There goes Obama's lead in the polls....

OCinBuffalo · June 3, 2008

But, you have this delivery that comes across like sulfuric acid and 40 grit sandpaper mixed together. Why is it necessary to attack the opposite point of view like a pit bull? Chill out a bit and you'll get alot more mindshare and interaction with people who might be willing to consider your point of view if you didn't come at them with an Uzi in each hand. Just a thought...

Ok, I'll take it under advisement, seriously. But here's another thought: go back and re-read this thread. All I have been doing is responding to: name calling, being called drunk, every other personal attack, people trying to put words in my mouth, and little content from most of the affected partisans here. I have an extremely low tolerance for BullShitt, especially of the political variety from both parties. I expect results, not talk, especially from people who have been screaming bloody murder that "if only" they were in power everything would be better.

I am tired of hearing excuses from Democrats WRT their Congress' performance, as though the President's veto power is some new thing. They knew damn well that power existed before they made all their BS promises, and, after bitching for 6 years about not having the power they need "to do something", when they get it, they do exactly nothing, and go right back to what they were doing = bitching and whining.

I'd offer a slightly different answer on "chances of winning"...

Pretty much anyone who is a proud, card carrying member of their party (regardless of affiliation) believes/wishes/wants/roots for their party to win; every election, every year. Some more than others. Like you say with the Bills, you think they can and will win. And I'll be the first to admit that the dems haven't fielded a strong enough candidate in recent years, besides Bill Clinton, and arguably Gore. So while they could have won several recent presidential elections, all things considered, they didn't put a strong enough team on the field and/or didn't play to win.

This one is different. They have a sitting president with a record low public opinion, an unpopular war (forgive me, but let's compare it with, let's say Afghanistan...), economy that's in the tank, less than great opinion of the GOP, blah blah blah. And while there are clearly people who disagree, if the dems put together a pretty good platform and a really good candidate, the chances of them winning are much better than, let's say 2000 or 2004. And with the exception of the conservative media, most of MSM and the blogosphere thinks the same thing: not that they will absolutely win, but they have a great chance if they execute and field a serious team. Lastly, while it has gone up and down in the past year, most democrats and the MSM still believe it is their election to lose.

This is all fine, but given their history, and the fact that they already blew the lead they had, you honestly expect them not to find another way to lose? Obama has shown us little in terms of toughness or substance, partly because the media gave him a huge pass, partly because why should he when he knows that flowery speeches are doing the job just fine. In fact, I think the media and his campaign decisions are going to end up hurting him in the long run because he hasn't been truly tested. They only time we saw him in a tough spot = the last debate, he crumpled. I would think it would have been better for him to get some hard questions from the media about the issues starting midway through the primaries and have him show his ability. This preacher thing is such a distraction that we still haven't gotten into anything real for the most part. The only substantive discussion we have heard so far is foreign policy and he has clearly been whipped on that, especially today.

I'm not sure if I agree with this. I believe it's more true now than a year ago, not sure if the polls will show that though. In 2007, there was a better economy, lower gas prices, less anger towards the war, better GOP image, and Bush was stronger then. So shoot me, but the GOP has greased the skids a year later.

So now we're back to the KTFBD "manage expectations" argument again. What happened to BushBad? You can't have it both ways. Either things were totally horrible in 2007, which is what you were telling us then btw, or they weren't. If they weren't then Bush doesn't deserve all the attacks, especially the ones that got your "team" elected in 2006. If they were, then again, you trusted Howard Dean with a boatload of political capital and he promptly wasted it for you. Never mind that you are about to nominate the 2nd best candidate against McCain. Great job Howard Dean. Imagine if that idiot had been the nominee in 2004....

Again, this is subjective, but I don't think most democrats think they blew a huge lead. They have record new voter registrations. They've brought huge numbers of people out to vote and they had not one, but two strong candidates. Could the eventual nominee used this time to focus on McCain? Sure, but in this case the likely democratic candidate has an extremely well-oiled campaign machine that can raise cash by the truckload, so not much is lost. It's also pretty clear that while there's some amount of hindsight 20/20 about things like MI and WI, wishing it hadn't taken so long, etc., most people think it's been a fantastic primary for the democrats. No one is complacent, but there's tons of confidence right here and right now.

As I said, of course they won't "think" they did anything wrong, EVER! Which is why they lose to idiots like Bush, twice, and have a 18.7% rating. I bet the Congressional Democrats don't "think" they haven't completely dropped the ball either. :lol: For all the new people they have brought in, they have alienated just as many in one of their major bases of support. Again, a truckload of money that has now been wasted. Do you think you are getting a lot of $$$ from 25-60 year old white women now? I have not heard anybody say the words "fantastic" and 2008 Democratic primary in the same sentence, anywhere. Of course, that's probably what a lot of Democrats "think" though, right? :rolleyes:

If there was any fault, of course they blame the Bush administration and the congressional republicans. But therein lies their opportunity to take control of the WH, and possibly both houses of congress for a term or two. There's very little blame because they see a great momentum for the party in the short term.

What in the hell are you talking about? They bitched and bitched, got Congress because of it, and now have done nothing. And you think that = opportunity? Opportunity to get their ass kicked maybe, but that's it. Hey like you said, everyones' entitled to their opinion, but if I was a Democrat I'd be hopping mad right now. Perhaps you should check out this and tell me she's the only one. M&M's should hire you to work on their candy coating process.

To use your words, reasonable people in general, Dems, Reps, Inds, as well as pundits, analysts, talking heads, and pols, don't pay a lot of attention to GE polls in May 2008. Maybe in other elections, but not this year. The 2008 GE campaign is embryonic. The real polling starts in about 2 months, when the two nominees have a chance to flex their muscles.

Dude, I don't even care about this poll WRT the eventual outcome of the election. Isn't this clear by now? That's not what I am saying. All I am saying is that the chips are down. Anybody with any objectivity knows that Obama is the candidate, he's the 2nd best to run against McCain, and he is currently tied with him. The Democratic nominee is on equal terms with the Republican nominee and now has to out play John McCain in a straight up contest to win. There's no way that this turn of events was considered even possible, by reasonable people, a year ago, regardless of whatever. This means either: major mistakes for the Dems(once again), or, Bush wasn't as bad as they say, or, McCain must be pretty good. Or, some combination of all three, take your pick.

pBills · June 3, 2008

It's not ridiculous, its a fact. Deny, deny, deny, and then blame others, blame others, blame others, and don't forget to tell us we need more government and therefore higher taxes for everyone. Basic Democrat plan the last 20 years.

Read this slowly: You lost to Bush twice. Yes, you could not find a way to beat Bush....TWICE! Who's fault is that? Mine? What caused that problem? How can you move forward and actually get something positive accomplished if you follow the same path that lost you the last 2 Presidential elections, against, according to you, an idiot, and now has you tied, once again, with the Reps? If you can't beat an idiot, what does that make you? Hint: A bigger idiot!

This is like 2000 all over again, and you didn't even learn the lesson Carter/Dukakis/Gore/Kerry should have taught you negatively, and Clinton positively. Now it's 50/50 split. Before Blowgate, it was Gore's to lose, and he could've screwed up moderately and still won. Your party has found a way to lose more times than the Dolphins did last year, and instead of fixing what is broken, you blame everybody else/call the American people idiots when you lose.

It's funny, I believe the last democrat in office had a balanced budget. You do not have to explain to me what has happened in the past - I was here then. I never called the American people idiots - nor did the democratic party. We call the republican party idiots. :rolleyes:

I do love the deny, deny, deny - blame other argument you have. Let me ask you this... do republicans do that?

pBills · June 3, 2008

Dude, I don't even care about this poll WRT the eventual outcome of the election. Isn't this clear by now? That's not what I am saying. All I am saying is that the chips are down. Anybody with any objectivity knows that Obama is the candidate, he's the 2nd best to run against McCain, and he is currently tied with him. The Democratic nominee is on equal terms with the Republican nominee and now has to out play John McCain in a straight up contest to win. There's no way that this turn of events was considered even possible, by reasonable people, a year ago, regardless of whatever. This means either: major mistakes for the Dems(once again), or, Bush wasn't as bad as they say, or, McCain must be pretty good. Or, some combination of all three, take your pick.

