home

Day After Morning Open Thread

The Day After History.

Later I will be providing a detailed analysis of the now Emerged Democratic Majority and what it can mean in terms of actual policy. But for now, some gloating. . . .

In the fall of 2007, I declared my view (and the basis of my support) that Barack Obama was the most electable Democratic Presidential candidate. I argued that he provided the basis for a new electoral map due in no small measure to his status as a Media Darling. I think that view was vindicated.

I also declared that Barack Obama could have secured victory by choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Obviously, as I stated for the past 5 months Obama was a shoo in, but you try to leave as little to chance as possible. Obama's narrow margins in Florida and Ohio point to the correctness of my view about Clinton securing victory. Why? Because Florida and Ohio would not have been close with Hillary on the ticket.

Finally, one that looks wrong - Stevens in Alaska (I am not giving up on Franken. It is headed for a recount.) But who knew that Alaska wanted felons to represent them in Congress?

This is an Open Thread.

Speaking for me only

< A Few More Election Results | Joe Lieberman, GOP Freshman Senator >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It's a beautiful morning...... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Angel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:00:21 AM EST


    You were right (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by robrecht on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:02:05 AM EST
    in a BIG way.  BTW, am I still banned from your threads?

    It's morning in America (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:03:14 AM EST
    No one is banned from anything.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by robrecht on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:03:41 AM EST
    I'm old enough to remember (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:19:56 AM EST
    Reagan.  I wish his legacy had gone to the grave with the Gipper.

    Parent
    An act of clemency (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:33:17 AM EST
    ... to inaugurate the new regime. Very much in the spirit of the day.

    Parent
    I want a Special Counsel. . . (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:39:51 AM EST
    to investigate these last minute Executive pardons!

    Parent
    I want to be in charge (none / 0) (#89)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:06:48 AM EST
    of the Secret Service detail!  Security people can be real PITAs and they have the best possible excuse - they are doing it for your own good.

    Parent
    You think? (none / 0) (#22)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:22:41 AM EST
    Watch John McCain try to get into the White House.

    Parent
    I want Oregon (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by WS on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:04:18 AM EST
    to be declared for Merkley before I start to celebrate.  That 56 number is really annoying me.  With Merkley, 57 looks more respectable and a good caucus for Change.    

    MN is headed for a recount, but that slim Coleman lead is depressing me on this race.  Let's hope Franken pulls it out.  Who are more likely to cast provisional ballots, Dems or Repubs?

    Obviously Dems (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:07:20 AM EST
    That's why Franken will win.

    Parent
    From your (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by WS on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:09:22 AM EST
    lips to God's ears (is that how the saying goes?- I think it is)

    Parent
    Coleman has a 571 vote lead (none / 0) (#33)
    by WS on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:29:33 AM EST
    at 100% of the vote reported by Open Left commenters.  

    Recount is assured and I hope there are enough provisional ballots for Franken to win.  

    BTD was right and Merkley is set to win!!!!!  Merkley has a slim lead with many more votes from the beautiful city of Portland yet to come in.  

    Parent

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:17:38 AM EST
    Merkley wins Oregon. all the votes out are Portland.

    Parent
    Brownlow took votes that could have brought (none / 0) (#88)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:06:40 AM EST
    Jeff Merkely over the top to beat Gordon Smith.

    As of this morning (6 a.m. Pacific Time):

    Gordon H Smith (Republican)  474,398  47.30%  
    Jeff Merkley (Democrat)      469,920  46.86%  
    Dave Brownlow (Constitution)  55,852  5.57%  


    Parent
    Not over yet (none / 0) (#122)
    by WS on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:35:02 AM EST
    Portland and Lane County, both Democratic areas, is still coming in.  

    Parent
    It's a gorgeous (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by shoulin4 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:04:33 AM EST
    day here in Kalamazoo :)

    On that note, I have to go take a test that I am not even remotely prepared for.

    Obama getting to work already to heal our country (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by barryluda on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:07:17 AM EST
    I am so, so proud.  Tears pour down my cheek, still, whenever I see another clip of our new President Elect Obama (boy does that sound good) giving his speech last night.

    It's certainly a new day.  What a WONDERFUL morning!


    I'm happy that Obama won but I'm still sad that (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Angel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:09:00 AM EST
    Hillary was treated so poorly.  She was my candidate and I'm sad that I didn't get to cry with joy about a woman being elected president.  But I have come to believe that this was destiny for our country....we need a rebirth and I think that God has chosen Obama to represent the ideal that we should all strive for. I am still crying with joy this morning and truly have hope in my heart that we can become a better nation, that we will make great strides in moving past all the hate and bigotry that has consumed so many for so long.  Let's celebrate today and get to work tomorrow in making good things happen.

    8 years from now (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:17:06 AM EST
    You will.

    Parent
    Do you honestly think, given the (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:33:19 AM EST
    laughing stock that McCain was turned into at 71/72, a 68/69 year old Clinton won't get walloped?  She'll likely be going up against a powerhouse like Warner, who would sweep the South. The pressure in the party would be enormously in his favor. Even moreso than the pressure was for Obama.

    Can you really see Clinton beating Warner in the Iowa caucus when she couldn't even get second place there this year? It would be an exact repeat. Lose Iowa, lose South Carolina, lose the nomination.

    Parent

    Hillary didn't actively pursue Iowa. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Angel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:35:45 AM EST
    Of course she did. She campaigned there (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:38:18 AM EST
    alot and spent a bunch of money. Yes, she could have done more but I doubt no matter how much effort she puts in, she can beat Warner. As long as it's a caucus, a part of her base simply can't get out to vote.

    Parent
    Not really full-bore (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:34:13 AM EST
    She came close to skipping Iowa altogether, then didn't have anywhere near enough of a ground game there, which is what matters.

    No way would Warner have anything close to the ground forces Obama had.  Not a chance.  Obama is a unique phenomenon that can't be repeated.

    It's impossible to foresee the political environment that far out, but there's no reason as of now to think Hillary wouldn't be an even stronger candidate in 8 years than she was this time.


    Parent

    No more Iowa caucus (or any other caucus) (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Manuel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:50:01 AM EST
    I don't care who is running.  The country and the party need a better process.  In fact the new system needs to be in place for 2012.  And while we are at it, let's see if we can fix campaign finance.  The amounts of money being spent on these campaigns are crazy and make a huge difference.

    Parent
    Since the current system gave the party (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:51:09 AM EST
    it's desired outcome, it won't be changed.

    Parent
    Honestly (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by zvs888 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:50:18 AM EST
    Warner won't get anywhere near the attention Hillary would and she'd still have a massive fundraising edge; one would assume she'd come up with a totally bulletproof strategy...

    Parent
    If Warner gets the same early establishment (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:54:16 AM EST
    support as Obama did, he'll have more then enough money. One would have assumed she'd come up with a bulletproof strategy this year as well. But she didn't.

    The fact remains that she is in a worse position in 2016 then she was this cycle. If she could not do it now, I don't see how she could manage in the future.

    Parent

    Her favorable... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:59:44 AM EST
    are, I think, higher or easily as high now as they were during her best during this primary.  She isnt in a worse position.

    Parent
    Hillary is not McCain. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by indy in sc on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:40:47 AM EST
    McCain was a laughingstock not because of his age, but because of his own poor judgement and scatter shot campaign.  He lent himself to being labeled "erratic."  Do you really think Hillary would ever be a laughingstock?

    No doubt she would be vigorously opposed, but it would be hard to paint her as erratic unless she suddenly became that during the '16 campaign should she choose to run.

    Parent

    I'll paraphrase (none / 0) (#44)
    by WS on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:38:04 AM EST
    Obama's mantra

    Things Change

    Go Hillary 2016!!!

    Parent

    Go complete (none / 0) (#133)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:01:52 AM EST
    public financing of campaigns.

    And out with pathetically low expectations.

    Parent

    Well, that's my hope, certainly. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Angel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:22:36 AM EST
    She will be a young 68 then (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:25:41 AM EST
    And fired up and ready to go.

    Parent
    I would love to see her get Senate Majority (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Angel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:27:03 AM EST
    leader.  What do you think of her chances?

    Parent
    Eight years of Majority Leader now (none / 0) (#54)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:45:09 AM EST
    over a future presidential bid?

    I vote for Majority Leader.

    Parent

    There's even less chance of Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:47:39 AM EST
    being Majority leader then President in 2016. Reid, Durbin and Schumer aren't going to just throw away everything they've worked for.

    Parent
    What exactly have they worked for? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:56:21 AM EST
    Inquiring minds want to know!

    Parent
    Power. They've worked for power. Harry Reid (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:59:17 AM EST
    didn't spend a couple decades kissing a%# to hand the reins over to Clinton. I like Chuck, but he ain't in this for the sheer joy of being the 3rd in charge. And Dick Durbin is Obama's guy, if anyone replaces Reid it's going to be him.

    Parent
    Slim? (none / 0) (#69)
    by JoeA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:55:29 AM EST
    I thought the Senate were big on seniority, I don't see how Hillary gets the Majority leader job, at least not in the next 4 years.

    Parent
    But, she will be referred to as old. (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:58:29 AM EST
    And, although Obama sd. last nightt he wasn't the pick of the Washington power structure, in fact, he was.  They won't pick Clinton in eight years. Look at the reaction to M. Albright being on stage with Hillary Clinton after Clinton won the NH primary.  

    Parent
    She does have several years, though, (none / 0) (#142)
    by sallywally on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:03:47 PM EST
    to show her mettle and value again. Now that Obama is POTUS, and seems to have presidential gravitas, maybe he will be able to use her talents without being afraid of getting overshadowed.

    It would certainly strengthen his own power to do that.

    Of course, she is more liberal, so maybe that will keep her out.

    But I will never count her out. Never!

    Parent

    If Obama had even mentioned Hillary (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:36:40 PM EST
    Clinton in passing last night, I might agree w/you.  But he didn't.  He did mention the gracious call he received from John McCain.

    Parent
    Snore (none / 0) (#134)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:02:29 AM EST
    I'll always count out (none / 0) (#144)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:20:25 PM EST
    any "liberal" who voted for that disgusting, murderous, wasteful, larcenous invasion. Always!

    Parent
    So... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Shawn on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:25:06 PM EST
    I take it you wouldn't support Vice President Biden's '16 campaign?

    Parent
    How old will he be then? (none / 0) (#148)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:45:09 PM EST
    87?

    Im just wondering how we degenerated to the point where the ideal of enlightened leadership in foreign policy is someone who always says how high whenever the hard-Right board of AIPAC says jump.

    Parent

    Amen (none / 0) (#27)
    by Baal on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:25:46 AM EST
    Obama will pick another VP in 2012 (none / 0) (#56)
    by barryluda on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:45:56 AM EST
    And his selection will most likely be the Democratic nominee in 2016.

    Assuming a successful Obama presidency and a booming economy,
    I predict that Obama will replace Biden with Rahm Emanuel (his chief of staff for the next 4 years) as his VP running mate in 2012.  Emanuel then becomes the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2016.

    I'd rather see Clinton in 2016, so I hope this isn't what happens, but I'm just thinking...

    Parent

    a booming economy? (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:55:33 AM EST
    I'm hoping for a (green) economy on the road to recovery in four years.  Unless a huge domestic source of readily accessible, cheap energy is found, I don't think a booming economy is likely.

    Parent
    hillary did a he!! (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by sancho on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:55:42 AM EST
    of a lot in her run. she was great. she won't run again but she's made a big difference i think for others. a true pioneer. and she'll continue to be a great seantor and that's no small thing. let's hope she and obama can work together on some key issues that will do all of us a lot of good.

    and thanks again to jeralyn, btd, and tchris for giving us such a great place to come to and talk and think about politics.

    and while the joy of the moment overcomes me, thanks as well to everybody who posts here regularly--even the folks who troll rate me. :)


    Parent

    I really, really wish President Elect (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:44:46 AM EST
    Obama had found room in his victory speech for a few kind words for the Clintons.  

    Parent
    Why start now? (none / 0) (#151)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    He got everything he wanted. What does he stand to gain by acknowledging Hillary now? The time of accountability is over for him. Seriously!

    Parent
    I know. (none / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    Congratulations. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:11:37 AM EST
    Not only were you right on all the issues you mentioned in your post, you appear to have almost exactly predicted the final popular vote numbers as well.  If your prediction was based on some kind of methodology, your methodology appears to be sound.  If your predictions were based on a general knowledge of politics, your knowledge appears to be superior.  And if your predictions were pulled out of thin air, you appear to be a lucky guy.

    Obama romped home with the strong assistance of the media who, in the end, kept their bargain (if you give us Obama during the primaries, you have to stick with him during the general).  But Obama's media status was earned by the fact that he's an intelligent, well-spoken person who knows how to keep them in line.  The fact that Obama is popular with the media reflects many things, not least of which is his quality as a person and a candidate.

    My methodology was demographics (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:15:45 AM EST
    I estimated the demographic turnout and percentages for each candidate.

    It is the system I used throughout the primaries.

    Demography is political destiny.

    More on this in the EmergED Democratic Majority pot to come.

    Parent

    Wow! (none / 0) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:20:04 AM EST
    More on this in the EmergED Democratic Majority pot to come.

    Change has come already!  And no one believed poor Senator McCain.

    Parent

    Venceremos! (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:21:27 AM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#58)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:48:53 AM EST
    Patria o muerte, venceremos, as Mitt Romney might say.

    Parent
    Can you point me to (none / 0) (#23)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:23:51 AM EST
    someone who will crunch the demo numbers for Obama/McCain and California's Prop 8?

    There's a demographic trend I would be completely unsurprised to see.  

    Parent

    Then you do not need to see it then (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:25:04 AM EST
    Yes, I imagine our new EmergED Dem Majority is not fully committed to equality for all.

    My people especially.

    Parent

    No I don't really. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:42:56 AM EST
    Demographics is destiny.  For good or ill.

    Parent
    congrats, btd, (none / 0) (#85)
    by sancho on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:03:46 AM EST
    from me too. great calls. for my money, which is not much i grant, you're the best, most fair, most often right reality-based liberal blogger on the net. i like to think you're the reason obama won--if only b/c you helped make me (a bitter hillary dead-ender) pleased about how it has turned out (so far!).

    Parent
    Big Relief (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Coral on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:16:25 AM EST
    this morning, and BTD, thanks for your clarity and rational argument brought to the sometimes heated debate over the primaries.

    Krugman says it's the end of the monster years. Sigh. I hope.

    Sure wish inauguration would happen, say, tomorrow.

    The inauguration... (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:24:40 AM EST
    should be a helluva party this year...The Boss, Jay-Z, who knows who else...could be the music event of the year between all the balls.

    Obama could hear his ipod live if he wanted...who would say no?

    Parent

    Will.I.Am? (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:27:14 AM EST
    I'll save... (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:19:01 AM EST
    the pissin' and moanin' and criticizin' for another day, and stress the positive.

    A new confidence has been inspired...people who stopped believing in America, or never believed, have a reason to believe today that things can be different, we can do better and be a better nation.  I saw it on the faces of the people in the deli and the cigarette shop this morning...a new confidence.

    California HSR looks like it will pass!!! (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by WS on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:27:12 AM EST
    But the victory was tainted because of Prop. 8's passing.  In time, California will know the error they made on this issue.  

    The people of Indiana have been liberated! (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by robrecht on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:31:01 AM EST


    Were there flowers and parades? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:41:04 AM EST
    Did they vote for gay marriage?

    Parent
    Not yet (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by robrecht on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:43:15 AM EST
    But they toppled that big ol' statue of the Republican dictator.

    Parent
    Gloat away, BTD... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by easilydistracted on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:41:40 AM EST
    you had it right.  Nice job.

    It is a good morning, well, about as good as can get for me here in Texas.  Needless to say, the lone star repubs are saying its business as usual this morning.  No new dawn here.  In fact, I read a quote from good old governor Perry saying "If Washington would just look to the heartland, they would see the blueprint for making us a Republican country again..."  So, get ready, 'cause they ain't acquiescin to anythin.

    Let's remain optimistic for Al Franken, and, as for the Stevens matter, remember he's convicted of nothing until the judge sentences him (talk about a bunch of hooey).

    Anyway, continue to gloat away.    

    Don't be dejected, Texas. (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:45:43 AM EST
    Only an eleven point margin.  Look at the red states around you.  You did good, and you helped cut into McCain's popular vote.

    Parent
    You could do worse (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by BrianJ on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:52:15 AM EST
    You could be here in Louisiana, where the Obama excitement was something that happened to other people.  McCain won by almost 20 points, five more than in 2004-  not even the depopulation of New Orleans can account for that.  Cazayoux got sent home.  Landrieu had to sweat all night to hold her Senate seat.

    I despair for any ideas of revitalizing New Orleans or Baton Rouge.

    Parent

    but I'll trump ya come January when the prom king and queen move to my neighborhood.  

    Parent
    Thanks, but I'm going to need a little more (none / 0) (#60)
    by easilydistracted on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:50:13 AM EST
    encouragement because it does get worse: Guess who moves in about 20 miles down the road the latter part of January?! Crap, there goes the neighborhood.

    Parent
    You live in Houston? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:53:22 AM EST
    Because on January 20th a wrecking crew will arrive to dismantle the film set that the "ranch" in Crawford has been.

    As long as you don't play golf in whatever the top segregated club in Houston is, you're unlikely to suffer any inconvenience from Bush's presence there.

    Parent

    I left the Houston area (none / 0) (#95)
    by easilydistracted on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:16:17 AM EST
    last year and now live in the Dallas metroplex.  And, I wish they were moving to Houston.  A couple of months ago the prom king and queen announced their plans to relocate to the Preston Hollows area of Dallas County.    

    Parent
    Oh, are those. . . (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:22:05 AM EST
    different cities?  I'll have to check a map.  Is that Texas with an "x" or with a "j"? :-)

    Parent
    Cover of supermarket tabloid says (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:54:20 AM EST
    Prom King and Queen are splitting up.  She'll be a city mouse and he'll live on the ranch.

    Parent
    Well, damn, (none / 0) (#141)
    by easilydistracted on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:52:08 AM EST
    there go my watering holes now; the prom queen will be out trolling every night.  

    Parent
    Hate to say so but (none / 0) (#143)
    by sallywally on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:14:09 PM EST
    I'd love it if they did. Just to show that Queen, who had better ratings than King, couldn't take it anymore. Disillusion for the wingnuts.

    Schadenfreude. Bad me!

    He could drink himself even sillier out there in the dust and heat. Although he apparently has no sadness about what he did to the nation, so he wouldn't get overcome by despair!

    Parent

    Uh....... I'll....uh.... (none / 0) (#146)
    by easilydistracted on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:26:05 PM EST
    I'll tell him you said hi, if I run into him at the Costco, scratch that, I meant Sams Club.  All kidding aside, I couldn't agree with you more.

    Parent
    It won't make any headlines... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:08:36 AM EST
    if Obama wins it, but I'm still hoping for that one unnoticed electoral vote from Nebraska.


    Democrat Barack Obama won the presidency Tuesday, but the question of whether he scored an electoral vote in Nebraska remained up in the air.

    And it could remain unanswered for a week.

    Obama and Republican John McCain were locked in a virtual tug-of-war in the Omaha-based 2nd Congressional District, with the election too close to call.

    At the end of the evening, McCain led Obama by 569 votes in unofficial returns.

    But more than 9,000 early votes and provisional ballots were still to be counted, said David Phipps, Douglas County election commissioner. Those ballots - some of them won't be counted until next week - could decide the race in Omaha.




    Obamaha! (none / 0) (#137)
    by robrecht on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:10:45 AM EST
    With 9k provisional and early ballots, it seems he may have a real chance at 365.  My older brother, who lives in Omaha (and who obviously knows a lot more about politics than me) stuck by his early prediction that Omaha would be liberated.

    Parent
    Prop 8 may be the ultimate irony ... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:15:05 AM EST
    in this race.  If it indeed passes, as it looks like it will, it shows that the battle for civil rights never ends.

    And just as the country takes a step forward in one area, it takes a step back in another.

    Progressives still have a ways to go in this country.  And though I'm ecstatic about Obama's win and the Dem pick-ups, we all know that pols are pols ... and none of them care as much about progressive causes as we do.

    As I've said before:  Obama can be a bold progressive president, or a one term president.

    And as moving as Obama's win was.  The issues are always more important. Always.

    This is a great day! (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:33:56 AM EST
    I have been resolute in my belief that Obama would win and would win big.  And while I started to have a twinge of concern when Virgnia seemed to stubbornly stay in McCain's favor last night, I always knew that today would be a wonderful day.

    Now that he is office it is time for him to lead.  I don't expect a wildly progressive agenda from him.  That simply won't be his style.  But I do believe that he will move the debate to the Left and implement some good public policy measures.

    He will get us out of Iraq.  He will not start a war with Iran.  I believe he will be able to get Bin Laden.  

    He will push for a better health care system.  What it will be I don't know but it will be better.

    And we all have to stay focused and make sure he does these things and that he doesn't run to the political safe ground on every tough fight.

    It is a great day in America and I am proud to be an American.

    The nightmare is over (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Lora on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:25:24 PM EST
    So glad.  Obama had the numbers.  I will dig my American flag out of the basement, where it has been since March 2003.

    Hillary (none / 0) (#12)
    by Coral on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:12:25 AM EST
    Kevin Drum has a nice tribute to her on his Mother Jones blog.

    Maybe we can trade Alaska (none / 0) (#30)
    by Baal on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:27:46 AM EST
    for Iceland

    Maybe Russia can spend some of their (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by JoeA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:57:16 AM EST
    new found economic wealth and buy Alaska back?  At least then Sarah Palin will be able to see Russia from her window at home, rather than just from some tiny island hundreds of miles offshore.

    Parent
    Nah, they're in economic meltdown. Let's try (none / 0) (#32)
    by Angel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:29:20 AM EST
    for Nova Scotia.  Nice clean country, sensible people.

    Parent
    Two clouds in todays perfect cloud... (none / 0) (#31)
    by barryluda on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:28:53 AM EST
    The re-election of a convicted felon in Alaska and a nut in Minnesota.

    So, Palin is actually going to be making a decision of National consequence (assuming Stevens gets his comeuppance).

    Dollars to donuts that she appoints.......herself. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Angel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:30:12 AM EST
    Gasp!

    Parent
    Apparently the Alaskan legislature changed (none / 0) (#79)
    by JoeA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:59:20 AM EST
    the law so that the Governor cannot appoint a replacement senator to serve out the term, it goes straight to a special election.

    Unfortunately I suspect Sarah Palin would run for, and win in such an election.  If being a convicted felon doesn't disqualify you for the senate in Alaska then I don't see how she would lose.

    Parent

    Another cloud I just read from WS (none / 0) (#39)
    by barryluda on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:34:17 AM EST
    Is prop 8 in California (I hope it's not true that it's passing).

    Parent
    It is indeed passing. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:36:59 AM EST
    I am saddened.  Looks like the Right will have a new cause celebre for 2010 and 2012.

    Parent
    Three clouds (none / 0) (#40)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:35:11 AM EST
    if you also count lots of democrats voting for bigotry in california.

    Parent
    Democrats? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:38:35 AM EST
    Maybe this is the new face of the Democratic Party?

    Parent
    Well, it's a part of it unfortunately (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:41:47 AM EST
    There's lots of good (obviously), but there is also a lot of bigotry towards gays and women (obviously).

    Parent
    The same old face. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:43:49 AM EST
    Look, things have changed in this country (in this world), but not that much.  Losing is losing, but the stunning thing for someone who's been around a while (I'm 46) is how close the vote was.

    I was at an election party where about two-thirds of the guests were gay and I (not gay) was the only one who seemed to care about Prop 8 (I was best man at the wedding of two friends in SF this summer).

    It's an awful thing to see rights voted down and bigotry enshrined, by democratic action, in California's state constitution.  But don't let's pretend it represents some right-ward movement in the country.  The narrowness of the vote represents a left-ward movement, albeit one that fell short.

    Parent

    Check the numbers. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:51:59 AM EST
    Yes it was close, but by comparing Obama/McCain numbers versus Prop 8 No/Yes numbers it becomes evident that it took more than just McCain voters to pass it.

    Do Obama's numbers really represent a leftward shift?  

    Parent

    I have seen it reported (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by BrianJ on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:53:58 AM EST
    That it is California's black voters providing the margin for Prop 8-  whites actually voted narrowly against it and Hispanics are splitting down the middle.

    Parent
    AA's supported it by a huge margin. It (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:56:35 AM EST
    seems clear that in the future, gay rights groups need to figure out a strategy for courting the socially conservative AA voters.

    Parent
    Got a link? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:59:27 AM EST
    Sounds about right to me.  Blacks are predominately social conservatives, not liberals.  Whites tend to be more socially liberal and I haven't a clue about Hispanics.

    Parent
    Here you go (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:03:41 AM EST
    Fascinating. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:20:17 AM EST
    Some things were pretty easy to understand - younger voters tend to be opposed, older voters tended to have voted for it.

    Black women and men voted in favor, by quite a spread.  Whites were a pretty homogeneous group (outside of age differences) almost perfectly split.  

    But boy, that statistical difference between blacks and whites is just huge.  

    Parent

    Don't discount the influence of the churches. (none / 0) (#127)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:52:12 AM EST
    CA's Proposition 8 is the most expensive social issue race the nation has ever seen.  Same-sex marriage bans in Florida and Arizona won easily last night.  $73 million was spent on CA's Prop 8, and the effects of it passing will be felt all across the country.  The Mormon and Catholic churches produced convincing ads, but targeted megachurch communications may explain the disparity between blacks voting for it, and whites and Hispanics against it.  

    Again, the more states institutionalize discrimination, the longer the GOP gets to utilize them as GOTV wedge issues.  Gay families will NOT stop demanding equality.  And until straight America stands up and puts an end to the problem, the Democratic party will pay the price of non-resolution.


    Parent

    Yup, that was my point (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:57:13 AM EST
    An inconvenient truth. I blame it mainly on the churches.

    Parent
    It's strange... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:02:08 AM EST
    with a black candidate how little actual black voters have been discussed.  

    Parent
    Yet the parental notification Proposition (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:50:24 AM EST
    was defeated.

    P.S.  We did vote in favor of kinder treatment of animals destined to be eaten by humans.  Yes, we'll still slaughter them.  But they'll be happier before that.

    Parent

    No, my point is. . . (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:58:46 AM EST
    there has never been a consensus in support of gay marriage even among Democrats -- although, in this case, I'm sure the measure carried a strong "win" (meaning loss) if you look only at registered Democrats.

    Almost no Democratic politician -- certainly on the national stage -- has come out in favor of gay marriage.  The only person I know who even considered a national run who's in the right position on this is Bloomberg.

    Why?  Because Democrats know that the gay marriage issue cost us the White House in 2004.  That, as a national issue, it was as much a creation of Republican strategists as the gay community itself.  And that there's no consensus for it, even among Democrats.

    I wish that weren't so, but it is.

    The closeness of this vote, while sad, leaves me with a little hope that given two, or four, more years the Californian public will reverse themselves.

    Parent

    Consensus or not, this has to be dealt with. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:38:48 AM EST
    Democrats know that the gay marriage issue cost us the White House in 2004.
    You sound like you're blaming gays for fighting for equal rights.  It's not the demand for gay marriage that causes a problem, it's the lack of equality to begin with.  As long as gays don't have equal rights, they will fight for them.  While the issue is disputed, Repubs will use it as a GOTV wedge issue.  

    Consensus or not, the Democratic party has to find a way to establish equal rights, once and for all, or pay the cost of it's use as a wedge issue.  Federal law should trump states declaring what marriage is, or marriage should be removed from civil union law and given back to the churches, with heterosexual couples sharing civil union structures with gay couples.  

    One way or another, if our party doesn't make changes, the GOP will continue to benefit from the gay marriage wedge issue.  


    Parent

    Obama thread the eye of a needle on this issue. (none / 0) (#83)
    by JoeA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:03:31 AM EST
    We can wish he was more courageous in backing gay marriage fully, and coming out vocally against prop 8.  The calculation he made of course is that if he had done so then the McCain campaign and their 527 groups would have hung that around his neck in battleground states like Ohio and Florida  where it would have killed him.  You can see the ominous ads they would have run with school children being indoctrinated into homosexuality if Obama won.

    Parent
    Now that the election is over, I think it (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:05:50 AM EST
    would behoove the gay community to remember exactly what Obama did in South Carolina before the primaries. I wouldn't automatically assume that Obama wanted to be more courageous.

    Parent
    On the other hand. . . (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:09:10 AM EST
    he did say "gay or straight" last night in his victory speech -- certainly the first time that's happened.  The room erupted where I was.

    Parent
    Yes, he did. I found it rather (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:53:01 AM EST
    jarring, considering his mostly-silent approach to Prop 8.

    It is rather surprising Prop 8 vote was a close as it was.  Even a couple years ago I think it would have passed by much greater margin.  GOTV doomed "No on Prop 8" this time.

    Parent

    He said every (none / 0) (#136)
    by rennies on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:08:27 AM EST
    inclusive group under the sun.

    Parent
    Obama will have four long years (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:09:54 AM EST
    to show us how courageous he is.  Or not.

    Parent
    why should this be a surprise, (none / 0) (#36)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:31:57 AM EST
    But who knew that Alaska wanted felons to represent them in Congress?

    they have sarah palin in the gov's mansion? i suspect many of stevens' supporters actually believed his nonsensical claim that he hadn't been convicted of anything, since his case is on appeal.

    as for obama, i wouldn't gloat just yet. he, and the democratic majority in congress (yes, the same majority that's played bootlicker to bush for two years), have a huge, huge mess to clean up. the bush administration is, as we speak, making every attempt to increase its size, before the inauguration.

    this gives pres.-elect obama, and the democrats in general, plenty of opportunities to screw up. knowing the democrats, they'll avail themselves of all they can.

    i just hope i'm proven wrong, or 2012 will be a disaster.

    Stevens (none / 0) (#43)
    by hp4578 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:37:20 AM EST
    What will happen with Steven's seat once he is formally sentenced?  Will Palin appoint someone temporarily to the seat and call a special election? What is the procedure?

    There are two laws (none / 0) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:58:29 AM EST
    on the books in Alaska.

    One says the Governor appoints someone and another put in place by the voters that says only a special election can do the trick.

    Judging by the way Alaska works, and their voters vote (Stevens and Young?)...look for an outcome that is probably unethical.


    Parent

    Joe the plumber moves to Alaska and is (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by JoeA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:05:00 AM EST
    appointed by Sarah Palin as Ted Stevens replacement.  He then wins the special election in a landslide.

    Parent
    Strange is always possible... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:17:51 AM EST
    I see your Joe the Plumber and raise you one Elisabeth Hasselbeck. (She could live in Alaska the way Liddy Dole did in North Carolina or Bush the Elder did in Texas)

    Parent
    They tell me (none / 0) (#63)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:51:09 AM EST
    that early votes have not been counted yet in Alaska, so who knows.

    The Baby Boom (none / 0) (#90)
    by OldCity on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:07:41 AM EST
    generation is in for some adjustment.

    Any observer over the last two years had to have noted the skepticism, if not outright derision aimed at the Obama philosophy of inclusion and his expectation that younger voters would participate in great numbers.  In short, politics was said to be an immmutably divisive enterprise, one in which young people were too self-obsessed to participate.

    This generation achieved what the baby-boomers never did; they managed at some level to not only transform American politics, but also the impression of American cultural divide.

    I'm not going to wax rhapsodic over the end of partisanship.  I think though, that there are lessons to be learned, and pre-conceived notions to be discarded.  This win simply can't be ascribed to race or dissatisfaction with the status quo.  It represents, to me anyway, the quintessential quality of Americans; we are believers in the common principle of meritocracy much more than we are of race, wealth or religion.  It's nice, frankly, to have confirmed everything that your (in my case, immigrant) parents told you was true.          

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:19:14 AM EST
    I'm still looking for this wave of younger voters I was promised.

    In 2004, voters age 18-29 were 17% of the electorate.

    This year, the number was 18%.  Is that really a Millennial wave?

    No question Obama won that subgroup by a much wider margin than Kerry did, but I don't see the evidence that he hugely expanded it.

    Parent

    Swing States (none / 0) (#110)
    by CST on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:44:20 AM EST
    According to CNN the number of young voters went up significantly between 2004 and this year in swing states.  It's just that they didn't bother in the other states as much.

    Whether or not that's a wave, who knows.  But turnout was up all around so that 18% of the electorate is a lot bigger than the 17% was, because the electorate was bigger.

    I think regardless what the numbers say, all the talking heads are giving this to the youth so I think we will see a shift in the perception despite what the reality may suggest.

    Parent

    Can the generational war, please (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:45:23 AM EST
    It's stupid, and you're at a severe disadvantage because you're apparently too young and too ignorant to have a clue about history.  Good grief.


    Parent
    It goes both ways (none / 0) (#115)
    by CST on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:52:47 AM EST
    While I don't necessarily agree with the other poster - they didn't call you old and senile just "in for an adjustment".

    There was a lot of derision at younger voters, some even suggesting that the voting age should be raised (saying nothing about the enlistment age).  I can understand this person's excitement that might change, and while maybe they didn't put it best, they weren't insulting.

    Parent

    The right-wingers in the office... (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:09:00 AM EST
    are bad-mouthing the youth, "what do 18 year olds know?" and blah blah blah.  Cry me a river:)

    I feel like saying..."you voted for Bush twice, I gotta ask what the f*ck do you know?"

    Parent

    apparently enough (none / 0) (#119)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:26:57 AM EST
    to get shot and killed in afghanistan & iraq.

    "what do 18 year olds know?"

    they still can't legally buy a drink or stock, that would be wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too dangerous!

    Parent

    OldCity (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by ding7777 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:16:02 AM EST
    Can you tell me a time when the Baby Boomer generation has not had to do some adjustment?

    From the day the boomers were born there has been nothing except adjustments.

    ... overcrowded schools, civil right passage, Viet Nam war protests, Kent State, War on Drugs, 11% mortgage rates, Reagan's FICA increase, start of the Rust Belt, 2 wage-earner families (by necessity), excessive health insurance premiums, Stock market meltdown

    I'm sure the boomers can adjust to whatever "change" Obama has in mind

    Parent

    In addition, (none / 0) (#153)
    by nemo52 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:01:11 PM EST
    isn't it the awful baby boomers who raised those shiny, awesome new voters?

    Parent
    Adjustments..... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by sallywally on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:08:03 PM EST
    and this:

    "It represents, to me anyway, the quintessential quality of Americans; we are believers in the common principle of meritocracy much more than we are of race, wealth or religion."

    1) The real distinction is not between generations, but between people who can evaluate events and policies thoughtfully, deeply, and honestly. Who can look at their own views with courage and self-awareness.

    Between those with seriously open minds who want to learn and those who think open-mindedness means lack of emotional and mental focus - no respect for internal consistency or the reality-based world.

    And who can maintain their idealism while tolerating the realities of governing. Kind of like Obama, perhaps. Trying to be like this will require a large adjustment for many of Obama's younger supporters.

    This has nothing at all to do with generations. There is pretty much the same allotment of silliness and wisdom in every generation.  

    And it's a kind of tribalism, sort of like Alaska, with a different content. We like us, our tribe, the young, but we don't like you, the Other, the older, the outsider.  

    In fact, we know little of you as a group, perhaps beyond our or our friends' immediate families. Nevertheless, we we stick you in boxes, decide you are unable to think freely and with vision, call you bigoted.  But that is itself a bigoted view.

    2) Meritocracy without realism and broader awareness is an inherently elitist philosophy. Most people do not have the "merits" to achieve in the professions, business, politics, etc. And that meritocratic strain in the arugula-favoring wing of the Obama coalition is not an attractive one.

    If handled wrongly, it can be social Darwinism in a more gently stated way, like compassionate conservatism.

    Parent

    Not true (none / 0) (#156)
    by CST on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:24:41 PM EST
    We are not an anti-establishment generation at all.

    In fact, we voted for the "unity candidate" - mostly because we don't stick people in boxes, and we have no problem with you, the Other, the older, the outsider.

    Look, a lot of us still consider boomers "cool" even.  And I will note that the person who wrote the original post is in fact part of Obama's generation, not a member of these new "youth voters"

    Parent

    I said, in a comment (none / 0) (#99)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:20:22 AM EST
    a few days ago, that an interesting bit of entertainment in the wee hours would be watching the Stevens/Begich race in Alaska. Citing polls, I was implying that Alaska would elect Stevens in spite of his felony conviction.

    I got jumped on.

    I'm certainly not happy that the people of Alaska appear to have re-elected Stevens.

    My point is that there is still a deep seated corruption in the body politic that will support someone they consider to be a part of their tribe even when confronted with that person's inappropriate and unacceptable acts.

    We're still not in a good place in this country.

    Tribalism is universal. (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:26:29 AM EST
    The only antidote to tribalism is constant exposure to Outsiders.  The less contact you have to Outsiders, the stronger influence tribalism exerts.  The outcome is logical enough.

    Parent
    I don't know much about tribalism (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:29:11 AM EST
    Interesting though, it would make some good snowed in reading if I could just get snowed in.

    Parent
    Eh, tribalism (none / 0) (#113)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:48:35 AM EST
    is just about the social groups we identify strongly with.  It can be your church, your workplace, sports fans, your family, anything.  But this group identity determines how people react and interact with other groups.  There's probably whole sociology theories about it, but it basically comes down to how we decide who is Us and who is Them.  Who is in, who is out.  Who is a Villager and who is an Outsider.  

    Because humans are social creatures, we tend to draw boundaries, create territories, claim resources and defend them from "outsiders".  Because tribalism is built into our species, we can never be rid of it.  We can only deal with it or exploit it.  Politics is often an attempt to exploit tribalism.

    Parent

    The generational schtick (none / 0) (#155)
    by sallywally on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:10:08 PM EST
    is a form of this, imo. Young (we - or actually they) vs Baby Boomers (the Other).

    Parent
    I'm a (none / 0) (#161)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:50:12 PM EST
    pre-boomer, AKA war baby.  We probably don't fit anywhere.  Maybe it's because I've never felt that any generation before or after is some form of enemy.

    Parent
    Child of child of the depression. (none / 0) (#162)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:51:23 PM EST
    Correct (none / 0) (#164)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:55:56 PM EST
    my mother didn't really have a childhood to speak of.

    Parent
    Same with mine. She worked (none / 0) (#167)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:02:57 PM EST
    hard to help support her family, as did her mother.  Dad didn't.  She often told of her mom putting her on the bus for college.  She had $150.  

    Parent
    My mother (none / 0) (#170)
    by cal1942 on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:14:35 AM EST
    often had to delay starting the school year because she didn't have shoes that fit and when winter settled in she was often without a coat that fit. Imagine walking to school on a day in the high 20s to low 30s with nothing more than a light hand me down sweater.  She wasn't the only kid in those circumstances during that time, there were many. She had to leave school after the ninth grade.  A quarter earned baby-sitting or cleaning for a day was turned over to the family for survival. Those were the pre-Roosevelt days of the depression.

    Parent
    Good (none / 0) (#165)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:56:54 PM EST
    description Fabian.

    Parent
    Perhaps it is a red state (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:26:22 AM EST
    lightly populated phenom........Wyoming has had about the same mentality in the past.

    Parent
    NPR last night interviewed (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:39:47 AM EST
    a mover and shaker in Alaska.  He sd. many, many people in Alaska know Stevens personally.  His office helps them get veterans benefits straightened out, same with Social Security.  Politics is personal.  And he has been in politics there for 50 years.

    Parent
    No no no no no! (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:24:47 AM EST
    Somebody make it stop!  Dubya is on the tube right now talking about how wonderful John McCain and Sarah Palin are.  If I were them he's the last person I would want in my face today.  Oh, and he is of course reminding me that he is the "decider" until January 20th.........what a ____ (fill in the blank with whatever you want, I prefer yiddish things).

    the word "putz" (none / 0) (#121)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:29:11 AM EST
    comes quickly to mind. lol

    what a __ (fill in the blank with whatever you want, I prefer yiddish things).


    Parent
    Is (none / 0) (#163)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:53:40 PM EST
    schmuck acceptable?

    Parent
    Just for fun (none / 0) (#112)
    by Politalkix on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:46:03 AM EST
    Let me repost what I [posted ] on May 26, 2008 (even before the primaries got over). At that time, I went out on a limb to predict that Obama would win every state that Al Gore won in 2000 plus a lot of states from the additional list of 12 states that I provided. I never had any doubt in my mind that Obama would win the election handily (even many months ago, when doubting Obama's ability to win was a pastime at TL). I also predicted a high ceiling of 272 electoral votes (if Obama wins NC, he will reach 264).
    Andgarden and BTD (two posters whose political instincts I greatly respect) replied to my post. Please find out how skeptical they were about what I had to say. Also note the 1 ratings that I got from some other posters.
    Maybe, after all, I was not the wild-eyed "Obamabot" that some of you imagine me to be! :-).

    Typos (none / 0) (#114)
    by Politalkix on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:49:59 AM EST
    It should read "I also predicted a high ceiling of 372 electoral votes (if Obama wins NC, he will reach 364)."

    Parent
    not a generational war thing... (none / 0) (#116)
    by OldCity on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:02:51 AM EST
    above.

    I'm not too young.  I'm close to Obama's age.

    He was derided.  He was described as excessively optimistic, his idea that he could expand the demographics that woukld vote for him was really not taken seriously.  So, he did, by dint of a huge, discplined effort, prove his point.  Sure, he was helped by the unpopularity of Bush and the economic downturn.  But, he also illustrated that many previously held notions of how and why people will vote should be discarded.  

    I work with a huge number of Baby boomers who are absolutely gobsmacked that he won in the fashion he did, and in spite of his race.  I on the other hand, and my much younger employees, really didn't doubt the possibility of an Obama Presidency.  Now, that's anecdotal, but I'm fairly certain that those viewpoints do represent a generational divide.  

    Needed: Legislatures with guts (none / 0) (#118)
    by jarober on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:22:18 AM EST
    The problem here is that people resent having contentious issues decided by the judiciary.  This is why abortion is still contested 30+ years later; it's why prop 8 passed.  If legislatures would grow spines, and vote on these issues directly, there would be direct accountability, and far, far less contention.

    Until state legislatures (or Congress) start doing that, you'll continue to see this kind of problem crop up.  Going the judicial route seems like a shortcut through the political hurdles, but all it really does is create resentment.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#139)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:24:25 AM EST
    I think it's up to individual Americans to create this change.  Each and every Democrat who thinks discrimination is wrong should be talking and writing about it to their colleagues and relatives.  As with slavery, miscegeny, racism, and the Nazi's internment of Jews, oppressed people cannot create the change themselves.  It takes effort and dedication on the part of the dominant members of society to create change.  We cannot just expect our leaders to take a stand that will cost them their political careers.  This is not about spine in elected officials, it's about lack of support from the dominant society, especially the Democratic electorate.

    In Hawaii, the few elected Democrats who stood up for equal rights for gay citizens in the past fifteen years were destroyed.  They were targeted by Catholic & Mormon Church groups that killed their political careers and replaced them with candidates who were against gay marriage.  It was swift, merciless and effective.  The result is that in 2007, the HI Senate Committee tasked to create civil unions ended up doing nothing.  After thousands of people testified for the need for equal rights, giving clear, reasonable arguments, with parents practically begging on behalf of their children, and local newspaper editorials demanding the Legislature enact civil unions, Dem Rep. Tommy Waters simply tabled the issue so a decision couldn't be used against them.  

    Remember, women didn't get the right to vote just because they demanded it.  Politicians finally realized that they could reap the benefits of more voters if they included women in the electorate.  The inequalities between gays and straights will eventually change, because this is America after all, and we're all supposedly equal.  Gay Americans will continue to demand equal rights, and will eventually obtain it, just like other minorities have.  

    The question is, does the Democratic party want to continue to lose elections on this wedge issue for the next hundred years, or is the electorate willing to do what it takes to establish once and for all that gays are not second class citizens?

    Parent

    Old timers will remember (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:43:59 AM EST
    that when Bush won I didn't gloat.

    So I give my smile and a friendly nod to the classy celebrations and my sneer at the others.

    Winning is not governing.

    So congratulations are in order. You now have what you wanted. It is to be seen if it is what you want.

    Then there's the (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:05:01 AM EST
    opposite of gloating, like refering to Obama only as "Hussein" at your own site.

    Class all the way that.

    Parent

    That's president-elect.... (none / 0) (#149)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:49:23 PM EST
    Hussein to be exact:)

    Parent
    Mr (none / 0) (#150)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:54:30 PM EST
    president-elect Hussein, to you pal. lol

    Parent
    I have dubbed him (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 04:47:26 PM EST
    H

    Seems kinda fitting, eh?

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 04:55:32 PM EST
    That's a goodun.

    You know, once upon a time an old poker player told me to quit styling my chip stacks and act like I had been to the cashier's cage before...

    ;-)

    What I'd like to be is a mouse in the corner when H get his first intelligence briefing... I can just hear him say, "My God! They actually said that!? We have that many there??? We don't know where it is?"


    Parent

    Unlike Congressional Democrats and some (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:48:37 PM EST
    Left Wingers.... I have a vested in H and the country doing well.

    After all, as Reagan said, a rising tide lifts all ships.

    ;-)

    Parent

    No need for the USSR (none / 0) (#171)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 03:53:20 PM EST
    when the hidden enemy is amongst us.

    A good Ollie North nite-lite keeps them at bay though.

    Parent

    Well, you two brought the subject up (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:02:02 PM EST
    Shall we  revisit Clinton's "worst economy in 50 years...."  Reid's "War is lost...."

    How about the 2006 pledge by the Demos that gasoline is too high.....and that it must be brought down (and they would do it) That worked well,eh??

    Parent

    I never knew a poor person (none / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:03:36 PM EST
    to start a company and hire someone....

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:00:36 AM EST
    and I urge you to listen to the entire song, or at least read all the lyrics, before you judge it.

    I love that track.

    Obama's win is good for McCain! (none / 0) (#140)
    by TomStewart on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:33:15 AM EST


    Stevens vs Jefferson or Rangel?? (none / 0) (#157)
    by DeputyHeadmistress on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:19:09 PM EST
    Yeah, I'm disappointed that it looks like Stevens will continue in Washington, but not any more disappointed than I am that Charles Rangel and William cold cash Jefferson remain there.