The Polls - 10/30

I voted this morning. The line was pretty long - it took an hour. I'll violate the sanctity of the secret ballot and tell you I voted straight Democratic. I tell you this story in the daily "Polls" post because in the DKos/R2000 daily tracking poll (which has Obama by 5, 50-45, with 1% undecided, Barr gets 1, Nader gets 1 and "Other" gets 2) John McCain is drawing 92% of the Republican vote while Obama gets 5% of the Republican vote. See how well the Post Partisan Unity Schtick worked? For comparison, John Kerry got 6% of the Republican vote (Bush got 93% of the GOP vote in 2004.) This same poll has Obama slightly outperforming Kerry in 2004 among Dems and Independents. The difference is there are many more Dems and Independents in the 2008 electorate.

Among the other polls, Ras has Obama by 5, 51-46. Battleground has, for the umpteenth straight day, Obama by 3, 49-46. ABC/WaPo has Obama by 8, 52-44. Hotline has Obama by 7, 49-42. Gallup Expanded has Obama by 7, 51-44.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Conservatives Dis and Ditch McCain-Palin | It Begins >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's looking increasingly like (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:10:10 AM EST
    there aren't enough swing states left for McCain to win this. It looked a lot like that three weeks ago too, so no real change.

    Meanwhile, Obama pushes HARD for Florida. That makes me smile, because I really want to win Florida and get revenge for 2000. Incidentally, Florida is good insurance for the inevitably increasing electoral power of the sunbelt after 2010.

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:14:14 AM EST
    is always on TV.  I like her.

    Honestly, she sounds (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:17:04 AM EST
    like my ditzy first cousin (once removed). It's that accent. . .

    I know she's a good legislator though.


    Her deference to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (none / 0) (#11)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:24:45 AM EST
    ... is a particularly unattractive quality, IMO.

    Re: Debbie WS (none / 0) (#15)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:28:13 AM EST
    This is why I like her.

    Priceless: (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:12:09 AM EST
    DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: I do not need help in asking my questions.

    Debbie WS (none / 0) (#97)
    by Henny667 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 07:00:21 PM EST
    This girl (lady), she's younger than me, is tough.
    She's very intelligent and quick. I wish her nothing but the best, but I'm from PA.

    This looks like a good case... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:15:44 AM EST
    for a 50 state strategy.

    My best guess is (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:18:16 AM EST
    that Obama will win enough states this year that no conceivable apportionment change would alter the result.

    Electoral College Unaffected by Apportionment (none / 0) (#21)
    by Michael Masinter on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:33:52 AM EST
    State legislatures can and do gerrymander the hell out of House districts, but they can't apportion in any way that affects presidential elections since presidential electors run statewide except in Nebraska and Maine.

    The next decennial census will reallocate House seats, and therefore electoral college votes among the fifty states, but predicting who will benefit by that presumes that the politics of states that were solidly red or blue in the past aren't be affected by the demographic changes that increase or decrease their share of the House.  We know otherwise; look at New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, and other states in which democrats now can be competitive; Obama's success in those states is partly attributable to his genius as a campaigner, but it's also attributable to demographic changes.  Obama could not compete in any of those states as they were populated in 2000, but their populations are very different today than then.


    You've got your terminology fuzzled (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:35:36 AM EST
    "Apportionment" refers to the allocation of seats. So yes, it does have a DIRECT impact on the electoral college.

    Everyone seems to forget or ignore (none / 0) (#60)
    by kenosharick on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:10:42 AM EST
    that the reason we are competitive in most of these states is circcumstance- the recent economic meltdown. Without that the election would be a dead heat and most of the party would be freaking out about why we did not choose Hillary.

    But... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:32:35 AM EST
    wasnt he competitive in places like Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia and Nevada before the meltdown?

    Besides, I know a lot of people dont have faith in her, Im 100% sure we'll have 4 (or 8 if she chooses to) years with Hillary in the white house after 2016.


    There's almost no chance that Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by tigercourse on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:42:11 AM EST
    will be President in 2016. She's said so herself.

    Yeah they always say that... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:56:51 AM EST
    Biden was straight out saying he wasnt the VP pick like a day before he was.  Politicians usually deny these things, but I might believe it more if she hadnt qualified it with almost.

    She won't be President because a) (none / 0) (#90)
    by tigercourse on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:05:43 AM EST
    historically, the VP is almost always the party's candidate. Biden or whoever else might replace him in  second term is the most likely Democratic nominee. When was the last time you remember someone defeating the incubment VP in a primary?

    b) She will be too old. She'll get the McCain treatment. The only difference will be that she will be cast as your out of touch Grandma, not your out of touch Grandpa.

    c) The party leaders were against her this year, and will be even more against her once Obama's people have taken full control. Do you really believe that the Brazille's and Jackson's of the world won't do everything in their power to make sure she stays politically dead?

    d) A party rarely holds the White house for more then 2 terms, even when they have been fairly
    successful ones.


    Well... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:40:26 AM EST
    a) Just as you assume Biden will run after 8 years for Pres, I assume he wont.  I mean talk about age, he'd be 74.

    b) reagan was 69 when he ran in 1980, which is how old Hillary will be on Nov. 4 of 2016... and reagan won 2x.  So if a moron like reagan can do it, I know Hillary can.

    c) Like Ive said before, I dont care what brazille and jackson says, nor do anyone I personally know.  If she runs she'd get most every vote I know, even Id bet most here.  The biggest reason why she lost the primary was because of the idiots in charge of Florida and Michigan primaries.  Now yes it was the DNC that made sure they werent represented in the primary, but it was the states moving themselves up that allowed them to do that.  Had they happened when they were supposed to, the DNC couldnt have messed with their votes and we'd have Hillary now.

    d) Rarely doesnt mean never.  And she has the perfect narrative right off the bat: Strong, Resolute, Fighter.


    Maybe I should have said (none / 0) (#98)
    by kenosharick on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 08:28:11 AM EST
    "ahead" rather than "competitive" in the states you mentioned. Va,Co,and Nev would be tied or nearly tied, the only state Obama would've been clearly ahead is NM. My overall point was that without the meltdown this election would be neck and neck rather than the possible blowout that is brewing.

    well guy, (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:26:48 AM EST
    this is why it's important to have an overwhelming democratic majority, in both houses of congress.

    what kind of Representation are we expecting in Washington when half the country wants its representatives to ignore the representatives of the other half of the country.

    the problem with "post-partisan unity" is that, traditionally, only one party has participated, the democrats. the republicans, not so much.

    the time has now come for this to end.

    its the problem with the (none / 0) (#19)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:32:10 AM EST
    current generation in power, they see compromise as a taboo, or something you only need to do to pad the resume.

    I hope that when my generation takes over we have learned the lessons that bitter partisan divides cause.

    obviously I think we need 60 seats to get stuff done, but if we screw up, would we really want them to get 60 seats to get their things done? no.

    its a back and forth stalemate and it'd be nice if this generation thought about the kind of politics they are leaving to my generation and got started thinking how they would fix it now.

    I bet if everyone 50+ took a step back and looked at so far what a world it seems they are going to give my generation, they would be forced to admit they are screwing my generation over.

    but will that be enough for them to stop and fix it nope, so my generation WE will be the ones to really suffer for the way the politics have been going for the last 10-20 years.


    What? (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:39:10 AM EST
    you think "the psrtisan divide" was invented in the last 10 years? 20? 50? 100? Try 1796.

    I hate silliness like this.

    Just hate it.


    There was likely a partisan divide at the first (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by tigercourse on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:41:32 AM EST
    meeting of the Jamestown colony council (or whatver they called it).

    You hate the silliness (none / 0) (#35)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:44:57 AM EST
    of believing that the divide was only 10 or 20 years.

    or that this country can or should strive to be united?

    ok fine we were divided alot longer, but if I am silly to believe we can ever unite. then why the hell are we all so damn proud of our democracy?


    You're kidding right? (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:50:29 AM EST
    Politics is, BY DESIGN, a battle of competing agendas.

    It is not a Kumbaya operation. It is one party standing for one agenda and the other party standing for another.

    And this country has done pretty well with thi system for 200 years.

    If your knowledge of American politics is representative of your generation then your generation is doomed.

    Your approach disrespects the power of ideas and the power of persuasion.

    If someone disagrees with you on issues, should they vote with you anyway? Of course they should not. they should vote for the party that represents their views.

    That is what politics SHOULD be. And mostly is.


    It would be nice if the GOP came up (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:02:05 AM EST
    with an agenda which was more than "cut taxes and God will provide".

    well we disagree, (none / 0) (#43)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:53:12 AM EST
    and its the beauty of this country, we should be able to disagree on ideas, and take them internalize them and think over them.

    and you say its worked pretty darn well, I say we gimp by.

    To me and once again maybe its my generation being so damn naive, but I believe that a battle of competing agendas, doesn't have to look what our what it looks like today.

    I never said it was a kumbaya operation, but that there is something fundamentally wrong, when a democrat, who believes in a big tent, who believes in people powered politics

    tells someone from the next generation, that your generation is doomed if you go forward thinking we could be better united then we are today.


    Politics (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by cal1942 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:11:11 AM EST
    is virtually always about economics.

    The belief that some form of unity is an achievable or even desireable state is rather like ignoring the law of physics.

    One area of public policy that the parties agreed upon and were essentially unified in post WWII America was foreign policy and it led us into some damned foolish blunders.

    The unity that many seek is simply that everyone agree with their view of what public policy ought to be.

    Unity for its own sake is by no means virtuous.


    No (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:55:07 AM EST
    we do not disagree on the actual issues as far as
    I can tell.

    We disagree in that you embrace empty cant and you seem to have no knowledge of the history of American politics.


    let me be clear. (none / 0) (#52)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:03:42 AM EST
    I understand how politics has worked in the past and how you believe it will always work.

    I disgree, and will work so that my generation won't make the same mistakes.

    will I succeed who knows, but nothing will be done, when the next generation is told they are naive to believe they can change something that hasn't been changed in 200 years.

    The way politics works gets handed down, by your own posts here you are out to show me that this is the way politics work and it work change.

    instead of for a second going, well you know what kid good luck to your generation.

    you never for a second entertained the idea that things could change with my generation, because it didn't change with yours or the one before that.

    Unity doesn't have to be just a buzz worded. believing we are one country doesn't have to be campaign rhetoric. Saying we are neither red states or blue states, doesn't have to be a nice convention speech.

    but you're right it won't happen if I wait for people like you to believe it can. it will come by teaching the generation after mine that what the previous generations did we don't have to repeat.

    we can learn and change. I am being 100% sincere here, that's fine if you don't believe me.

    I am not really talking to you, but those who read here with kids who say, you know it would be nice if 1 day this country didn't use politics to divide but to unite and make the country better.

    but it won't happen if NO ONE believes it can happen.

    I agree I think McCain's policies are terrible but 48% of the people will vote for em because of partisan politics. You say I am silly to believe I can change this.

    I believe 1 person can make a difference, otherwise why is this country so great?


    Could you perhaps give one specific (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by dk on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:10:17 AM EST
    example on how you would see this "unity" play out?  I mean, can you discuss a specific political issue and what you would see as a "unified" position?  I'm actually curious.

    Well from my point of view (none / 0) (#82)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:32:31 AM EST
    the very basic idea is this.

    Do you like how the current generation does it Politics?
    Would you be happy to know that when you die the next generation will continue as it is now?

    and if not why aren't you 1) trying to change it or 2) trying to teach my generation what went wrong so we can not repeat it.

    My wife is white I am black, you know why thats possible? the generations before us taught the future generations there is nothing wrong with this.

    How will unity happen? by current generations realizing that yes we should want the people united as a country, and start teaching the future generations this.

    that way one day my ideas aren't radical, they are the core of a new generation.

    I see each generation has having 2 true responsibilities

    1. Care for and improve your generation as a whole
    2. Prepare and equip the next generation to exceed what the previous generation has done.

    Isn't that really the American dream?

    well I don't think it can happen until believing, Honestly believing both sides can work together is a reality.

    isn't that the point of those divided we fall ads I see on tv? isn't that what those ads want to instill? That we have to work together to solve our problems?

    well the fist step is to get people to believe that actually working together is possible.  


    Um (none / 0) (#88)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:56:53 AM EST
    My wife is white I am black, you know why thats possible? the generations before us taught the future generations there is nothing wrong with this.
    The Montgomery bus boycott was what? Kumbayah? You think every last American did a happy dance after Loving v. Virginia was decided?

    I think you have a dangerously naive or misinformed view of history.


    Politics is dead... (none / 0) (#89)
    by marian evans on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:59:45 AM EST
    when we start worshiping words in the absence of ideas...words like "unity", "hope", "truth"...words which have been cast adrift from meaning and become flatulent platitudes...i.e. just so much hot, and fetid, air.

    This is a cargo-cult attitude to political engagement. One day the wonderful ship of the future will arrive and all these shiny 'ideals" will be given to us...probably by marvelous beings who are much wiser and altogether more perfect than our own manifestly unworthy selves.

    Riiight...and that ship will be called the Titanic. God bless all who sail in her..."cos they're going to need it.

    Meanwhile, on the good ship Sanity, all the rest of us will just keep on working to achieve social justice, using the imperfect, tho' pretty amazing tools of the democratic process...


    It should never happen (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:27:43 AM EST
    What you propose is actually toxic.

    You talk about compromise, but (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:45:31 AM EST
    you fail to see that there are often really, really bad ideas put forth along with really, really good ones and that in those instances compromise can be extremely costly to everyone involved.  If we had compromised for instance on Social Security, the current economic collapse would be seriously dammaging at a far deeper level for a lot of people than you can probably even imagine.

    At this point in history, we have gotten so far away from democratic principles, compromised our Constitution, compromised our future and our standing in the world that we are going to have to be uncompromising in our quest to right the ship for a while.  We will have to tell the climate change deniers, flat taxers, anti-taxers, free marketers and military industrial complex cheerleaders to sit down and shut up for a while.

    Conservativism has failed the citizens of this country.  It just is the way it is.  Steve Forbes can go on TV all he wants and whine about regulation, but people like former MA Governor William Weld said it best the other day - "We had the perfect free market for the past eight years and now look where we are today."  He was talking about how he had totally reversed his belief that the free market was some sort of holy grail.

    The unity you seek won't happen not because people over 50 are cynical or stupid.  The unity you seek won't happen because there will always be some portion of the population pushing really, really bad ideas that are so bad that compromise is not an option.  The Constitution was designed to be flexible enough to adapt to societal changes, but it is meant to be uncompromising in guaranteeing certain rights.  But those rights can be taken away as we've seen.  All it takes is some compromise for the sake of this scam called unity.  I'm thinking of the Patriot Act and a whole host of "unity" legislation that has come out of the last eight years.  It is time to stand up and be uncompromising in our pursuit to restore this democracy.


    Democratic principles 101.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by marian evans on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:15:00 AM EST
    OK, let's get this straight. Our democracy will be better off when we are all warbling the same catchy refrain?

    Hmm...as in Deutsche Deutsche Uber Alles maybe...or perhaps the Internationale?

    Totalitarian societies guarantee unity, democracies give us the glorious complexity of a multiplicity of voices. Politics merely provides one crucial avenue for a democracy's discussion  with itself.


    I think every generation of equality minded (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:57:58 AM EST
    this nation births believes the generation before them screwed them and the world over until they have to lead the charge. The charge never goes away.  Believe me when I say this, the greedy and the determined to be more priveledged and the bullies never go away, and their justifications and arguments and rhetoric don't either. Those only rotate in and out as they stale, or they sometimes evolve momentarily into something that can easily grab whatever support the greedy and the bullying can get their hands on.  I understand the idealism of youth though, I started there too. Does anyone worth their weight and able to bear their own weight and then some start anywhere else?

    It's worth noting (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:26:52 AM EST
    that one of the reasons Obama isn't getting many Republican votes is that a non-trivial portion of the disaffected conservatives who support him don't identify themselves as Republicans any more.

    They can persist as a small, regional phenomenon (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:30:59 AM EST
    My dad is one of the GOP 5% voting Obama (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by magster on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:45:05 AM EST
    He mailed in his ballot last night.  Mom witnessed him vote for Obama. He hadn't voted for a Democrat since LBJ.  It wasn't the unity schtick though -- it was his "Marxist" wife and children finally getting through to him on environment, health care and decimation of the middle class.

    He embrace Democratic views (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:53:50 AM EST
    and voted for the candidate he best represented those views.

    That is politics at its best.


    Amen. (none / 0) (#54)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:05:35 AM EST
    Except, of course when that candidate is Bloomberg, right?  :-)

    Bloomberg dd not represent (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:12:33 AM EST
    Democratic views. Perhaps you really are not a Democrat, have you considered that?

    Certainly he does. . . (none / 0) (#74)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    and when he departs, it's usually to the left of the Democrats.  Principle over party, concerns over candidate.  Where have I heard that espoused?

    More than 1 million people in Colorado... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:56:45 AM EST
    ...have already voted via mail-in ballots or early voting.  That is 1/3 of all registered voters--and about half of the total votes registered in total in 2004.

    It is looking like there won't be much of a line awaiting me when I go to vote this coming Tuesday.    

    I have a feeling (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:02:42 AM EST
    that one Tuesday, lots of people in Pennsylvania are going to see the massive line and walk away. No early voting there, so the tsunami comes all in one day.

    Early voting is great. We had about 40 (none / 0) (#57)
    by Teresa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:08:38 AM EST
    of those weird machines we vote on. Even though we are on record pace for early voting, I waited about five minutes to get to my little Price is Right turn the wheel machine on Monday.

    We have about 15 sites. I made the mistake of waiting until election day in 2004 and the line and wait was awful. I think all states should have early voting.


    Pennsylvania has election laws out of the 1920s (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:10:49 AM EST
    You can vote early by absentee, as I did, but you have to certify that you won't be in your municipality on election day.

    Same here on absentee. Only if you are (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Teresa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:20:11 AM EST
    disabled or out of town the entire early voting period and election day (that's three weeks) can you get an absentee ballot. It may include those over 65, too, but I'm not positive.

    I read people saying to always vote absentee to be sure your vote counts, etc, and I wonder if they know that many of us don't have that option.


    I don't mind waiting--- (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:15:59 AM EST
    --as long as it is not 8 hours or something crazy like that.  

    I actually like meeting my neighbors and talking to them while waiting at the polling place.  So few opportunities to do so in this electronic age.  

    Go ahead and call me old-fashioned...


    You must vote at a better place than me. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Teresa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:26:11 AM EST
    My blood pressure goes up listening to these people discuss politics. I'm in the reddest precinct of this red town. I look at them all with suspicion. Nasty Republicans. Sorry TruthMatters, if you are still here, I'm not ready to unify with these people. :)

    Have fun MileHi. I hope you don't have to wait quite that long.


    Lines (none / 0) (#92)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:16:42 AM EST
    I guess that means that the most motivated voters will vote in higher numbers. Which in this election would be the Dems.

    BTD - (none / 0) (#1)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:09:50 AM EST
    do you think the Obamamercial will notably affect the polls?  Or since we're so close to the end, the actual result?

    The post-partisan unity schtick. . . (none / 0) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:09:55 AM EST
    is for the "persuadables" (independents), not the party dead-enders.  How's Obama doing with them?

    Im starting to think... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:17:13 AM EST
    that for Obama this isnt even a shtick.  I think he genuinely believes in it.

    obama does 2 points better with Indies (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:31:22 AM EST
    than Kerry did. even IF we credit all of that to the  ppus, that is worth .7. worth it? even assuming it does not cost anything with Dems?

    Yes, the problem with. . . (none / 0) (#28)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:40:50 AM EST
    the post-partisan unity schtick is obviously that, since we live in a center-right country, there are very, very few persuadable voters.

    And when you blur the differences (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:44:06 AM EST
    between the partie, you limit your ability to enact real change.

    You get no mandate.


    a-friggin-men (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:57:49 AM EST
    When I hear that a Republican has endorsed Obama, I want to ask, "specifically, on what policies do you now agree with the Democrats?" <crickets>

    I think the electorate is being seriously misread, and we will struggle to enact progressive policies under a President Obama because he (IMO) did not draw enough of a sharp distinction with the GOP. (I know this opinion on his campaign is not shared by all.) Now, in an effort to save face, conservatives are repudiating the personalities on the GOP ticket, not conservative policies. They are not our friends.

    Pres. Bush was unable to privatize Soc. Sec. in part because he did not campaign on it and people did not think that's what they were voting for. It's a good lesson.


    They usually tell me (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:11:53 AM EST
    that the stratification of wealth has gone too far, and we need to start doing something for the middle class.

    Seems meaningless to me (none / 0) (#72)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:16:31 AM EST
    Everyone thinks they are the middle class.  Of course that's why both Dems and Repubs pander to it.

    You asked (none / 0) (#79)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:29:03 AM EST
    what disaffected Republicans now agree with the Democrats on, and I gave you an answer.  They don't believe Republican policies have been good for the middle class, and so now they're voting Democratic.

    IIRC Bush did campaign on (none / 0) (#68)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:13:36 AM EST
    privatizing Social Security.  My take was that most people didn't pay attention or that they didn't believe it could happen.  We were very lucky too that the Medicare drug scam legislation passed first because the AARP supported that legislation and found later that they had seriously blow it - if their membership had not been so angry about the drug bill, they probably would not have stepped up to the plate the way they did on Social Security.  That was a real squeeker though - no one was really paying attention to the SS bill and then suddenly people woke up, poured money into advertising and mobilized a whole lot of angry citizens to get Congress to back off.

    I agree it was part of the campaign (none / 0) (#73)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:17:20 AM EST
    But not a very big part.

    Like almost everyone else (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:14:00 AM EST
    that post unity schtick (none / 0) (#6)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:15:41 AM EST
    that everyone hates, is about American's trying to unite to solve problems together.

    I hate how both sides look down on this.

    after a crisis like 9/11 did anyone call Bush's appeal for us to unite a unity schtick and that she should stop and talk only to Republicans because obviously we wouldn't listen after what happened in Florida?

    sure we will fix things now because of what the Republican party has become.

    But when we elect representatives to represent us.

    what kind of Representation are we expecting in Washington when half the country wants its representatives to ignore the representatives of the other half of the country.

    then we all complain they can never get anything done.

    well duh, we don't want em too. we want them to completely ignore one another and if you dare work together and compromise on something we care about!

    I for one think our government would be EVEN better if 70% of the country wasn't divided and told the other 30% that actually wanted to unite and compromise and solve problems that we are idiots for believing Democracy can work that way.

    Maybe no one called it a unity schtick (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:28:03 AM EST
    ... but Bush's appeal was definitely a schtick. All Republican appeals for bipartisanship these last 7 years and more have essentially been commands to Democrats to capitulate to the right-wing program. To their everlasting shame, significant numbers of Democrats in Congress have complied down the line.

    This will not change going into the new Administration, whether or not Obama wins.


    Absolutely (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by cal1942 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:38:15 AM EST
    The Bush administration USED 9/11 to further its agenda.  Remember, the GOP intimated that support of Bush was the definition of patriotism.

    An infuriating period when so many went in the tank.


    I am given hope (none / 0) (#23)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:36:24 AM EST
    by stuff like this that one day saying things like the 2 parties could meaningfully come together and solve things.

    because i don't think 1 party can solve the environmental issues, or social security etc.


    Only one party is remotely interested (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by tigercourse on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:42:30 AM EST
    in solving environmental issues or social security.

    Please just stop this (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:40:36 AM EST
    Honestly, do you know anything about the political history of this country?

    lol you realize (none / 0) (#38)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:47:35 AM EST
    you are quite literally telling me to stop believing that this country could actually unite one day.

    will it happen I don't know, is that really the best reason you have why it shouldn't even be strive for?

    trust me I have no delusions that it will be your generation to do it.


    I am literally telling you (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:52:25 AM EST
    that your attitude disrespects actual ideas and views and embraces empty cant.

    It would be great if 90% of the country agreed with our views (I assume you embrace the Democratic agenda). But if 40% do not - I hope they have enough respect for the issues to NOT vote Democratic.


    I am an idealist (none / 0) (#59)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:10:33 AM EST
    I can't deny it.

    as because of that I refuse to believe that we can't Unite as a country one day. if it hasn't happened in 200 years it's because we need 250.

    if not then then only 50 more. but to say that my attitude that we can genuinely one day unite as a country disrespects actual ideas?

    What is the point of a Big Tent?


    To unite against the people who disagree with us (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:12:11 AM EST
    IMO, you're living in the clouds. To me, talk about "unity" is like fingernails on a blackboard.

    Unite for what? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:16:13 AM EST
    There are some people I would like to kick out of the tent.  Anti-choicers, gay-baiters, etc.  What is progressive is always relative to what is the current "norm."  To keep making progress, you have to push and annoy.  You can't just "unify."

    You like to think you are an idealist (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:29:05 AM EST
    You actually have no ideals at all. UNITY is not an ideal. It is emtyy cant.

    Ideals have substance.


    Tried to vote earlyyesterday in small city Indiana (none / 0) (#16)
    by mattsmomin on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:28:39 AM EST
    I went to early vote on my lunch hour, and the line was 1.5 hours long, so I didn't have time to stay.  The security guards at the county building said the long lines had been consistant since early voting began (this is our first year of early voting).  

    I'm a liberal in what I thought was very conservative area, but I've been surprised that so many people I know re conservative are voting for Obama.

    I won't be voting straight D - there is a really good county surveyor, and I refuse to vote for the candidate for county commissioner who puts "Christian" in his biography heading on the county "Democrat Party" web site (that's how bad it is for D's in my area - they don't even use "Democratic" correctly).

    Good God (none / 0) (#33)
    by cal1942 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:44:05 AM EST
    County surveyor is a partisan office in Indiana.

    Reminds me of the past when positions like county coroner and constable were partisan offices in my state.


    You're from the west coast, aren't you? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:46:59 AM EST
    In Pennsylvania and most surrounding states, there is no such thing as a non-partisan office. We like it that way, too.

    Heh-heh (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by gtesta on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:13:20 AM EST
    "What the hell is a Prothonotary?!"
              - Harry S. Truman visiting the City of Pittsburgh

    LOL - true story... (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:49:07 AM EST
    Ever since they made the school board officials "non-partisan" in our district my father has written me in because he says at least he knows that I am a Democrat.

    O/T: (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:33:07 AM EST
    The Economist endorses Obama.

    I guess I'm more than a little surprised at this. I would have thought that Bush/Kerry was a special case. For a publication so big on the Iraq war. . .

