then it SHOWS THAT HILLARY MUST WIN BECAUSE THE PEOPLE LOVE HER AND SHE MUST BE THE ONE!
On the ride home yesterday I saw a girl on the side of the street, had to be about 16-17, in a red white and blue outfit, with a sign that said “HILLARY IS THE ONE.” My first thought was- “Hillary is Neo? Weird.”
p.lukasiak
when people can’t understand the distinction between rank and file democrats and people who show up at a caucus, and they are for Obama, they’re Obots.
I drew this very distinction earlier — differentiating between people like you who bought into the Iraq War, bought into Bush, and are now buying into Obama with the identical irrational fervor, and “rank and file” Democrats who are far more concerned with putting a Democrat in the White House and retaining control of Congress than achieving some sort of pathetic catharsis in “crushing” Hillary Clinton.
MBunge
“Obama couldn’t even get majority support among the kind of Democrats that the party depends on year in and year out”
I am unfamiliar with this concept. Is there some sort of voting seniority system I’ve never heard of?
Mike
John Cole
WTF are you talking about- I was completely and totally skeptical of Obama for months. He earned my support.
And if by some way, Hillary steals the nomination, I will slip myself a roofie and vote for her anyway, because JOHN MCCAIN IS WORSE.
You, on the other hand, are going to run around spreading racist crap for months and vote for McCain. Just fuck off.
Killjoy
I don’t know, Hillary Clinton bought into these things and seems to be relatively unaffected by Obamamania.
Dreggas
Yeah, one of those “If we only knew then what we knew now” deals. Of course this is dismissed by the Clingons since it interferes with their alternate reality.
Bot LaBeer
We’re talking about Elizabeth and not Dennis, right?
p.lukasiak
well, that’s a good explanation for what happened in Nebraska, John.
and BTW, Obots have been proclaiming Obama as the “THE ONE” for ages (see Oprah ‘I’m afraid to show my face at an Obama rally because I had the sense to get away from Jeremiah Wright years ago” Winfrey),so your mockery of a Hillary T-shirt is kinda stupid at this point, wouldn’t you say?
Conservatively Liberal
Fixed. ;)
Fixed.
Hey p.hukstain, go drag your race-baiting ass back under a rock.
Promise? Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out, fuckwit.
MBunge
““rank and file” Democrats who are far more concerned with putting a Democrat in the White House and retaining control of Congress than achieving some sort of pathetic catharsis in “crushing” Hillary Clinton.”
Wow. It’s rare to see such a textbook perfect example of projection. p.hack really needs to submit himself to extensive observation and analysis by a team of mental health professionals. What would be learned could help millions of others deal with their own crippling, psychological problems.
Mike
zzyzx
Free advice – when you’re trying to convert people to your point of view, calling them irrational for having their opinion is only rarely an effective technique.
My main concern is putting away McCain. That’s why I’m willing to listen to people talk about Clinton’s path to the nomination. On the other hand, it’s not like there isn’t a strong case for Obama. The Republicans have been ignoring her lately while Obama has been fighting a two front war and despite that, she has horrible favorability numbers, today’s Rasmussen has Obama viewed favorably by 50% of the electorate (and 56% of independents), McCain by 49%, and Clinton by 46%. She’s doing worse in national head to heads than Obama vs McCain. She has a strength in Appalachia which worries me, but it’s not like that region is the only area in the country.
p.lukasiak
Another symptom of Obot syndrome is the inability to carry on anything resembling an intelligent discussion. Instead, there is a compulsion to take smippets of an argument completely out of context, then try to make a point that, upon close examination, makes no sense…
the poll that you are referring to would also have you believe that Clinton beat Obama by only 2 points in California. Given that is off by about 70-80%, its not exactly the kind of thing that anyone who wasn’t completely insane would try to use in an argument.
Tsulagi
That Bush/McCain pic is even more of a classic than Morans Guy.
With 80% thinking the country is headed in the wrong direction, and about the same percentage thinking the taller guy in the photo is a waste of air, in the general Dems should include that photo in just about every commercial and print ad. Maybe with a caption like “Do you really want to continue down a 100-year path of stupid?”
And yet, the older, shorter guy in the photo who has done his best to become Bush’s mini-me is nationally polling roughly even with the two Dem candidates. Way to go Dems! Only in America.
p.lukasiak
just a note.
There is no point in trying to convince irrational people of anything — by definition, they are just as likely to respond to rational argument for Clinton as they are to a list of root vegetables followed by the word “Clinton”.
Cain
The poor fool is going to be in trouble when he’s up for re-election in November. Obama’s name is going to be everywhere then. But by then, maybe we won’t care.
sri
p.lukasiak
Which do you think will be more damaging…picture of McCain with Bush, or pictures of Obama with Wright, Sharpton, etc….
Dreggas
I find it amusing that by the troll-logic here the only place where real democrats exist is in a small patch of the country known as Appalachia. Here I thought we all existed on the coasts.
slag
Personally, I’m a fan of Huckabee’s new McCain brand.
Svensker
You know what, pluk? Go f**k yourself.
I was against the war from the get go and was really upset with Clinton for voting for the AUMF, and for her “hawkish” stance all along. I was lectured by a friend, who reminds me very much of you, that her hawkish stand was simply good politics. Personally, I don’t see letting other people die so you can get ahead in the electoral system as “good politics”.
Her AUMF vote was what turned me against Hillary, along with her Kyle-Lieberman vote, and her general hawkishness.
Obama isn’t as anti-war as I would like, but he sure as shit was better than Hillary. And that’s why I voted for him and will do so again.
So take your Obot crap and stick it up your elitist behind.
Conservatively Liberal
Fixed.
Dreggas
Fixed.
Given your asshattery you might want to start practice saying “President Barrack Obama”.
John Cole
You aren’t even trying anymore. Gallup:
Just go away.
Tsulagi
Yeah, it’s coming. But Stewart on TDS pointed out to McCain that Bush is polling even worse than Wright. Funny when Stewart gave McCain an opportunity to renounce and denounce Bush.
scrutinizer
God damn p.huk, whatever the Clinton campaign is paying you, you deserve twice as much. You’ve really mastered that Rove thing of taking your candidate’s weaknesses and projecting them onto the frontrunner.
This bit?
Check the mirror, babe. For months now, you’ve been taking bits and pieces of polls and stitching them into a narrative that’s completely contrary to the reality of the campaign. Next time Hillary runs for the Senate, she really needs people like you working her campaign. We need some new blood in the Senate.
Punchy
The former.
Where the hell is TZ? This really isn’t a thread until the Angry Old Man lobs some bombs around. ;)
Pb
Wow, that’s stupid. Hey, didn’t I mock that months ago? Oh yeah. Let’s try that again:
zzyzx
If the vast majority of Obama supporters are irrational to this degree, why bother arguing at all?
One of the lessons I’ve learned over the years is that when you think a couple of people is completely irrational, it’s probably them, but when you think that 45% of the population is so, then it’s probably you.
I have a Masters degree in mathematics and I’m a computer programmer. I spend my days dealing with logic. The problem I’m seeing with Clinton is that her arguments are getting more and more difficult to abstract into a set of core beliefs. I don’t know what she stands for anymore other than being a fighter and that’s a turn off for me. I don’t want to spend years watching someone throw away long term arguments for short term political benefits and that’s what her campaign has been for the past few months.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
All that he has left is ranting and raving, because nothing he nor the Clinton campaign has done has stopped Obama. You could pie filter his posts to say ‘I’LL GET YOU GADGET, NEXT TIME!’ and you wouldn’t lose a thing.
Conservatively Liberal
Improved. ;)
4jkb4ia
NYT:
MS-01 includes the counties which Clinton actually won in the northeast part of the state. It is her best area in MS. She won the district 51.5% to 48.5%. Obama is hardly “toxic” among the Democratic primary voters.
BFR
Is P.Luk a prospective Clinton delegate or something?
4jkb4ia
According to poblano Obama has a 23% chance of winning Nebraska; Clinton has an 0% chance. In other words a) neither candidate will win Nebraska and b) Obama will not damage Kleeb’s chances among Democrats in November since he won that primary overwhelmingly. Johanns is a strong candidate period.
p.lukasiak
for the third or fourth time, I make a distinction between Cole and his coterie of Obot acolytes, and the rank-and-file Democrats who voted in the Nebraska primary for Obama.
Obots are incapable of rational argument — its just a series of out of context quotes and non-sequitor “responses”.
I mean, when a Democratic congressional candidate feels he has to treat the “presumptive nominee” of the party as if he was carrying a highly contngious and virulent form of leprosy, its not cause to celebrate, its cause for concern. But all that Obots are even capable of noticing is that Childers was attacked for his supposedly being endorsed by Obama, not that Childers vehemently denied any connection to Obama whatsoever.
zzyzx
“for the third or fourth time, I make a distinction between Cole and his coterie of Obot acolytes, and the rank-and-file Democrats who voted in the Nebraska primary for Obama.”
…and yet, you’re arguing here and not on NebraskansForObamaButWeReallyAreRationalWeSwear.com
p.lukasiak
not only is that a non-sequitor (gathering data from different sources to formulate an argument is wholly different from taking one sentence out of a paragraph and then responding to it with something wholly irrelevant), its not true.
When I cite polling data, i almost always use either CNN/CBS exit polls or SUSA polls — and I don’t take snippets unless we are discussing something appropriate for a “snippet.”
So I’ll do stuff like look at exit polling data from all primary states to see how DEMOCRATS voted, and argue that the will of DEMOCRATIC voters should not be ignored when deciding upon the DEMOCRATIC party nominee. And when I do that, I get accused of taking the data out of context, it demonstrates how STUPID Obama supporters are, because rather than dispute the argument, they make idiots of themselves by trying to dispute the data.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
LOUD NOISES
4jkb4ia
Turnout for the Democratic primary in Nebraska was evidently light. You can say anything about 2700 votes, but light turnout points to light turnout among independents as well.
MBunge
“I mean, when a Democratic congressional candidate feels he has to treat the “presumptive nominee” of the party as if he was carrying a highly contngious and virulent form of leprosy, its not cause to celebrate, its cause for concern.”
How exactly did a lot of Southern and Western Democrats treat Bill and Hillary Clinton while they were in office?
Mike
Conservatively Liberal
Fixed. And get a dictionary you wanker.
4jkb4ia
But that district is a district won by Clinton, an R+10 district, a district with strong racial division (I assume this because it is in MS). A conservative Democrat having to distance himself from Obama in a district where a Democrat shouldn’t have a chance doesn’t speak to the majority of what will happen in November.
b-psycho
Whoever suggested using that picture in campaign ads is genius. I can imagine a TV spot where you take footage of various Bush regime fuckups and flash those pictures alternating with that shot of him & McCain, then finish the ad with a voice saying “is that a torch you REALLY want passed?”.
Billy K
p.uke keeps talking about “rank and file” that don’t show up for caucuses. In other words, the uneducated* electorate that is easy to steer by name recognition alone.
He is a despicable, cynical man.
*I mean uneducated in political matters, not generally ignorant.
Billy K
I don’t know about who is using it in ads, but GOS started putting that pic out there a couple years ago.
/credit where it’s due
BFR
But you’re argument just means that you think the rules should be changed, not that Clinton should be winning according to the rules as they exist today.
The fact of the matter is that in open primaries/caucuses, votes from registered Democrats count for exactly the same amount as votes from disaffected Republicans and Independents.
The ranting about Obama supporters is just irrelevant – if you’re this ticked off about the outcome, then you should direct your ire at the state democratic parties that have insisted on caucuses and open primaries.
It just gets back to a simple issue – Clinton was outplayed by Obama despite her having overwhelming leadership support and financial resources at the outset. Why anyone would think that her campaign augers well for effective progressive governmnet is beyond me.
She certainly doesn’t have a history of effective organizing, so why would you think that would change in either the general election or as president?
Conservatively Liberal
Fixed for truthiness.
MBunge
“So I’ll do stuff like look at exit polling data from all primary states to see how DEMOCRATS voted, and argue that the will of DEMOCRATIC voters should not be ignored when deciding upon the DEMOCRATIC party nominee.”
Hey, p.hack! It was the DEMOCRATIC parties in individual states that decided how they were going to run their DEMOCRATIC primaries and caucuses. Since it was DEMOCRATIC parties deciding who could vote in DEMOCRATIC contests, why the heck can’t you accept that DEMOCRATIC decision? Wow! Capitalization is fun!
Mike
4jkb4ia
kos: “There are about 110 Republican-held seats less conservative than this one”. There are 199 Republican-held seats in the whole House.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
The Pup Tent Democrats will not be ignored!
BFR
For that matter, why aren’t you ticked at Clinton for her continuing to stand by her AUMF vote and her yes vote on Kyl-Lieberman? Why aren’t you venting on her for not ditching Penn when it was clear he had no idea how to run a DEMOCRATIC primary?
Why is this all the fault of those nasty, race-pimping Obots? Seriously, c’mon.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
And there are 435 Congresscritters in the House.
ThymeZone
Constant repetition of lukasiak’s bullshit does not change the fact that there is no empirical support for the idea that demo voting patterns in a primary can be correlated to anything that has happened in a general election. If anyone has information to the contrary let him post it, or else shut the fuck up.
The nature of the two contests is too different to extrapolate primary demo patterns into general election ones.
Also, the way this ends is that Barack Obama, and not Mister Magoo, the Republican, becomes your next president.
That’s all that matters, and you heard it here first.
NR
It’s funny how p.luk is screaming that Childers only won because he distanced himself from Obama, because everyone here can be 100% certain that if Childers had lost, p.luk would now be screaming that he lost because he didn’t distance himself from Obama enough.
Fledermaus
How big a lead did HRC have before this all started? How she doing now? If you want to cite a drop in polls as evidence of unelectibility I suggest removing the beam from your own eye first. Really you’re not even trying, p.luk.
MathFan
Real Americans break down into two groups:
1. Rational Americans
2. Irrational Americans
Rational Americans can be further sub-divided into two groups:
1a. Those who state their opinions, they accept as cogent, and stop.
1b. Those who state their opinions, they accept as cogent, and then repeat them in a predictable cycle.
Irrational Americans state their opinions, they accept as cogent, in an ever changing cycle, as they meander through Opinion Space™. Presentation of these opinions are unpredictable but it can be observed, as they march towards infinity, the conclusion of any particular opinion-presentation cycle bears little adherence to the preceding opinion-presentation nor to the following opinion-presentation. Thus, for Irrational Americans, the Attribute commonly known as “Moving the Goalposts” is a Feature, not a Bug.
Using this analysis under acceptance of the Cantor’s Continuum Hypothesis, the relation of Transfinite Americans to Irrational Americans is an exciting field of research. The operational definition(s) and use-condition(s) of pi is particularly intriguing.
(And who can now say Number Theory isn’t useful?)
NR
Meanwhile, anyone with a few functioning brain cells can see that the real lesson from last night is this: If the scaaaary black preacher schtick doesn’t play in an R+10 district in the Deep South, it’s not going to play anywhere.
Tlaloc
I don’t think Obama’s choice of VP is all that critical, personally. Nor do I think he needs to pick Hillary.
Honestly it doesn’t matter to me whom he picks because as I see it it won’t make any difference to what I consider his most important downside- a lack of experience/history. Having an experienced VP makes no real difference. That’s why I’d be okay with Hillary/Obama but have no interest in Obama/Hillary.
Amongst the more typical Hillary supporters I suspect he could choose any woman and achieve much the same effect as choosing Hillary. Not that I think he *has* to do that either.
grandpajohn
`My quote of the day, this from the fucking moron who has completely hijacked this thread with post after post of wild science fiction caliber conjecture or bald faced lies framed as fact and yet without posting one single link to any of his bullshit
ThymeZone
The scary preacher thing doesn’t move those Redstaters because they have their own scary preachers. The idea that one can say “God damn America” is really only of interest to pundits who live in a bubble. People who go to church every week and fellowship on Wednesday nights and listen to Bible Belt radio all week hear preachers talking about God daming Americans every day, damning the sinners and the queers and the abortion whores and anyone else they can demonize. Hearing Wright isn’t that shocking to these folks, really.
Davebo
Back on topic
In retrospect, sending Dick Cheney to campaign in MS might have been a less than optimal move.
Tax Analyst
Oh…a “race-pimping” reference from p luk…how surprising. Well, that costs me $1 (donating to the Obama campaign each time pluk uses a race-pimp reference). I’m up to $6 today, and I think the rest of the post merits another buck for calling Obama supporters “whiny-assed titty babies”. So I’m up to $7.
It’s really the only useful and satisfying way to deal with his moronicity (I know, it’s not a word, it just seemed appropriate). It’s pointless to try fact, logic or reason.
John Cole
From a great piece on the Obama money raising apparatus:
Ideas and leadership > experience. Of course, these guys are just wildly successful businessmen, and they probably drink lattes, so what do they know?
SamFromUtah
…a sign that said “HILLARY IS THE ONE.”
She’s not the first One.
D.N. Nation
p.luk: Why’d you abandon us over at Sadly, No? We miss you and your Iris sockpuppet!
Tax Analyst
Ooh, ya gotta love it…now he’s telling us who WE are…”people like you…”
And still he has the gall and nerve to call other people arrogant and presumptuous.
Cain
You know, it’s a different world over in the Obama campaign in OR. I mean gosh, I was chatting over there proudly handing over my vote for Obama and they’ve never even heard of the website TalkLeft or Balloon-Juice or anything?! John Cole? Whose that?! But..
Imagine my utter shock, that they didn’t even know who p.luk was?! ZOMG! The Obama Campaign didn’t know the man who is single handedly combating the entire Obama nation, typing furiously on multiple website as fast as he can. I bet his typing skills has significantly increased from a ponderous 10 words a minute to full wingnut speed of 1000 words a minute! I salute you p.luk!
p.luk take a break. We’ll still be in 3 months, we’d like to talk about Republicans now. Thanks.
cain
John Cole
Give me some time. Birdzilla and I have a clear plan for world domination.
nightjar
Nah, he’s just a sick wanker who needs the limelight and the pain of punishment at the same time.
Cain
BTW they do know now ;) I had to tell who the person(s) was that inspired me to canvass in the first place.
cain
Tsulagi
Wow, apparently a few (very few) of the really smart, serious adults at RedState are even beginning to get that message.
Always a source of comedy, thought I’d look at RedState’s take on the MS race. Was a little surprised skimming through the comments. Seems more than a couple of them realized that losing a strong R district in a state like MS might be cause to say “oh shit!” thinking toward November.
To those that couldn’t or refused to see that, “Adam C” (I believe a RS director) spent a fair part of the tread saying “Earth to retards—we got us a real brand problem.” Like this reply to one of them questioning that premise…
Awww. I might be tempted to say “I feel yer pain,” but then I’m not a D so fuck ‘em.
Tlaloc
“I asked Roos, the personification of a buttoned-down corporate attorney, if there had been concerns about Obama’s limited CV, and for a moment he looked as if he might burst out laughing. “No one in Silicon Valley sits here and thinks, ‘You need massive inside-the-Beltway experience,’” he explained, after a diplomatic pause. “Sergey and Larry were in their early 20s when they started Google. The YouTube guys were also in their 20s. So were the guys who started Facebook. And I’ll tell you, we recognize what great companies have been built on, and that’s ideas, talent, and inspirational leadership.””
puh-leaze!
You seriously want to argue that handing an unknown the presidency is in anyway akin to newbies creating startups, even startups that turned out wildly successful? Nobody just handed Sergey and Larry enormous unchecked power.
“Ideas and leadership > experience.”
No. Not when that person is handed the capability to turn the planet into a cinder on day one. In that case experience/history is pretty *damn* important.
Hypatia
Ideas and leadership > experience. Of course, these guys are just wildly successful businessmen, and they probably drink lattes, so what do they know?
Hypatia
Sorry, I screwed up the quote tags on that last post.
nightjar
There is only one reliable source of experience to predict how a President will act in the Oval Office. And that is actually being president. And I hope your not claiming HC’s history has been clean and bright, and is somehow more desirable than Obama’s. And don’t give me Wright or Rezko. Those are Red Herrings.
4jkb4ia
So there are 346 districts less Republican than this one out of 435. This district is a Democratic outlier. The Democratic candidate will not particularly be trolling for votes in the remaining 86. Probably the commenter understood this.
4jkb4ia
Red Sox 1-0, top of 3rd.
Tlaloc
“There is only one reliable source of experience to predict how a President will act in the Oval Office. And that is actually being president.”
Not true at all. It would be true if you said there is only one way to *know* how a person will behave as prsident, by observing them as president. There are however a great many ways to *predict* how they will behave, some are more applicable than others.
The best is by watching them in a position with similar role (executive) but smaller scale. This is why Governors are preferred in general. Barring that the executive of a big company works. Or a command position in the military. All of those give you some idea of how the person behaves when granted personal power and control over an organization. Ideally you want the post they held to be fairly similar in terms of power as the presidency, i.e. governor is much better than mayor.
Less desirable but still of some use is high profile/power work in a different role. This is where Senate experience plays a role, for example. Again scale plays a factor. US senator means a lot more than state senator which means more than city councilman.
The problem is Obama catapulted incredibly rapidly to Senate, a position which it is honestly questionable he’s qualified for, and is using that as a stepping stone to much greater heights of power. All of which is fueled purely by personal charisma (which he has in abundance). While charisma is certainly an _advantage_ for a politician it is not a _qualification._
That’s what worries me. A great many people are willing, even eager, to hand the highest position, one with enormous control of our military forces including nuclear weapons, to someone nobody had heard of eight years ago. Just because the guy talks “purty.” That scares the hell out of me.
This isn’t exactly the first time people have put style over substance. It’s to be expected in hollywood and the arts, but in politics it usually turns out badly.
Tlaloc
“And I hope your not claiming HC’s history has been clean and bright, and is somehow more desirable than Obama’s.”
Hillary’s history is not great by any means, _but it exists._ She’s not an unkown quantity. On the contrary we have decades of experience with her knowing she can be vindictive and even petty at times but overall is stable. We know no such thing about Obama. Barring the unlikely circumstance that someone on this board is a lifelong friend or close family member of Obama’s, nobody here has any clue as to what the man is really like when he isn’t campaigning. *We just don’t.*
I really wish that gave more people pause.
MBunge
“A great many people are willing, even eager, to hand the highest position, one with enormous control of our military forces including nuclear weapons, to someone nobody had heard of eight years ago. Just because the guy talks “purty.” That scares the hell out of me.”
What exactly are you afraid of? Do you have some reason to believe that Obama is some sort of closet schizo? When Democrats tried to make this argument against Ronald Reagan at least they could link it to Reagan’s more agressive and confrontational public posture toward the Soviet Union. You, on the other hand, seem to just be irrationally fearful.
You say all we have to judge Obama on is his campaign? Well, firstly, that campaign has consistently shown Obama to be calm, reasonable and resistent to sudden, panicky moves. Secondly, the fact that Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld would have perfectly satisfied the standard you’re apparently advocating largely discredits everything you say.
Mike
nightjar
tlaloc,
Predictions are guesses, and like assholes, everybody’s got one. They may educated relative to what knowledge any given person might consider important. But they are still guesses. It’s just not true that we “just don’t” know what the man is like. Literally thousands of snoops of various stripes have been searching every nook and cranny of his life for the past 18 months. He has been a legislator for longer than HC and the only negatives found so far is he has a crazy preacher and associated casually with a couple of people of questionable character. Because we haven’t heard anything else is because nothing has been found to date. I thought I knew HC and a few months ago I did say (predicted) she’d make a good prez. I was wrong as were many others, even with all the minutia we learned about her in the 90’s and after.
You must be kidding, right? The woman is a walking testament to eratic behavior as we’ve seen the past 6 months. Many of the rumors have turned out to be true.
Tlaloc
“What exactly are you afraid of? Do you have some reason to believe that Obama is some sort of closet schizo?”
No, I don’t, but I also have no reason to believe he _isn’t._ I’d like to have some reason to believe he’s sane before I give him anything approaching that kind of power.
“You say all we have to judge Obama on is his campaign? Well, firstly, that campaign has consistently shown Obama to be calm, reasonable and resistent to sudden, panicky moves.”
All that proves is that during a period that he’s been trying to “win friends and influence people” he’s acted rationally. Great, what about when he’s no longer being judged but is actually in the position of power?
“Secondly, the fact that Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld would have perfectly satisfied the standard you’re apparently advocating largely discredits everything you say.”
If you’re dumb enough to believe that simply having a history is enough, sure. For those able to think on lists that have more than one object on them- not so much. Having some kind of history or experience makes it possible to evaluate that history. Cheney and Rumsfeld fail once you take into account their history.
Tlaloc
“Predictions are guesses, and like assholes, everybody’s got one. They may educated relative to what knowledge any given person might consider important. But they are still guesses.”
Of course they are, but they are the best we can have, and when making a critical decision we absolutely should make use of the best predictions.
“It’s just not true that we “just don’t” know what the man is like. Literally thousands of snoops of various stripes have been searching every nook and cranny of his life for the past 18 months.”
Wow, a whole 18 months? Gosh, that’s obviously enough time! Please tell me that wasn’t meant earnestly.
“He has been a legislator for longer than HC”
_State_ senator doesn’t tell me what the man does with real power. I’d want to see him in the US Senate a lot longer.
“You must be kidding, right? The woman is a walking testament to eratic behavior as we’ve seen the past 6 months. Many of the rumors have turned out to be true.”
How she been erratic? She’s run a mediocre campaign, certainly. That doesn’t make her erratic, at all. Exactly what rumors have turned out true?
nightjar
Shorter tlalac — Do we really know that much about any black man?
MBunge
“I’d like to have some reason to believe he’s sane before I give him anything approaching that kind of power.”
What sort of paranoid nut are you? Can you grasp how deranged it is to admit you’ve got no reason to doubt Obama’s mental and emotional fitness, yet demand that he provide positive proof to satisfy you that he’s not going to try and nuke Switzerland or something? Are you off your meds?
Mike
nightjar
Tlalac’s notion of acceptable characteristics in a president.
MBunge
“She’s run a mediocre campaign, certainly. That doesn’t make her erratic, at all.”
What makes her erratic is that she’s adopted at least 4 different public personas in this short campaign season.
1. “I’m inevitable!
2. “I’m for change, too!”
3. “I’m a victim!”
4. “I’m a fighter!”
We’re talking about a woman in her 60s who claims to have just discovered her political “voice” in the last month. That’s doesn’t raise any questions about her mental and emotional stability?
Mike
Tlaloc
“Shorter tlalac—Do we really know that much about any black man?”
Nice, nightjar. Good to see that your first resort is screaming racism.
Mbunge:
“Can you grasp how deranged it is to admit you’ve got no reason to doubt Obama’s mental and emotional fitness, yet demand that he provide positive proof to satisfy you that he’s not going to try and nuke Switzerland or something?”
So you think that any blank slate candidate is acceptable? That it’s purely a function of paranoia to want some backstory on a person before handing them the nuclear football.
Seems kind of an odd stance to me. YMMV.
Nightjar, again.
“Tlalac’s notion of acceptable characteristics in a president.”
Is it preferable? No. Acceptable? Yes.
Let’s take McCain as an example. He’s famous for having a bit of a temper. That’s a bad sign. but at the same time through all his temper explosions (and there’s a long list of them) he’s only seemed to be verbally abusive. I’m not aware of any instances of him actually attacking someone. McCain has been in the public eye a long time. If he had a truly violent temper that might emerge in the oval office we almost certainly would have seen it by now.
That means I can be fairly sure he won’t destroy Australia in a fit of pique. Now he is a bit of a warmonger, and so might very well pull more Iraq style BS.
There’s a history there. I certainly don’t like all of it, but it’s there and we can look at it. We can judge the man based on it.
…that this concept is so difficult to get across is _not_ reassuring.
Tlaloc
“What makes her erratic is that she’s adopted at least 4 different public personas in this short campaign season.”
That’s not erratic, that’s very typical politician. They adopt whatever role is best at helping them get elected, which is a big part of why I have no faith whatsoever in what a politician shows us during the campaign.
“We’re talking about a woman in her 60s who claims to have just discovered her political “voice” in the last month. That’s doesn’t raise any questions about her mental and emotional stability?”
No, not really. Again, on the list of crazy “a politician said something self serving” doesn’t even register.
MBunge
“So you think that any blank slate candidate is acceptable? That it’s purely a function of paranoia to want some backstory on a person before handing them the nuclear football.”
HE’S NOT A FUCKIN’ “BLANK SLATE”, YOU MORON! He’s 46 years old, graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law School, been married 16 years, served 11 years in elective office and has just defeated the most powerful political machine the Democratic Party has seen in over 20 years! HE DIDN’T JUST EMERGE FROM A FUCKIN’ POD, YOU IDIOT!
You can question his experience, his policies, his committment to liberal ideas and even his judgment. But to say that Barack Obama has got to prove that he’s “sane” is irrational and just profoundly fucked up.
Mike
Mike
nightjar
No, it’s a last resort to maybe explain inane questions about not knowing a man that’s been in public life for about a decade, who’s written a couple of books about himself, and who’s life has been under a microscope for the past year and a half.
I suppose your research on MCcain has been about as thorough as it has on Obama. Try a simple google next time.
The fact that Obama has shown NO predilection for vindictiveness and pettiness is one of the biggest reasons I support him. But then maybe he’s just fooling us all with all that decency stuff, and is planning on bad things for the world. Could that be it Tlalac? jeesh.
Tlaloc
“HE’S NOT A FUCKIN’ “BLANK SLATE”, YOU MORON!”
Speaking of temper problems…
“He’s 46 years old, graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law School, been married 16 years, served 11 years in elective office and has just defeated the most powerful political machine the Democratic Party has seen in over 20 years!”
His age is irrelevent. Similarly his time married doesn;t matter since I’m not his spouse. As for his time in electoral office just how intimately familiar are you with his time as a senator in Illinois? Maybe you are, I’m not. That he defeated Hillary again has nothing to do with the matter. It tells me nothing about the man.
“HE DIDN’T JUST EMERGE FROM A FUCKIN’ POD, YOU IDIOT!”
For practical purposes he did. Nobody outside of Illinois ever heard of the guy before 2003. He’s appeared on the national stage with a frightening burst of speed.
“You can question his experience, his policies, his committment to liberal ideas and even his judgment. But to say that Barack Obama has got to prove that he’s “sane” is irrational and just profoundly fucked up.”
If you say so. Seems to me that if you have to get a background check to buy a gun, or to hold most if not all posts in the executive branch, that asking to have some idea about the personality and stability of the person _leading_ the executive is pretty reasonable.
nightjar
And I concur with what MBunge said too.
Tlaloc
“I suppose your research on MCcain has been about as thorough as it has on Obama. Try a simple google next time.”
Alright, so 16 years ago McCain got in a heated argument and there was “some shouting and shoving.” Fair enough. We can certainly take that into account.
“The fact that Obama has shown NO predilection for vindictiveness and pettiness is one of the biggest reasons I support him.”
That’d probably mean more to me if you hadn’t just screamed “racist” at me, nightjar. That kind of behavior tends to belie your respect for civility.
But more to the point, that he’s been civil during the primary is like saaying “well, gosh, the guy didn’t kill anyone while in court, he must be okay.” Yeah, maybe. Or maybe people who know they are being watched and judged tend to put on their best face.
You don’t actually believe everything that someone applying for a job says, right?
Tlaloc
Let’s try a little gedanken, kay?
You have a remote control with one big red button. If this button is pressed millions of people will die. No ifs, ands, or buts. They’ll die.
Now who do you know in your life that you trust to give this remote to? Can anyone here honestly say they trust more than a small handful of individuals they know incredibly well with that kind of thing?
Remember you are balancing million and possibly billions of lives on this judgment. You make a mistake and you’ve just enabled the greatest mass murder in history.
Now you’re told that you can’t in fact give the remote to that small handful of people you’ve known all your life- people you trust implicitly. Instead you have to give it to one of a few choices who you’ve never met, or only met in passing.
…now why exactly, in that situation, is it wrong to want to be as sure _as possible_ the person you give that power to is not bat shit crazy?
ImJohnGalt
Shorter Tlaloc:
I’d rather vote for the guy I wanna have a drink with.
MBunge
“You have a remote control with one big red button. If this button is pressed millions of people will die. No ifs, ands, or buts. They’ll die.”
Listen, you dellusional fuck. You do understand that there is no “big red button” in real life? That even if a President has some sort of total psychotic breakdown, there is no switch he can push or lever he can pull that will send the missles flying? So, you ginormous chickenshit, you’re frightening yourself over a non-existent possiblity.
I have to admit, it took me a while to figure it out, but you’re just recycling the “Obama is a cult leader/Obama is like Hitler” bullshit that started to bubble up from the debased depths of the right wing/pro-Hillary political swamp. Instead of trying to apply an irrational characterization to the Obama campaign, though, you’re now creating an utterly irrational standard that’s specifically concocted so Obama can’t meet it. Your statements make it perfectly clear that there’s NOTHING Obama could say or do to pass this “test” of yours, other than spending another decade or two in the U.S. Senate, even though he’s already spent more time in public office than Hillary.
I wish I could talk to a friend of yours, so I could know if you’ve always been a crazy person or if you’ve just recently lost your last marble.
Mike
Tlaloc
“I’d rather vote for the guy I wanna have a drink with.”
Actually quite the opposite. I _like_ Obama’s positions much more so than Hillary’s, or McCain’s. He says a lot of things that I generally agree with. Of the three of them I’d almost certainly get along better with him.
But that’s not what matters in electing a president.
Tlaloc
“Listen, you dellusional fuck. You do understand that there is no “big red button” in real life? That even if a President has some sort of total psychotic breakdown, there is no switch he can push or lever he can pull that will send the missles flying? So, you ginormous chickenshit, you’re frightening yourself over a non-existent possiblity.”
So, out of curiosity, Mike, if President Obama orders the release of nuclear weapons what exactly is it you think will stop him? I want to know specifically what are the safety controls that you think make it impossible. After all you seem so very certain…
“I have to admit, it took me a while to figure it out, but you’re just recycling the “Obama is a cult leader/Obama is like Hitler” bullshit that started to bubble up from the debased depths of the right wing/pro-Hillary political swamp.”
Actually that’s a different issue. Specifically that’s about the rather irrational behavior of some of Obama’s supporters, not about Obama himself. The sad truth is that there are always shallow people who flock to those with charisma. Obama’s no exception in that regard (I am not saying that all of his supporters are such people, merely that some clearly are).
It _is_ an issue that worries me, though. I don’t like cult of personalities and one has formed around Obama (and yes, a smaller one has formed around Hillary).
“Instead of trying to apply an irrational characterization to the Obama campaign, though, you’re now creating an utterly irrational standard that’s specifically concocted so Obama can’t meet it.”
It’s irrational to ask that serious candidates for president have a significant public history?
“Your statements make it perfectly clear that there’s NOTHING Obama could say or do to pass this “test” of yours, other than spending another decade or two in the U.S. Senate, even though he’s already spent more time in public office than Hillary.”
You’re right that the problem of being a blank slate isn’t one he can reasonably fix between now and November, precisely because it is one where time is the only fix. Obama may have held public office longer but only when counting his time in the obscure role of illinois state senator. Can you honestly tell me everything, much less anything about the current Illinois state senators?
Hillary has been on the national stage for almost two decades. McCain even longer than that. Obama’s been on the national stage (you know, where people actually pay attention) for four years. That’s a sizable discrepancy.
Frankly I don’t think it speaks highly of him that he catapulted to senate and then couldn’t even serve out one term there before trying for president. That’s a personal evaluation, naturally, not one I expect everyone to agree with.
The desire to have a significant history before electing someone to the highest office damn well *should* be universal, because anything less is playing craps for very high stakes.
nightjar
i have not been able to respond to you on this thread tlalac.
But I’ll try again. i wasn’t meaning to call you racist with my comment, but merely to imply your inane questioning of Obama’s sanity could what I would call racial anxiety. I don’t consider that rank racism and refer you to Obama’s remarks on this in his Philly speech.
MBunge
“It’s irrational to ask that serious candidates for president have a significant public history?”
Over a decade in state and federal elective office is NOT a significant public history?
Ronald Reagan – 8 years in statewide elective office before being elected President.
Franklin Roosevelt – 6 years in elective office and 7 years as assistant Navy secretary before being elected President.
Bill Freakin’ Clinton – 14 years in statewide elective office before becoming President.
And in Clinton’s specific case, the only reason he has more time in office than Obama is that Clinton never really did anything with his life except politics. Is Obama really to be penalized because winning elections and advancing a political career haven’t been the only damn things he’s cared about in his life?
You need the assistance of a qualified mental health professional.
Mike
Tlaloc
“. i wasn’t meaning to call you racist with my comment, but merely to imply your inane questioning of Obama’s sanity could what I would call racial anxiety.”
Alright. I’ll let it go. Honestly I don’t think race has anything to do with the issue, but of course you have no way of ascertaining if that’s true or if I even believe it.
The only solution is to determine whether the question is valid regardless of race.
Nukes are just the most extreme example of the power a president wields, essentially at will. The president not only controls the nuclear arsenal but is commander of the amred forces (with very little oversight by congress in recent decades). He or she is also in charge of virtually every regulatory agency and thus has wide power to abbrogate laws simply by setting regulatory priorities. Now law suits may eventually force changes to egregious examples, but that takes a long time. They are also in the position of enormous power simply through the “bully pulpit” the ability to act as the face of the entire government, indeed the entire nation. That’s a power Bush fortunately could not use worth a damn due to his painful inarticulateness. Obama almost certainly will have much more success in that respect.
Obama’s also going to have an allied congress, probably with near supermajorities. People are extremely tired of republican rule. Everything is moving towards a democratic president having unparalleled power, even above what presidents usually have (and that’s a shit load itself).
This is a nexus. A critical juncture in history.
Now what reason do *I* have to believe that Obama is the right person to grant that power?
nightjar
A large number of enthusiastic supporters. Yea, that must be a cult. You may not be a racist, but I am calling you an idiot.
Your own judgment, just like the rest us. What a self absorbed statement that is. I, for one, don’t give a flying fuck if you have any reason to give Obama anything. Better trolls please.
Tlaloc
“Over a decade in state and federal elective office is NOT a significant public history?”
No, not really when the majority of that was as a faceless member of a state congressional house.
“Ronald Reagan – 8 years in statewide elective office before being elected President.”
Reagan was governor of California for eight years (67-75). Before that he was a nationally known (bad) actor. After that he was heavily involved with the Rep party including an unsuccessful run at the rep nomination in 1968 and 1976 before succeeding in 80. He first came to prominence in 1964 with support for Goldwater, so that means he spent 16 years on the national stage before he won his party’s nomination.
“Franklin Roosevelt – 6 years in elective office and 7 years as assistant Navy secretary before being elected President.”
Roosevelt spent three years in New York state senate (1911-1913). Then he became asst sec of Navy under Pres Wilson (1913-1914). Then he was US Senator (1914-1920). he then ran for VP unsuccessfully (1920). in the 20s he played a role in NY state party politics, delivering convention speeches and helping get people into the governor seat befor he himself became governor in 1928 (1928-1932). He finally won the office of the president in 1932. By that time he’d been on the national stage for 19 years.
“Bill Freakin’ Clinton – 14 years in statewide elective office before becoming President.”
Clinton started as AG of AR in 1976 (1976-1979). He then became governor of AR (1979-1992). He’d only been on the national stage for 13 years, but all of that was as a governor.
SO let’s compare these guys, huh?
Obama- 4 years on the national stage
Reagan- 16 years on the national stage 8 as governor
FDR- 19 years on the national stage, 4 as governor
Clinton- 13 years on national stage, 13 as governor
See where Obama’s resume looks decidedly *thin*?
Tlaloc
“A large number of enthusiastic supporters. Yea, that must be a cult. You may not be a racist, but I am calling you an idiot.”
Bummer, you were just starting to sound reasonable. Ah well.
“Your own judgment, just like the rest us. What a self absorbed statement that is.”
I don’t think you know what “self absorbed” means. Wanting to make a sound decision because it affects others is not self absorbed. Making a shallow decision because its popular and seems hip is self absorbed (mentioned purely as a theortetical, of course).
“I, for one, don’t give a flying fuck if you have any reason to give Obama anything.”
That’s fine. You should of course give a flying fuck if you have any reason to give Obama anything, sadly you don’t seem to care. Which is my typical experience with Obama supporters- they just don’t care about the matter enough to spend time thinking about it.
The capacity to blindly follow a pretty face is one of our worst traits as a species.
nightjar
It’s the “I” in bold that sounds self absorbed. Like a person demanding others make the case and serve up certainties for their consumption, instead of making decisions for themselves.
I didn’t say I didn’t have any reason to give Obama anything. I plan on giving him my vote based on my judgment that what I see is what I’ll get. I don’t feel that way about mccain or Clinton. And I think you are judging Obama by a different standard than the other candidates and the question is why? Or it would be, if I gave a flying fuck about your smarmyness.
Conservatively Liberal
I sure as hell don’t want Hillary anywhere near that button. She has already intimated that she would flatten Iran if she thought it was necessary. Now that is real presidental!
If you are a Republican.
Tlaloc has subscribed to the myiq2xu GoatBoy/p.lukasiak p.hukstain internet blog posting method; Spew as much worthless crap and as many jackalopes as you can in the hope of accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Another candidate for the cleek’s
PieGoat script. Poor goats.Conservatively Liberal
Oops, get the strikes right…lol
I sure as hell don’t want Hillary anywhere near that button. She has already intimated that she would flatten Iran if she thought it was necessary. Now that is real presidental!
If you are a Republican.
Tlaloc has subscribed to the
myiq2xuGoatBoy/p.lukasiakp.hukstain internet blog posting method; Spew as much worthless crap and as many jackalopes as you can in the hope of accomplishing absolutely nothing.Another candidate for the cleek’s
PieGoat script. Poor goats.Tlaloc
“And I think you are judging Obama by a different standard than the other candidates and the question is why?”
How is the standard different? Both McCain and Hillary have decades of national prominence and a long established history to look at in judging them. That’s distinctly opposite of Obama. Same standard.
Tlaloc
“She has already intimated that she would flatten Iran if she thought it was necessary.”
No she directly said she’d annihilate Iran *if it nuked Israel.*
Kind of an important part you left off there.
“WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran yesterday that if she were president, the U.S. could “totally obliterate” Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.”
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=5713be83-2386-47ed-b25a-04ae517a082e
You know if you are about to accuse someone of spewing worthless crap you might at least bother to get a simple quote right. Just sayin, is all.
nightjar
You don’t think Obama has a long enough record then vote Mccain or Clinton. In either case stop sucking your thumb and make a decision.
Tlaloc
“You don’t think Obama has a long enough record then vote Mccain or Clinton. In either case stop sucking your thumb and make a decision.”
I guess that’s a difference between us- I’m open minded and willing to reconsider the issue. Why do you feel it is necessary for people to decide in May about an election not held until November?
nightjar
The choice is between Mccain and Obama. Do you really need more time to make up your mind? I sure hope not.
Conservatively Liberal
The fact that Hillary uttered the words about flattening Iran was just plain stupid and shows that she has no grasp of foreign policy and relations with other nations, especially those of our enemies.
She gave Iran a line that they can play over and over to whip up their people against the US if she were to win the election.
Real brainy. Not. It was meme that she put out to somehow help her campaign. Maybe attract republicans to vote for her and actually mean it? Desperate people do desperate things.
Hillary has been desperate for a long time now. It shows.
Tlaloc
“The choice is between Mccain and Obama. Do you really need more time to make up your mind? I sure hope not.”
Honestly? Yes. Right now my answer is “none of the above.” I’ll leave the president portion blank, not for the first time. But like I said I’m open to new information. As before it’s hard for Obama to earn my vote since his problem is one that can only really be served by time. Time he simply won’t have in the next six months. So the only hypothetical I can think of where I vote for him is one where McCain goes so off the wall that the possibility of Obama being worse, despite the institutional advantages he’ll have, is negligible.
Yes it looks quite likely I’ll have to, in good conscience, abstain from the presidential race this year. There’s a decent chance I would have voted for Hillary, although it would have depended in part on choice of veep and actions between now and Nov.
Tlaloc
“The fact that Hillary uttered the words about flattening Iran was just plain stupid and shows that she has no grasp of foreign policy and relations with other nations, especially those of our enemies.”
Please. It’s been US nuclear policy for almost as long as nukes have existed that any nuclear attack on us _or our allies_ warranted a reprisal nuclear attack. Remember “mutually assured destruction”? It’s not like if the Soviets nuked West Germany we were just going to shrug our shoulders.
And a big part of the detente that made MAD even slightly workable was being absolutely forthright about our intent to do so. As Dr. Strangelove said: “Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn’t you tell the world, EH?”
All Hillary did was reiterate a well known piece of US foreign policy going back decades. I have substantially less love for Israel than anyone not directly working for Hamas, but even I’d answer that question the same way.
“She gave Iran a line that they can play over and over to whip up their people against the US if she were to win the election.”
Whereas if she’d said “go ahead and nuke Israel, we don;t care…” that would have done wonders for US foreign policy. We did that with Kuwait, remember? Told Saddam we didn’t care if he invaded, oh whoops, actually _we did_. Sorry, our bad. You brown people all get to pay for it with two wars, a bloody occupation, and a decade of starvation causing sanctions.
You are chewing her out for saying the right thing, which was also the only possible thing, and the historically valid thing. It’s a trifecta of correctness.
ImJohnGalt
Tom Hanks has been on the international stage for quite a while.
I kan haz b00zum buhdeez preznit?
MBunge
“SO let’s compare these guys, huh?
Obama- 4 years on the national stage
Reagan- 16 years on the national stage 8 as governor
FDR- 19 years on the national stage, 4 as governor
Clinton- 13 years on national stage, 13 as governor
See where Obama’s resume looks decidedly thin?”
My Last Word Fetish won’t let me leave this alone.
Governor of Arkansas qualifies as the “national stage”? Governor of Arkansas? Really? Really?
Mike