• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

President Musk and Trump are both poorly raised, coddled 8 year old boys.

The words do not have to be perfect.

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

đŸŽ¶ Those boots were made for mockin’ đŸŽ”

Everything is totally normal and fine!!!

Every reporter and pundit should have to declare if they ever vacationed with a billionaire.

When you’re in more danger from the IDF than from Russian shelling, that’s really bad.

I really should read my own blog.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Come on, man.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

The desire to stay informed is directly at odds with the need to not be constantly enraged.

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

Petty moves from a petty man.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

In after Baud. Damn.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

All hail the time of the bunny!

If you still can’t see these things even now, maybe politics isn’t your forte and you should stop writing about it.

Relentless negativity is not a sign that you are more realistic.

Their boy Ron is an empty plastic cup that will never know pudding.

Hi god, it’s us. Thanks a heap, you’re having a great week and it’s only Thursday!

Well, whatever it is, it’s better than being a Republican.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Archives for Elections / Election 2008

Election 2008

Different electorates, different results

by David Anderson|  February 2, 20167:44 am| 211 Comments

This post is in: Bernie Sanders 2016, Election 2008, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton 2016, Meth Laboratories of Democracy, Our Failed Political Establishment, Technically True but Collectively Nonsense

One of the dumbest arguments of the 2008 Democratic primary season was the extrapolation of primary results to general election results.

“Obama rolls up big margins on the Plains, he can win there in November…”

“Clinton winning the Democratic primaries in Ohio and Pennsylvania means she and only she can win the industrial Midwest”

Both sides of that argument are stupid.

And we’re seeing the same stupid on Iowa:

 

It seems like Clinton’s weakness among youth should be a big warning for the general that it’ll be hard to replicate Obama’s coalition.

— Joseph Weisenthal (@TheStalwart) February 2, 2016

Repeat after me, primary electorates and caucus selectorates are not random samples of the general electorate.

It is perfectly plausible in 2016 for a 23 year old Democratic activist in Iowa to have the following preference order: Sanders>Clinton>Chlamydia>Republican Nominee.

In last night’s contest the only part of the preference order that was under examination was how Sanders and Clinton related.

In November, the relevant preference order is either Sanders and Republican nominee, or far more likely Clinton and Republican nominee.

The same logic applied in 2008.  In Pennsylvania, the primary preference order was usually Clinton-Obama, but the general election preference order was Obama over McCain.

The people who take part in caucuses are highly unlikely to flip parties in the general election.  They are self-identified intense partisans.  Trying to generalize caucus results into general election results is obtuse.

Different electorates, different resultsPost + Comments (211)

Krugman Ain’t Feeling the Bern (Updated)

by Betty Cracker|  January 22, 20164:35 pm| 208 Comments

This post is in: Bernie Sanders 2016, Election 2008, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton 2016, Politics, Proud to Be A Democrat, Republican Venality

Paul Krugman kinda sounds like many commenters on this here blog on the topic of transformational rhetoric vs realpolitik in today’s NYT column. Like all Krugman columns, it’s worth reading in full, but here’s excerpt:

[O]n the left there is always a contingent of idealistic voters eager to believe that a sufficiently high-minded leader can conjure up the better angels of America’s nature and persuade the broad public to support a radical overhaul of our institutions. In 2008 that contingent rallied behind Mr. Obama; now they’re backing Mr. Sanders


But as Mr. Obama himself found out as soon as he took office, transformational rhetoric isn’t how change happens. That’s not to say that he’s a failure. On the contrary, he’s been an extremely consequential president, doing more to advance the progressive agenda than anyone since L.B.J
.

Yet his achievements have depended at every stage on accepting half loaves as being better than none: health reform that leaves the system largely private, financial reform that seriously restricts Wall Street’s abuses without fully breaking its power, higher taxes on the rich but no full-scale assault on inequality.

There’s a sort of mini-dispute among Democrats over who can claim to be Mr. Obama’s true heir — Mr. Sanders or Mrs. Clinton? But the answer is obvious: Mr. Sanders is the heir to candidate Obama, but Mrs. Clinton is the heir to President Obama. (In fact, the health reform we got was basically her proposal, not his.)

Krugman closes by reminding readers not to “let idealism veer into destructive self-indulgence,” which is sound advice. But I’m not sure his assessment is fair to former candidate Obama or current candidate Sanders, both senators and intelligent men who surely have/had some inkling of what they would face when trying to implement their agendas as president.

Maybe it’s more about what’s appropriate for the times. A couple of days ago in the “Town Hall” thread, valued commenter MomSense posited a theory of why a transformational campaign might be wrong for this particular election:

Part of the problem for Sanders this election is that this year isn’t a change election on the Dems side. The polls say 80-87% of Dems depending on demographics approve of the job the president is doing and think we are going in the right direction
 It’s the flip side of the problem Clinton had in 2008… Her 2008 election was far too status quo than the mood of the Democratic base. 2016 is a guard the change and expand on reform election for the Democratic base. I just don’t think there is an appetite among the Democratic base to risk what we’ve gained on unrealistic promises of revolution.

The part about “change” vs. “guard-the-change” elections sounds about right to me. It’s not that Sanders is wrong to be aspirational about addressing wealth inequality, etc., now — even with the knowledge that Republicans will obstruct him at every turn — any more than it was wrong for then-candidate Obama to run on breaking down partisan divides and then paring down his goals and adjusting his strategy to accommodate GOP recalcitrance when he became president. But it may be that there’s too little demand for a revolution right now, at least among Democrats. We’ll see.

ETA: There’s a site maintenance thread downstairs to report bugs and comments about the design update.

Krugman Ain’t Feeling the Bern (Updated)Post + Comments (208)

PPACA and PVI

by David Anderson|  January 21, 201611:49 am| 78 Comments

This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance, Election 2008, Election 2010, Fools! Overton Window!

The Cook Political Report Partisan Voter Index is an attempt to categorize how much more red or blue a state is compared to a national average.  It works by taking the average national two party vote share of the past two elections and calling that the zero index value.  States with vote shares for the Democrats that are above that index value are considered to have a D+x PVI.  States that vote more Republican than the index value are considered to have an R+x PVI.  It is very closely related to the hypothetical uniform swing.

It is a decent indicator of partisan lean of a state although it lags on fast changes (The eastern mountain states probably have an actual PVI above the reported PVI).

I want to point out some of the states whose Senators voted for PPACA and what their 2010 PVI was as a public service announcement:

Alaska R+13

Nebraska R+13,

North Dakota R+10 *

North Dakota R+10

Louisiana R+10

Arkansas R+9

Arkansas R+9

South Dakota R+9,

West Virginia R+8

West Virginia R+8 *

Only two of those seats are still held by Democrats.  None of those seats are on the top tier of the Democratic target list for 2016.

These ten seats were a minimal majority blocking coalition.  Another 8 Democrats were sitting in Republican leaning seats and plus the asshat Lieberman as a massive opportunity cost in Connecticut.  That is 19 Democrats in the Senate including any plausible majority combination where fulfilling major liberal policy goals was either personally distasteful (at least 1) or  politically challenging giving their home turf.  The actual policy space was severely constrained.

PPACA and PVIPost + Comments (78)

Seven Years Ago Today: Hope and Change

by TaMara|  January 20, 20167:50 pm| 115 Comments

This post is in: Election 2008, Open Threads, Organizing & Resistance, OBAMA IS WORSE THAN BUSH HE SOLD US OUT!!

I don’t know about you, but for me it was an amazing day. Amazing. So many things I never thought I would see in my lifetime. I am so proud of this man and so proud that we worked our butts off to help him get elected.

Here is the C-Span full archive of video of the events of the day.

We cannot backtrack. We cannot.

Consider this an open thread. Cheers.

Seven Years Ago Today: Hope and ChangePost + Comments (115)

Battle Flag Acquisition Strategies

by Betty Cracker|  June 23, 20156:41 pm| 107 Comments

This post is in: Crazification Factor, Election 2008, Election 2010, Election 2012, Election 2014, Election 2016, Fables Of The Reconstruction, Lindsey Graham's Fee Fees, Nixonland, Organizing & Resistance, Politics, Post-racial America, Republican Stupidity, Republican Venality, War, Women's Rights Are Human Rights, Assholes, Decline and Fall, Fuck Yeah!, General Stupidity, Meth Laboratories of Democracy, Our Failed Political Establishment, Rare Sincerity, Riveted By The Sociological Significance Of It All, Sociopaths, The Decadent Left In Its Enclaves On The Coasts, The Dirty F-ing Hippies Were Right

battle-flags_edited-1

Early this morning, I was doing some research on the endurance of corporate culture, studying how sometimes the spirit of a smaller, acquired firm can permeate the larger, acquiring organization. It’s not unusual for a big behemoth to acquire a scrappy smaller company solely for the purpose of infusing the moribund giant with fresh blood, and when the companies’ interests align, it can create an unstoppable marketplace force
for a while.