You don't care about polls now? Funny.

Just stop looking back at polls from a year ago. They meant nothing (just ask Hillary). Just like this poll having Obama in a virtual tie with McCain means nothing. A long drawn out process, letting the other party's candidate basically run around unchallenged - that CAN and WILL have an affect on your beloved polls. The only thing bad that happened, in my opinion, is that the process went on to long.

Alaska Darin · June 3, 2008

It's funny, I believe the last democrat in office had a balanced budget.

I'm not sure which is the bigger load of horsecrap:

1. Giving the Clinton Administration credit for doing virtually nothing.

or;

2. The belief that the budget was actually balanced.

pBills · June 3, 2008

Or that this administration is doing a great job.

erynthered · June 3, 2008

I'm not sure which is the bigger load of horsecrap:

1. Giving the Clinton Administration credit for doing virtually nothing.

or;

2. The belief that the budget was actually balanced.

or;

3. That there was a surplus.

Chilly · June 3, 2008

Fine. Should it be? Given Bush's situation? How does this account for the fact that Obama is tied with a guy who isn't even fully supported by his party's traditional base(yet?)? Should it even be close?

Uh, yeah, it should be. Obama isn't even fully supported by his party's traditional base either (Clinton). The parties both managed to nominate candidates who appeal more to the middle than their party's base. You have two candidates going after and appealing to the same areas, which is going to split the vote.

Ok, that's not surprising since he took a beating from McCain today on foreign policy, and instead of responding, started talking about the economy and how Bush/McCain has been too distracted by foreign issues to pay attention to it. The worst is: that might even be true, but that's not a response to the points McCain made. That's lamely trying to change the subject. Is that what we can expect from him in dealing with China? I gained a lot of respect for Obama this weekend with the press conference he had re his old church, but then I lost it all today with his lame tactic.

He's not helping himself by talking about the failures of the existing federal government, of which he is a part, that his party controls a majority of. So yeah, small wonder he has an image problem developing. Notice I haven't said anything about these religious nuts "helping" Obama out. Another strange thing: who would've thought that we'd be talking about wingnut religious people on the Democratic side of the ball?

Did you read the analysis I linked?

It's generally accepted knowledge that the Super Delegates structure was put in place to keep the wingnuts from winning the nomination, and thereby getting the Democrats crushed in the general. People mainly use the McGovern example as a real world example. Don't ask me about it, because I have no idea what McGovern does, did, etc. All I know is: right now the candidate who has a better shot to win the general election, who is clearly more centrist - Hell the word Clinton is synonymous with political expediency and taking the other side's issues away, is not going to get the chance to run. Instead, the far-left favorite is going to go. The super delegates were supposed to be able to stop this from happening, and are there to make sure the Dems win.

No, it is generally accepted that the primary structure was put into place so that the Democrats could avoid having another ugly convention with lots of negative press like the 1968 Democratic convention. Instead of such a process where the candidates were determined by a few elite, it was placed into the hands of the people (mostly). They kept super delegates to make sure that they still had *some* control over who the candidate would be.

The likely confusion here is because the first mandate for the reformation of the Democratic party system said: "all Democratic voters have had full and timely opportunity to participate." However, this goal was later dropped. Instead, they pushed through increased representation for minority groups through quotas, and dropped the number of party-nominated delegates to 20%. The intention was to make sure that minorities had much more of a say in party positions and initiatives - essentially moving the party further to the left.

The Republicans then followed suit, with some differences (I don't believe they had quotas, and they have around 10% super delegates instead of 20%, plus winner-take-all).

The effect of the primary system has been to push the candidates further to the sides, not the other way around.

Btw, why do you think so many are still on the fence? Answer: They are career politicians who are reading the same polls we are.

The Super Delegates are on the fence because they don't want to come out and trump the primary system and get the negative press for doing that. There are still two more primaries today, remember.

It is highly ironic that the very system that is supposed to stop the Obama's is the thing that is getting him the nod. If the Dems had the same rules as the Reps, this would be over, with Hillary the nominee, 2 months ago.

If that was actually the case, perhaps, but the system was designed to increase African American participation and influence.

OCinBuffalo · June 3, 2008

You don't care about polls now? Funny.

Just stop looking back at polls from a year ago. They meant nothing (just ask Hillary). Just like this poll having Obama in a virtual tie with McCain means nothing. A long drawn out process, letting the other party's candidate basically run around unchallenged - that CAN and WILL have an affect on your beloved polls. The only thing bad that happened, in my opinion, is that the process went on to long.

Lame. You know what I am saying yet you consistently try to play word games, how very politico of you. I do care about the poll I linked for the purpose of clearly demonstrating the tie between the parties, where, based on the massive amount of political capital Bush had given you, no way things should be tied. As I said above, I do not care about the poll WRT the eventual outcome, because it cannot be reasonably used for that purpose. Period. But, let's have some more semantic debates, I'm sure that won't be a waste of time. :rolleyes:

Look you guys can keep denying, spinning, managing expectations(poorly) and playing semantic games all you like, but none of it beats the facts. The only fact I have seen so far from you is "a long drawn out process". Apparently you forgot Obama's "guns and bible" speech, Rev. Wright fiasco(I still have no idea why they didn't have him quit that church a year ago....that calls a lot into question), impotency of Democratic Congress, and all the other crap that has happened. But, yeah, that's what I am getting at: the Dems as a whole had this in the bag, but now they have let it get away, and they will have to chase it the same as the Reps. Is that truly so difficult to understand?

It's clear that the Dems have once again are suffering from self-inflicted wounds. I don't understand how a party that is supposedly full of intellectuals, can be this stupid, over and over and over. It staggers the imagination. What's even more stupid is that instead of recognizing the wounds for what they are = self-inflicted, the Dems consistently try to blame others or deny that the wounds are there. They should be learning from their mistakes, but, because they won't(or can't?) analyze their own history properly, they seem doomed to repeat them.

If you have been around, then you know, for real, what I am saying is true. I am sure you don't "think" it's true, but I am just as sure you know it's true.

pBills · June 3, 2008

No self-inflicted wounds... watch.

OCinBuffalo · June 3, 2008

Uh, yeah, it should be. Obama isn't even fully supported by his party's traditional base either (Clinton). The parties both managed to nominate candidates who appeal more to the middle than their party's base. You have two candidates going after and appealing to the same areas, which is going to split the vote.

I don't see the Hillary distraction as a reasonable excuse for blowing the lead. Maybe it contributed significantly, but there's no way other factors like Obama's "guns and bible" speech = patently stupid, or Rev. Wright, etc. Haven't done just as much harm, if not more.

You really think that Obama appeals to independents MORE than he does the far-left people in his own party right now? How about the reverse? You really think McCain appeals to the far right of his own party MORE than he does independents right now?

Come on. Right now I would say that independents are generally up in the air, and so would the link you provided. Which, again, makes my point: McCain should be dealing with trying to get independents who are voting Obama back into the undecided category, he is not. He is talking to them on an equal basis. There's no way that should be happening given the massive amount of political capital the Democrats were given by George Bush.

Did you read the analysis I linked?

Obviously. The main point they make is similar to mine = slipping seriously amongst independents. But, they are talking about Obama, I am talking about the party as a whole. The simple fact is that there's no way any Democratic candidate should be slipping amongst any voting category right now. But it's happening in more than one, and that's astounding.

Not only are independents being lost, but now we see a trend, per the link, that says white older women Democrats are pissed. Well there's the largest Democratic base category and there are losses in it. Like I said, self-inflicted wounds on the most important political category for Democrats, but you are trying to tell me things SHOULD be this way? Seriously?

A year ago, if anyone had said that there was a serious risk that the Democrats were going to get a mediocre-poor showing from white, older women Democrats, people would ask them if they were high. But, according to you, that SHOULD be happening? Are you high?

No, it is generally accepted that the primary structure was put into place so that the Democrats could avoid having another ugly convention with lots of negative press like the 1968 Democratic convention. Instead of such a process where the candidates were determined by a few elite, it was placed into the hands of the people (mostly). They kept super delegates to make sure that they still had *some* control over who the candidate would be.

The likely confusion here is because the first mandate for the reformation of the Democratic party system said: "all Democratic voters have had full and timely opportunity to participate." However, this goal was later dropped. Instead, they pushed through increased representation for minority groups through quotas, and dropped the number of party-nominated delegates to 20%. The intention was to make sure that minorities had much more of a say in party positions and initiatives - essentially moving the party further to the left.

I will have to chase down the link I read that talks about this entire issue in depth. It does have some of what you are saying but it clearly draws the conclusions about super delegates being a stabilizing factor that ensures things stay more to the middle and not to the wings. I don't have time right now to find it, but your analysis is off here. The quotas were put in place, yes, but the super delegates were also put in place to essentially nullify whatever say any single group has in case their say is ridiculous. That's specific to one group( or Dem voting category like minorities, union, teachers, trial lawyers, etc.) When you have a populist candidate, as opposed to only a far left one, it messes everything up, hence the irony I am talking about, because the appeal is coming from multiple groups = the definition of populist.

Also, the Democrats haven't ever had a serious minority candidate before, therefore the secondary effect is that the minority quotas are skewing things Obama's way. Your point isn't valid because you are talking terms of "average candidate" and not taking into account a black candidate with minority quotas helping him along.

So, in this case, the guy that is the least likely to win, who is a populist far-left guy, instead of simply being a far-left guy, is being put up against McCain. The super delegate/quota structure is the reason. It's working the exact opposite way it was intended. Why? Because the assumptions when they came up with it were "the further left you are the less likely your chance to win" and "a populist is far more likely to be a moderate". They didn't take into account a guy who can do a f'ed up combination of "chicken in every pot" and "America is bad" at the same time.

Hence the irony. The other highly ironic thing: using your minority quota point, the Democrats have basically found a way to affirmative action themselves into having the second best candidate be their nominee. What else should we call the minority quotas? And that's funny as hell too. It's hysterical to see that their own misguided policies have now put them in the same position they have insisted others be in: be forced to take the second best guy, because of his race, and hope that he does ok, even though the numbers clearly say he won't do as well the other candidate.

The Super Delegates are on the fence because they don't want to come out and trump the primary system and get the negative press for doing that. There are still two more primaries today, remember.

Trump the primary system? Bullshitt! They don't want to come out and vote against Obama, even though they know it's the best thing for the party, because they will always have that hanging around their neck when they ask for minority support. Like I said, super delegate = career politician and mostly ELECTED politicians or people who want to get elected. They don't wanna bite the hand that feeds them in close elections = minorities. You have to be kidding me with this "I don't want to upset the apple cart argument". Are you actually buying that line? Come on. The fact is that the super delegates know that Hillary is the better candidate right now and are holding off as long as they can to see if anything comes up that they can use to justify voting for her.

If that was actually the case, perhaps, but the system was designed to increase African American participation and influence.

It is the case, and, like I said, your point about African American participation, doesn't take into account an African American candidate.

Chilly · June 3, 2008

I don't see the Hillary distraction as a reasonable excuse for blowing the lead. Maybe it contributed significantly, but there's no way other factors like Obama's "guns and bible" speech = patently stupid, or Rev. Wright, etc. Haven't done just as much harm, if not more.

You really think that Obama appeals to independents MORE than he does the far-left people in his own party right now? How about the reverse? You really think McCain appeals to the far right of his own party MORE than he does independents right now?

You misread my point. Neither candidate is all that strong with the party's base (comparatively speaking to other candidates in that party), and a big part of each's candidacy is attempting to win over the center part of the electorate.

Come on. Right now I would say that independents are generally up in the air, and so would the link you provided. Which, again, makes my point: McCain should be dealing with trying to get independents who are voting Obama back into the undecided category, he is not. He is talking to them on an equal basis. There's no way that should be happening given the massive amount of political capital the Democrats were given by George Bush.

That is *my* point: They *both* appeal to the middle, and they are both attempting to take the same group of people, thus it makes sense they are splitting it about even.

Obviously. The main point they make is similar to mine = slipping seriously amongst independents. But, they are talking about Obama, I am talking about the party as a whole. The simple fact is that there's no way any Democratic candidate should be slipping amongst any voting category right now. But it's happening in more than one, and that's astounding.

Not only are independents being lost, but now we see a trend, per the link, that says white older women Democrats are pissed. Well there's the largest Democratic base category and there are losses in it. Like I said, self-inflicted wounds on the most important political category for Democrats, but you are trying to tell me things SHOULD be this way? Seriously?

The main point was that Obama has an *image* problem, NOT a *policy* problem. You were arguing that he had a *policy* problem.

A year ago, if anyone had said that there was a serious risk that the Democrats were going to get a mediocre-poor showing from white, older women Democrats, people would ask them if they were high. But, according to you, that SHOULD be happening? Are you high?

You read way too much into what I said. I said they *should* be close because they have similar appeal to independents. I said nothing about women.

I will have to chase down the link I read that talks about this entire issue in depth. It does have some of what you are saying but it clearly draws the conclusions about super delegates being a stabilizing factor that ensures things stay more to the middle and not to the wings. I don't have time right now to find it, but your analysis is off here. The quotas were put in place, yes, but the super delegates were also put in place to essentially nullify whatever say any single group has in case their say is ridiculous. That's specific to one group( or Dem voting category like minorities, union, teachers, trial lawyers, etc.) When you have a populist candidate, as opposed to only a far left one, it messes everything up, hence the irony I am talking about, because the appeal is coming from multiple groups = the definition of populist.

Wait, are they to nullify what all the groups combined say, or nullify one specific group? :rolleyes:

I actually didn't say anything about the intention of the super delegates, except to say:

They kept super delegates to make sure that they still had *some* control over who the candidate would be.

Which means, they kept Super Delegates to insure that they are not going to nominate a candidate who is viewed by the Democrats as unelectable, because they had no idea what kind of candidates were going to be selected. A lot of times, this is simply reduced to saying an ideologically extreme candidate, as it is generally considered an ideologically extreme candidate wouldn't win an election, but that phrasing is wrong.

Remember, the Democrats are not in the business of putting up centrist candidates, they are in the business of putting up "electable" candidates who represent their platform (even if they do a poor job at it).

Also, the Democrats haven't ever had a serious minority candidate before, therefore the secondary effect is that the minority quotas are skewing things Obama's way. Your point isn't valid because you are talking terms of "average candidate" and not taking into account a black candidate with minority quotas helping him along.

So, in this case, the guy that is the least likely to win, who is a populist far-left guy, instead of simply being a far-left guy, is being put up against McCain. The super delegate/quota structure is the reason. It's working the exact opposite way it was intended. Why? Because the assumptions when they came up with it were "the further left you are the less likely your chance to win" and "a populist is far more likely to be a moderate". They didn't take into account a guy who can do a f'ed up combination of "chicken in every pot" and "America is bad" at the same time.

Really? That's funny, I thought the primary system was setup to nominate the candidate who represents the most voters in the Democratic primary, as long as the party views them as an electable candidate. If a candidate appeals to more Democratic party voters than the other candidate, then its working. It may not be traditional Democratic voters, but he is appealing to people who voted in the Democratic primary.

A much more valid argument would be to say that it hasn't worked, by arguing that Clinton won the popular vote.

Trump the primary system? Bullshitt! They don't want to come out and vote against Obama, even though they know it's the best thing for the party, because they will always have that hanging around their neck when they ask for minority support. Like I said, super delegate = career politician and mostly ELECTED politicians or people who want to get elected. They don't wanna bite the hand that feeds them in close elections = minorities. You have to be kidding me with this "I don't want to upset the apple cart argument". Are you actually buying that line? Come on. The fact is that the super delegates know that Hillary is the better candidate right now and are holding off as long as they can to see if anything comes up that they can use to justify voting for her.

What? No.

Trump the primary system = continue bad press that they are undemocratic and unamerican.

They won't vote against Obama, because they think that to do so would disenfranchise new voters who voted in it = losing the opportunity to party build with voters who historically turn out in their favor, but at very low numbers.

I don't think any party building in this case will be successful, but that is their argument.

OCinBuffalo · June 3, 2008

You misread my point. Neither candidate is all that strong with the party's base (comparatively speaking to other candidates in that party), and a big part of each's candidacy is attempting to win over the center part of the electorate.

Nope, I got your point. It simply doesn't refute mine.

That is *my* point: They *both* appeal to the middle, and they are both attempting to take the same group of people, thus it makes sense they are splitting it about even.

Again, why are independents in play? older women Democrats in trouble, etc. given the political capital the Dems supposedly had from Bush being a mess? Once more, there are only 3 logical conclusions: Bush isn't so bad, Democrats have made major mistakes again, McCain is pretty good, or some combination of the three. Let's see if this time you can bring up anything that even comes close to refuting that. How about something that comes close to even addressing it? :rolleyes:

The main point was that Obama has an *image* problem, NOT a *policy* problem. You were arguing that he had a *policy* problem.

No, I am arguing that the Democrats have a policy problem, not Obama. I am also arguing that the Dems policy problems and Congress'(of which Obama is a part) lack of action is hurting them and bleeding through to the candidate. I am not arguing that Obama has a policy problem, because I haven't heard any policies from him yet other than Madeline Albright foreign policy, so how I can I see problems with something that largely doesn't exist? I am arguing that this primary has been anything but successful, has served to further hurt the Dems chances massively, beyond their failures, both political and real, on Iraq, energy, the economy etc.

They have found a way to select the 2nd best candidate, and that this is amazing because they had everything going their way. Now everything is back to =, and, they are putting their JV team up against the Republicans Varsity, and there's no way that's a good idea no matter what anybody says.

They have only their own failed policies and bad choices to blame for how they got from where they were in 2006 to where they are now. That's it.

You read way too much into what I said. I said they *should* be close because they have similar appeal to independents. I said nothing about women.

Great, but that wasn't my question. I asked you why you thought any of this "should" be happening, because the fact is it shouldn't. You tell me about independents, when the vast majority of them haven't even voted yet. What does that have to do with the Democrats screwing up their own primary? or the other major mistake they have made? should any of this be happening? NO friggin way!

Oy vey! Please stop telling me what you think is going to happen with independents going forward and start telling me how we got here from 2006.

Wait, are they to nullify what all the groups combined say, or nullify one specific group?

No, they are there to nullify one or two groups, just like I said. :lol: :lol: They are their to ensure that one or two groups used their combined strength to get some body nominated, like McGovern, who the Republicans will kill in the general election.

Which means, they kept Super Delegates to insure that they are not going to nominate a candidate who is viewed by the Democrats as unelectable, because they had no idea what kind of candidates were going to be selected. A lot of times, this is simply reduced to saying an ideologically extreme candidate, as it is generally considered an ideologically extreme candidate wouldn't win an election, but that phrasing is wrong.

Remind me, how was McGovern electable again? It appears you are contradicting yourself here. We all know that the closer somebody is to the middle, the more electable they are, especially in a race that is likely to turn on independents. Right?

I don't see what effect the phrasing has to do with it. Centrist Clinton good, Leftist Obama bad, in a race that is about independents. Obama's populist message has been blown up, per your own link, so all that is left is his extreme views, which, by definition, make him LESS electable, as evidenced by the #s that have Hillary winning this thing easy, and Obama tied. Right?

Remember, the Democrats are not in the business of putting up centrist candidates, they are in the business of putting up "electable" candidates who represent their platform (even if they do a poor job at it).

Which is why I say that they keep screwing up and not learning anything (McGovern, Carter, Kerry) from their mistakes. They seem to think an ahole like Howard Dean is a good candidate, but forget that it's the Bill Clinton's that win. Perhaps they should change their business model, that is, if they want to win anything ever again on their own merits, and not win by having the other side screw up.

Really? That's funny, I thought the primary system was setup to nominate the candidate who represents the most voters in the Democratic primary, as long as the party views them as an electable candidate. If a candidate appeals to more Democratic party voters than the other candidate, then its working. It may not be traditional Democratic voters, but he is appealing to people who voted in the Democratic primary.

By your own thread re Obama's risky strategy, which is now the Dems risky strategy, you are saying that this is a questionable idea. I am merely taking it a step further and calling it stupid, as evidenced by where Hillary stands in relation to McCain vs. Obama. You seem to be downplaying the concept of being electable in one point, but then turning around and saying it's very important in another? Which is it? I thought elections were about winning, not making the lunatic fringe happy. Which does Obama look to be doing right now, given the #s?

A much more valid argument would be to say that it hasn't worked, by arguing that Clinton won the popular vote.

:thumbsup:

That's what I have been saying right along, but more importantly that she would do better against McCain. I am also saying that I don't get how any of this is "good" for Democrats, or how anyone can't see that they have thrown away their significant advantage in this race over the last 2 years.

Trump the primary system = continue bad press that they are undemocratic and unamerican.

They won't vote against Obama, because they think that to do so would disenfranchise new voters who voted in it = losing the opportunity to party build with voters who historically turn out in their favor, but at very low numbers.

I don't think any party building in this case will be successful, but that is their argument.

You really don't think that these super delegates aren't trying to "not vote against the black guy"? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, because there's no way I think they are putting their faith in the process/new party people ahead of their concerns with their own political futures. :lol: Call me crazy, but politicians acting like politicians isn't happening here? Please. The fact is that they are now getting what they deserve for playing the race card in such a phony manner for years, and now it's time to pay the piper.

Adam · June 3, 2008

Once again, we see Democrats getting pissed at/blaming other people, when they should be accepting the blame for their own blatant failures, figuring out what they need to do to improve and executing that. Go ahead and blame me some more, B word about Bush, that strategy has worked so well that you are now tied with McCain. Great Job!

Democrats blaming Bush/me in response to this in 5...4...3...2...

Wrong. The majority of democrats will mindlessly vote for their party's candidate while the majority of republicans will mindlessly vote for theirs. Neither likes to expend energy on critical thought.

Chilly · June 3, 2008

Nope, I got your point. It simply doesn't refute mine.

Again, why are independents in play? older women Democrats in trouble, etc. given the political capital the Dems supposedly had from Bush being a mess? Once more, there are only 3 logical conclusions: Bush isn't so bad, Democrats have made major mistakes again, McCain is pretty good, or some combination of the three. Let's see if this time you can bring up anything that even comes close to refuting that. How about something that comes close to even addressing it?

:thumbsup: Christ. Both candidates are making themselves appeal to the independents, which is why they are in play.

McCain and Obama are both viewed by large groups of people in the middle as centrist, largely due to both having governmental reform messages.

It has to do with tailoring campaign messages toward what the electorate wants to hear, which is all that really matters in politics nowadays.

No, I am arguing that the Democrats have a policy problem, not Obama. I am also arguing that the Dems policy problems and Congress'(of which Obama is a part) lack of action is hurting them and bleeding through to the candidate. I am not arguing that Obama has a policy problem, because I haven't heard any policies from him yet other than Madeline Albright foreign policy, so how I can I see problems with something that largely doesn't exist? I am arguing that this primary has been anything but successful, has served to further hurt the Dems chances massively, beyond their failures, both political and real, on Iraq, energy, the economy etc.

I guess you've never been to his website which shows his policies. Also, Obama has voted for most of these Democratic policies that you claim have been a problem. Yet, Obama doesn't have a policy problem, but the Democrats do? :lol:

They have found a way to select the 2nd best candidate, and that this is amazing because they had everything going their way. Now everything is back to =, and, they are putting their JV team up against the Republicans Varsity, and there's no way that's a good idea no matter what anybody says.

They have only their own failed policies and bad choices to blame for how they got from where they were in 2006 to where they are now. That's it.

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what you think. To the majority of Democrats, he's the best candidate, and he's electable.

Great, but that wasn't my question. I asked you why you thought any of this "should" be happening, because the fact is it shouldn't. You tell me about independents, when the vast majority of them haven't even voted yet. What does that have to do with the Democrats screwing up their own primary? or the other major mistake they have made? should any of this be happening? NO friggin way!

Oy vey! Please stop telling me what you think is going to happen with independents going forward and start telling me how we got here from 2006.[

You asked if Obama and McCain should be close.

I said that they should be close, because they both appeal to independents.

You said that according to me, Democrats SHOULD be be having a white woman revolt

I said that my only comment that referred to the way anything SHOULD be happening was that McCain and Obama were close.

Look, the race between Hillary and Obama was extremely close, and one group of minorities was pitted against another, both who are represented by the same wing. To think that there won't be some fallout from that, no matter who the nominee was, would be not looking at reality. In the end, the system worked because it nominated a candidate who is the popular vote leader in the official count, and who is considered electable by his party.

No, they are there to nullify one or two groups, just like I said. They are their to ensure that one or two groups used their combined strength to get some body nominated, like McGovern, who the Republicans will kill in the general election.

Remind me, how was McGovern electable again? It appears you are contradicting yourself here. We all know that the closer somebody is to the middle, the more electable they are, especially in a race that is likely to turn on independents. Right?

I don't see what effect the phrasing has to do with it. Centrist Clinton good, Leftist Obama bad, in a race that is about independents. Obama's populist message has been blown up, per your own link, so all that is left is his extreme views, which, by definition, make him LESS electable, as evidenced by the #s that have Hillary winning this thing easy, and Obama tied. Right?

Which is why I say that they keep screwing up and not learning anything (McGovern, Carter, Kerry) from their mistakes. They seem to think an ahole like Howard Dean is a good candidate, but forget that it's the Bill Clinton's that win. Perhaps they should change their business model, that is, if they want to win anything ever again.

By your own thread re Obama's risky strategy, which is now the Dems risky strategy, you are saying that this is a questionable idea. I am merely taking it a step further and calling it stupid, as evidenced by where Hillary stands in relation to McCain vs. Obama. You seem to be downplaying the concept of being electable in one point, but then turning around and saying it's very important in another? Which is it? I thought elections were about winning, not making the lunatic fringe happy. Which does Obama look to be doing right now, given the #s?

This is what I'm trying to tell you - it doesn't matter how we view someone (whether electable or unelectable), it matters as to whether the super delegates believe they are electable or not. I may view a Democrat as an ideological extremist, but the party officials may not view him that way.

For example, you view Obama as extreme left, so you claim the system doesn't work. However, to the Democrats, Obama is viewed much more as a centrist and appealing to independents. Since it is the DEMOCRATIC primary, and only THEIR opinions matter, Obama is viewed more as a centrist and electable.

The system was designed to have two results:

A.) Put forth someone who represents a majority of the Democratic party's views

B.) Put forth someone who they view as electable

Unfortunately for the Democrats, who they view as electable and who actually is electable has been disconnected.

If the system was setup to provide the most electable candidate regardless of how many Democrats presonally agree with him or her, then it would be a failure. However, this is not the case.

If you were judging it purely on whether they won or lost, then yes, you would be correct.

That's what I have been saying right along,

Except that its not a valid argument, because Obama "officially" won it (as much as I think its fair also to say that Clinton did).

but more importantly that she would do better against McCain.

No doubt, I think she would too. However, the system wasn't designed to give the absolutely best candidate. See above.

I am also saying that I don't get how any of this is "good" for Democrats,

And I've never said that it was "good" for the Democrats, just that the system worked as intended (and thus was successful).

or how anyone can't see that they have thrown away their significant advantage in this race over the last 2 years.

No argument from me that they blew some of their advantage. They did so by nominating the candidate who is less strong in the swing states, and who will need to form a new coalition to win.

You really don't think that these super delegates aren't trying to "not vote against the black guy"? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, because there's no way I think they are putting their faith in the process/new party people ahead of their concerns with their own political futures. Call me crazy, but politicians acting like politicians isn't happening here? Please. The fact is that they are now getting what they deserve for playing the race card in such a phony manner for years, and now it's time to pay the piper.

Its not that they are trying to "not vote against the black guy", its that they are definitely not voting against the guy who is "popular with blacks and young people" and go for someone who didn't officially win the process, making them disenfranchise some Obama supporters who feel he won fairly, the blacks, and the young voters, in the hopes of winning one election.

Kelly the Dog · June 3, 2008

Another thing, in a long series of things left unsaid, and not evident in the unreliable polls, is the Hillary hatred factor. The serious detesting of her by the opposite party could draw hundreds of thousands (I may even say a million votes) to prevent a Clinton from becoming President, especially her. That wouldn't vote at all, or would vote for Obama.

IMO, and this is just speculation, there are MUCH more of Hillary haters than pure racists, who would come out just for racial reasons (and vote for Mccain because they didn't want a black guy). That is what the Democrats fear the most, another major reason the superdelegates were never going to switch to Hillary, and it will be the main reason that Obama doesn't choose her, if he doesn't choose her.

I don't think the true hatred is warranted at all, even though I have badmouthed her a lot myself.

It's been self-evident on this board for about 10 years.

The only question is whether the number that would come out and vote against her on the other side, is greater than the number that she would draw that would vote for Obama because she's on the ticket.

Albany,n.y. · June 3, 2008

Yeah, I thought that it would be Hillary v Guliani. Same as the vast majority of this country. Yeah that's real shocking.
I thought that Hillary would most likely win unless Guliani could use 9/11/Blowgate to great effect. Same as the vast majority of the pundits/rest of the country. Again, amazingly shocking!

Not all of us. If the link works check out my 2/12/07 post. I'll now state something similar:

Obama-McCain-WAY too early for any poll to mean anything.

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...mp;#entry912425

OCinBuffalo · June 4, 2008

Christ. Both candidates are making themselves appeal to the independents, which is why they are in play.

McCain and Obama are both viewed by large groups of people in the middle as centrist, largely due to both having governmental reform messages.

It has to do with tailoring campaign messages toward what the electorate wants to hear, which is all that really matters in politics nowadays.

Fine, but that still doesn't account for why McCain is only dealing with changing people from '3s' to '1s' instead of trying to get people from '1s' (for Obama) back to '2s', which is what I think most people thought the Republican nominee would be having to do right now to have any chance at all. I agree that most of what Obama has been saying is merely what people wanna hear. I don't see the same thing for McCain, though....Iraq, for example. I do think he is saying what we need to hear however. Obama has been so general that I don't know if he's saying what we need to hear yet.

I guess you've never been to his website which shows his policies. Also, Obama has voted for most of these Democratic policies that you claim have been a problem. Yet, Obama doesn't have a policy problem, but the Democrats do?

I have been and I know the difference between a tag line and the detail. I don't see the detail anywhere. Putting a bunch of tag lines into a paragrah '= detail.

Obama's "message" has been 100% about fixing DC(cue fainting, screaming and crying), after all the emoting was done, people realized that he was a part of the thing that needed fixing.

Now, I don't think people looked at him that way early on. How could they? Obama has only been there for 4 years? Most of the Democrat talking points(Bush Lied, "What did he know, when", etc.) which define the Dem policy were formed before he even got to DC, so no, they aren't his policy. Obviously the entire performance of Congress is not the fault of a 1st term Senator either. However, now that he is the nominee, he gets to inherit that garbage, and has to run with it, because he is taking on the role of "leader of the party". That means the whole party and all the crap, not just his personal policy anymore. See the difference?

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what you think. To the majority of Democrats, he's the best candidate, and he's electable.

You're right about that. But it doesn't matter what Democrats think either. The only thing that matters is what the American people think overall, and right now, they like Hillary better(based on the results I just saw on CNN and Fox). If you have a loser mentality, I suppose you can revel in the fact that you won the battle but lost the war....Moral Victories are great, but real victories are real.

You asked if Obama and McCain should be close.
I said that they should be close, because they both appeal to independents.

You said that according to me, Democrats SHOULD be be having a white woman revolt

I said that my only comment that referred to the way anything SHOULD be happening was that McCain and Obama were close.

I am throwing my hands up on this: you keep talking about candidates and how they relate to voting blocks individually going forward, while I am talking about parties and where they stood from 2006 till now.

Look, the race between Hillary and Obama was extremely close, and one group of minorities was pitted against another, both who are represented by the same wing. To think that there won't be some fallout from that, no matter who the nominee was, would be not looking at reality. In the end, the system worked because it nominated a candidate who is the popular vote leader in the official count, and who is considered electable by his party.

This is what I'm trying to tell you - it doesn't matter how we view someone (whether electable or unelectable), it matters as to whether the super delegates believe they are electable or not. I may view a Democrat as an ideological extremist, but the party officials may not view him that way.

For example, you view Obama as extreme left, so you claim the system doesn't work. However, to the Democrats, Obama is viewed much more as a centrist and appealing to independents. Since it is the DEMOCRATIC primary, and only THEIR opinions matter, Obama is viewed more as a centrist and electable.

I suppose that if I was affected, then I would conclude that this system "worked" for the Democrats or that Obama was more electable than Hillary. But I am not. Objectively, the Democrats have elected the 2nd best candidate against McCain based on the polls. Them's the facts, brother. I question the sincerity of anyone who is "happy" about that. Or, maybe I question whether they are using their emotions rather than their reason. I don't suppose it's big stretch for Democrats to be doing that, now is it?

The system was designed to have two results:

A.) Put forth someone who represents a majority of the Democratic party's views

B.) Put forth someone who they view as electable

Unfortunately for the Democrats, who they view as electable and who actually is electable has been disconnected.

If the system was setup to provide the most electable candidate regardless of how many Democrats presonally agree with him or her, then it would be a failure. However, this is not the case.

If you were judging it purely on whether they won or lost, then yes, you would be correct.

What the hell difference does it all make if you lose? You can't govern if you don't win. Sorry, if I thought the point of running an election was to win, not about making people have funny feelings up their leg. :lol: The Dems had a win in the bag, and now they don't. IF they lose this election, the upset > 18*-1.

Chilly · June 4, 2008

Fine, but that still doesn't account for why McCain is only dealing with changing people from '3s' to '1s' instead of trying to get people from '1s' (for Obama) back to '2s', which is what I think most people thought the Republican nominee would be having to do right now to have any chance at all. I agree that most of what Obama has been saying is merely what people wanna hear. I don't see the same thing for McCain, though....Iraq, for example. I do think he is saying what we need to hear however. Obama has been so general that I don't know if he's saying what we need to hear yet.

I think McCain is more immediately focused on winning over the core Republican party then going after the "change" crowd, though he has been doing some of that with his calls for governmental reform.

I have been and I know the difference between a tag line and the detail. I don't see the detail anywhere. Putting a bunch of tag lines into a paragrah '= detail. Obama's "message" has been 100% about fixing DC(cue fainting, screaming and crying), after all the emoting was done, people realized that he was a part of the thing that needed fixing.

Is there really all that much difference between the level of detail in:

McCain - http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...cf2edb527cf.htm

Obama - http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Now, I don't think people looked at him that way early on. How could they? Obama has only been there for 4 years? Most of the Democrat talking points(Bush Lied, "What did he know, when", etc.) which define the Dem policy were formed before he even got to DC, so no, they aren't his policy. Obviously the entire performance of Congress is not the fault of a 1st term Senator either. However, now that he is the nominee, he gets to inherit that garbage, and has to run with it, because he is taking on the role of "leader of the party". That means the whole party and all the crap, not just his personal policy anymore. See the difference?

The argument that when he became the presidential nominee he inherited doomed policies might stand up if he hadn't previously embraced those platforms.

You're right about that. But it doesn't matter what Democrats think either. The only thing that matters is what the American people think overall, and right now, they like Hillary better(based on the results I just saw on CNN and Fox). If you have a loser mentality, I suppose you can revel in the fact that you won the battle but lost the war....Moral Victories are great, but real victories are real.

See, thats the thing: I do agree with you that Clinton would be the better candidate, but its not because she's more or less liked overall by the American people, but because she's better in the swing states.

For example, a Rasmussen poll from yesterday has Obama 46-McCain 46, and Clinton 44-McCain 46. Both of these polls are a tie. Yet, if you break it down by state polling, here are all the states that Clinton is better than Obama vs McCain by 5% or more in (note that this does not include states that McCain would lose to or beat both by >5%):

NV

MO

AR

OH

KY

OH

WV

NC

FL

Total: 97 Delegates

Here are all the states that Obama is better then Clinton vs McCain by 5% or more (again, not including states where McCain is winning or losing by >5%):

CO

IA

WI

VA

Total: 39 Delegates

If you remove all the states that are statistical ties, the view goes like this:

McCain 202 vs Obama 251

If you remove all the states that are statistical ties, the view goes like this:

Clinton 312 vs McCain 168

Now, these numbers I'm sure would change greatly, but it gives Clinton a much bigger head start than Obama. Even though the American public is essentially split on their numbers in a "general election poll", Clinton currently would have a much, much bigger edge.

In fact, even though that is the case, most Democrats still prefer Obama, and those same Democrats believe he is electable and should be their candidate, from the individual voters all the way through the super delegates. If the super delegates believed he had no shot of winning, they wouldn't support him.

Now, instead of claiming a system failed at its goals, lets take a look at why the system achieved the results that it did:

Clinton performed strongly in traditional democratic states like California and New York. She also performed strongly with populations of white working class voters, women, and latinos.

Obama peformed strongly in more traditionally Republican states, such as Texas and South Carolina. In addition, he also performed strongly in populations with large African American voting blocs, upscale white males, and he was better organized, so he won caucus states.

In political primaries, momentum means a ton, and most of the time will determine the winner after multiple states. Given Clinton's strength and appeal, Obama would need all he could muster to compete.

The democratic primary schedule for primaries that counted looked like this (with reason for win in parenthesis):

- Iowa (caucus) - Obama

- New Hampshire (strong women voting bloc) - Clinton

- Nevada (caucus) - Obama

- South Carolina (Large AA) - Obama

- American Somoa (latino) - Clinton

At this point, Obama clearly had some momentum, with the only actual US state Clinton had won (extremely closely) being New Hampshire.

Now, Super Tuesday happened:

- Alaska (Caucus) - Obama

- North Dakota (Caucus) - Obama

- Delaware (large population of upscale whites) - Obama

- Utah (large upscale popluation) - Obama

- New Mexico (large female and latino voting blocs) - Clinton

- Kansas (Caucus) - Obama

- Oklahoma (Large downscale white males) - Clinton

- Arkansas (Large downscale white males) - Clinton

- Connecticut (Upscale white males, African Americans) - Obama

- Alabama (Large African American segment) - Obama

- Arizona (Large White Female, few AA) - Clinton

- Colorado (Caucus) - Obama

- Tennessee (Large downscale white males and females) - Clinton

- Missouri (Mix) - Obama

- Minnesota (Caucus) - Obama

- Georgia (Large AA) - Obama

- Massachusetts (Large old & white, large female) - Clinton

- New Jersey (large old & white, large female) - Clinton

- New York (home state) - Clinton

- California (large White Women, large latino) - Clinton

At this point, Obama continued to build momentum, winning 11 to 9 in the states on Super Tuesday. However, the next states are what determined the winner.

The rest of February:

- Nebraska (caucus) - Obama

- Louisiana (AA) - Obama

- Washington (caucus) - Obama

- Maine (caucus) - Obama

- Maryland (large AA) - Obama

- Virginia (large AA, upscale white) - Obama

- Hawaii (caucus) - Obama

- Wisconsin (large upscale white, independent vote) - Obama

Unfortunately for Clinton, states that contained Obama's voting bloc came during this period of time, leading Obama on to 8 consecutive victories in states (9 if you count DC).

Clinton's states came later, and while she was able to tighten up the race, was never able to recover from the momentum Obama built from winning 8 states in a row. The support that various Democrats gave Obama after he showed he could string together a decent amount of victories, combined with his lead in the delegate count, gave him enough momentum to win.

In contrast, if all of these primaries were held on the same day this year, there is no doubt in my mind that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. Obama's coalition was very well served by the momentum he received, and by the gaffes of Florida and Michigan.

I suppose that if I was affected, then I would conclude that this system "worked" for the Democrats or that Obama was more electable than Hillary. But I am not. Objectively, the Democrats have elected the 2nd best candidate against McCain based on the polls. Them's the facts, brother. I question the sincerity of anyone who is "happy" about that. Or, maybe I question whether they are using their emotions rather than their reason. I don't suppose it's big stretch for Democrats to be doing that, now is it?

Really? The Democrats who are happy about it are the ones who believe that Obama best represents their interests, which turns out to be about half of the Democratic party.

In any event, the system is setup to achieve its goals nearly every time. The only way it would ever not do what it was set out to is if the super delegates felt that a candidate nominated by the people was completely unelectable, which has never happened.

This line of thinking begs the question: Has the Republican process always nominated the best general election candidate? Its impossible to say, since no contest has ever gone that far.

So, what has been the difference in the recent presidential elections?

Well, the Democratic base is much, much more wishy washy than the Republican base. As a result, Democrats have had to take a much larger segment of the middle than Republicans have, putting them at an inherent disadvantage. When they've won, such as Clinton in 1996, they've sucked large portions of the middle and right to their candidate to overcome the defection rate disadvantage.

You could place the blame on the candidates that have been elected, or the system, or the democratic base. Given that the defection rates have been relatively stable over time, I'm more inclined to blame the base than anything else.

Many Democrats view Obama as the better candidate because of his ability to be a "uniter". They view his message as having lots of crossover appeal, and that he will be able to win more of the centrist vote and some defection vote that Clinton would not be able to win. In addition, they believe that he will be able to unite the Democratic base around him.

There is some validity to electing a candidate who has the largest crossover appeal: if they can get the base behind them, they should be able to win the general election easily. This is, however, in contrast to history, which says to wrap up your base first, then go after the middle.

It is completely possible that in a month, if Obama has wrapped up the Democratic base, we will be proven wrong, and he will have been the stronger candidate. I'm skeptical, but it could happen. My point being: Its likely too early to "for sure" declare Obama the weaker candidate.

What the hell difference does it all make if you lose? You can't govern if you don't win. Sorry, if I thought the point of running an election was to win, not about making people have funny feelings up their leg. The Dems had a win in the bag, and now they don't. IF they lose this election, the upset > 18*-1.

Is this due to the candidate that the Democrats have elected, or their campaign strategy?

Adam · June 4, 2008

So, either Bush/Republicans aren't so bad, or, McCain is really good, or, the Democrats have found a way to lose their massive advantage, or some combination of the three. Those are the only logical conclusions.

Republicans are not bad. Bush/Clinton is

OCinBuffalo · June 5, 2008

I think McCain is more immediately focused on winning over the core Republican party then going after the "change" crowd, though he has been doing some of that with his calls for governmental reform.

I'm talking about not having to change people's minds, because they have their minds made up(what everyone expected) vs. only having to compete with an opponent's ideas on an equal footing(which no one expected). Around 2006, the general thinking was that the only way a Republican could win is if the Democrats massively screwed up. Now it seems that not only can a Republican win, but that he has a better chance, given the fact that it's gonna come down to the debates. Given what I was hearing in 2006 from every Democrat I know, and the usual suspects here, what other conclusion can be drawn besides: the Democrats massively screwed up? Again? As I said above, their policies have been just as bad as Bush's: hence it's now a tie.

Is there really all that much difference between the level of detail in:
McCain - http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...cf2edb527cf.htm

Obama - http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

No, both are retarded by definition because we are listening to lawyers/staffers write about health care, as if they have any clue. Hell, the health care people our HC group works with every day don't have a clue about how to deal with the management problems ahead, both self-inflicted and government-inflicted, which is why they've been hiring us a lot lately. :lol: Not saying that they don't know how to provide care, I am saying they don't know how to manage it with the government constantly meddling and/or trying to apply one-size-fits-all regulations to an industry that, by definition, takes care of INDIVIDUAL human beings. I will email you the link for the Medicare "quality assurance" or NYS Medicaid forms if you need a good laugh.

Why would lawyers putting health care people in a focus group and hammering out another 3 ring binder produce anything reasonable, when neither set of people knows how to fix the problems, much less how to define them properly, and usually the only thing those binders are good for is keeping a door open?

The problem Americans care about is cost, but everything is so far jammed up with either clinical/bureaucratic distractions, or, nonsense legal liability concerns, or, other stuff I won't say here, there's no way in hell we will ever get cost under control. More regs = more bureaucracy = more cost. In fact, the regs have gotten so crazy = such a distraction, that dealing with them has now taken priority OVER giving care out of necessity, to the point where many professionals, and certainly their managers, are now more concerned about them than the patient, which is causing bad care, medical errors, and antipathy, which is the exact opposite outcome they were intended to produce.

Therefore, no, I don't see any real detail there, so, like I said, there is nothing that I can really agree/disagree with in terms of "how", but it sure sounds nice! :blink: :wallbash: What I was referring to is that McCain has already come out with a clear framework, albeit a wire hanger framework, for HOW(sounds like he might even be looking at a SWOT on the government as a whole) he plans to do WHAT he says.

But I guarantee you that more ridiculous regs of the same type that are there already....and there's your additional increased cost because now the provider has to hire even more care givers, not to give care, but to report/talk about it, never mind the administrative staff, the cost of updating poorly designed old systems, and bad consultants that don't fix/do anything except merely provide another 3 ring binder on WHAT to do, but not HOW to do it. Or, worse incompetents performing "studies" that tell people the wrong thing. Great plan... :rolleyes:

The argument that when he became the presidential nominee he inherited doomed policies might stand up if he hadn't previously embraced those platforms.

Maybe, but he has to "embrace" all of it now, and that means bye, bye "I'm gonna reform DC" message. Unless reform = kill off access to all special interest groups, including the teacher's union(No Child Left Behind), the Sierra club(Global Warming), and trial lawyers(Malpractice reform, Patriot Act....um, basically every "money for nothing" scheme there is). What are the chances of that?

See, thats the thing: I do agree with you that Clinton would be the better candidate, but its not because she's more or less liked overall by the American people, but because she's better in the swing states.

In fact, even though that is the case, most Democrats still prefer Obama, and those same Democrats believe he is electable and should be their candidate, from the individual voters all the way through the super delegates. If the super delegates believed he had no shot of winning, they wouldn't support him.

Unfortunately for Clinton, states that contained Obama's voting bloc came during this period of time, leading Obama on to 8 consecutive victories in states (9 if you count DC).

Clinton's states came later, and while she was able to tighten up the race, was never able to recover from the momentum Obama built from winning 8 states in a row. The support that various Democrats gave Obama after he showed he could string together a decent amount of victories, combined with his lead in the delegate count, gave him enough momentum to win.

In contrast, if all of these primaries were held on the same day this year, there is no doubt in my mind that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. Obama's coalition was very well served by the momentum he received, and by the gaffes of Florida and Michigan.

Tally it all up, great analysis here....but what's the bottom line? Either Dems are quite nuts, or, let their emotions get the better of them, or the most likely scenario: the black guy started gaining momentum, however slight, and the second that happened, the system stopped functioning as intended. Why? Because in the same second Obama was perceived to have momentum, anyone who might want to question him seriously, especially on experience, Dems or media, chickened out for fear that they might be called a racist-->except Russert/Stephanopolous. This isn't speculation, this is fact. Hell, they nailed Ferraro's ass to the floorboards for simply telling the truth. Geraldine Ferraro, the racist? WTF? Besides, I thought only Republicans were racist!!!! :cry: :cry: :lol:

I understand your analysis, and if we were talking about 2 white guys it's so well thought out that it would be nearly undeniable. But we ain't talking about 2 white guys now are we? Let me re-write one of your sentences for you here:

If the super delegates believed he had no shot of winning, they wouldn't support him.

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN....

If the super delegates believed he had a shot of winning, they wouldn't dare not support him...especially the ones that face tough elections, because....they want to have a shot at winning some day and they need minorities to show up to even have a chance.

Cynical? Yes. But can you honestly tell me that this isn't in play, at least partially? So, taking the system as a whole, I see it as failing, because between the minority quotas, the Obama populist message(vs. the usual doom and gloom), and the media's/party leaders fear of appearing to look "racist", the system worked in reverse and selected the worst(and I am including every candidate), not best, candidate to face McCain.

Now, instead of claiming a system failed at its goals, lets take a look at why the system achieved the results that it did:

{a bunch of great analysis again}

Dick Morris made a great point tonight:

"McCain is the candidate that is guaranteed to win, for the party that can't win, while Obama is the candidate that can't win, for the party that can't lose. If you look at the candidates it's easily McCain's race, but if you look at the parties it's the Democrats race." He goes on to say that therefore, somebody is going to win big, and it's not gonna be that close, that the whole thing will come down to what happens next.

I could have saved us all a lot of trouble and just said that, because that's what I am getting at. I would only add that they Dems as a party have done nothing to help Obama, the candidate who can't win, and plenty to hurt him, whether it's the primary, the policies, or failure of the Democratic Congress to do 1 thing they promised.

Really? The Democrats who are happy about it are the ones who believe that Obama best represents their interests, which turns out to be about half of the Democratic party.

Perhaps I should have questioned the sanity instead of the sincerity. Better?

In any event, the system is setup to achieve its goals nearly every time. The only way it would ever not do what it was set out to is if the super delegates felt that a candidate nominated by the people was completely unelectable, which has never happened.

Bah! Or unless they felt there were consequences for them or the party if they were perceived to be "questioning" the black guy. Which I think is inherently racist. If Obama is = to everybody else, why wouldn't they subject him to the same scrutiny as any other candidate? Or, is it our/their culture pendulum swung so far to the other side that white people will only nail African American's that commit crime? But they won't think critically about AAs who are doing the "right" thing, even when that thing normally requires scrutiny(i.e. running for President?), for fear that somehow they might be perceived as racist, or worse, feel that they need to make it easier/reward the good behavior = patronize them?

This line of thinking begs the question: Has the Republican process always nominated the best general election candidate? Its impossible to say, since no contest has ever gone that far.

So, what has been the difference in the recent presidential elections?

Well, the Democratic base is much, much more wishy washy than the Republican base. As a result, Democrats have had to take a much larger segment of the middle than Republicans have, putting them at an inherent disadvantage. When they've won, such as Clinton in 1996, they've sucked large portions of the middle and right to their candidate to overcome the defection rate disadvantage.

You could place the blame on the candidates that have been elected, or the system, or the democratic base. Given that the defection rates have been relatively stable over time, I'm more inclined to blame the base than anything else.

Many Democrats view Obama as the better candidate because of his ability to be a "uniter". They view his message as having lots of crossover appeal, and that he will be able to win more of the centrist vote and some defection vote that Clinton would not be able to win. In addition, they believe that he will be able to unite the Democratic base around him.

There is some validity to electing a candidate who has the largest crossover appeal: if they can get the base behind them, they should be able to win the general election easily. This is, however, in contrast to history, which says to wrap up your base first, then go after the middle.

It is completely possible that in a month, if Obama has wrapped up the Democratic base, we will be proven wrong, and he will have been the stronger candidate. I'm skeptical, but it could happen. My point being: Its likely too early to "for sure" declare Obama the weaker candidate.

I agree, anything can happen as of right now. If you had told me that I would be telling you that "anything can happen" at this point in the election, a year ago, I would ask you if was drinking when I said it. As far as the Dem base goes, perhaps they stray because so many of the tenets of the far-left are such a departure from American thinking, norms, culture, reason, accountability, what has worked vs what fails historically, and common sense, that many of them occasionally come to their senses and throw the BS flag. As KTFBD said: the farther left the candidate(Carter, Mondale, McGovern, LBJ) the worse the beating. Those candidates that make sense, and have a centrist view in comparison(Clinton, Gore, JFK) always do better. The only time that doesn't happen and a real leftist gets elected(Carter) is when the Republicans do something so stupid that they give it away = Nixon.

18 months ago, I thought that this was a Nixon type year, so I thought we might end up with another Carter. However, as of now, Obama has to move to the center, both in the election and as a President if he wins, and there's nothing the far-left can do about it. They should enjoy themselves, happy that they got "their guy" for the next couple of weeks, but that's all they get, because I guarantee he ain't gonna be their guy for long. Not if he wants to win any of the debates, never mind actually get elected.

Look he is already pulling back on his Madeline Albright, 1v1, legitimize retards plan. The Dems have been demanding 1v1 "diplomacy" for the last 4 years, but they ain't gonna get it from Obama, not now, never mind the fact that it was a stupid idea to begin with.

Is this due to the candidate that the Democrats have elected, or their campaign strategy?

Like Morris said, it's due to both.

Things in their control that they screwed up royally:

They had a terrible campaign strategy, they had an awful primary process that still isn't over with, and won't be even after this Friday. They are on the wrong side of some big issues now, especially Iraq. They have a huge problem to solve in terms of the VP. They have found a way to pick a lesser candidate, objectively. And, finally, they have done nothing positive since the got power in 2006.

Things out of their control:

Gas prices were projected to go down today(time to buy airlines), the housing market has bottomed out, and McCain just set the agenda for the debates, that they have to follow, unless they want to look like chickenshits.

That's a lot of stuff that easily could have been avoided, if they had been reasonable, accountable, and spent more time doing and less time bitching.

There goes Obama's lead in the polls....

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites