I think these polls mean next to nothing this far out from November.

I don’t disagree with the polls meaning nothing.

That’s what I find so damn surprising about the closeness of them. At this point in time, everyone but the hardcore Millenialist republicans should be screaming from the rafters about how they’re going to vote Democratic this time around. Not that I’d expect most of them to actually mean it – but I would expect them to be saying it. Why aren’t they?

None of these three people is named Bush.

Yeah, I’m not even going there. Once this BS between Obama and Clinton is over and the real campaign gets going, we’ll see what transpires. McCain isn’t looking good for the long haul. He’s aligned himself with Bush and Rove, in bed with Lieberman, and well…I can’t see America voting for that.

The problem is that we do not yet have a declared Democratic nominee. Obama and Clinton are both still competing with each other for those votes in these polls. I really do think that once Obama is the nominee that the gaps will widen as the sane people get behind him.

If I’m wrong, not only the party but the country is really fucked, and I am going to get out come hell or high water.

I disagree. I think the question for asking should be: Why isn’t McCain enjoying a healthy lead at this point?

Make no mistake: these are McCain’s glory days. He is the presumptive nominee, and has been for months, still mostly riding on the wave of favorable press that he’s been surfing since the 2000 Republican primary. I have yet to hear one substantive criticism of McCain from the press corps of the kind that we would be seeing from a dedicated opposition.

Why is this? Because the Democrats are tearing each other up over a primary race that has had a very discernible outcome for weeks now, if not months. If and when the party unites around one nominee, then McCain will be in for the ride of his life, IMO.

Of course, this scenario presumes that the Democratic party does indeed unite in fairly short order, and that the obvious loser of the nomination does not keep tearing at the fabric of the party in order to maintain the illusion of winning. I guess we’ll have to wait and see about that.

Just put these numbers in context. The real campaign has not even begun yet. Obama and Clinton have been beating up on each other, with McCain (until very recently) getting either a free pass or being ignored completely.

I’m just going to keep saying this: wait until the convention followed by the debates. I won’t say there’s no way Obama can lose, but the odds are extremely slight.

stefan is dead on with his analysis.

obama will win this thing by a landslide. i will bet my house on it. i am saving this prediction, but i’ve been making it for 4 months.

I’m pretty sure around this time (summer) in 2004, a lot of the polls showed John Kerry having a commanding lead over Bush. That clearly didn’t pan out. I’m not sure that these polls, and national polls in general, are very useful for actually predicting the outcome of elections.

These polls also speak to the fact that the vast, vast, majority of americans (even those who vote frequently) don’t care nearly as much about politics as the blog frequenting set like us does. They know nothing about John McCain (well, they may think he’s a “maverick”) and they know very little about Barack Obama.

I had a very illuminating conversation with some friends that are frequent voters, but who don’t really follow politics at all. The big topics were: a) wow, that democratic nomination fight is a real tossup, who can tell which one is going to win? I’ve heard Gore might even get into it somehow, and b) I like John McCain, in 2000 he used to speak out against all those fundamentalist nutjobs and republican elitists.

Also, I think that the reason why Clinton appears to fare better in head-to-heads with McCain than Obama does, even though Obama enjoys a healthy lead in the primary polling, is because there are a fair amount of Clinton supporters who are seriously pissed right now and are going for McCain over Obama when asked. I don’t see a similar movement on the part of the Obama supporters to do the opposite. I’m going out on a limb and assuming that most of these people can and will be brought back into the fold. After all, at this point in 2000 about 50% of McCain’s people said that they wouldn’t vote for Bush come November. We all remember how that worked out.

It’s way early. The candidate who wrapped up his party’s nomination weeks ago (or is it months?) really ought to be sitting fat and happy on a double-digit lead while his opponents tear each other apart. He’s not.

It’s going to be really, really ugly but the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Don’t panic! And always carry a towel.

Everything that Stefan said. Since the tiff between Hillary and Obama has been going on for the past three months or so, the media has paid virtually no attention to McCain… and for the McCain campaign, no news is good news. McCain should be trouncing Obama/Hillary in the polls, but he isn’t.

A few polls have already excluded Hillary, and magically, Obama’s numbers against McCain jumped 5-10 points. In two recent polls from VA & OH, Obama beat McCain by +7 and +9 respectively. Before that poll, he never had a lead in VA and was dead even in OH.

I’m going out on a limb and assuming that most of these people can and will be brought back into the fold.

I sure hope you’re right. I hope the Taylor Marsh types are an insignifican minority come November, because if they aren’t we will have an serious problem.

I keep coming back to this because I actually got curious to see just how bad it really was over there, clicked on the link, and got a brain-frying eyeful that I really wish I could unsee.

Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
A medley of extemporanea;
And a vote is a thing that can never go wrong;
And I am Marie of Romania.

Hillary’s got a lot of fence-mending to do. If she can find it in herself to lose gracefully – most experienced politicians prepare themselves for loss and she should be no exception – and persuade her supporters to get behind Obama, he will win by a landslide. If she perpetuates the division and encourages her supporters to lean in McCain’s direction, it could be disastrous. I can’t see this happening though. Supporting McCain would make her another Lieberman and she’d be excommunicated. I don’t believe any Democrat worth his or her salt would vote for McCain. Rabid Hillary supporters are bound to come to their senses eventually.

Obama’s been playing it cool with all of the Hillary attacks, which is wise on his part.

Here’s how I think I will be watching the polls over the summer:

What is McCain’s basement? I think he’s surprisingly close to the absolute lowest he will poll against Obama. In popular vote terms, I don’t think he’ll fall below 45%–no matter what.

So, Obama’s work is plain. He has to hit his ceiling, which is correspondingly perhaps around 55%.

All the fighting will be over the non-racist white vote that is still movable.

you’re assuming too much.

Hatred of George W Bush does not equal hatred of republicans.

Sure 2006 was a ‘protest’ vote against the Iraq war, but ever since then liberals seem to assume that the other half of the country is on board with their agenda. Hogwash. In most cases the conservatives are still going to go with the right leaning man, and it just so happens that McCain is not Bush, people who were conservatives in 2000 are more than likely conservatives now, and most of them think Bush was just incompetent, not flat out wrong. Hey, looks, McCain isn’t incompetent! Maybe he’ll actually invade Iran the right way?

And then there’s young people…. they’re totally meaning to affect the outcome of this election.. you know.. if they get around to it.

Don’t underestimate the young people, Stemler. I wish my sixteen year old son and his friends could vote. They’re way better informed and more fired up than most of the people my age I meet.

Don’t underestimate the young people, Stemler.

I hope you’re right that your son’s and his friends’ intelligence and enthusiasm are representative of youth more broadly. This year, it might be so, but in ’04 didn’t the young voters in great heaving crowds fail to show up?

It’s not just young people who fail to show up, it’s everybody.

Don’t underestimate the young people, Stemler. I wish my sixteen year old son and his friends could vote. They’re way better informed and more fired up than most of the people my age I meet.

Ever since May’68 the world has been hearing about these passionate young voters who are going to wash away all our sins. Still waiting for an actual effective outcome of course. Not that I haven’t heard that this time they’re really really super seriously gonna totally try to make a difference. It’s just, they always say that, and hey, the data so far has it at 0 for 50.

Stemler, McCain IS Bush. There isn’t a single Bush policy he isn’t promoting. What’s more he’s hired ex-aides of Rove to advise him, Rove is “informally” advising him, he’s engaging in photo ops with the despised Chimp, he wants to prolong the war, yada yada yada. McCain might have a chance if he’d distanced himself from the neocons but he’s appealing to the same base Bush appeals to. There’s no way he can win unless he changes his platform significantly.

Stemler, McCain IS Bush. There isn’t a single Bush policy he isn’t promoting. What’s more he’s hired ex-aides of Rove to advise him, Rove is “informally” advising him, he’s engaging in photo ops with the despised Chimp, he wants to prolong the war, yada yada yada. McCain might have a chance if he’d distanced himself from the neocons but he’s appealing to the same base Bush appeals to. There’s no way he can win unless he changes his platform significantly.

I think you missed my point. For the conservative crowd Bush policy isn’t the problem, it’s the fact that Bush couldn’t carry it out in a competent way.

Also, the stats in this point sort of stick a fork in your “doesn’t have a chance” statement.

Ever since May’68 the world has been hearing about these passionate young voters who are going to wash away all our sins.

When I was living in Iowa City way back when the city voted Democrat and the dorms voted Republican.

You can’t underestimate Democrats’ ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

On the other hand, four more years of business as usual is going to kill America as we know it. Whether the people will rise up and slay their oppressors, or the conversion to third-world country will be completed, nobody can say. However, we are at this point no longer the land of the free or the home of the brave.

Some other points. Turnout: Democratic turnout should outstrip Republican turnout this year by a goodly amount, as (I think) it has in the primaries. A point in Obama’s favor.

Hillary voters: I suspect the rabid nature of posts/comments at Talk Left and Taylor Marsh is not equaled in intensity by the feelings of Hillary supporters writ large. As blog readers, it’s easy for us to overestimate the impact of the blogs.

Just my tuppence.

More Americans are expected to vote in this election. Not to be rid of Bush, since he’s leaving anyway, but to be rid of the neocons.

to be rid of the neocons.

I don’t believe the populace at large gives a shit about this in the way that we do.

They do, however, give a shit about war and gas prices, and McCain is easy to pick on in a variety of ways. Any Democrat should roll to victory. We’ll see if it happens.

I did an informal poll with a government class at Des Moines Area Community College Urban last summer . . . we asked the students if they approved of the job Bush was doing. We did our best to present it in a neutral manner. Of over a hundred people polled, as I recall we had fewer than five people total in favor of Bush’s policies. The students were outraged, in fact.

I believe if we’d asked that in ’04, it being an urban campus with a largely poor and minority student body, it still would have come out poorly for Bush, but I don’t believe we would have seen anything like the level of outrage we saw in ’07.

I went to the caucuses here in Iowa, as I always have since Teddy Kennedy ran against Carter. (Kennedy.) Until this year, the only people who showed up for the caucuses were folks 40 & up. (I’m always the exception to this rule, I’ve been a rabid voter since I turned 18 in 1979. I come from a political family.) This year, the auditioriums were jammed with young people, black and white. If they’ll turn out in droves for the caucses, they’ll turn out for the elections.

Maybe I’m dreaming, but I really feel like the dynamic is changing at last. Kids are waking up to the idea that the future ain’t looking so good, even for college grads. They are honestly pissed off. Even the military isn’t a refuge from a life of grinding poverty now, and it used to always be the poor inner city kid’s best hope of getting an education and some shot at life.

It’s not just young people who fail to show up, it’s everybody.

True enough. For a country that trumpets so much about democracy alla goddam time, our voter turnout is terrible. It would help if we made election day a work holiday, but I don’t know how much.

@Righteous Bubba
May ’68 refers to a specific event in world history and is not just a time period.

@Garrigus Carraig and Lesley
This year will fall short of setting a record in primary turn out. The record being set in the 1972 Democratic primary between McGovern and Muskie. here’s hout that turned out.

Meh. Wait till the nominee is official, then check the polls a week later.

I think you missed my point. For the conservative crowd Bush policy isn’t the problem, it’s the fact that Bush couldn’t carry it out in a competent way.

If the polls are to be believed, that “crowd” doesn’t amount to much, a handful of imbeciles and extremists. As long as McCain remains identified with Bush and associates with the same criminals Bush employed he doesn’t stand a chance. And he’s yet to prove himself competent. The American treasury has no funds for the Iraq war and no soldiers left to fight it and his first priority is prolonging that war and antagonizing other governments (Iran, for example). This simply isn’t going to fly even with moderate conservatives. Many conservatives/former Bush supporters are throwing their support behind either Hillary or Obama. The neocons have lost power. They will lose.

May ‘68 refers to a specific event in world history and is not just a time period.

I did not make it clear that I was referring to events that happened well after May ’68.

Having recently spent the last 5 years in college off and on to pursue another career, I’ve been around a lot of (1) young people, and (2) people who tell them they usually don’t care about politics. I’m seeing so much more interest by young people in politics; a huge amount more than when I was in grad school when St. Ronnie was annointed. They realize very well that thanks to the policies of the last 8 years that the chances of them having a lifestyle as good as their parents is about zero, and they are pissed about it. They know who ate the seed corn.

As for group (2), these are folks who have made it a point to ask questions and discuss politics, usually saying things like “it never seemed to matter before so I never paid attention, but it sure matters now”. My husband always asks who these “undecided voters” are and how can they not have an opinion at this point? I spent the last 2 years in an intensive college program with a lot of people you could at one time called undecided voters, but they have more than decided this time, and the group they are sick of is Bush in particular and rethugs in general. It’s going to take a lot more than sycophantic BBQ worshippers to change their minds now.

Speaking of BBQ, the video I saw of McSame in his green sweatshirt trying to look like an average American gettin’ ready to BBQ made him looks like an unsteady, doddering old man. I’d like to see a lot more of that.

The problem is, there’s a not insignificant portion of hard-core stupid in the electorate. Just check out Bush’s current approval numbers – that’s the hard-core stupid base.

For a country that trumpets so much about democracy alla goddam time, our voter turnout is terrible.

I doubt the turnout will be terrible in November. People are pissed! If Bush has accomplished anything it’s waking people up to the fact that voting matters.

Y’know, the real reason why Democrats are still in crummy shape is because we’re weirdly compelled to write and read navel-gazing pieces like this.

When we contemplate why we’re not polling as well as we should be, six months before an election, we telegraph “We’re a big bunch of losers,” to the entire world. Why would anyone ever want to associate with people who don’t even express confidence that they can win?

Until we stop embarrassing ourselves like this, we’re going to have a big image problem that’s going to cost us votes. How about we calm down, have faith in the underlying metrics that favor us, and concentrate on running the right campaign?

If the polls are to be believed, that “crowd” doesn’t amount to much, a handful of imbeciles and extremists. As long as McCain remains identified with Bush and associates with the same criminals Bush employed he doesn’t stand a chance.

I really don’t know how you can make this argument in the comments section of an article that shows that the gap between McCain and either Democratic candidate is less than 3 points, in other words, statistically insignificant. And, yes you’re right McCain has been latching himself on to all the Bush policies, so what does that tell you about the “crowd” you’re talking about? Point 1: McCain does have a chance. Point 2: McCain is running on “Bush policies done right”. Inference: Many conservatives are happy with Bush’s policies and hate Bush for other reasons.

I really, really want you to be right, but that doesn’t make it true.

Until we stop embarrassing ourselves like this, we’re going to have a big image problem that’s going to cost us votes.

Jillian killed Tinkerbell!

that hard-core stupid base would turn quickly if they were faced with a draft…ho ho ho. I would love to see those assholes drafted. Just them, nobody else.

Stemler, the race won’t be “on” until the Hillary/Obama competition is over. Once Obama’s the sole contender and if HIllary gets behind him, the results will be different.

Until we stop embarrassing ourselves like this, we’re going to have a big image problem that’s going to cost us votes. How about we calm down, have faith in the underlying metrics that favor us, and concentrate on running the right campaign?

And why the fuck haven’t we seen Obama clearing Brush yet? Damnit folks, the people want a manly man in the white house.

Don’t look at me, dude – I’m not a Democrat and, truth be told, I hate the whole Democratic party with a passion rarely seen outside of Harlequin romance novel covers. My relationship with the Democratic party is a lot like the relationship of a prostitute to her pimp – no matter how much I might hate them, no matter how much they abuse me, there’s nowhere else I can go for protection against the genuinely evil fuckers out there just waiting to jack me up good.

I’m just not sure how a piece of writing produced today could have had an effect on polls that were taken weeks ago, to be honest. The plain, honest fact of the matter – as reflected in poll numbers – is that a hell of a lot of people hate the Democratic party and what that party appears to stand for, and unless we take some time to try to work out why that is, we’re never going to change it.

Ah, some reality sets in for Democrats….

… only to be quickly suppressed. The amount of self-delusion liberals will indulge in is never to be underestimated. Liberals have brainwashed themselves into thinking that Bush is the antichrist, conservatives are horrific monsters, and when Bush wins or conservatives poll well, what conclusions can liberals draw?

This will be a very amusing and gratifying election season, indeed. Watching liberals curse and excoriate their fellow Americans, and plunging into a death spiral with no foreseeable end – Christmas is definitely coming early!

I actually think that there’s a certain number of “establishment” Democrats who are actively resentful of the young people who’ve flooded into the party, largely in support of Obama. They’re viewed as “unserious.” The establishment better get over that idea, or they may find themselves dis-established in the not-so-distant future.

And why the fuck haven’t we seen Obama clearing Brush yet? Damnit folks, the people want a manly man in the white house.

I guess my Canadianness is showing because I have a hard time believing most Americans want another Bush, regardless of their feelings about the Democrats. Only 1% of Canadians would vote Republican/McCain. Y’all need to move your election here!

The polls are a tribute to the degree to which Presidential elections, and preferences, are uncoupled from Congressional ones.

I expect McCain to win and face a 60-40 Democratically-controlled Senate, and a House with less than 175 Republican members.

To the extent that Presidential elections are more infrequent versions of American Idol, with inferior production values, and are treated that way by voters, such previously-thought-impossible outcomes will be commonplace.

and believe me, Canadians are cynics when it comes to political parties. We don’t, generally, respect anybody and grit our teeth when we vote.

The plain, honest fact of the matter – as reflected in poll numbers – is that a hell of a lot of people hate the Democratic party and what that party appears to stand for, and unless we take some time to try to work out why that is, we’re never going to change it.

A lot of this is due to the considerable success Republicans have had over the past 40 years or so in branding all the things the Democrats traditionally stood for as evil – social programs and unions in particular. Said success being aided in large part by the complicity of the corporate media. Somehow the Dems have to figure out a way to rebrand.

The way I understand it Americans in general are way right of every other Western nation. Inasmuch as our fights between right and left take place mostly on the right side of European politics.

You people worry too much.

Obama will beat McCain like a drum in the only way that matters – the electoral vote.

Popular vote, shmopular vote. We’ve seen plenty of rednecks who’d be happy to vote for HILLARY CLINTON rather than a black man, they won’t vote for him anyways, and that pads McCain’s numbers; with the 28% who love Bush anyways, 45 ain’t far to go.

Electoral College? I’ll call it here first. Obama carries a minimum of 285 Electoral votes and puts fears of Florida/Ohio out of mind. I’ll even point out that he’ll take part of Nebraska’s votes, too, and most probably Virginia, Nevada, AND Colorado.

Sweet, thank you random anonymous internet blog commenter. Now that I’ve seen the future I can relax.

McCain will be over as soon as he punches a baby or calls a sweet little old lady a cunt. YOU KNOW HE WILL.

“or calls a sweet old lady”

he’s already called his sweet old lady the C word…but I guess that doesn’t count with voters?

Sweet, thank you random anonymous internet blog commenter. Now that I’ve seen the future I can relax.

You’re welcome, random anonymous useless concern troll.

And the idea’s not to relax. I personally want to make my prediction look tame. That means I’ll be spending time outside my state turning this *cough* Battle of Gettysburg *cough* into a repeat of Hood’s defeat outside Atlanta.

If you’re a Dem, that SHOULD be your goal.

If you’re a concern troll? Sadly, probably not.

Relax all you want, here’s the real future:
July-September: McCain/Ghouliani run a dirty campaign.
October surprise: McCain suffers some horrible medical thing-y
November: America’s Mayor sweeps in on McCain sympathy vote
January 21: President Rudy orders simultaneous invasions of Iran, China and Russia

Put that in your nightmare pipe and smoke it.

Oh and Cheney’s serving his third term as VP.

Oh, oh, oh, this gets even better. SecDef Podhoretz.

What Jillian said. For at least the past 20 years, the choice between Democrats and Republicans has been equivalent to a choice between half a shit sandwich and a whole shit sandwich. Personally, like Jillian, I’ve never been all that keen on the idea of eating any shit. Unfortunately, it’s been the only thing on the menu for quite some time, so I’ve opted for “less shit”.

The plain, honest fact of the matter – as reflected in poll numbers – is that a hell of a lot of people hate the Democratic party and what that party appears to stand for, and unless we take some time to try to work out why that is, we’re never going to change it.

That’s due to a confluence of factors, not least of them that Democrats have run as hard as they can from the term “liberal” while at the same time selling out every single part of their coalition. It’s like this: Democrats have been spineless little shit-weasels, willing to sell out anything and everything if only those mean Republicans will stop saying bad things about them and the corporate sugar daddies will keep the dough rolling in. The Republicans have been obnoxious arrogant ignorant schoolyard bullies, which, while repulsive, is not as repulsive as having a spineless little shit-weasel being the only thing standing between you and the scary Russians/negroes/terrorists/illegal aliens, at least if you’re one of the feeble-minded 1/4 – 1/3 of the electorate for whom schoolyard brawling is seen as the ne plus ultra of conflict resolution. Then there are the additional folks, the ones Jillian refers to that hate “what the party appears to stand for”…they don’t really exist, or if they do they’re in that 1/4 – 1/3 referenced above, but there are probably some 10 – 20% of the electorate completely disgusted with the fact that for a long time, the party hasn’t stood for anything, and has made little pretense otherwise. The Democrats have been pursuing a strategy of FAIL for a generation now, and the most entrenched elements in the party hierarchy have demanded that they continue to pursue FAIL.

This is hopefully going to be the biggest re-alignment that comes out of this election. In many ways it’s every bit as important as a Democratic vs. Republican re-alignment.

At this point in time, everyone but the hardcore Millenialist republicans should be screaming from the rafters about how they’re going to vote Democratic this time around. Not that I’d expect most of them to actually mean it – but I would expect them to be saying it. Why aren’t they?

Because Obama and Clinton have been beating the shit out of each other while McCain sits back in an easy chair getting jacked off by the press. Once the Dem nomination is done, the Dem candidate can begin campaigning against McCain, at which point all this current polling becomes meaningless.

Jeez, PhysioProf, I hope you’re right. We’ll know in a matter of weeks, won’t we? I just can’t seem to work up much hope that this is actually what’s going to happen.

so what is the political party spread in this poll ??? 30-30-40 don’t cut it anymore

the Democrats represent more than 50% of the registered voters lately

and the repuglitards have dropped to about 25%

unless there polls are using accurate numbers with regard to party, they’re worthless

Lesley: and believe me, Canadians are cynics when it comes to political parties. We don’t, generally, respect anybody and grit our teeth when we vote.

I’ll back this up. Though I think in general it is because you have the outsider’s perspective that you are being perhaps overly optimistic about voter-enthusiasm and the degree to which average potential voters are aware and care about what is going on, and the ratio by which that might turn into votes cast.

To say nothing of the inevitable swiftboating and october surprises waiting for the eventual candidate, and the ‘who would you rather have a beer with’ factor.

The dems need to be in this one to win it, they need to fight tooth and nail against the repugs and not merely their mainstay strategies of reactive defence and spin-control.

Overall, this election is the democratic party’s to lose after 8 years of that fucking idiot and his evil friends, but recent history doesn’t suggest that victory is assured even under such seemingly prime conditions.

Yeah, Lesley, but he didn’t do it on the TeeVee so it didn’t count. Give him time, though; besides baby-punching and little old lady verbal-assaulting, he’ll probably kill Wilford Brimley and eat countless puppies and kittens, and at least some of his dastardly deeds will be immortalized in celluloid.

Don’t look at me, dude – I’m not a Democrat and, truth be told, I hate the whole Democratic party with a passion rarely seen outside of Harlequin romance novel covers.
Fine, liberals then. Or progressives. Or whatever. Please, Jillian, don’t try to wiggle out of this.

I’m just not sure how a piece of writing produced today could have had an effect on polls that were taken weeks ago, to be honest.

It ain’t about your writing (though everything Mike B. said applies – can I get an amen?). It’s about your (=Liberals’, Democrats’, Progressives’, Whatevers’) state of mind. This post is just another reflection thereof. I mean, come on:
[we] need to start having a serious conversation, and the sooner we start it, the better. It’s a conversation that centers around this:
NO. No no no and no. FUCK no. You need to start campaigning. You need to start organizing. You need to reach out to the young people. You need to get creative. Know someone who doesn’t plan to vote? Put together a buddy program and drive their lazy slacker ass to the voting booth. Know someone disenfranchised by the voter-ID laws? Help them get an ID and drive them to the voting booth. Etc. etc. etc.
Conversation? Fuck conversation. Leave that to Bill O’Loofa and Hannah Montana’s pictures. ACTION, that’s what you need. And if you ever wonder again why the righties and neocons and the rest of them scumbags see us as weak, look no further than here.

The plain, honest fact of the matter – as reflected in poll numbers – is that a hell of a lot of people hate the Democratic party and what that party appears to stand for
Which poll numbers? Those up there? Oh please. They don’t mean squat. Like Kaplan said – wait till the nominee is official, then check the polls a week later.

Stemier,

Your link, I think, must have been broken above. THIS is what happened in 1972.

With both Labor and NARAL on board behind the presumptive nominee, I don’t think that’ll be an issue this year.

Rabid HRC supporters bent on revenge might have the potential to throw a wrench in the gears, but I’m not sure how many of them exist outside of Second Life.

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet is the organizational structure of the campaigns. Obama has an exceptionally strong ground op, a large degree of decentralization, and a massive stock of volunteers. These volunteers have been energized and will all return, along with many others.

McCain doesn’t have this infrastructure in place, is burning his bridges with the generals of GOP GOTV the last two cycles (Hagee, Parsley), and will likely have to pay cash out of hand to stock GOTV efforts among a demoralized base.

If you believe, as I do, that at the end of the day campaigns are won on the ground, I think you’re going to see a major pro-Obama shift the last week of the campaign, and he’ll likely beat polling expectations.

McCain’s an exceptionally weak candidate. The press has fawned over him for years, which means any new spin is bound to be negative. He’s faced no real electoral tests in Arizona for decades. He got destroyed by the W-machine in 2000. He only won the nom this year because everyone around him imploded or ran out of money. He’s 80,000 years old.

You’re not looking at his floor, you’re looking at his ceiling.

Which poll numbers? Those up there? Oh please. They don’t mean squat. Like Kaplan said – wait till the nominee is official, then check the polls a week later.

I hope you don’t have occasion to eat those words a few weeks from now.

And I think it’s worth noting that the Democratic candidates ARE taking action. Obama has done things with internet fundraising that no human being has ever done before. Hillary Clinton has organized some pretty powerful voting blocs in states that haven’t voted Democratic in a dog’s age.

When all that’s said and done, the party is still polling shitty numbers like this.

Don’t shoot the messenger.

Don’t look at me, dude – I’m not a Democrat and, truth be told, I hate the whole Democratic party with a passion rarely seen outside of Harlequin romance novel covers.
Fine, liberals then. Or progressives. Or whatever. Please, Jillian, don’t try to wiggle out of this.

Agreed. Jillian, I’m 100% with you ideologically…but until Bush is out of the White House, WE’RE ALL DEMOCRATS.

Not really, Stephen. I’m well aware of the historically low voter turnout in the US. I also believe the Dems have it in them to fight tooth and nail against the thugs. What’s remains to be seen is what Hillary intends to do past losing the nomination. If she remains divisive and discourages her supporters from backing Obama, this will spell trouble for the Dems. If they can unite they’ll be a formidable force I reckon.

When we contemplate why we’re not polling as well as we should be, six months before an election, we telegraph “We’re a big bunch of losers,” to the entire world. Why would anyone ever want to associate with people who don’t even express confidence that they can win?

NO. No no no and no. FUCK no. You need to start campaigning. You need to start organizing…Conversation? Fuck conversation. Leave that to Bill O’Loofa and Hannah Montana’s pictures. ACTION, that’s what you need. And if you ever wonder again why the righties and neocons and the rest of them scumbags see us as weak, look no further than here.

Just wanted to juxtapose these two quotes, because they’re dead-on accurate. The time to get on message, and jump in the game is TODAY.

Yes, Heaven forfend we should actually take time to discuss something in a serious, contemplative mode. Actions of the intellect are for weak, pansy-ass suckers. Action BEFORE thought is what the Democratic party should be about.

[Well meaning, affectionate sarcasm off].

Guys, if you want to beat the Republicans by becoming the completely self-unaware, anti-intellectual thugs the Republicans are, good luck to you. It ain’t gonna work. No one can out-fascist a fascist. It doesn’t work that way. Trying to appeal to a Democratic base using Republican tactics is what was tried in ’04, and it didn’t work then. Why do you think it will work now?

I have faith in Axelrod and the Obama campaign in general. It’s a patient, disciplined team that isn’t afraid to fight back when attacked. Obama is a cool customer and McCain is a cranky jerk. Look how poorly “experience vs change” worked out for HRC.

(though everything Mike B. said applies – can I get an amen?).

Absolutely not. Infantile cheerleading is the disease and not the cure.

No, no, I’m all for intelligent discussion. The point is, information this disquieting should be a call to arms! The end result of this conversation should be positive ACTION, not woe-is-us reflection.

That being said, Jillian, the opposite of self-unaware is not self-aware, it’s self-conscious. The opposite of anti-intellectual is not intelligent, it’s pedantic (or panglossian, or…whatever. clearly i’m not anti-anti-intellectual enough to pull that one down).

The key, of course, lies in moderation. Or better phrased: Understanding the value of reflection, and the value of action, and knowing how and when to flip the switch.

You’re welcome, random anonymous useless concern troll.

And the idea’s not to relax. I personally want to make my prediction look tame. That means I’ll be spending time outside my state turning this *cough* Battle of Gettysburg *cough* into a repeat of Hood’s defeat outside Atlanta.

If you’re a Dem, that SHOULD be your goal.

If you’re a concern troll? Sadly, probably not.

Well yeah, handing the GOP a pretty nice defeat IS my goal. Unfortunately my copy of “The Secret” never got here and my ability to will the desired outcome into existence is sadly unpracticed. But by all means, ramble on with your Civil War metaphors and silly belief that the electorate instantly went liberal overnight. Hitting the pavement doesn’t do shit when you aren’t smart about it, and if McCain wins in November I’m blaming you and your retarded Bush like insistence that Dems don’t really need to think about what they’re doing cus it’s IN THE BAG OH YA!

Not that my blame really has any actual benefits or consequences…

P.S. are you an MBA?

I have faith in Axelrod and the Obama campaign in general. It’s a patient, disciplined team that isn’t afraid to fight back when attacked. Obama is a cool customer and McCain is a cranky jerk. Look how poorly “experience vs change” worked out for HRC.

I got to see Obama’s operation at work, up close and personal, and in all my years I’ve never seen a better run campaign. An amazingly personable, smart staff, unfailingly helpful, even to an Edwards supporter like myself. They got me tickets to the Harkin steak fry when Edwards’s disorganized staffers blew me off. This is why Edwards lost to Obama in Iowa, despite his considerable political capital.

The media’s our biggest problem. It’s hard to get the message out when they block it at every turn The only hope is that, being money-making concerns, once they see the wind blowing in favor of the Dems they’ll happily go with the flow. An advertising dollar from the Obama campaign is worth the same as a McCain dollar, after all. The corporate big wigs will figure that they can buy a piece of the action from whatever group is in power the next four years. It’s always worked for them before.

Look at how well, all things considered, the Rethugs did in the elections of 1976.

scythia mostly nails it. Mostly.

Has nayone else noticed the change in the MSM treatment of McSame lately? I don’t watch much MSM but the little I do see makes me think his honeymoon may be just about over. Many of those who are checking his box off now only because they know his name and/or undeserved reputation. IF (and I’ll grant it’s a big if) the MSM starts carrying any of the myriad devastating material on St. BBQ, a lot of people will switch or not show at the poll.

I think there are several factors we have to consider.

1) I suspect the McCain numbers include voters mad at Hillery or Obama, specifically Hillery voters who picked McCain when asked to pick between McCain and Obama and Obama voters who picked McCain when asked to pick between McCain and Clinton. I think most of these voters will return to the Democratic candidate in November that this poll reflects their anger at the “other guy.” This “come home” factor can not be taken for granted, however, and will require effort on Obama’s part after he wins the nomination.

2) There will be racist Democrats who vote for McCain over Obama, so the Democrats need to make sure we get enough young voters and “minority” voters who are energized by Obama to the polls to offset the racist McCain vote. In some states (West Virginia, etc) it’ll be hopeless but in other states (Missouri, Virginia) it can be done.

3) The polls don’t reflect the sure to be active republican suppress-the-vote efforts. We need to be gearing up ASAP to fight efforts to stifle the vote.

4) McCain’s numbers can come down IF we work to make sure that voters know he represents just another Bush term. That means not just showing that he supports Shrub’s policies but that he is no better-informed than the Shrub. I think a part of the current administration’s low poll numbers is due to the fact that the public FINALLY woke up to the fact that he’s an idiot.

One suggestion:SIGN UP TO BE A POLL WORKER/ELECTION OFFICIAL in your community. It’s a long, long day, but you meet you neighbors, get to feel patriotic about something not involving a war, and you can help keep an eye on the local republicans. I’ve done it for several years now and it’s very rewarding. You don’t have to be retired to do it. If any Republicans try harassing voters in my precinct this November I’ll have the sheriff’s department there fast they won’t believe it. I don’t care how white the deputy is (and in my county he may be of any race, or a she) when the precinct captain says “this person is harassing voters” then the harasser is GONE.

Even if you live in a red, red, red area, SIGN UP. Keep an eye on the bastards. They’re going to try to steal this one too unless we work to stop it.

Let me be blunt. People have DIED to guarantee our right to vote. You can give up a few hours sleep and a vacation day to be a poll worker.

P.S. are you an MBA?
Awesome, that’s two. Now if I can just get someone to accuse me of being Ruppert, I’ll have a hat trick!

mba is ME!

I am Spartacus!

There is an interesting piece in the LA Times by John Sides (I don’t know him; the bio says he’s “an assistant professor in the department of political science at George Washington University. He blogs at themonkeycage.org.” His thesis is that:

Despite ugly battles and policy differences that sometimes seem intractable, the reality is that presidential campaigns tend to unify each party behind its nominee. … [H]istory suggests that the discord we read about in the two parties today will fade, and Democrats and Republicans will coalesce around their candidates as Nov. 4 approaches.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-sides25-2008may25,0,4387451.story

I think he’s right. But not everyone is one or the other …

soylent green is mba!

Never get involved in a brand war with Ruppert.

Heaven forfend we should actually take time to discuss something in a serious, contemplative mode. Actions of the intellect are for weak, pansy-ass suckers.
You know, I expected that. Not from you, Jillian, but nevermind. And here is my prepackaged answer: of course we should take the time to discuss important shit. Like, for example, what are we going to do about our dependency on oil. Or how we’re going to reach out to Iran to solve the Iraq mess. Or what to do about the healthcare. See, we do that all the time, unlike the 28ers whose answer is ‘let’s drill in Alaska’, ‘let’s bomb them’ and ‘the market will take care of that’, respectively. That is what we should have a conversation about. How do we improve our schools? What do we do about global warming? What do we do about the growing gap between the rich and the poor? Those are the important questions. ‘Why our two candidates none of whom is the official candidate don’t kick McCain’s ass in the polls’ is not an important question. It’s navel gazing of the most useless sort.

You see, Jillian, we don’t look like sissies, pansies, wimps, losers and suckers because we know shit and think about shit before we do something. We look like sissies, pansies, wimps, losers and suckers because some of us – most of us ? – don’t stand their ground. We don’t speak up. We don’t fight. And this is exactly what you should be doing, instead of calling for some stupid conversation on a non-issue. I gave you at least two good causes and I’m sure you could come up with plenty more.

I am soylent green. Punk.

Hey! Who took my gun?!?!?!?!?

I’m still confident that once we get a nominee, and we get a few debates under our belt against McCain (assuming Clinton or Obama don’t have a ravaging flu on the night and are able to form complete sentences) those numbers will swing our way. Not as much as they should, mind you, given how we’ve seen what happens when Republicans are in charge, but still.

Those are definitely important things to come to common ground on, bulbul. The problem in this particular context is that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have planks in their platforms that address these issues – and first of all, they both look identical, and secondly, they both suck. I’ve spent the last day or two poking through both candidates’ websites, and for the life of me, I can barely tell the difference between their platforms. And I find both platforms varying shades of puerile.

But it’s too late to have that particular conversation. One or the other of these crapfests is going to be the Democratic candidate, and it’s too late to discuss why we can’t get better candidates. So, we’re left discussing how we can make one or the other sucky candidate palatable to the electorate.

In this light, I suppose you’re right that my initial question in this post is pointless. It answers itself – we lose because we nominate shitty candidates. And Republican voters like the taste of shit better than Democratic voters do.

And in all honesty, I have no idea what you mean by “not speaking up” or “not fighting”.

‘Why our two candidates none of whom is the official candidate don’t kick McCain’s ass in the polls’ is not an important question. It’s navel gazing of the most useless sort.

You see, Jillian, we don’t look like sissies, pansies, wimps, losers and suckers because we know shit and think about shit before we do something. We look like sissies, pansies, wimps, losers and suckers because some of us – most of us ? – don’t stand their ground. We don’t speak up. We don’t fight. And this is exactly what you should be doing, instead of calling for some stupid conversation on a non-issue. I gave you at least two good causes and I’m sure you could come up with plenty more.

Non-issue? It had seemed to me that the actual question Jillian put forward had little do with polling peculiarities in the first instance and more with the rather amazing fact that they seem to reveal. To wit, the extraordinary resilience of the policies and dogmas which have led to the catastrophe of the past eight years. Jillian wishes to know why they are so resilient. If Democrats seem to think this is a non-issue, when in fact it is the very heart of the matter, I truly must question their mental competence.

You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you all to hell!

Jillian

a lot of people hate the Democratic party and what that party appears to stand for, and unless we take some time to try to work out why that is, we’re never going to change it.

Ask anyone what the GOP vision for America is and you’ll get an answer. What is the Dem vision for America?

(cricket sounds)

The right has been begging for us to come up with some kind of coherent vision. I’m sure everyone has heard them say over and over how Democrats don’t stand for anything. Now it’s true that we Dems do stand for some very positive things. But it isn’t assembled into a coherent whole. I think Obama is doing that now and it’s why he is winning.

I remember the Carter/Reagan years. While Carter is a very smart and humane man and his policies were (mostly) good. He just didn’t put things in a positive light.The way he framed things and the language he used was all negative. Regan was all positive, hopeful and forward looking. That’s all that matters in a general election. Substance is virtually irrelevant.

On the other hand ideas are important. I think it is really imperative to have a solid intellectual groundwork. It was Fukuyama’s “The End of History” that laid the foundations for the neocon revolution. I don’t know if we have an equivalent philosophical frame. Or perhaps what we do have isn’t well understood and someone could do an important service translating liberal/progressive ideas into something for mass consumption.

Though even if we did the media would refuse to cover it honestly. This is why I think the first order of business before any “revolution” can take place is to take back the media, or at least parts of it. Without it anyhting we try will be stillborn.

Unfortunately my copy of “The Secret” never got here and my ability to will the desired outcome into existence is sadly unpracticed.

http://action.barackobama.com/page/s/volunteer/
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/

http://www.democrats.org/volunteer/
https://www.democrats.org/page/contribute

Congratulations! Now you know the Secret.

It would be impossible for me to enumerate the plethora of ways in which you have just failed scythia.

Nothing’s impossible except for dinosaurs, Stemier.

The main way I see myself failing is by spending all afternoon on the internet despite the beautiful weather outdoors, but feel free to enumerate others.

Jillian said that many Americans hate Democrats. As an outsider I have only a vague idea about what might be on the list of grievances – putting aside stupid America: the homophobes, warmongers, libertarians and racists – so I started gazoogling to see what that’s about and came up with the following, some of it dated but perhaps still useful.

From Slate: Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue: Depressed liberals analyze what ails them.

FDL jumped on this one Jane Smiley: The unteachable ignorance of the red states but this article suggests ways of reaching people that may seem unreachable.

Jillian

And in all honesty, I have no idea what you mean by “not speaking up” or “not fighting”.

I’m not sure I know what he means either but that is certainly the impression most people have. We will let the schoolyard bullies push us down and take our lunch money day after day. Not only will we give in, we will agonize about it, we’ll try to see it from his point of view and talk about how it’s understandable given his abusive home environment, yadayadayada. Then we go to school the next day and it repeats itself all over again.

We need to realize that this isn’t a game. If we allow this dynamic to continue we know how it ends. Bush is already imprisoning US citizens without due process. It’s very likely they are being tortured. No one appears to give a shit. If that isn’t motivation to act I don’t know what is.

yay fun, although the failure you’ve just mentioned is the most egregious, I’d like to point out that the Secret is somewhat notorious as a retarded self-help book that tries to convince idiotic men and women that they don’t actually have to work for what they want, just imagine it to be so and it will eventually happen. So the point you were making with your somewhat witty and some what witless link to volunteer sign up sheets was the very same point I was already making.

Here’s a possible explanation. The people who are picking Obama over McCain are NOT the same people who are picking Clinton over McCain. When you put those two populations together, which can only happen when Hillary accepts reality, they will represent the overwhelming 12-20% swing you are expecting.

Also, lots of very good points about this being too early to get a sense of it. I’m very sure that Obama is going to do a VERY good job of bringing out McCain’s inner crazy old coot. And while that will deeply encourage a strong 30% wackjob base, the lefties and sane people who aren’t desperate one-issue voters (abortion, ten commandments, taxes etc) will end up voting for Obama, even if they never actually said they would.

The key wildcard to try to factor in is the upcoming attack on Iran and subsequent retaliation. Logic tells us that it ought to be the proverbial straw that breaks the conservative bloc for a war-weary public, but if Iran’s response is effective (and let’s face it, they’ve had plenty of time to plan it) it may bring out america’s inner jingoist and then only a kill-em-all message will win…

mikey

the Secret is somewhat notorious as a retarded self-help book that tries to convince idiotic men and women that they don’t actually have to work for what they want

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

Yeah, that sunshine is calling. But I think we’re all on the same page. If you phone-bank for ten hours next month I’ll buy you a beer.

Judging from the results of this thread Jillian in response to your original question:

Can we talk?

The answer is no.

There is a kernel of truth to the secret though. Actions tend to create the conditions necessary for their success. This is why inaction, navelgazing, is a barren field. Of course all the BS about quantum mechanics really is just that. Still, the only way to achieve a goal is to act. Those who hear opportunity knocking but fail to act just… fail. Perhaps it is a kind of paralysis or hypnotic trance the left is under. Well then that spell needs to be broken.

I’m for agreeing that doing something gets something done.

My best friend and I have been discussing this quite a bit. He’s not a blogger, gets most of his news from the MSM, and thinks Obama will win in a blowout.

Coming from Jillian’s “not a Democrat” POV, I tell him he underestimates the moron vote, the racist vote, and Media Man’s undying love of McCain, not to mention the Democrats’ being simply beholden to more appealing special-interests. The only one of four that MAY change is some decent coverage of McCain’s well-known, but only by the junkies like us, “problems.” The Dems may change, but not until AFTER the election, and only then if Obama walks the talk. That will be enormously difficult because there is simply too big an affluent infrastructure of greed and graft built in to the whole system. One need look no farther than the tax code to see this.

The debates will be widely viewed, I would guess. Obama has shown himself a very cool customer thus far, not in the least because he can’t afford to come across as an angry negro, but particularly in the squabble over foreign policy lately, I see Obama as willing to take the Republicans on their own turf. I hope one of their campaign strategies is to get under McCain’s skin, because I think if they do, McCain’s inability to handle his temper, and in my judgment pretty unattractive way of coming across when he does, will make a difference in the general.

More broadly, I’m not sure that there isn’t a significant number of voters who’ve lost so much faith in their government they don’t see a split DC as a good thing. Checks and balances, you know. Quaint old notions like that.

Yeah, I’m worried McCain’s numbers are so good now, but I can’t see them getting a lot better over time outside of some unpredictable event, foremost in my mind another terrorist attack, even a little one. Obama has cleverly immunized himself a little on that by saying Bush’s policies have made us more vulnerable, but the Democratic party has not. They should have been blaring the painfully obvious, that another attack is inevitable, and tied it to the Bushies policies. Sadly, they’re too stupid.

Shorter: You bet the Dems could blow it/the GOP could steal it, and that it shouldn’t even be close. But we’ve too moronized for that to happen. And if they DO blow it, just build your bunker, put your money in your mattress, turn inward, and take care of the little circle in your life you have some control over. There’s satisfaction in that, and IMHO it’s the exception and not the rule that people are proactive about boulders rolling their way. We’re about to find out where we are on that continuum.

Instead, we wait until it is too late. A McCain election will simply start the process in the masses of asses that high-info bloggers already see in panic mode. *shrug*

It’s always this way.

That sounds like a really long way of saying something you either already know or aren’t going to learn from The Secret

I won’t trust the polling until I get a sense of how they’re approaching the ‘likely voter’ calculation. Obama’s November strategy is based on turnout, which is a gamble, since past performance suggests that ‘bringing [x] to the polls for the first time’ doesn’t usually pay off, and we won’t know if it does until after the fact.

And yeah, what Woodrowfan said, especially the poll worker thing.

More broadly, I’m not sure that there isn’t a significant number of voters who’ve lost so much faith in their government

They’re more likely to lean Republican. They’re more likely to not vote at all. This is the flipside of the”turnout strategy.”

Can we talk? The answer is no.

I wrote back to you! But WordPress ate my response, I swear.

Obama’s November strategy is based on turnout, which is a gamble

http://action.barackobama.com/page/s/volunteer/

It answers itself – we lose because we nominate shitty candidates.

Yes. For the time being, this is my thesis:

For the first time ..well, ever (or at least since 1932) the zeitgeist would allow us to elect a real radical. We could have had someone with Bernie Sanders’ politics. But, no. Too chicken for that (though to be fair, it’s not like we have many radicals in the pipeline, being groomed for such opportunities). So, substantive radicalism (which unites the Left) took a backseat to *symbolic* radicalism (which divides it). Or, like TBOGG said:

f you need a (fill in the blank) president to feel good about yourself, your race, your gender, your religion, or your cult then you’re missing the point as well as spending far too much time in front of the mirror.

America doesn’t need a woman president any more than it needs a black president, a Mexican president, or a gay president. We don’t need to prove anything to anyone, we don’t need a trophy. We don’t need to point out how far we have come as much as we need to decide how far we want to go. What we need is good president or two. That would suffice.

I know what I just said will drive the Sammich Brigade to a spluttering rage, but I really don’t give a fuck. I admit I’m hard to please, but these candidates suck. Even those who said the right things (and therefore were guaranteed to never get the nomination) were either flakey (Peace Elf), had bugbears you just couldn’t ignore (Gravel’s tax scheme, Richardson’s Chamber of Commerce-inspired economic policies) or were so transformed that though you hoped they’d had a true Damascene conversion, you just couldn’t trust them (Edwards the former DLC-er suddenly channeling the best of Eugene McCarthy and Huey Long) without becoming a credulous fanbot (a la many Obama supporters).

@ Scythia with the link to Irony, I think you truly underestimate the density of my grey matter. Which is somewhere on my list of your enumerable failures.

That’s true, HTML, but only in a narrow sense. At least the Dems had the stones to boil down the choices to a woman and a guy who is only half-white.

I think those are reasonably significant optics, and optics are all that matter these days since The Man has made the actual details underneath what we see too hard to understand, even if one had the inclination, while trying to feed their families, fill their gas tanks, and get some medical help for a sick child if not themselves. Heck, the Corporate Media has all but given up on even the optics of talking about stuff that counts vs. who is winning the horse race.

I don’t see Obama as particularly transformative from policy point of view (though still a wildly huge improvement over the cluster we have now), but I do see him as transformative from an optical point of view.

Ya gotta start somewhere.

I can always tell Jillian posts without looking at the byline because they are not funny or interesting 🙂

Go to another interesting or funny website. I respectfully disagree.

I do see him as transformative from an optical point of view.

Ya gotta start somewhere.

I don’ think that’s the true rationale. For the people I’m talking about, the optical transformation is not a start but an end. Because substantive transformation is just too radical!

At least the Dems had the stones to boil down the choices to a woman and a guy who is only half-white.

When you say “Huge Improvement” or “transformative” in regards to these terms you have to append the words “for America”. Western governments have had successful women and minority rulers going on 4000 years ago.

Celebrating this fact as a progressive leap forward now is a bit of a wonk, and as HTML has said, doesn’t really mean anything. Electing GOOD leaders, now that’s all the “progress” we need, and it’s looking like we haven’t really gained any ground in that department.

What’s essentially happening is progressives are giving up their true goals because electing a black guy or a woman (who offer very little progress in policy) is just so damn enticing.

To bounce off of what Mencken is saying…if all you’re after is the visual transformation of the party, you could always just vote for Condoleezza Rice – after all, she’s a black woman!!

Both Clinton and Obama’s actual platforms leave me pretty cold. If this is the best the Democratic party can do….

HTML, are you suggesting an Obama win wouldn’t bring substantive policy transformation from what we’re stuck with now?

Yeah, sure, it only returns us to a remote resemblance to sanity, but that’s substantive transformation to me, right now. I’ll take it.

Radical transformation only comes in the face of abject horror, which I clumsily tried to explain originally. Not someone else facing foreclosure, not high gas prices, not a minority (again, someone else) of people without health care, no, it only comes when a large enough plurality is facing a truly shittier life than the one Bush has laid on us.

I understand your point, I’m just not giving up on the damn country until at least Nov. 5. The future is hard to predict, but it isn’t unreasonable to think that with the Congressional majorities a presumed Obama presidency would have that some big stuff that made people who hang out places like here would be reasonably satisfied with.

Can’t let the “not be satisfied enough” get in the way of the “more satisfied.” 🙂

Um, are Democrats living in some sort of Vacuum America where we actually have the ability to elect truly progressive candidates?

We’ll be lucky if we can beat Teh Stoopids with the centrists we have now.

We could have had someone with Bernie Sanders’ politics. But, no. Too chicken for that (though to be fair, it’s not like we have many radicals in the pipeline, being groomed for such opportunities). So, substantive radicalism (which unites the Left) took a backseat to *symbolic* radicalism (which divides it).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7420573.stm
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ecclesiastes/ecclesiastes3.htm

And with that, I am out. Thank you for the discussion! Enjoy the rest of your holiday.

Oh, yeah, Jillian, and that’s why I’ll never call myself a Democrat.

But you vote for the candidates you have, not for the ones you wished you had.

To me this is just a microcosmic “Obama vs. Hillary” debate. One side or the other threatening to take their ball and go home. That’s fine, just don’t come to me bitching about it you’re one of them and don’t like the consequences.

Just for the record, I have said and will continue to say that the Bush years may have taken us too close to the drain to escape the vortex that will suck us down it, as in, NOBODY may be able to get us out of the tailspin we’re in now.

This country wasn’t built for transformative change without stuff like 20’s era depressions more or less mandating it.

Actually, Cynthia McKinney would have been a good choice as a substantive radical.

Funny thing is, when I have been masochistic enough to glance at a certain pro-Hillary blog, I’ve seen support for McKinney’s third party bid for exactly the wrong reasons (the reasons TBOGG mentioned). Thus, substantive radicals may accidentally get support from clueless nimrods who think they are radical and leftwing but are actually deeply afraid of real radicalism.

Or, as Jillian could tell you, true radicals (i.e., socialists) are trained to *never think with their blood* because, you know, it’s a fucking fascist thing to do. On the other hand, voting while looking in the mirror is just another way to get the narcissistic rush that is the heroin-fix of our culture.

LOL, Jacob. Exactly.

You know, bringing a crazy idea to the table like, say, treating illegal drug users as we treat alcoholics would be political suicide.

I laugh through the tears.

Ok, maybe I’m neither a Radical nor particularly well informed, politically. I DO think, respectfully, that neither HTML nor Jillian represents the mainstream of american political thought, and therefore the president that they would choose would not only have a very difficult time being elected, but his/her policies would not be representative of a broad spectrum of views. You folks may not like where it has moved, I certainly agree with that sentiment, but there IS a center, and it has the votes. I mean it seems to me that the vote distribution looks just exactly like a bell curve.

That said, I completely disagree with you both about Barack Obama. I think he IS a “radical”, in the sense that he will operate in a way that is a radical departure from the extant status and methodology. I think he is a GREAT man, and has a chance to be a GREAT president. I think he understands that before he can save america, he has to achieve the power to do so, so he must not scare off the very people who’s lives, once elected, he will work to improve.

It is a two step process, and I am as filled with hope as I have been anytime since I became politically aware. Obama is not a hack, he is not a tool, and he truly represents america’s best last chance.

The system is well and truly broken, and there are limitations to working within a broken system to try to fix it. Analogous, in a way, to trying to fix an aircraft in mid-flight. It may very well be that the only way to fix the system at this point is to blow it up and start over. If so, so be it. There are lots of institutional barriers between President Obama and any meaningful reform, any effective solutions. But I think that both Jillian and HTML will, at some point by the end of 2010, grudgingly admit that maybe they were just a little bit wrong about Obama…

mikey

Both Clinton and Obama’s actual platforms leave me pretty cold. If this is the best the Democratic party can do….

well DUH! Perhaps you have been away from SN if you think anyone here isn’t clued into this. But since there’s NO alternative presently and the Dems are all you’ve got, you will vote for them. I hope.

Jesus Murphy, it will be light years before America could even hope for a party similar to the NDP. In the meantime you work with what you have, fight for better things at the grass roots level and, try not to patronize the people who see the light already.

Say, is this a private cat-fight or can anyone join in?

Oh, the Democratic party has my vote this time. What choice do I have? As I have said before, if the Dems were to nominate the rotting corpse of James K. Polk, I would get a bumper sticker that said “54’40” Or Fight” and stick it on my car. But I can’t take any great joy in doing so.

And mikey’s right that both Clinton and Obama represent the center. It’s just that center is so goddamn far to the right that I get neck strain just trying to look at it. But as far as Obama being a great man or anything – have you looked at his platform? It’s Suck with a capital S. S-to-tha-izzuck. Yawnsville. Makes me want to cry.

This whole electoral season makes me want to cry.

Yes, Jillian, me too. To all that.

I’d like to agree with you, Mikey about the individual man, but my guess is that the media, the Republicans and some of the Democrats (collaborationists like Hillary) will permit any leader his or her individual greatness. Witness the shredding he took after what was an insightful and thoughtful speech on racism. He ended up caving and apologizing. America is mired in ignorance, cynicism, and corruption, and the Democrats – should they win – have barely a hope in hell of extricating it from the debt it’s in and that terrible war. It will be a miracle if Obama can maintain his stature and survive as a leader past one term. My guess is that the powers that want to keep America in the hole it’s in now will do their damndest to ruin him, and unless he has a strong base and militant colleagues, he won’t survive for long.

mikey’s right, though, Jillian. You have to get elected to move the center, and Obama has to be much more careful about what he does in order to achieve that end.

If you throw out everything but the number of times he’s spoken to me like an adult, and his preternaturally respectful but strong way of taking on his opponents, which I think he has to do to have a chance in November, I would still see him as a potentially “different” kind of President.

He wouldn’t be where he is by crapping all over the (admittedly lame) Democratic platform.

Nationwide popular-vote polls are meaningless. The Presidency is won in the Electoral College. And there, neither candidate is too close to call with McCain:

Clinton 314, McCain 206

Obama 242, McCain 272

This reflects the fact that Clinton’s strongest supporters (rural and working-class voters) are heavily concentrated in swing states.

Winning in November will not be difficult — provided we nominate the right candidate. If we choose the wrong one, McCain will win.

Oh, the Democratic party has my vote this time. What choice do I have?

You’re not alone. None of us have a choice, and I say that as a Canadian in a country where ALL the parties have evolved to be right of centre, including the once left of centre NDP. This is also true in England…Labour has been rightwing for some time. I don’t know about other western industrialized nations but it wouldn’t surprise me to learn this is a global trend given the free trade agreement and multinational corporations running the political show.

I’d like to agree with you, Mikey about the individual man, but my guess is that the media, the Republicans and some of the Democrats (collaborationists like Hillary) will permit any leader his or her individual greatness.

will not permit, I meant to say.

I long ago gave up on getting Progressives elected to the presidency. The best one can hope for – and it ain’t all that bad by way of comparison to the last eight years – is to get a Democratic president elected who won’t appoint rightwing nutbars to the Supreme Court or the federal bench, which is a huge consideration. The ultimate consideration, in my opinion.

The second thing is to work to elect progressive candidates to the US Congress and have that Dem president so that any and all proposed progressive legislation doesn’t get vetoed, as it surely will under McCain, and to have a veto proof majority if Mr. or Ms. Centrist Pres does veto something. Elect progressives at the local and state level.

This is absolutely the only way we’re ever going to yank this country to the left at all. But in the meantime, we need to take what we can get because any progress is better than none. I myself think that Obama has potential to maybe pleasantly surprise us, especially if he has a fairly liberal Congress to work with.

This could be a time of immense opportunity. I prefer to be hopeful and I’m not going to give in to depression just because I can’t have Noam for preznit.

I agree with you on that, too, Lesley, as I said somewhere upthread. *knockknock* (Is thing on? 🙂 )

The power is already too concentrated.

Infidel, please stop flogging that tired nonsense. The polls today are not, repeat not, terribly indicative of what’s going to happen in November. Obama can win, as the more recent polls, especially those without your dear Hillary are showing. “We must have Hillary because Obamalamadingdang can’t win ” is pure poppycock.

It’s worth mentioning that Infidel chose a link from three days ago: today’s result shows an Obama win.

the future ain’t looking so good
In my experience of democracy in Europe & the South Pacific, right-wing parties usually capture many votes with their twin platforms of
(1) Times are tough, so the fragile economy cannot afford the risk of progressive policies; and
(2) We are the people who know best how to deal with this mess, since we created it in the first place.

Feel free to insert beaten-wife-syndrome analogies here. Also, references to the Shock Doctrine and to the authoritarian personality.

Candy, don’t give up too early. I think someone else said it here but it bears repeating: The Obama we see on TV is the Obama that’s running for office. The mooslim nigger A-rab uppity elitist fella, y’know? What I mean is that in order to get the office, he must be as electable as he can.

Eight years ago I could tell GWB was an empty suit. Lots of people could. The image we got was certainly different than what we saw underneath. Same principle applies – I can see a progressive under the skin, one that can only come out after November. I hope I hope I hope and keep all your fingers and toes crossed.

If we choose the wrong one, McCain will win.

[exasperation] I hate when people write stuff like this.

For the last time: Polls now, especially ones divining electoral votes are almost meaningless. Not completely, just almost. It’s the end of May, not November. Assumptions on how well your candidate will do then based on polling during a contested primary now is very foolish, particularly when a certain candidate is arguing that her voters will vote for her but not her opponent, all the while assuming her opponent’s voters will vote for her even if she takes it to convention and for some reason “wins.”

Good catch RB.

Or, to put it slightly differently, if we choose the right one McCain will win.

With any luck, Hillary will bitchslap some common sense into the infidels.

Definitely PeeJ, I agree with you. I’m not as convinced as mikey is that he is a great man, but I seriously think he has potential to be a great man. And he’s brilliant! He was president of the Harvard Law Review for pete’s sakes! I really don’t think that people who aren’t involved with the law in any substantive way realize just what that means in terms of sheer brains. Making law review isn’t a little thing at any respectable law school. At Harvard, it is simply teh bomb.

One thing it means is that he won’t be appointing any Alberto Gonzales moron as AG. Guaranteed.

He’s playing this election exactly right. Let’s get him elected and give him a chance.

Djaknow, it’s exactly one week from the PDX SN! drinkathon and forced gay abortion clinic.

Thus far there’s been considerable movement but little progress vis a vis choosing a venue. I’ll put my imperial foot down and declare Ringlers the official Moonbats in Party Hats site.

Unless someone objects.

If you’re really good boys and girls, we’ll have muppet-fucking too. Only the muppet babies of course.

Can we Talk? You mean like this?
mikey said,

March 23, 2008 at 4:33

When Barack takes the White House, I want him to tell the rrepublicans to take a hike. We’re the adults and we’ll do this ourselves.

Well, then, Gary, you ought to toss your hat in the ring for 2012. ‘Cause Obama’s already got his team and his agenda figured out, and I’ve got some bad news for you.

He doesn’t give a shit what you want.

One of Three people are going to be elected the next american president. None of them are named gary. So you maybe oughta start lobbying, or start running. Because you ain’t gonna be the next president of the united states, and you ain’t gonna be the dude setting the agenda.

Sorry I had to be the one to break it to you….

mikey

I meant to reply to this when it first went up, but then some people wanted me to play football, and then there was beer, and so here we are. Quarter past midnight (UK time) squinting at the screen and trying to focus. This is not conducive to nuanced political thought.

Looking back on the thread I seem to remember someone mentioning the O man and his ability to ‘take on’ the Republicans on issues of foreign policy. Unfortunately this has too-often manifested itself in terms of stuff like that silly AIPAC speech, mouthing off about terrorists in Columbia and muttering about Iran’s non-existent nuclear threat. Billy Connoly used to call this sort of thing “raw meat for the balcony” and while it might be the sort of thing he needs to say to get elected (does he? Serious question) it isn’t going to put a sparkle in the eyes of the left, or even leftish. Being photographed next to Edward Said all those moons ago doesn’t cut my ice compared to the things he’s saying these days.

As a side note, I’m not accusing you fine folks of being O-bots. My weary travels across cyberspace have shown me that these people exist, but this place is wonderfully free of ’em.

‘much ice’ for the love of god, ‘much ice’.

Senator Clinton will be out of the race by June tenth. Nobody is willing to take a significant position while there are still upcoming elections. After June 3d, the Democratic elders will bring immense pressure to bear. And they are not without leverage. They can both help her with her campaign debt and political ambitions, or they can punish her should she refuse to see things their way. Coupled with a bunch of SuperDels coming out for Obama, she will recognize that she has no maneuver room and will elegantly, and as far as is within her ability, eloquently come out in support of the Democratic nominee.

She will, perhaps tepidly at first, but with increasing fervor, encourage her support base to vote Obama in November. How she will accomplish this bit of polititical gymnastics will be interesting to watch, but in the end the great majority of the electorate will only hear a unified message.

McCain, meanwhile, has attached himself to some truly unpopular and discredited political positions, and as he goes from business to social conservative to mainstream worker his message will be increasingly disjoint and dishonest. It will be impossible for him to continue under the glare of a twenty first century candidacy.

Along about the end of August, McCain will fire his entire staff and start over, with a more unified message and an attempt to define his positions in one place. This should be VERY interesting, especially if he chooses Romney as running mate (not a likely scenario, but one fraught with hilarious possibilities). At that point he will have to either have to identify himself as a “kill ’em, lock ’em up, hate ’em and ban ’em bush/cheney conservative or something more populist, rule of law and reasonable. Either way, he loses as bush the second or clinton light.

Nope. Nothing but sunshine and flowers for the next six months.

Um, except for that pesky Iran thing…

mikey

It’s funny you should mention betting – those who are betting on the election heavily favour a Democratic victory. Head on over to Intrade – Dems are currently bidding at 62, Repubs at 38.2. You can see the the price gap has been reasonably steady since the start of 2008.

Prediction markets have been the most reliable indicator of election results for the past century – much more reliable than polls.

“Um, except for that pesky Iran thing”

Well, quite.

From a peace of mind perspective it’s a lot more fun to peer at the lunatics across the road who think Dunkin’ Donuts are part of the the great Islamocommunazi threat to freedom and that Mexofascists are planning to invade. They’re funny, they’re quite obviously mad. Some of them concoct absurd macho pseudonyms for themselves. Splendid stuff.

What worries me is the aftermath of 08. Say Obama does attack Iran, or subject the country to Iraq-style sanctions. How many of the people who’ve been jumping up and down about the evils of Bushism will be prepared to make a fuss? And how many will downplay it or politely look the other way?

I can always tell Jillian posts without looking at the byline because they are not funny or interesting 🙂

On the contrary. I’d like to see more posts like this. While I adore seeing the petty wingnuts vivisected with the sharp scalpels of the props. of Sadly,No I also love the serious political threads. No commenters anywhere on the Interwebs compare to the commenters on this site.

I’m gettin’ all choked up.

Whoops. At least one dood misunderstood my meaning. Guess I’d better clarify.

The pesky Iran thing is BEFORE the election. I am CERTAIN that an Obama white house will not only NOT attack Iran, but will in a number of ways de-escalate the tensions between our countries. And the rational, staged withdrawal of american troops and material will contribute to regional stability. A little even handedness with the Palestinians will buy him much cred too, but from a realpolitik standpoint he DOES have to be careful with that, at least early on.

My concern is that bush/cheney will attack Iran. In fact, I am personally CERTAIN they will, and the timing might well be soon. Now, on it’s face, this appears to further cement a Democratic sweep in November, as a war-weary and economically strapped american electorate punishes them for the madness. The problem arises if the Iranian response is as good as it is likely to be. Remember the exercises a few years ago, where the american general or admiral who was heading up the Red Team CRUSHED the american fleet using cheap speedboats in the narrow gulf in overwhelming numbers. $400,000 anti-ship missiles against fast, tiny two man suicide boats that can sink an Aegis cruiser is not a very good calculation. I think that dood got canned. If they dunk a carrier, or kill a bunch of american squids, popular opinion may well turn toward “waste ’em”.

Americans are both militaristic by nature and vindictive. And they’ve never had the costs of warfare come home to wreck their cities and kill their children. So they tend to think war is something clean and painless…

mikey

Does any serious person expect the O’man to attack Iran? Where do people get this stuff?

If there’s an attack on Iran, it will be carried out by the smirking chimp and/or his master.

Looks like I didn’t quite follow the flow either.

Never mind.

If they dunk a carrier, or kill a bunch of american squids, popular opinion may well turn toward “waste ‘em”.

God, I sure hope you’re wrong about that, Mikey. I could see it two ways – either the U.S. public goes nuts with jingo war fever, or sees that it’s entirely Busheney’s fault for provoking the Iranians in the first place and starts gathering up the pitchforks and torches.

Or, a third possibility – apathy. Seems unlikely, but I’ve been repeatedly blown away by the American capacity for not giving a shit.

Hate to break it to you people, but the surge is working, freedom is working, and the Democrats are running scared. Obama won’t stand a snowman’s chance in November, because the economy will be great, and we’ll keep winning in Iraq. And you can BANK on it, ’cause the STUDMAN said so.

Mikey:

My concern is that bush/cheney will attack Iran. In fact, I am personally CERTAIN they will, and the timing might well be soon. Now, on it’s face, this appears to further cement a Democratic sweep in November, as a war-weary and economically strapped american electorate punishes them for the madness. The problem arises if the Iranian response is as good as it is likely to be.

My exact worry as well. And a lot of people are expecting the exact same thing.

And as bad as a US strike on Iran would likely be, for the Iranians, the Israelis, the US armies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the world economy, there’s another question in my mind. If popular opinion does indeed go toward “waste ’em”, does that mean a US nuclear stike on Iran?

So I flipped through the links on Atrios re: Semidi. It’s pretty funny/sad to watch the Clinton supports rend themselves over perceived injustices, like mild name calling. “OBAMA CAN NOT HAS PREZIDENT! HE SEYZ CLINTON IS DISHONEST! ZOMG!”

Also, it’s apparently racist to tell black voters that you’re black. It is not, however, sexist to remind women voters that you have a vagoo. That’s different. It just is. Shut up!

There’s something extremely bullshitty looking about these polls. Like a bunch of you here, my friends and family aren’t anything like a uniform group of liberals (most of my relatives are die-hard GOPers) and when I do my own political sounding of this circle, I don’t get numbers *anything* like what the polls are showing. In fact, I’ve been stunned to see virtually all of the rabid Republicans say that they hate McCain so much that they simply aren’t going to vote this year (no nose-holding for them) or they’re so sick at heart over what Bush has done (and the notion that McCain will continue the same) that they’re “ok” with voting for a Dem (!!WTF!!).

Given the fact that about 75% of the nation HATES the fucking Bush war and wants it to end, where in the name of sweet Satan are these assholes getting these “close” numbers? Does this not look *cooked* to a turn to you? I’d be the first to say that it’d be a hellova trick to get every polling organization to twist their numbers but…is it impossible? To me, it looks like a set-up to justify yet another bent election, thanks to Diebold-style numbers creativity.

Given the fact that “our media” is completely in the tank for McCain (and concerned with some diseased notions about pleasing the shareholders that own stock in the corporations that own the media), doesn’t it start to tickle that little paranoid place inside of you, enough for you to say……”we’re being manipulated, by corporations that are aligned with our increasingly totalitarian government, and both of them seek to control us by continuing the controlling of our government, our military, our Justice Department, our spooks (who’s job is to spy on us now), our food distribution system, our fuel distribution system, our financial system…all of it manipulated to make us dependent, vulnerable slaves to whatever they contrive to create”?

Nah……….that’s just paranoid, right?

The US won’t actually do a nuclear first strike, even low-yield, cause it opens the door for India, Pakistan, China, Korea and Russia. Even the criminal thugs in the white house and west wing are not so dim-witted as to understand that you can’t get that genie back in the bottle.

And frankly, they don’t feel they need to. Just like with Iraq, American conventional forces are overwhelmingly capable of the job at hand. The fact that they can win any war against any conventional combined arms force has NO bearing on their ability to control and stabilize the post-war theater, nor their ability to successfully control an armed insurgency with popular support and plenty of funding.

Remember, American Air Supremacy, which is utterly unchallenged, means no massed armor, no effective artillery, no troop movements. Your only option in a Unipolar world is asymmetric and unconventional warfare. Which america has demonstrated, in iraq and afghanistan, that they have NO answer for.

There’s no upside, even for Dickface Cheney, to opening the door to nuclear war. It’s ultimately america’s Achilles heel…

mikey

The media SHOULD be in the tank for McCain, as he’s the best horse to lead us to victory over our enemies. Durrr. Not rocket science, peeps! McCain’s gonna nail a victory in November, and you’ll whine whine whine, and we’ll win win win. And you can BANK on it, ’cause the STUDMAN said so.

Nah……….that’s just paranoid, right?

It’s quite possible (the media manipulation, I mean). The US media does seem very pro-McCain to me. We’ll just have to see if Obama can beat it back. I hope that someone is recording the unhinged attacks that our media is making on Obama, so that we can play those videos over and over again and bring the public opinion of our media significantly lower.

Not sure I quite see the entire US society being a vast machine of mental control, as you are suggesting, though I am also suspicious of many things, and most especially the media.

To murder an old saw, the pollsters are are always predicting the last election. The same fuckwits that advise Hill (can you say Mark “I’m an out of touch imbecile but still considered a polling genius” Penn?) are conducting the polls and they don’t realize:
1. Turnout turnout turnout will be a key factor in the forthcoming landslide.
2. the intertoobz haz changed the world and they’re way way behind.
3. They aren’t reaching the right people and aren’t qualifying them the way they should.
4, arugula is tasty

Ach. What did I say about lateness and beer – though I should also mention the whisky, for as the great Mojo Nixon tells us, “beer ain’t drinkin'”. Sorry Mr. M.

Now that I’ve got your message I’d add this: Given the belicose language and escalating tensions around Iran is it really wise for Obama (or Clinton) to be talking them up as a threat? Obama was talking about “surgical missile strikes” back in 2004, and maybe that helped with some kind of ‘pragmatic’ ‘touch’ image he was trying to project at the time. But in light of the recent IAEA report there’s no excuse to be blathering on about the threat supposedly presented by the terrifying bastards of Tehran.

Schtuppy McInstapuddle, you get your rosy red ass upstairs and help your mom with the dishes right now! And stop dropping those damn cheetos all over the rug!

I don’t think Obama’s on the road to Tehran, but remember that the politician running for office is not the same man as the one who holds it. Aside from the laughably impossible (a uniter not a divider) remember that W came into office as someone with no interest in foreign policy whatsoever.

PeeJ, I hate to disagree with anyone who has such nice things to say about Mark Penn, but eating arugula is like wiping dirty athletic socks on your tongue.

Interesting Mikey. I hope that your analysis of why the US would not use nukes against Iran is correct. It certainly would do nothing, in the long run, but hurt us.

I’ve heard that we do currently have enough troops to invade and occupy Iran, but that if this decision was taken, and Iran was occupied in the same way that we have done with Iraq and Afghanistan, this would necessitate a draft. Do you think that this is true?

And as bad as a US strike on Iran would likely be, for the Iranians, the Israelis, the US armies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the world economy, there’s another question in my mind. If popular opinion does indeed go toward “waste ‘em”, does that mean a US nuclear stike on Iran?

IMHO, yeah, they’ll nuke ’em. They’ll claim they used conventional explosives and the resultant radioactivity is “proof’ of the nascent Iranian nuke program (that doesn’t actually work scientifically, but how many Americans are going to bother questioning it?). Instead of bringing *peace* to the region, it’ll initiate wholesale bloodletting (the Zionists are about to find out just how self-destructive their greed for land really is), economic depression everywhere (we’re all 3rd world now) and a very long age of America-hating, worldwide.

This is the kind of shit that happens when you let mentally-ill folk rule the country (there IS a difference, Ralph Nader!) without the slightest push-back on the streets. We should’ve let Congressional Dems know that we’d “have their backs” if they stood up to the coup-plotters and instead, we satisfied our consciences by writing letters, signing petitions and other passive bullshit that’s been easy for them to ignore. When the nukes drop, the world as we know it ENDS. That’s a hell of a Sword of Damocles hanging over us, no?

Iowa has passed legislation mandating paper ballots. We are going to kick Diebold to the curb. We never did have the touchscreen machines in my precinct, but they were scattered around the state. voting integrity

I wish more states would pass this sort of legislation. Or, even bettah, we could get a federal bill passed. Well, maybe next year.

I do miss the old fashioned curtained voting booths where you went in and pulled the levers. Sigh . . . I cast my first vote for Jimmy Carter against Reagan on one of those. You kids get off my lawn!

Obama or Hillary not for you?

Vote Bill the Cat this November. This year, why not the worst?!

Of the three major candidates, Obama is certainly the least likely to bomb Iran.

I’d like to think Bush doesn’t have the political capital left to initiate any sort of war with Iran. I’d like to think some sane members of our government would stop that cold. The scary thing is that you just know that if given their heads they’d do any damned crazy thing

mikey, I seem to recall you offering reassurance about the process for launching a nuclear strike including a number of safeguards to prevent Bush just taking it into his daffy head to nuke Iran. I liked being reassured.

Nope. They won’t even TRY to go to Tehran. They don’t want to, and it can’t be done. Not successfully. The only ground troops america will even CONSIDER using in Iran are a Marine Expeditionary force to hold a buffer on the straits to keep it from being used as a chokepoint, and some armor on the iraqi border to try to control infiltration of Iranian specops fighters – which will certainly fail.

It’ll be all air, bombs and cruise missiles. And the Iranian response, carefully considered and planned, will be to keep their aircraft on the ground, break their large troop formations up and spread ’em around, and use the forces they’ve been training, um, for exactly THIS to wreck the american occupation in iraq, along with the Badr force and JAM, and turn Hezbollah loose up in palestine. Those doods have some capability the israeli’s ain’t seen yet, and they do NOT want to get into a pissing contest with ’em.

So on the one hand you’ll have air, strike packages and loiter, drones and specops on the ground, and on the other hand you’ll have what will go down in history (incorrectly) as the first large scale, long term terror campaign in history. But as it will be directed against military combatants, occupying forces and hostile third parties, it will not truly be terrorism. But oh lordy, are they gonna call it that…

mikey

This is the kind of shit that happens when you let mentally-ill folk rule the country (there IS a difference, Ralph Nader!) without the slightest push-back on the streets. We should’ve let Congressional Dems know that we’d “have their backs” if they stood up to the coup-plotters and instead, we satisfied our consciences by writing letters, signing petitions and other passive bullshit that’s been easy for them to ignore. When the nukes drop, the world as we know it ENDS. That’s a hell of a Sword of Damocles hanging over us, no?

Whateverdude, believe me, I appreciate that you are concerned about these matters, just as I am. However, It’s not true that there’s been no push-back on the streets, and with few important exceptions, I don’t think the congressional Democrats care that much whether we’d like them to stand up to the Bush admin or not.

Yeah, sure, it only returns us to a remote resemblance to sanity, but that’s substantive transformation to me, right now. I’ll take it.

I’ll take it, too, but I’d like so much more. And for once, I think we could have got so much more. I think most other people did too; but then they *saw* the candidates and shifted their goalposts or lied to themselves or just chickened the fuck out. They decided to champion a superficial form of “so much more.”

Then there are the others:

The “creative class” types got behind Obama because a)he’s generally tepid on economics, which is relieving to the wealthy and upper middle class, and b) supporting him “proves” that they aren’t racist (but that all non-Obamaphiles *are* racists), thus they very cheaply can buy or maintain socially progressive credentials, appear more radical than thou.

The over-invested nutjob types (as well as the reactionary vestiges of “Reagan Democrats”, but that’s another story) got behind Hillary because then they wouldn’t have to deviate from their general schtick: superficial sexual politics. These are the idiots who *would* vote for Condi or a Margaret Thatcher; idiots who *would* oppose the nomination of a William O. Douglas type to the court (on the grounds that he was a man, *and* a dirty old man — never mind that he did more for reproductive rights than just about anybody, ever). And no, I’m not just talking about self-evidently batshit people like Ann Bartow. These people had a veneer of plausible deniability until recently, when Hillary started talking like a full-blown wingnut yet their support for her became even more entrenched.

Then there’s the DLC-type jackoffs who got behind Edwards not because he was saying the right things about economics and class (class is not an identity politics issue — why not? because you can opt in or out of it and you won’t be graded in the same shitty way on the sincerity or relevance of your opinion just because of the circumstances of your birth), but because he’s a Southern WASP.

From now on, I demand that all national candidates be photographed or videotaped in the dark, and only speak through voice modulators.

Of the three major candidates, Obama is certainly the least likely to bomb Iran.

Woo hoo!!! Party time! Got us a candidate who’s not likely to bomb Iran!

eating arugula is like wiping dirty athletic socks on your tongue.

Izzat s’posed to be a bad thing?

re: Infidel
Poblano at 538 has had a pretty good record with his weird statistical model and it was I believe a three or four days ago that he began predicting an Obama win over McCain in the General. And while Clinton supporters point to this as an indication that their candidate would be stronger in the general, you’ll note that the trend is for Obama to grow in support, something the Clinton camp now has a very intimate experience with.

What an interestingly timed report:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/26/iran.nuclear/index.html

The headline, from CNN —

“Iran holds back nuclear details, IAEA says”

It would be very dificult, Candy, to initiate a nuclear weapons release outside the SIOP. Now, there may be contingencies withing the SIOP for a nuclear strike against Iran, but as that would be a tac release, it would certainly have to be called for by the theater commander. If the strategic commander called for a weapons release into a peaceful theater, it’s extremely unlikely that the order would go down the chain. The Joint Chiefs alone would have some power to countermand.

If the president was crazy, determined and didn’t care what happened to him afterwards, he could probably force a strike package to execute, primarily by lying about super-secret intel. He’d either get some air-delivered tac nukes or some nuclear cruise missiles, probably from subs.

He’d quite likely have a hard time remaining in office afterwards. There has to be SOME justification, and nukes is a great big threshold to step across…

mikey

However, It’s not true that there’s been no push-back on the streets, and with few important exceptions, I don’t think the congressional Democrats care that much whether we’d like them to stand up to the Bush admin or not.

As soon as the war actually started, the demonstrations (for all intents and purposes) stopped, rather than increasing…where are they now? And after the anthrax attacks? We should’ve been out in the streets in full hazmat gear, taunting the administration/military/spooks/whomever to try dosing all of US, rather than just cowing our Democratic reps into voting for whatever (and I mean *whatever*) shit they wanted.

Woo hoo!!! Party time! Got us a candidate who’s not likely to bomb Iran!

But wait, there’s more… Obama sometimes makes vague positive noises about universal health care.

Izzat s’posed to be a bad thing?
Well, yeah. Even you pervs that like that sort of thing, not that there’s anything wrong with it, will have difficulty picking out an appropriate beverage. I mean socks, arugula whichever, do you have a red, a white, a beer?

“We are going to kick Diebold to the curb.”

Iowans are smart, huh? Next thing you know they’ll be voting Democratic in the GE.

I’d like to thank Rightous Bubba for triggering the flashback to my Iowa City days. Good times, good times indeed.

So, how about that report on CNN today from the IAEA that says Iran is “witholding critical information” about its nuclear program. Is that some great timing or what?

Mecken, Mencken, Mencken!

Please disabuse yourself of the siolly-assed, thoroughly incorrect notion that the the term “creative class” has anything to do with economic class. Just stop abusing the phrase already.

Back in grade school, we had creative class. We would sing and play with clay and draw stuff our parents hated putting on the fridge.

“From now on, I demand that all national candidates be photographed or videotaped in the dark, and only speak through voice modulators.”

Not even voice modulators old son. Do what Thatcher and co did to Sinn Fein spokesmen in the 80’s and uses actors voices.

Incidentally I’ll be here all night. Tickets for Tom Waits European tour go on sale at 9am.

The only problem with your “model”, HTML, is it doesn’t include anyone I know.

Let’s just talk about me. Where do I fit into your neat little boxes? Kinda don’t think I do. And I kinda think that lots and lots of Obama supporters are not that easy to pigeonhole.

Talk to some. You’ll find we’re mostly just people who have found someone that represents a path to a future for us. Not perfect, heavens no, and nobody’s ideal, but a guy with brains and balls and a heart in the right place.

And for now? That’s enough….

mikey

Not gonna happen. Sorry. Just because Lambert and Armando use the term in bad faith, and for a shitty cause, doesn’t mean that it’s verboten.

Toe cheese allegedly goes well with wine but they don’t say which type.

Oh, and the Penguins are awful tonight, and were awful last night.

We should’ve been out in the streets in full hazmat gear, taunting the administration/military/spooks/whomever to try dosing all of US…

I don’t know. Hazmat gear is pretty ineffective against Dick Cheney’s ectoplasmic hypno-rays.

Oh, and the Penguins are awful tonight, and were awful last night.

Overdone I suppose? They do get very tough when cooked too long.

As soon as the war actually started, the demonstrations (for all intents and purposes) stopped, rather than increasing…where are they now?

No, actually, they didn’t stop. Not even “for all intents and purposes”. They aren’t as large are we’d like, certainly. Even the relatively lukewarm ones we have had are significant. There have been people doing all kinds of stuff- from demonstrations to vigil to direct action. Has it been disappointingly small? Yes it has.

But here’s the scoop. Most people don’t give a shit about the problems of the world and of their country, unless they have some direct link to said problems.

Gotta say, though, your idea for an all-hazmat-suit demonstration is kinda interesting.

Well, MileHi, three out of four of the last preznit elections Iowa voted Dem, and they will this time. (Clinton 92, Clinton 96, Gore.)

RB, I will totally take what I can get, at this point. All you can do in life is play the odds.

Certainly a chilled crisp white is a pleasant palate cleanser between bites of stinky cheese, and some aged sharp cheeses are well balanced by a nice smoky oaked red but the combination of the acid tang and muskiness in an athletic sock just doesn’t seem to balance. Also, arugula’s bitter.

It would be very dificult, Candy, to initiate a nuclear weapons release outside the SIOP

Thanks, mikey, not as foolproof as one might wish, but reassuring nonetheless.

I’d be the first to say that it’d be a hellova trick to get every polling organization to twist their numbers but…is it impossible?
Yes. Yes, it is. SATSQ.

Really? You don’t know a single yuppie douchebag Obamabot? Then you haven’t been reading Huff Post or TAPped. You don’t know Obamabots who find “racism” where none exists?Then you haven’t been reading the L.A. Times. You don’t know any whack-job Hillary supporters whose sole raison d’etre is to find misogyny both where *and where it does not* exist? Then you haven’t been reading… well, let’s just say, who I recently took off my blogroll. Etc.

And I didn’t know I was making a “model” which every voter conforms to. I thought I was talking about extremely influential idiots and their “reasoning”.

And I kinda think that lots and lots of Obama supporters are not that easy to pigeonhole.

HTML, I didn’t hear you include this fairly large contingent of Obama supporters:

Cynical motherfuckers who want the US government pulled as far away from the neoconservatives as possible, and realize that Obama is the best chance to do this now.

Not even voice modulators old son. Do what Thatcher and co did to Sinn Fein spokesmen in the 80’s and uses actors voices.

That would at least level the playing field for Turing-test-capable software.

Can we not also forget that the same social structures and power functions which influence governance and the shape of campaigns also influence which candidates actually step forth, emerge, and accumulate the kind of institutional support which makes their candidacies at least a possibility?

I’m sorry, no one has yet outlined anything close to a model whereby in this nearly unorganized society, some social movement was going to appear out of nowhere and select a political candidate of truly reformist if not revolutionary character.

It’s one thing to get p*ssed off at how power is actually structured and wielded in this country to keep the political decision-making range within certain bounds — bounds nearly broken by a set of anti-Constitutional thugs who, if they had been more clever and less short-sighted, could have pretty much ended this nation — and getting p*ssed off by the notion that someone could find some reasons to be optimistic or hopeful about the actual candidates ended up with.

Obama’s not a lot of things, but one thing he isn’t is part of a specific organized power structure within the Democratic Party whose entire existence was predicated upon (a) rolling back the influence of liberal and labor Democrats; (b) massively increasing the influence of big corporate money and staffing on advisory committees; and (c ) the purposeful undermining of liberal legislation by passing conservative initiatives with a majority of Republican backers against a majority of Democratic opponents.

That is what the Clintons and the DLC represented and did. Our payback was (a) the country was run by people a million times saner and more competent than the typical Reaganite / Bush Jr. lunatics, and so did okay while bubbles built up all under us; and (b) the Democrats lost control of Congress from 1994 to 2006, which is what allowed the Bush Jr. triumvirate to wipe the Constitution all over their a**es.

So am I some sort of snotty creative class latte-sippin’ whatever because I didn’t fall once more for the fake promises of people who regularly promised All Things to the working classes and then found themselves distracted by other goals, and because all things considered something more positive than I anticipated emerged?

Maybe, but I don’t think so.

Yeah…….way snappy (as in *snap* “You go girl!”, and other campy ’90’s pop hyperbole).

Cynical motherfuckers who want the US government pulled as far away from the neoconservatives as possible, and realize that Obama is the best chance to do this now.

I fit right into this group.

My dear Mencken,

May I point out here that the intertoobz, though more world-wider than ever, and certainly more pervasive in the American Political Scene, do not make for a good platform to assess the mood of the people.

I’m actually a gay man but other than that, I fit right in.

I’ve read them on the ‘net. I don’t know any of them. I tend to hang in a more rational crowd. Or at least I flatter myself to think so.

Stridency tends to put me off. It’s why I can’t listen to call-in radio shows nor hang out at my sister’s house.

I’m sorry, HTML. I kinda read your post as all – inclusive rather than anecdotal examples. If you go back and look, I think you’ll see where I made that mistake. It offers three choices, all of whom are clearly wrong and fairly unhinged, and doesn’t offer any recognition that there are honest, reasonable supporters of any of the above. I guess I should have understood that you understand that, and simply find them examples without educational value, but I thought it odd that your three examples, representing, as they do, a TINY fraction of the electorate in my experience, would be the only options offered on an Hors d’oeuvre tray of democratic activists.

Sorry….

mikey

I don’t know what the “creative class” is, but I know for sure I’m not part of it. I’m less creative than Chris Muir.

I think the disappointment in the Obama-Clinton-Dem policy positions are over-rated. I don’t like it, but personality and leadership DO matter. Words DO inspire.

I hold out no special hope for Obama given everything he’ll be up against. But to use the ol’ sports cliche, teams DO take on the characteristics of the coach.

So, if we don’t get ANYTHING else, and I find that conceit unlikely, perhaps a country we’ll be less of a Dick. And perhaps the rest of the world will perceive us as less of a Dick.

First, the damage has to be undone. All by itself, that is going to take an enormous amount of skill, luck, and work. If some other decent things happen in the meantime, I’ll be happier with my federal government.

Perhaps the greatest thing I despise about our current WH occupant is how low he’s set the bar. My hopes and expectations are subterranean, and to me that’s a lot to have back.

From Crooks and Liars:
McCain Campaign Lying About The Polls

Bill Scher at Liberal Oasis:

The NY Times today quotes a McCain campaign adviser defending the campaign’s performance because even though “the Republican Party brand is very, very badly damaged, … Senator McCain is running even or ahead of Senator Obama in most national polls.”

That is a false statement, which the Times did not correct.

I recently penned an op-ed for last Friday’s Omaha World-Herald about why the attacks on Obama have failed to derail his path to the nomination, and failed to deny him a clear lead against Sen. John McCain (Full op-ed below).

I led with the observation, “He beats Sen. John McCain in seven of eight major polls taken this month, with margins mostly between 5 and 7 points, and the most recent survey showing a 10-point lead.”

That assertion was based on leads reported in the following polls taken in May:

CBS/NY Times: Obama, 11 points
USA Today/Gallup: McCain, 1 point
Ipsos: Obama, 4 points
LA Times/Bloomberg: Obama, 6 points
NPR: Obama, 5 points
Quinnipiac: Obama, 7 points
ABC/Washington Post: Obama, 7 points
Reuters/Zogby (including Ralph Nader & Bob Barr): Obama, 10 points

A few polls have been released since I wrote my oped:

GW-Battleground poll: Obama, 2 points
Investor’s Business Daily: Obama, 11 points
Newsweek: Tie

These May polls do not show that “Senator McCain is running even or ahead of Senator Obama in most national polls.” They show that the vast majority of national polls show Obama ahead.

Oh PLEASE.
The GE isn’t next week.
It’s still six bloody MONTHS from now.
If those (highly dubious) numbers stay static from now until September, THEN you can get your progressive panties in a knot.
Anyone seriously think they will?

Busta beat me to it – I was just going to say, if you REALLY want to know how it’s going to go down, call your bookie, not Zogby. The poll-pimps will keep getting clients even after they screw it up, at least as long as the Tribe Of Gab keeps being lazy enough to lend them credibility – & noone has their own hard-earned green riding on their answers to a phone-poll.

This has developed into a pretty damn good thread.

With a few exceptions, of course.

If the strategic commander called for a weapons release into a peaceful theater, it’s extremely unlikely that the order would go down the chain. The Joint Chiefs alone would have some power to countermand.

Yeah…..I guess we should ignore that the Joint Chiefs have been “housecleaned” to remove those who might object to such a move? Trust me, it’s gonna happen and it’ll happen (in large part) as a ploy to drive voters to the “security” party (heh), the GOPers. Obama will (because he’s nowhere near the courageous pol that we really need) back that shit completely, and we’ll be doomed. So it freekin’ goes.

Man, 200 comments in five hours, and I straggle in at the end. So forgive me if my take on the original topic – not the digressions – was already mentioned.

Granted that polls don’t mean much this far out, can’t the reason McCain polls so closely to the 2 Dems be because nobody’s had a chance to lay a glove on him yet? He’s the nominee because the demolition derby of Giuliani and Romney and the rest so disgusted Repubs that they turned to McCain by default, leaving him the last man standing. Since then Hillary and Obama have focussed on each other, not him. When the Dem nominee, which I hope and believe will be Obama, can turn his full attention on McCain, it ain’t gonna be pretty.

McCain is an incredibly weak candidate. His age, his temper, his list of on-the-record flip-flops (thank you, Mr. Greenwald), his “senior moments” (Sunni? Shiite? Who the hell cares.), his ignorance and incuriosity about economics, these are all huge negatives.

Just imagine the first Obama-McCain debate. Obama talks off the cuff showing he knows the issues thoroughly. McCain repeats things he’s been told to memorize, as with his so-called economics policy speech. Obama sneaks in a joke and flashes that amazing grin, and Gramps tries to dredge up a forced smile while his eyes glower.

Let’s look at the polls then.

May I point out here that the intertoobz, though more world-wider than ever, and certainly more pervasive in the American Political Scene, do not make for a good platform to assess the mood of the people.

Actually, that was always my point about the “creative class” thing, and atheist can corroborate it. I agree with you; and for saying so, an Obamabot insinuated that I was a paternalist racist.

But, anyway, the mood of the people *is* manipulated to some substantial degree by the intertoobz. And the intertoobz generates money for candidates.

but one thing he isn’t is part of a specific organized power structure within the Democratic Party whose entire existence was predicated upon

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I remember reading in Tomasky’s fawning piece in the NYRB about Obama’s one rebellious vote: it was in favor of banking interests. Tomasky chose to spin this as evidence of Obama’s “independence”. So who gives a shit if he “isn’t part of” the power structure when he chooses to emulate it?

***
I will vote for the Dem in November. But I will never let you forget for an instant that your candidate (whoever it is) Fucking Sucks.

The good thing about this polling-agencies-are-part-of-teh-conspiracy theory is that it is testable. If anyone thinks their results are rigged, you can find out by running your own poll. It’s not difficult or expensive to create a random, stratified sample of a few thousand people.

You’ll find we’re mostly just people who have found someone that represents a path to a future for us. Not perfect, heavens no, and nobody’s ideal, but a guy with brains and balls and a heart in the right place.

Not to put a dent in this lovely balloon, but one thing America has never been is a Frank Capra movie.

I know, Candy. We are a very serious people!

It’s just that I keep hearing how there’s no way a D can win in Iowa–or here.

Now that Barr is the Libertarian candidate, a lot of McBush’s votes are going to be diverted here in beautiful Colorado. There seems to be a growing alliance between the Libs and the some of the republicant base. The state R party as a whole is in shambles and they aren’t happy with their chosen one(s).

If the Democrat’s can’t carry this state (including the open Senate seat) this November, it will be an epic FAIL.

Cynical motherfuckers who want the US government pulled as far away from the neoconservatives as possible

I appreciate such people. I sympathize!

Yet, I have never thought that Obama was the best candidate to do exactly that. Of the current choices, though, he is. Which brings me to the point: You reasoning is pragmatic. Your support is therefore contingent and reserved. You therefore aren’t an Obamabot talking about “hope” or “dialogue” or some cornball idealist bullshit that comes out of an “I believe children are our future” beauty pageant speech. I’m fine with you and people like you. In fact, I’m with you.

But I’m also remembering to resent the people, ostensibly on “our side,” who forced me into supporting someone who sucks.

The good thing about this polling-agencies-are-part-of-teh-conspiracy theory is that it is testable. If anyone thinks their results are rigged, you can find out by running your own poll.

Um-hmm. I *did* that (admittedly with a much smaller group but still, a pretty comprehensive political cross-section) and the numbers don’t come anywhere close to matching. Like a polling company couldn’t manage to get the phone numbers of folks who would give them the answers they want to manufacture?

The trust that people put into corrupt institutions (like American polling firms) is pretty mind-bending.

I will vote for the Dem in November. But I will never let you forget for an instant that your candidate (whoever it is) Fucking Sucks.

HTML, I’ve been following politics since Kennedy ran against Nixon. My candidate always sucks. Such is the nature of our fucking political system.

This has developed into a pretty damn good thread.
With a few exceptions, of course.

The dick-cheese fetishists never get any respect.

Don’t worry about it, mikey. And I’m sorry about being so heavy on the sarcasm, but I’ve been so pent up on this subject and so fucking disgusted by the process the last few months that a lot of scorn is just going to come out.

So who gives a shit if he “isn’t part of” the power structure when he chooses to emulate it?

I’ll take ‘my opinions’ and a movement with a well-funded coherent structure of institutions and operatives over ‘my opinions’ any day, and the reverse goes double for my opponents.

Actually, that was always my point about the “creative class” thing, and atheist can corroborate it. I agree with you; and for saying so, an Obamabot insinuated that I was a paternalist racist.

How DARE you agree with me or anyone for that matter INTERROBANGtotheNthPower.

What’s more, getting your dirty fucking hippie commie pinkie fag “friend” to back you up is central to my point.

I’m sorry, no one has yet outlined anything close to a model whereby in this nearly unorganized society, some social movement was going to appear out of nowhere and select a political candidate of truly reformist if not revolutionary character.

Exactly.

Mencken, there is a revolutionary class in this country. They’ve been stockpiling arms and capital for nearly thirty years, in anticipation of a second civil war. They are more than prepared to engaging in homicide and widespread systems disruption to bring down what they view an oppresive government.

They’re not leftists. Far from it.

If you would like to see true social change in this country, perhaps you should spend some time laying the material groundwork before agitating for historic political change.

And in the meantime, please forgive those of us that think the black labor organizer raised by a single parent might be pretending to be a little more centrist than he actually is, for the sake of his presidential campaign.

er, “pinko fag” … Though “pinkie fag” works well too.

Ooops. Fuck you WordPress, just fuck you.

I hate to throw cold water on the dying embers of your Memorial Day BBQs, but we’ve already had this discussion in 2000. And again in 2004. It doesn’t matter what We the People want. Thanks to America’s idiotic electoral system, the only people who matter are the Red-State Dummies, guided by the very same GOP-Owned Media Stars (I’m pointing at you, Chris Matthews) who last time around turned a bona fide war hero into a criminal, meanwhile portraying an AWOL draft-dodger into a war hero. Wag that dog, baby.

As long as the fundamentally-decent but tragically ignorant folks of Wyoming carry four times the per capita electoral weight of Californians — and as long as there are a lot of little Wyomings on the prarie and only a handful of Californias — the GOP will always be competitive, no matter how many are tortured and slaughtered over lies about non-existent WMD and connections to 9/11. Meanwhile no true liberal will ever be elected in these here Yoo-nited States, and the best we can hope for are occasional centrists like the Clintons.

Sorry, kiddo. You look like you have a good heart. And I hate being the bearer of bad news.

Cynical motherfuckers who want the US government pulled as far away from the neoconservatives as possible, and realize that Obama is the best chance to do this now.

Present, sir.

Ah Mr. Mencken, I seethe with you. I’ve had to put up with Tony fucking Blair for the last umpteen years. Whatever the sins of Bush at least his party apparatus wasn’t pretendig to be left wing.

admittedly with a much smaller group but still, a pretty comprehensive political cross-section
I recommend random sampling. There is less chance of the results confirming one’s prior opinion.

‘pretending’.

And just to sound off on two other topics in this thread:

1. The “creative class” is getting rocked pretty hard right now. SV non-management salaries have been cut in half over the last five years. Design is starting to follow tech overseas. It’s a scary time to be in these fields right now. We’re feeling more like Detroit than Martha’s Vineyard right now. Do not associate us with entrenched wealth.

2. IMO, if an Iran attack comes, it’s more likely to be a December “surprise” than an October equivalent.

Ah, the ol’ “He’s pulling a trickfuck” explanation.

Well, I hope you’re right. But it’s silly to *assume* it’s true, especially on the basis of his identity.

Oh, and if the worst does happen Americans fleeing President McCain might take a look at this before considering Britain.

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/05/arrested-for-excessive-diligence.html

Though if you do wash up on our shores I’ll happily buy you a drink.

#

Lesley said,

May 27, 2008 at 3:40

You’ll find we’re mostly just people who have found someone that represents a path to a future for us. Not perfect, heavens no, and nobody’s ideal, but a guy with brains and balls and a heart in the right place.

Not to put a dent in this lovely balloon, but one thing America has never been is a Frank Capra movie.

Lesley. Thank you for your input. And with all due respect? Fuck you.

I’m not interested in ANYBODY who tells me I’m not allowed to hope. That believing is somehow stupid and naive. Take your oh-so-cool cynicism and shove it up your ass.

Unlike most americans (and most canadians, you judgmental fuck), I KNOW what a bad outcome looks like. I know what it sounds like, and I know what if fucking SMELLS like.

So you wanna tell me there’s no hope? You better by gawd be willing to strap on a rifle and a ruck and make a difference in your sad, dystopian future.

Me? I’ll live with that outcome. ‘Cause it could happen. But if you can’t see the difference between hope for a better future and a “Frank Capra Movie” you better be willing to live with the death, disease and violence of an inevitable path into Mad Max. And somehow? I kinda thing you ain’t…

mikey

Oh, and if the worst does happen Americans fleeing President McCain might want to take this into account when considering Britain.

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/05/arrested-for-excessive-diligence.html

Though if you do wash up on our shores I’ll buy you a drink.

But it’s silly to *assume* it’s true, especially on the basis of his identity.

No doubt. And I don’t “assume “it, merely hold it out as a possibility. Even if he is merely who he says he is, he represents a substantial improvement over the last 28 years.

But ask yourself this: You’re a bright young man. You’ve been well-educated, and hold some leftist views. But you’ve decided you can do more working within the system. One day, you think maybe you could be president, and even bring about some real change. Oh, and you’re black.

It’s America, 2002. How do you proceed?

I recommend random sampling. There is less chance of the results confirming one’s prior opinion.

What the hell good is it if it doesn’t confirm prior opinions? The alternative would be dealing with the real world, which is all yucky.

But it’s silly to *assume* it’s true, especially on the basis of his identity.

It’s every bit as silly, if not more so, to “assume” that someone’s identity has no bearing on and is no predictor of who they are. I’m no fan of identity politics, if the identity factor is all you’re considering, but I doubt very much if Obama escaped a considerable amount of molding at the hands of his mother and as an A.C.O.R.N. organizer.

Present, sir.

Heh.

Maybe we need a political party: The Cynic Party

atheist, wouldn’t we all be too cynical to sign up?

Shit, Candy, I didn’t think about that.

Actually maybe Mikey has a point and we do actually need someone who engages people’s emotions and sense of hope as well.

But I just like the idea of a Cynic party.

Well, I am, in fact, cautiously optimistic about Obama. And I’ve been so depressed about politics for, well, most of my life, that a little hope feels pretty good. I’m going to nurture it along, cautiously, and try to be glass half-full for a change.

Believe me, this is not my normal state of being.

But if it fails me, count me as a card-carrying member of Teh Cynics.

I’m actually a bit optimistic about Obama as well. He does seem fairly decent to me.

‘Course, he has to win first, and that isn’t guaranteed. I’d better get off my ass.

Sydney Pollack died today, cancer. Geremi González died yesterday, lightning.

Yes, we have a better candidate than I thought we would. Yes, the left is getting stronger and the right weaker. But I’ve been a pessimist too long to change now. You can have my cynicism when you pry it from my cold, dead brain.

Today, we grilled hot dogs.

Pearl brand, Country Club hot dogs, to be precise.

Large, pork-filled, with natural casings. They grill up plump and moist. Slathered with soft grilled onions and green peppers, topped with cheap bright yellow mustard, and nestled in a puffy white bun, lightly toasted.

Oh, yeah.

I assume you had beer with those dogs. See, real honest food that goes well with a beverage. Is that asking too much?

Do not associate us with entrenched wealth.

Why on earth not? Have you ever read, for instance, a liberal economics blog? The only one I’ve *ever* read with even an inkling of sympathy or understanding of the working class was written by a Canadian Catholic. The rest might as well be directly paid by the Wealthy Criminal Class with whom they totally identify.

While it’s true that many in the creative class have come around to opposing (let’s say) outsourcing, I suspect it’s because of partisan positioning. More likely, it’s because of a sympathy for the foreigners who are also fucked over by transnational capital’s urge to race to the bottom. Certainly it’s almost never because the creative class empathizes with the poor white trash and blacks whom they find repellent on social and cultural grounds.

When Tom Schaller strategizes a “Fuck the South” platform, what he’s actually advocating in practice is not a geographical bias but a social and cultural one that amounts to giving the middle finger to socially-conservative and rural poor.

Hey, I understand. I don’t like NASCAR, black and white fundie churches, and hypocritical and ignorant social attitudes, either. And it is more environmentally responsible to live in the city. Also, lattes are less fattening than sweet tea. Nevertheless, these people with such *bad taste,* poor education, and occasionally nasty biases are poor, and as such, should be defended, supported, persuaded. But they’re not — or if they are, it’s accidental (because some are urban, or minorities). And since they don’t blog, they don’t have an outlet. They are a nebulous bunch of rubes, somewhere out there in flyover country, to be sneered at.

And since they are selfpitying, they are very sensitive to slights. They *feel* your contempt. Thus they fall for the truly cynical, creative class types on the other side, who extoll and further inculcate their every vice: wingnuts.

Yum. I do love the dogs.

I’ve got a thai chicken curry simmering. The smell is heavenly, if you don’t mind the tears. I’ve got some jasmine rice in the rice cooker. It just went “Ding”.

I’ve got two quarter onions in there, but also four quarter shallots. Hee hee….

And some chopped wild mushrooms. Just ’cause….

I’m gonna let the curry simmer down for another five or ten.

And I’ve got some righteous flatbread to scoop it all up.

Love the dogs, but I’m gonna go with the curry chicken tonight…

Wow.
So is the party far enough along for me to score some drunk chix?
Hesh wants sex. Give Hesh sex, Debbie.

(Yes, sorry.)

Hey brad. You’re bicoastal, right?

And I mean that in the most brotherly manner.

Why don’t you come out to Portland for the hoo haw?

mikey

Chicken curry . . . mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……………..

Now I’m starving. I had half my kid’s little tub of Ben & Jerry’s Peanut Butter Cup, some of the potato salad I made yesterday – really good if I do say so myself – and some cheese. I’m a bit under the weather, which is why I’ve been sitting on my ass in front of this comp all day, and so I’ve been kind of scrounging around for food. My kid was pissed about the ice cream when he found out.

While it’s true that many in the creative class have come around to opposing (let’s say) outsourcing, I suspect it’s because of partisan positioning. More likely, it’s because of a sympathy for the foreigners who are also fucked over by transnational capital’s urge to race to the bottom. Certainly it’s almost never because the creative class empathizes with the poor white trash and blacks whom they find repellent on social and cultural grounds.

So, to you, HTML, the ‘creative class’ is a real thing, and it’s the urban middle class?

Yes! The hoohaw! WHAT ABOUT THE HOOHAW?!?!?!

umm, see upthread.

My kid was pissed about the ice cream when he found out.

Now he’s voting McCain and whose fault is it? YOURS.

I used to be a liberal until my mother stole my ice-cream.

I’ve actually named it, in Gavin’s honor, the great oregon flapdoodle.

I actually used the line “…what’s a flapdoodler to doodle doodle do?”

And I am not ashamed…

mikey

I . . . I’m starting to feel shame! Will I ever truly enjoy ice cream again?

If I were going to Portland, I’d go to the Satyricon.

Is the Satyricon even still in existence? I don’t know. I shall check Teh Great Gazoogle!

Well, it exists, as a shadow of its former self.

Yet even this abundant druggery, thuggery, shruggery and muggery was tame business in comparison to what was to happen next. It all began on a Saturday night at Satyricon on April 28th 1990. It began as a peaceful enough evening. The Dharma Bums were the headliners, drawing their customary hip, sensible collegiate-type throng to the club. A packed house of 200 or so well-wishers were gathered to celebrate the Bums’ increasing local and regional success.

In those days, Satyricon was not the pristine art palace that it eventually became. In especially poor repair were the restrooms. There were frequently long lines to get into not only the women’s restroom but the men’s as well- especially during breaks between performing stage acts. And so it was at 1:30 AM Sunday morning that it occurred to Satyricon owner George Tahouliotis that he really had to pee. He surveyed the prevailing restroom situation and ascertained that his best opportunity for relief might lay outside on the Old Town streets.

If I were going to Portland, I’d go to the Satyricon.

Oh for the days when all the biggest drug dealers were on the stage.

Flaming youth.

Lesley. Thank you for your input. And with all due respect? Fuck you.

Your hope must be fragile if you’re threatened by my saying America has never been a Frank Capra movie. Hell, I knew that when I first saw them at ten years old. Are you kidding me?

I’m not trying to steal your hope. Hell, I have hope too. I just don’t place much of it with mainstream rightwing parties – and if you think the Democrats aren’t right wing, perhaps that’s because Bush has permanently distorted the lens.

I tend to place my faith with people who are activists at the grass roots level (where shit gets done).

I’d like to say sorry but after all that vitriol (fuck yous and up your asshole and all that bullshit) it wouldn’t be sincere.

P.S. Sounds like you’ve been wanting to vent that vitriol for some time…wow, got the message. Go ahead an include me in your ignore script.

oh and if you’ve ever thought of America as a Frank Capra movie you are fucking delusional (and you served in ‘Nam for Christ sake).

I’ve got a thai chicken curry simmering. The smell is heavenly, if you don’t mind the tears. I’ve got some jasmine rice in the rice cooker. It just went “Ding”.

Mm. I’d ask if I could come over, except…

We took some good ground sirloin, formed it into 4 thin patties, put a chunk of Pt. Reyes Blue on top of 2 patties, and then put the other 2 on on top of each and pressed them together.

then we grilled them. I had mine on top of some baby greens, spouse had his on an english muffin.

I made some potato salad out of new white potatoes.

Heaven.

what dickhead is saying “fuck you” to Lesley?

oh. it was mikey.

Can you guys make nice?

Oh and another thing, while I respect your war experience (and you know I do) and wished you’d never had to go through it, I’m kind of tired of you pulling that up every time it’s convenient as a means of shutting people up and making them feel perpetually guilty for not being a mad max world survivor. It’s a crappy thing to do.

I know you’ve “been there, smelled it” and would kill to survive if you had to. Perhaps so would we all, but how would I know. I don’t.

I haven’t got that experience and have never even held a gun (being Canadian and all) and probably I wouldn’t survive a mad max world (and wouldn’t want to) but let’s try not to go there with each other. Ok?

There are all kinds of people who’ve survived all kinds of shit and I happen to be one. I don’t talk about it.

I’m sick of that macho posturing. Can’t compete with it, you know this, and it’s manipulative. And it’s not fair, because you have my respect.

Ok, done.

Lesley: Here in the States, nothing at all ever gets done at the grassroots level. Ron “fleet-footed negroes” Paul is the closest thing we have to a grassroots candidate, and you can see how well he’s doing. Even here in Idaho we have a very active peace coalition, and they’re routinely ignored and marginalized by the press. More Americans smoke pot than play golf, and you can see what a crackerjack job NORML has done over the last 30-odd years.

The only thing grassroots are good at is getting stepped on.

Every last syllable stands, g.

I’m not gonna sit here and have some fuckwad sitting up in canada tell me what I can and can’t hope for. What belief passes her prescious smell test.

And anybody who wants to say there’s no hope, that hope is nothing but a Frank Capra movie, fer crissakes, better be willing to tell me they understand the future they’re predicting, and the death and horror they’re going to have to live with.

‘Cause it’s really simple at this point. Either we make it as a diverse, democratic society or we don’t. And if you don’t believe there’s any hope, you’re really saying what you believe the outcome will look like. And if you’re some suburban motherfucker that doesn’t know what rotting bodies and dead childeren and poison water and dysentary and malaria and violence and torture and terror and brutality looks like, but you still are prepared to ridicule hope for an outcome that just might not include all that, you’re a piece of shit and one wonders just exactly what outcome you ARE hoping for…

mikey

So, to you, HTML, the ‘creative class’ is a real thing, and it’s the urban middle class?

…who write or are otherwise directly involved in the media and culture, yes. Of course, the most famous of these (tv talking heads, MSM pundits, ppl in advertizing and entertainment) are actually filthy rich, but the point is that they think pretty much the same (or pretend to) as the urban middle class on cultural and class issues.

Think about, for instance, attitudes to smoking laws, throw the genuine artists out of my broad indictment, and see if you can’t tell what I’m talking about.

some fuckwad.

heh, you are extreme, dude, really extreme. you can switch your view of someone literally on a dime.

Here in the States, nothing at all ever gets done at the grassroots level

I’m talking about people who fight for change outside of political parties. People who are in threads like these, involved in their community, trying to make a difference.

oh and if you’ve ever thought of America as a Frank Capra movie you are fucking delusional (and you served in ‘Nam for Christ sake).

Remember, Arsenic and Old Lace was a Capra movie too.

that’s where I place my hope, not in politicians.

one of my favourites, Brandi. And also a total fantasy. 🙂

HTML: throw the genuine artists out of my broad indictment

As we all know that genuine artists are able to subsist off of gumdrops and unicorn feathers created by their own imagination, and thus are exempt from the vagaries that go along with having to exchange actual currency for items like rent and food.

Nah, I’m not, mikey. Would that I were, but I have neither the cash nor the time right this moment. I visit the Atlantic and the Gulf, so I’m sort of minorly bicoastal.
Plus I fear that if I visited Portland I’d end up having to move there immediately after, and that’d be a pain.

Lesley: Here in the States, nothing at all ever gets done at the grassroots level.

Nonsense.

You have to give Canadians some credit, Mikey. At least we take an interest in “your country” and the rest of the world, whereas Americans (who tend to be insular and arrogant) typically have a fuck you attitude. And if we don’t like your fuck yous you might come after us with your gunz loaded. Oh noooooes.

I dunno HTML. Smoking laws… I thought they were ridiculous at first, but they’ve grown on me. Especially since I quit, and getting too big a dose of secondhand smoke started giving me wicked headaches.

Americans are more than welcome to shred any and all Canadian politicians, and I dare you to find a single Canadian who would object, outside of the political parties. We don’t revere our leaders particularly, nor do we idolize them or have enormous expectations. We start from a position of distrust, for the most part. Politicians, including Prime Ministers, are routinely ridiculed. It’s probably because we’re more closely associated with the British who tend to do the same.

Not outdoor smoking laws. Indoor. The difference is kinda obvious.

Lesley: Here in the States, nothing at all ever gets done at the grassroots level.
—————————-
Nonsense.

That’s a little confusing. Lesley didn’t make the anti-grassroots statement.

That’s a little confusing. Lesley didn’t make the anti-grassroots statement.

Yeah, bad italics on my part.

mikey, mikey,
Half the people on here are in love with you, man (and the other half are in love with jennifer, tho’ anyone who could break that down along gender lines would be the statistician of the century).
i used to be a true Ameriphobe ’til I found you guys. And yes, i have posted under another name.
I love that you guys include views from canada and England – and by include I mean respond to…
Even better that a healthy proportion of commenters mention their care for what the rest of the world thinks of the US.
For mine: The day that black man stands up to claim victory – and it will be November 2008 – will reflect on the US to the whole world. All our hearts will lift with pride and relief and it will mean something. For that, i couldn’t give a shit about the identity politics of the campaign.

Atheist:

Here’s two more:

Remember when Chris Matthews told, all horndog-perv like, that female anchor to move closer to the camera because she was “so beautiful”? Well, that got covered extensively by the creative class, and it should have been. But it was only covered (that I saw) through one angle: misogyny. And like I said, Matthews deserved being busted on it. But what wasn’t mentioned was that the female anchor had just said some horrible shit about poor people’s supposed “irresponsibility.” Of course Matthews let that pass, but so did his critics. Why? Because bashing the poor (whose majority is composed of women, btw) is, if not acceptable at least *not* outrageous to people who aren’t poor.

The other example is where a certain fairly famous feminist completely lost me. Back when Paris Hilton really cracked-up and people really started hating her, this feminist said she was tempted to view the conflict like a socialist; that is to say, view it as it is: Paris Hilton is hated because she is a spoiled, talentless, Marie Antoinette figure, a person whose loathsome, self-created public image rightly inspires Jacobin sentiments in the masses. But no, this feminist “thought better” of it and argued that, of course, people hate Paris because they are misogynists.

As we all know that genuine artists are able to subsist off of gumdrops and unicorn feathers created by their own imagination, and thus are exempt from the vagaries that go along with having to exchange actual currency for items like rent and food.

If you say so.

HTML,

Seriously. Artists who aren’t able to make a living solely from their creative work–how do you think they get paid?

Hokay,

In the immortal words of Tor: Time for go to bed.

Here’s the thing.

It’s either a very bleak future or something or somebody intervenes.

None of us can know what’s gonna happen. And I happen to think that the estimable Senator Obama has a chance to take us through the maelstrom. And maybe even out the other side.

And what is the downside in my having this hope? Does it mean I’ll be any less prepared should the worst case scenario come to pass? It does not.

But it is truly infuriating to be told by someone with, frankly, a little less skin in the game, that I’m just silly, or unrealistic to have hope. That hope is nothing but a stupid movie. That all the kewl kids, the PoMo kids, hell, the PoPoMo kids have gotten past hope. Hope is some kind of sucker’s trip.

But then, tell me. If you piss on hope, what’s left for you? What kind of world are you expecting? Do you really understand, really GRASP what you’re saying your kids will inherit? And just how clear are you, in your peaceful little suburban neighborhood about what you are expecting?

Moms in somalia, in gaza, in Mosul, in Ossetia, in Medellin understand that hope is indispensible, is the basis for finding a way to live through the horror. Hope is what we have when things are bleak, and there’s not a clear path for us to lead our families.

Fuck man. Maybe hope is naive. But frankly? I’d rather shoot the fucker that tries to take my hope then the fucker that tries to take my food. Can you understand that?

mikey

Why does it matter? I said throw them out of my broad indictment because traditionally artists have a proclivity to abuse substances, including tobacco.

But, yes, also, because in my experience artists — as opposed to arbiters of taste — tend to be more tolerant of and empathetic to the “vices” and biases of the Other, especially the poor. YMMV.

But it is truly infuriating to be told by someone with, frankly, a little less skin in the game, that I’m just silly, or unrealistic to have hope. That hope is nothing but a stupid movie.

That’s not what I meant or intended. (At risk of having you jump down my throat again, I’d have thought you’d know me better than that by now.)

Here’s what I hope for. That I never have to see that vitriol directed at me again by someone I’d considered same side. That I can do without even if it is on the Internet and you don’t have to face me, pretend I’m some sworn enemy of your hope and say that shit to my face. Just the other day you defended me as someone who had her mind and heart in the right place and here you are behaving as if I’m some goon out to destroy your hope. Why would I ever do that?

If you’re thinking I mean you harm – which I DON’T – can you just fucking ask or tell me without going all soldier on my ass?

Or just make up your mind who you like and don’t and ignore me.

Thanks.

mikey said, “Yum. I do love the dogs.”

Where I am, that phrase has a whole ‘nother meaning.

Here in the States, nothing at all ever gets done at the grassroots level

That’s patently not true. That’s the one genius of the Republicans: after they lost in 1960 and 1964, they went micro: every school board, every little town council in a town of 500, every crappy political position like Planning Commission chairman, they went after those jobs, they organized to get those jobs. They got down and dirty in the political trenches and it’s paid off, big time. It’s why something like Intelligent Design is such a pain in the ass, it’s all the Republican Flat Earthers on the school boards and county commissions that keep it alive as an issue, when in any sane society, they’d be total laughingstocks.

And meanwhile, we lefties are a good 20, no 30, years behind them while we wait for another JFK to lead us out of the wilderness.

The other example is where a certain fairly famous feminist completely lost me. Back when Paris Hilton really cracked-up and people really started hating her, this feminist said she was tempted to view the conflict like a socialist; that is to say, view it as it is: Paris Hilton is hated because she is a spoiled, talentless, Marie Antoinette figure, a person whose loathsome, self-created public image rightly inspires Jacobin sentiments in the masses. But no, this feminist “thought better” of it and argued that, of course, people hate Paris because they are misogynists.

Interesting HTML.

Although, could it not be that in fact both things are true? That Hilton is loathed by people because she is a Marie Antoinette figure, but also because they simply hate young women like her?

I feel like I have seen evidence of both tendencies.

If you’re going to trust Obama (and I’m with you on that to a degree and I’d like to see him elected too), cut me a little slack while you’re at it, is all I’m saying.

So I’m more of a cynic about politicians and leaders, including the great hope that is Obama…big fucking deal. And I have my reasons, just as valid as your reasons for not being a cynic.

Maybe before you were shipped off to that hell hole war, life was idyllic and you want a return on that. It wasn’t for me. I came up with a different view of the world and perhaps I’m more wary and less trusting. So what?

And don’t lecture me on how desperate people, people living in misery have hope. I’ve been in desperate circumstances that you know jackshit about. Oh but I suppose they don’t count because it wasn’t a war with soldiers in it.

With all due respect, you are fucking judgemental of people you do not know squat about and you rinse it all through the lens of your war experience, which though I respect, is also manipulative of you and unfair and restricts you from seeing other truths. You do not know anything about my life or my experiences …get that straight and don’t assume just because I haven’t been in war that I don’t know what hell is and what having hope in hell is. I do.

This is nauseating. I’m heading out.

Mikey, Lesley’s words did seem thoughtless to me as well. And I know that you are feeling a certain embattled sense of urgency about the Obama campaign, and I have felt the same sense of urgency.

However, might it make sense to find out what she did mean, before assuming that she meant the worst?

just stopped in here for a last quick look before shutting down for the night . . .

atheist, it’s kind of ironic given both of our non-theist philosophies, but when I see your name and/or comments, I frequently find myself thinking of one of the Beatitudes, “Blessed are the peace makers.” You’re a good guy.

Just wanted to say that.

Especially since she seems to care about what you think, and think of her. Those are not the words of someone who considers you a sucker.

Henry Holland:

That’s very interesting and I was totally unaware of it. I can only hope it’s not too late for those same tactics to work for those of us in the reality-based community.

Aww.. thanks Candy. You’re a good person too. And good night.

The fact is that a lot of Hillary supporters will not support Obama and I will remind them all of how Obama used sexism to win in this election.

To skip past a few thousand comments:

Jillian, it’s obvious that you’re sincere in your belief that bringing all of this up is going to open a positive dialogue about the need for improved outreach, for better PR, for deeper understanding of the most important issues facing our key constituencies. But first, these are things that we should be discussing every day of the year, whether we’re polling wonderfully, dismally, or somewhere in between. Polls are simply irrelevant to the question of “How can we be a better party?”

Second, for the love of god, a positive and fruitful dialogue is not where this road leads.

We’ve been down it before. The response is panic. The response is “What can we do to blunt the GOP’s advantages?” The response is the vote to authorize military force in Iraq. It’s NAFTA. It’s Bill Clinton and John Kerry endorsing constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. It’s triangulation on abortion rights. It’s selling anyone and everyone down the river until we barely have a party left.

It’s not an accident that we looked pathetic while doing all of this. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s been on a date with someone so desperate to please, he didn’t realize that he was doing nothing that was actually pleasing. (“Let’s not talk about this hopeless war I helped start and won’t help finish. You sure don’t like gay marriage, do ya?”) Bad policy and bad politics, hand in hand.

“Why aren’t we polling better?” is not a valid question if we know we’re becoming the party we want to be. If we’re not becoming that party, maybe that’s our answer.

Ha ha… blessed are the peace makers. This is from the same guy who said he came to bring a sword into the world and set a man against his father.

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”

Don’t be using the bible to support your arguments, because it can be used to support any argument in the world.

Just sayin…

Once he secures the nomination, Obama will need to become an incoherent and belligerent rodeo clown.

I was kind of hoping for Flava-Flav / 50 Cent, or maybe even Homey the Clown, but I can see the virtue of your suggestion, Telecom.

realclearpolitics.com is gay

Mike, in all honesty, the question I asked (or I think I asked at this point) never really was “why aren’t we polling better?”. Maybe I shouldn’t have put the polling data in here in the first place. As far as I can tell, some three hundred comments later, the question I asked hasn’t really been addressed head on yet, either. But this just isn’t the kind of place that vigorously enforces some sort of “on topic” discipline, so things went where people wanted them to. Which, incidentally, is fine with me.

The question I sorta hoped to see addressed is one that I don’t think I’ve seen anyone other than Hugh Hewitt attempt to address so far, and he’s not exactly what I call a serious thinker.

What’s on my mind right now is IF the Democrats lose the general election in November, the cable news networks will be all atwitter for the next eternity asking “is the Democratic party still viable in America?”. I just thought it might be nice, from the mindset of covering all our bases, to ask ourselves this question first, before pompous, ignoramus blowhards like Chris Matthews start asking it of us.

In all honesty, I suspect even asking the question probably makes people too upset to respond rationally to it, so I suppose that’s that. I’ll just go back to silently despairing over the question all by myself.

the question I asked (or I think I asked at this point) never really was “why aren’t we polling better?

True. The question you asked was:

Am I totally off base for wondering what’s going to happen to the Democrats if they can’t win the White House under the most favorable conditions for victory they’ve had in almost a century?

The answer you got was a loud and clear ‘YES, GODDAMMIT, you are totally off base’. And some of us even elaborated, noting that the contest in which this victory is supposed to take place, hasn’t even begun, so there is absolutely no point in speculating, let alone obsessing over those stupid numbers.

Anyway, what do I care. I’m not even American. God bless the EU, etc.
If I had the energy, maybe I could even try and share some of the stuff I’ve learned in the past ten years while my country has been climbing out of a near-totalitarian and economic shithole. Maybe I could point out to you and HTML that there are no knights in shining armor in politics, Mr. Smith has long ago left Washington and being unhappy with your political representation is the natural state of things and not an aberration – it’s the fuckers who are happy with their senators that you gotta watch. Maybe I could repeat what I said about taking action instead of whining and navel gazing – but hey, what do I care. Come November, enjoy your shithole in the knowledge that you helped to dig it and fill it.

“is the Democratic party still viable in America?”.

Jeez..

I guess at that point we would have to say something like, “Yes, because If you actually poll Americans, and specifically ask what they think about policy, they prefer the Democratic policies. Also, there is still no other real choice to the Republicans.”

Now, you might imagine that if the Democrats did not win the presidentcy in 2008, they would sit back and think long and hard about how they would change as a party, and that they might re-configure themselves to allow more people in who are greens, socialists, etc. But, they might not. They might decide instead to try to capture more conservatives by being even more like the Republicans. Many of the groups within the Democratic party seem to have an idée fixe about that.

Ha ha… blessed are the peace makers. This is from the same guy who said he came to bring a sword into the world and set a man against his father.

Just sayin…

Damocles, I hate to join the bunfight here, but Candy wasn’t using the snippet from the Beatitudes to support any argument: she was merely complimenting a fellow commenter using a phrase therefrom. Don’t get your knickers in a twist.

I know that Teh Bible can be used to support any argument, largely because it’s been cobbled together from all sorts of pieces from all sorts of people, and is now a sort of Bumper Fun Book Of Monotheism compiled over hundreds of years. I’ve made those arguments myself now and again.

But imagine what the world would be like if Christians actually lived by the Beatitudes. Imagine if they, not Leviticus, were the guiding principles of civilised behaviour. The Beatitudes are actually a pretty good code of conduct for humans, all things considered.

And vis a vis the “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” bit: if there actually was a Yeshua Ben Joseph who did all that stuff and said all that stuff, then I’d guess he was feeling just a little cranky that day. It happens to us all, even the most saintly. For reasons, (a) watch Life of Brian and (b) just look around: the world is full of irritating and stupid and barking-mad people who’d try the patience of a saint. And saint I ain’t.

And to just graze Jillian’s point, I have to say that having a two-party system is really very bad for the parties and the voters. The two parties have this endless tussle, no new ideas are brought in, and nothing stops them from becoming almost completely moribund.

Our politicians may be only a whisker more annoying than yours, but at least our system (Australia) allows new parties to introduce some new blood now and again. Proportional representation is Aye Goode Thinge.

Come November, enjoy your shithole in the knowledge that you helped to dig it and fill it.

Dude/dudette, you don’t need to assume that Jillian doesn’t care, or wants the Democrats to fail. I don’t think that she wants them to fail, I think she’s just asking a question that’s unpopular. I don’t quite understand your anger here.

More to the point, worrying about what to say after you lose is not an attitude conducive to winning.

And let’s start the thread over again!

And to just graze Jillian’s point, I have to say that having a two-party system is really very bad for the parties and the voters. The two parties have this endless tussle, no new ideas are brought in, and nothing stops them from becoming almost completely moribund.

Totally.

When I have time, I want to start reading up on the parliamentary system. I think the USA could really learn something from that system. Unfortunately, as for the time being, I think it’s way more important to pull as much power away from the neoconservative faction as is possible. Those fuckers are a still-underrated danger.

More to the point, worrying about what to say after you lose is not an attitude conducive to winning.

There’s that too.

I actually think 1976 was more favorable. And Carter barely won.

Think about it: Nixon resigns under a cloud of disgrace. VP Ford- never even elected to the office of VP- pardons him. Then has a withdrawal from Vietnam forced on him. Then has such a brutal primary vs. Reagan that he offers Reagan a “co-presidency”—-which Reagan refuses.

Democrats, meanwhile, nominate a successful Southern governor.

Ford bumbles his way thru the campaign trail, tripping off things, trying to eat tamales with the husks on, etc. And despite it all, he probably would have won if he hadn’t screwed up so badly in the debate (“there’s no Soviet domination of eastern europe”).

But your question—what’s up with presidential races, why can’t we ever achieve strong victories like Reagan did twice and Bush did once?

What’s on my mind right now is IF the Democrats lose the general election in November, the cable news networks will be all atwitter for the next eternity asking “is the Democratic party still viable in America?”. I just thought it might be nice, from the mindset of covering all our bases, to ask ourselves this question first, before pompous, ignoramus blowhards like Chris Matthews start asking it of us.

You know, Jillian, the cable networks are such a bunch of worse-than-useless, dishonest, eliminationist, bullshit artists, that I don’t think you can really have any useful discussion about anything with them, especially a Democratic loss. You just have to find ways to decrease their influence, decrease the public’s trust in them, and render their owner’s holdings less profitable.

atheist,

Dude/dudette, you don’t need to assume that Jillian doesn’t care, or wants the Democrats to fail.
For future reference, it’s ‘dude’.
And I don’t think Jillian doesn’t care or wants the Democrats to fail. I think she – just like many others – is wasting her time whining and complaining how the Democrats are not what she wants and how they can’t win and blah blah blah.

I think she’s just asking a question that’s unpopular.
It’s not unpopular. It’s useless. Pointless. Meaningless. And most of all, it’s insulting. And note the words she uses – ‘Democrats’, ‘they’. Like it’s not her fight at all.
I will say that again: expecting a politician who will fulfill all your dreams is naive at best, lunacy at worst. You, good people of the USofA, are right now nearly fucked. The only chance of a glimmer of hope you have is a Democratic victory in November. And I know you will be unhappy – God knows I was faced with the same situation ten years ago when my party had to ally itself with fascists Christian Democrats to beat the dictator. But by God, sitting arond and having a ‘conversation’ about polling numbers won’t accomplish a thing. And while you do that, the other guys are out doing their best to fuck you over.
Hold your nose if you have to. Wear gloves and wash yourself with disinfectant every other hour if you must. But dammit, either you are a part of the solution, or you remain a part of the problem.

I don’t quite understand your anger here.
Because right now, in this post, in her thoughts, Jillian is what the repugs and the neocons paint us (liberals, progressives etc.) to be: a wimp. A sucker. A loser.

Oh and re:
I don’t quite understand your anger here.
I only have two settings: ‘pissed off’ and ‘asleep’.

Lesley: If I were you, I probably wouldn’t complain that Americans took too little interest in Canadian politics. I’d probably keep sighing relief about it.

But your question—what’s up with presidential races, why can’t we ever achieve strong victories like Reagan did twice and Bush did once?

We can, have, and hopefully will again.

Being a rational political actor means that you don’t really share in the triumphal feeling that crowd gets when their party or candidate wins. But by the same token, a rational political actor doesn’t really share in the feeling of despair or worry over the prospect of loss. So that’s what I do- I try to be a rational political actor, and do things which will aid the people, party, or cause that I want to win, while at the same time view the contest with some detatchment. This is what I suggest to you.

At this point, some people have only the haziest mental image of each candidate. It is a brand they haven’t decided to buy yet. So they tend to pick the most familiar name. This was an advantage Clinton started out with.

McCain is also vaguely remembered as saying things against Bush, back in the day. They haven’t even noticed his embrace of “crazy bush world” until recently.

For people who go by Brands find Obama largely unknown.

I’m not saying that is all Obama is, or any of them. But for the chunk of people who vote with low information, that is the deciding factor.

But dammit, either you are a part of the solution, or you remain a part of the problem.

No. The world is not divided into those with you and those against you. The world is full of people who have concerns that are perpendicular to yours, not paralell- who might help you, or hinder you, for their own reasons. Consider that your cause might not be important enough to truly polarize folks in this way. That kind of Manichean thinking is IMO a worse problem than whiny leftists.

Because right now, in this post, in her thoughts, Jillian is what the repugs and the neocons paint us (liberals, progressives etc.) to be: a wimp. A sucker. A loser.

For what it’s worth, I agree that the question Jillian is asking here is rather pointless. If Democrats win, the cable news people will have something stupid to say. If Democrats lose, the cable news people will have something stupid to say. Nothing we can think about now will alter American media pundits’ essentially negative role, so it’s pointless to worry about it.

But you should check yourself before saying that Jillian is a wimp, sucker and/or loser. Because she’s none of these things. And your attacks seem over-angry to me. It is as if you are taking out some inner turmoil on Jillian. Consider that she might not be exactly against you, or exactly with you, but just someone asking a question.

The fact is, liberals are losers. USA power and freedom will triumph in November and we will be unstoppable throughout the world and the pride back. Here in the Heartland, we will support McCain all the way, because the alternative, a woman or a black man, will not play in Peoria. Neither will far left class warfare. Hopever, I do hope we attack Iran soon. I think that if we do, just to be sure, we should cancel elections until the War on Terror is over to keep leftistsfrom enterfereung with the nations’s security and defence. I would support Bush and Cheney as our leaders for a long time to come, their rule has been awesome for the supporters of USA freedom.

We need to bring back the concept of voting for the smart person. scythia pointed out how far Barack Black Eagle has come since 2002. This makes him the smartest person in the race, and I admit I vote for the smart person.

They don’t always win. But when they don’t, people wish they had voted for the smarter person.

Because look at how Obama is deflecting right wing attacks. We have begged for such a candidate in the past. Now that we have one, his policies are not pure enough?

Once he is elected, we can influence his policy. It is due to our influence that such ideas are thrown out there, and got voted on.

This is going to be the nominee. He sold his ideas to the greatest portion of the Democratic voters in this primary. That’s not spin, that is the voters responding to what is, in fact, the opposite rhetoric of the opposing party.

Which is as it should be.

This is someone with great cross over appeal, because this had to be an election of opposites. That is what we have.

When the choice is stark, people will be forced to make it.

331 comments and no poop jokes?

Because look at how Obama is deflecting right wing attacks. We have begged for such a candidate in the past. Now that we have one, his policies are not pure enough?

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Poop!

There it is!

A large number of random arseholes are also enemies of the good. Makes you wonder how the good managed to piss off so many people. Elitism is probably involved.

I don’t know if those guys are just dyslexic or confused, but the House is in D.C. not the other way around.

Makes you wonder how the good managed to piss off so many people.

By being too goody-goody?

This is Lesley. While her Capra comment may have rung harsh, she and it merit engagement, not the lowering of the rhetorical boom.

I think this topic is just a raw one for lots of people. Because, frankly, lots of people are worried about the future of the USA. And there are a lot of different angles that people have on this. Bit of a minefield.

This may have been posted already but with 339 comments on this thread I can’t read them all … but
this column from Sunday’s NYT might be helpful to this discussion/a>.

“And how much blue-collar support would Mr. Obama need? Not a majority, said Mr. Teixeira. Though blue-collar Democrats once represented a centerpiece of the New Deal coalition, they have shrunk as a proportion of the information age-economy and as a proportion of the Democratic base. […] Mr. Teixeira suggests that Mr. Obama can win the presidency if he comes within 10 to 12 percentage points of Mr. McCain with these voters, as Democratic candidates for the House did in the 2006 midterm election. In recent national polls, that is exactly what Mr. Obama is doing.”

Egads. I screwed up the tag. I’m sorry.

Preview is my friend. I keep forgetting.

Wow, bulbul has absolutely no idea who Jillian is, does s/he?
You don’t have to agree with her, but you do have to respect her. For one thing, she’s smarter than you.

But, Jillian, I do have to agree with those who wonder if you’re coming from things at the right angle.
The polls right now are utterly and completely meaningless. I remember in 88 Time having a cover story on what the Dukakis Presidency would look like, since he was so far ahead as to be essentially a shoo-in. I’m rereading Generation of Swine and HST keeps talking about how IranContra would leave George Bush in jail and crush his dreams of the Presidency, in late 87.
Start looking at the polls in October, but realize the Repubs have some kind of November Surprise planned, and that the Obama folk, in a Democratic first, (will) have an actual counter-strategy. There’s also the further question of whether these polls are overcompensating for the Rove margin, and whether they reflect the swing towards Democrats evidenced by the voting public.
It is kind of odd to question the viability of a party that controls both houses of congress, is assured of further gains in them in the fall, and has had record turnout in its primaries.
I have to wonder whether your desire for a new leftish party is biasing your perspective here, Jillian.

When I have time, I want to start reading up on the parliamentary system. I think the USA could really learn something from that system.

The Republicans have: their main taking from it has been party discipline, which on the one hand they used as an effective cudgel against Democrats but on the other has wedded them all to a variety of really stupid ideas and votes.

The thing Americans really need from the parliamentary system is the regular grilling of the head of state by opposition party members. That’s most often like a battle of yowling cats, but it’s important to encourage regular assaults on the head guy, especially if the press is too chicken to do it.

atheist,

The world is not divided into those with you and those against you.
The world, sure. Elections – not so much.

But you should check yourself before saying that Jillian is a wimp, sucker and/or loser. Because she’s none of these things.
That’s my impression, too. That is why I wrote “Because right now, in this post, in her thoughts, Jillian is”

Wow, bulbul has absolutely no idea who Jillian is, does s/he?
Well of course he doesn’t.

You don’t have to agree with her, but you do have to respect her.
And I do. I don’t respect nonsense, which is exactly what her question ones. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

For one thing, she’s smarter than you.
Oh lookie, a pissing contest. How American.

If the Dems get much MORE viable you could have a de facto one-party state after November. For all the McMedia froth about how the Democrats are tearing each other to bits, the Republicans are bitterly aware that the extended primary-season is helping their opponents get a LOT of new registered voters, many of them in important states they barely won in 2004.
At this point, McCain probably wants it to end even more than Clinton & Obama do … because right now the Dems are building a HUGE voter-base that just keeps growing with every new primary. They’re regularly registering 2 & 3 voters for every voter the GOP is getting – if only 70% of those folks vote for a “D” ticket, this election might mirror Canada obliterating the PC Party in the early 90s. The PCs tried running a new face to get out from under the dark cloud of a despised leader, too – & she was signifigantly less idiotic than McCain – but they still wound up going down in flames.

Repost this, with updated poll stats & new text, in September.
Include a link back to the original post.
I think the results would be highly educational.
As would the comments.

I think opinion polls are part of the psy-ops campaign against America to make it plausible that McSame wins this year.

I think that polls are about the very last thing we should worry about now. Instead we should:
-Get as much oppo research done, and memorized, on McCain as possible.
-Get the oppo research findings made public as possible
-Consider, do we want to volunteer for Obama & how
-Work to try and forestall an attack on Iran
-Consider how Obama could deal with an attack on Iran best if Bush does it
-consider how much work we are willing & able to do on any of these issues.

I think that polls are about the very last thing we should worry about now.

I disagree. It remains a worthwhile pursuit to ask why any democrat isn’t wiping the floor with any republican after the last eight years.

jim,
re: Canada – Harper’s the prime minister now.

rb,
re: It remains a worthwhile pursuit to ask why any democrat isn’t wiping the floor with any republican after the last eight years.

First fruits from your redistribute teh funnies

Fighting Democrat.

done laughing yet?

Not a pissing contest, a simple statement of observation. Jillian is incredibly fucking smart, and you’re some internet malcontent getting worked up by someone saying something you disagree with.
No contest at all.

There is a fatal methodological flaw in all surveys about the general election.

Namely, there are two candidates for the Democratic nomination and only one for the Republican. Consequently, it is impossible to draw conclusions due to the confound.

[…] of anything republican.  There is great article about this topic at Sadly, No, that you can read here.  Now where coming to the end with the two most amazing candidates in recent memory and they would […]

There is a fatal methodological flaw in all surveys about the general election.

No methodological flaws conceal the fact that people are willing to vote for McCain. It’s reasonable to think McCain’s cause is lost anyway, but holy fuck.

I can write my name on the sidewalk.

In cursive.

Do I win?

mikey

McCain doesn’t stand a chance.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10609.html

Actually, I’m heartened that a black man and a female Clinton are doing this well.

Democratic party malaise aside, this country is crawling with bigots who need no incentive to vote for the white guy.

If you’re going to analyze, figure out a way to win over the 20% of Ohio Democratic voters who said that race was an important consideration in their candidate choice, of whom 60% voted for Clinton.

I can write my name on the sidewalk.
In cursive.
NEW RULE: If and when Cheney is finally in the ground, Mikey gets to jump the “pissing on the grave” queue.

different brad,

Jillian is incredibly fucking smart
No argument from me.

and you’re some internet malcontent getting worked up by someone saying something you disagree with.
Finally, a middle name I can be proud of!

I disagree. It remains a worthwhile pursuit to ask why any democrat isn’t wiping the floor with any republican after the last eight years.

And when you find out that it’s because the Democrats refuse to take risks, and also because the American public doesn’t want to hear the truth, what will you do then?

And when you find out that it’s because the Democrats refuse to take risks, and also because the American public doesn’t want to hear the truth, what will you do then?

Assuming I find that out I help elect better folks. Simple, and people are doing it now.

Assuming I find that out I help elect better folks. Simple, and people are doing it now.

OK, that sounds like a plan.

NEW RULE: If and when Cheney is finally in the ground, Mikey gets to jump the “pissing on the grave” queue.

Seconded!

Mikey, re… Canadians: Eisenhower was a supporter of the United Nations at a time when his Repub fellows were not. To the complaints that the UN “allowed” all the crappy little principalities and dictatorships entirely too much time & attention for non-stopped pissing & moaning about Ugly Americans, he had a very concise explanation which included the phrase “the tyranny of the weak”. Basically, in a situation where one (or a very few) actors have a vast advantage in size, power, military strength, etc., the other actor(s) must use whatever edge they can muster via filibustering, appeals to higher standards, moral outragae, and similar traditionally-feminine tactics.

When it comes to America(n) versus Canad(ian), we are & have since the mid-1800s been & for the forseeable future will always be The Big Noisy Family in the North American neighborhood. We came in and razed a nice timbered lot, threw up a giant crappy McMansion, vinyl-sided it in several loud & clashing colors, stuck really tasteless lawn ornaments everywhere, and now we spend every hour from grey dawn until the small hours throwing loud parties, revving our gas-driven power tools & unmufflered vehicles, screaming & yelling obscenities at our fat snivelling sticky horrible offspring, and generally making pests of ourselves. The fact that we’re really good-hearted people who would give you the shirt off our backs (assuming anyone wanted an I’M WITH STUPID tee in size XXXL) is sometimes forgotten in the spasm of sheer annoyance when we play the “pull my finger” routine… for the fourth time… at the same bar-b-que…

NEW RULE: If and when Cheney is finally in the ground, Mikey gets to jump the “pissing on the grave” queue.

On the condition that he switch to an all asparagus and arugula diet for the time between when the cold shriveled black heart stops and the time they put it in the ground.

I hope these polls are inaccurate, but I’m among those who think McCain almost certainly will “win” the election. It’s going to be close and the Republicans will steal as many votes as they can again.

It was unthinkable in the last election that Bush could pull off another win. Indeed, the exit polls all suggested Kerry had won. As Mark Crispin Miller has documented, widespread election fraud got Bush re-elected.

Why does anyone think this isn’t going to happen again?

Anne Laurie. I have no quarrel with canadians.

My issue upthread was less about canadian-ness and more about oh-so-cool cynicism. I did, however, take exception to the fact that someone might tell me that hope was stupid and silly, all the while sitting in a country substantially less affected by the horrific criminal policies I’m desperately hoping to see abolished in the next administration.

It really had nothing to do with the geography of origination, despite my spittle flecked epithets, but more to the calm, self – satisfied pronouncements that somehow, to believe that america might once again live up to her ideals was nothing more than believing in a crappy old black and white movie.

And I’ll say it again, without asking for quarter or apology.

Fuck a whole bunch of that.

Lesley. You are not my enemy. And I don’t believe you should be. But if you are not willing to accept at least the POSSIBILITY of a positive outcome, you and I will not find common ground.

The whole idea of warfare, and I’m not in the least bit sorry if you find my worldview warfare centric, I’m not sure why this should be surprising, is to achieve goals through violent coercion, and if you are of the opininion that this is an inevitable outcome, than you should say so.

But if you think that the militaristic imposing of ideological will upon people who would choose another path is not just wrong – headed, but wrong, then you need to recognize that we need to put our power behind someone who can take this vision for the future and try to make it real, and hope for that outcome.

And if you think this is naive or stupid, you need to get outta the way, because the belief has power, and the power of the beliefs will push you out of the way..

mikey

Actually Clinton crushes McSame in the only vote that matters – the electral college vote. Obama v. McCain is a toss-up. Check out http://www.electral-vote.com. National polls are a waste of time.

Again…I repeat. All polling at this time where one or the other Democrat is placed up against the Republican is utterly flawed.

Here is a fuller explanation of why:

There is only one Republican. That is, there are no alternatives in the decision space for that slot.

THere are two Democrats. There is an alternative in the decision space. Please note, here’s where it gets tricky. Even in surveys that focus on only one of the the Democrats, the fact that there is an alternative NEVER leaves the decision space and Democratic Candidate A is always compared against Democratic Candidate B. That comparison will influence the outcome of the survey response with a bias towards the single Republican.

…and Joe…that includes electoral-vote.com

Plus…I think Rasmussen is full of crap. It consistly polls McCain higher. I think their sample is off.

There is only one Republican.

And people choose him!

Still a mind-blower.

Righteous Bubba…are you channelling Mustrum Ridcully?

but more to the calm, self – satisfied pronouncements that somehow, to believe that america might once again live up to her ideals

This is a bit late in the day and probably won’t get read but here’s where you and I differ, M. Although I’ve seen these ideals you mention in the movies and in some books and especially on television (as a child of the 60s I was raised on myths and indoctrinated to think of America as noble and great, a land of the free and the brave, the honest and the good, the true and the noble) I’m hard pressed to find them lived up to in actual history.

My country has been similarly idealized (“true north strong and free”) and much of this has been horseshit in real life. Immigrants quickly discover the hard truth upon arrival to this great land called Canada where everyone is liberated and people are treated equitably and fairly. Uh, not so much.

I think many of us strive to live up to the ideals that have been scripted into our constitutions and yes, our countries are infinitely better than many other places, but I do not gaze upon my country with mist in my eyes and I certainly never idealize political parties or their leaders. Neither do I hold my country above all other countries on the planet; as there are, in fact, better places to live. Especially now. (I can think of a few places I can get better quality health care, for example. And public health care is one of the ideals Canadians can no longer champion because our politicians, left, liberal, and conservative, are selling it off to the private sector.)

I said in several responses to you that I hope for a Democratic outcome in the US. Canadians are very hopeful Americans get it right this time, but I place my faith in people who fight for change, not so much the politicians.