    Apparently they're being a stopped watch (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:36:28 AM EST
    They are really deluded about Reagan:

    Somehow Ronald Reagan's party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried

    How smart people can endorse (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:02:58 AM EST
    the legacy of a senile ignoramus is one of life's mysteries.

    And will remain one forever.... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:19:05 AM EST
    I learned a long time ago I had to just let it go, because nothing will ever work to alter the saintly perception of RR -- regardless of how solid the facts.  Indeed, he is the quintessence of "teflon-coated."      

    Democrats have a golden opportunity (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:31:40 AM EST
    to reassess Reagan's legacy now, IMO.

    The true legacy of the Reagan presidency is distinctly different from the perceived legacy (which is generally somewhere between saintly and devine)that so many in our country seem to share.  And its not like those of who know better haven't tried to set the record straight over the past two decades whenever opportunities have been manifested, and there have been many. Yet, as indisputable as the evidence is, as rational as the argument might be, nothing ever sticks -- which ultimately means that highways, airports and ships continue to bear his name.  Why can't his image be tarnished I'll never know.  Like you so aptly put it, one of life's mysteries, I suppose.  Anyway, my earlier post is probably best characterized as a warning to stock up on the antacids because you may need them by the droves as you take on the Reagan legacy.      

    If this country's economy collapses in (none / 0) (#96)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    the next few years, the blame should lay squarely with Reagan. Bush was just a moronic afterthought to Reagan's toxic legacy.
    Bush's horrid originality came in foreign policy, but he continued with the Reagan nonsense on the economy and taxes.

    Not a shock (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Melchizedek on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:42:02 AM EST
    They endorsed Clinton in '92. You see, when you take social conservatism and religious fundamentalism out of the equation, it's much harder for classical liberals to go Republican. The Economist is for people who only use "Marxist" after having read Marx (Joe the Plumber has maybe seen Groucho Marx, maybe). They know that Obama's progressivism is the antithesis of Marx, because it does not aim for revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, but a better maintenance thereof. They understand that the key to maintaining capitalist democracies is knowing when to reign in capitalism's inequalities.

    The drooling wingnuts who try to read The Economist never seem to understand this.


    Well, I love the Economist (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:43:41 AM EST
    but I don't glorify them. Their unending support for the Iraq war is a serious discredit.

    I'm a little surprised why anyone would (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by dk on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:51:57 AM EST
    be surprised that the Economist endorsed Obama.  Obama is the clear favorite of Wall Street this cycle.  Heck, he just helped bail them out and made sure they will still be well compensated for their efforts over the last few years.

    Republicans voting (none / 0) (#53)
    by eric on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:04:20 AM EST
    92% for McCain?  Even with Palin on the ticket, the disaster of the last eight years, and Obama's bending over backwards to try to reach these people?  Fewer than 1 in 10 Republicans is breaking ranks?

    That is insane.  Republicans baffle me.  How do they maintain this kind of discipline?

    They purge the Republicans who don't agree (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:05:36 AM EST
    Look at the party ID numbers this year.

    But "Republicans". . . (none / 0) (#56)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:06:52 AM EST
    have probably lost fifteen or twenty percent of their already diminished ranks during this election.  So the number of people driven from the Republican ticket during this election is somewhat larger than that number indicates.

    Florida Republican for Obama (none / 0) (#91)
    by robrecht on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:13:51 AM EST
    My FIL in Florida is as Republican as they come, but even he is voting for Obama this year.  He admits that Bush has been a disaster, finally saw the light on Iraq, and hasn't looked back yet.  I'm a bit amazed that he hasn't embraced McCain.

    If even my FIL is voting for Obama, I have to  wonder how many more are.

    But Kerry (none / 0) (#93)
    by robrecht on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:29:06 AM EST
    was also  proponent if the Post Partisan Unity Schtick, as least from what I remember from the '04 Democratic Convention, where Obama made his national debut with this theme.  I wonder if Obama may have emphasized it more in his campaign in order to blunt racial hesitance so he won't be seen merely as a Democratic special interest candidate.