With that dynamic still on my mind, I moseyed over to Booman’s place and read a post that hit upon something that has been bothering me about the focus on the rebel flag in the wake of the domestic terrorist massacre in Charleston:

But the focus on the Confederate Flag can have an unfortunate side effect. What, after all, does that flag mean when it doesn’t simply mean white supremacy?

It’s meaning in those cases in nearly identical to the meaning of the modern conservative movement. It’s about disunion, and hostility to the federal government, and state’s rights. It’s anti-East Coast Establishment and anti-immigrant. It’s about an idealized and false past and preserving outworn and intolerant ideas. It’s about a perverse version of a highly provincial and particularized version of (predominantly) Protestant Christianity that has evolved to serve the interests of power elites in the South. It’s about an aggrieved sense of false persecution where white men are playing on the hardest difficulty setting rather than the easiest, and white Christians are as threatened as black Muslims and gays and Jews.

“Those blacks are raping our women and they have to go.”

That’s what the Confederate Flag is all about, but it’s also the basic message of Fox News and the whole Republican Party since the moment that Richard Nixon promised us law and order.

But it’s not black people who have to go.

It’s this whole Last Cause bullshit mentality that fuels our nation’s politics and lines the pockets of Ted Cruz just as surely as it has been lining the pockets of Walmart executives.

Today, maybe the governor down there had an epiphany. Maybe this massacre was the last straw. But, tomorrow, we’ll all be right back where we began with Congress acting like an occupying Confederate Army.

If we solve a symbolic problem and leave the rest untouched, then what will really change?

You can’t bury the Confederate Flag without, at the same time, burying the Conservative Movement.

Let’s get on with it.

He’s right. For many white people, the rebel flag represented moldy old myths about the antebellum South. But think about how nicely that mythology dovetailed with the lies about the pre-Civil Rights era that paleocons like Pat Buchanan tell themselves.

Like a moribund corporation, the GOP acquired Confederate culture with the Southern strategy, harnessing the racism in the South and its echo nationwide to build the present day Republican Party. That’s why Ronald Reagan launched his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. That’s why an always-wrong, New York City-born legacy hire who is relentlessly eager to send other people’s kids off to die in glorious causes is tweeting nonsense that his ancestors would find…puzzling:

The Left’s 21st century agenda: expunging every trace of respect, recognition or acknowledgment of Americans who fought for the Confederacy.

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) June 23, 2015

So, the rebel flag should come down in South Carolina and every other state capitol in the former Confederacy, and with surprising (to me) swiftness, it looks like it will. That will be more than a symbolic victory; it will be the partial righting of a very old wrong.

But there’s a danger in “otherizing” the South in this context. It’s not wrong to condemn its blinkered myth-making and prideful backwardness, but there’s a hazard in moral preening within and outside of Dixie, a risk of declaring a tidy victory when the dinosaurs in the state capitols of the former Confederacy finally sink into the tarpit they’ve thrashed in for 150 years.

The risk is that we’ll lose focus on the modern day “Congress acting like an occupying Confederate Army,” as Booman put it. At its core, the Southern strategy was an attempt to roll back progress by hitching the anti-New Dealers’ star to the creaky old Confederate wagon. Its organizers weren’t all or even mostly slack-jawed yokels waving rebel flags. They included a fiery libertarian business man from Phoenix, a glib B-movie pitchman who hailed from Northern Illinois and a twitchy, paranoid Quaker from California.

To achieve true victory, we have to finally drive a stake through the heart of the Southern strategy, not just the Confederacy. So let’s make expunging the rebel flag from the public square the opening salvo in a larger battle to take our country back. Yes, that’s right, TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK. With no lies and decaying myths about what that means. The flag that represents it isn’t spotless. Its founding was rooted in slavery, genocide and the oppression of women. But unlike its dying counterpart, this flag is worth saving.

Battle Flag Acquisition StrategiesPost + Comments (107)

Three Time Losers

by Betty Cracker|  May 28, 20156:13 pm| 152 Comments

This post is in: Election 2008, Election 2010, Election 2012, Election 2014, Election 2016, Open Threads, Politics, Republican Stupidity, General Stupidity

I’m sure most of us have many reasons to fervently hope that whichever hairball the GOP horks up for the presidential nomination in 2016 is soundly rejected by voters. But for me, not least on that long list is the hope that a third straight drubbing at the polls might prompt the Republicans to do some serious soul-searching.

Three presidential losses in a row prompted many Democrats to sell out the New Deal and adopt the corporate-friendly DLC bullshit line. Maybe Bill Clinton had to ride the Third Way slide to two-term victory — that’s debatable. We didn’t have to be happy about it, but it was better than another Poppy Bush term or a Bob Dole presidency.

Anyhoo, in this morning’s Wake Up Sheeple thread, I mentioned that losing three presidential races in a row (please FSM, let it be so!) would be a big fucking deal for Republicans. Not everyone agreed. Valued commenter JustRuss made some excellent points in the following reply:

To a party that cared about governing, sure. But “the party” is mostly the money, and they just want the government to stay the hell out of their way. And with the IRS and EPA being starved, TPP and other trade deals in the hopper, Citizen’s United, fracking bans being overturned left and right, they’re doing fine. Sure, it would be nice to have a Bush in the White House, but they’re getting most of what they want regardless. Having a Democrat in the White House gives them someone to blame when things go sideways and is a great focus for the rage their constituents are addicted to.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’m not convinced you’re right either.

Those are all great points, and if the GOP could ride the current status quo forever, I’d agree that they could just disregard presidential losses indefinitely. But I don’t think they could maintain the status quo in the face of a mounting string of losses at the presidential level, even if they managed to keep winning in mid-term and state-level elections for a while.

Presidential elections in this country (maybe everywhere else too — I don’t know) are about a lot more than a transfer of specific powers; they’ve morphed into an absurd, trillion-dollar reality show spectacle, with the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. Politics is a team sport.

And people don’t like losing over and over. If it keeps happening, they swear off the sport or find another team. Oh sure, some diehards will stand with their shitty loser team through thick and thin (maybe 27% or so). But the fan base won’t have a healthy growth rate, and the less committed will slink off to sulk at home or maybe even join another bandwagon.

That’s my theory, anyway. What do you think?

Three Time LosersPost + Comments (152)

Hillary Clinton’s “Bitter Clinger” Moment

by Betty Cracker|  April 27, 20151:34 pm| 145 Comments

This post is in: Election 2008, Election 2016, Gay Rights are Human Rights, Open Threads, Religious Nuts 2, Republican Stupidity, Women's Rights Are Human Rights, Assholes, General Stupidity

I’ve been reading the distressed meepings of people like Maggie Gallagher, Ross Douthat and Rod Dreher lately because I am mean-spirited enough to relish the schadenfreude as gay rights opponents are swept to sea by a turning tide.

There’s plenty of that at Rod Dreher’s joint, but today he highlights something Hillary Clinton said last week at the Women in The World Summit:

“Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced,” Clinton said.

“Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton argued. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will.”

“And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed,” Clinton added.

That’s true in the same way Obama’s “bitter clinger” remarks were true back in aught-eight. I’m surprised Clinton’s statement isn’t being shouted from the rooftops by every English-speaking wingnut blog; maybe it’s still being processed in the pipes of the mighty Wurlitzer.

If so, it will be framed as a “gaffe” in the same sense “bitter clingers” was a gaffe, i.e., a truth that is politically inconvenient. Because it is true: Rights that people can’t practice are worthless. And despite Dreher & Co.’s indignant sputtering about the immutable nature of their religious beliefs, those evolve to conform to changing social mores too, as Dreher’s embarrassed grandchildren will one day attest.

Hillary Clinton’s “Bitter Clinger” MomentPost + Comments (145)

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 150
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Image by WaterGirl (6/21/25)

Recent Comments

  • Fair Economist on Saturday Morning Open Thread (Jun 21, 2025 @ 10:22am)
  • eclare on Saturday Morning Open Thread (Jun 21, 2025 @ 10:22am)
  • Quiltingfool on Saturday Morning Open Thread (Jun 21, 2025 @ 10:20am)
  • jonas on Late Night Open Thread: Compare & Contrast (Jun 21, 2025 @ 10:19am)
  • lowtechcyclist on Saturday Morning Open Thread (Jun 21, 2025 @ 10:18am)

Personality Crisis Podcast (Cole, DougJ, mistermix)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc