home

Overnight Open Thread

By TChris, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:23:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Pleasant thoughts to ponder as we enter the weekend:

President George W. Bush is "absolutely radioactive" and Republicans will suffer widespread election losses in November unless they distance themselves from him, said Representative Tom Davis, a former leader of the party's House campaign committee. ... Bush is the face of the party and congressional Republicans are "seen as just in lockstep with him on everything," Davis said.

Republicans would lose 20 to 25 House seats if the election were held today, Davis said. If Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is seen by voters as "Bush III" he will lose by 20 percentage points, said Davis, who chaired the National Republican Congressional Committee from 1998 to 2002.

Share your own pleasant thoughts in the comments.

< Friday Night Open Thread | Colorado State Convention Gets Underway >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Overnight Open Thread | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Someone else Finally read the memo (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:29:47 PM EST
    But that's the. . ."pleasant" part. I've already shared some of the unpleasant bits, and suggest that everyone read the whole thing (DOC).

    Yes, Everyone Should Read It (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:52:36 PM EST
    I could swear I heard Tom Davis's lips smacking at the thought of taking on Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    zactly (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:15:43 AM EST
    Of course, anyone who's been hanging out at Talk Left for the past few months knows the basic contours of the problem, but now we know that we're not alone in recognizing it.

    Scary indeed.

    Davis's own actions reflect his words: in his district, he knows he's fu*ked. That's probably true for most House and Senate seats. But John McCain and Barack Obama together seem to even the odds at the Presidential level.

    [ Parent ]

    Read it yesterday when you posted (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:19:23 AM EST
    interesting reading.  But then again we know a lot of it.  I caught on to the need to be more centrist.  I have a feeling, our "friend" McCain will get more and more centrist and so will Obama.  In the end the lines will be blurred and we will end up with spittle again.  I guess I keep dreaming for a fighting Dem agenda, not just a vague nothing.  

    Heh, it's not over.  

    [ Parent ]

    Tom Davis isn't running (none / 0) (#69)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:57:52 AM EST
    So his district is a pick up for democrats.

    [ Parent ]
    True, but irrelevant to my point (none / 0) (#85)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:29:41 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Just as a brief UNpleasant thought... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Addison on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:30:52 PM EST
    ...it's a pretty horrific situation to have a president as powerless and universally disliked as ours. It does our country no good.

    January 09 can't come soon enough. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:34:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Which is exactly why (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:10:01 AM EST
    I can't understand why so many Dems. are ready to vote for another one who is even less qualified.

    [ Parent ]
    Here it is (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ajain on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:35:41 PM EST
    The case for Hillary Clinton's electability.

    Link

    It actually quite amazing and odd. I think this is her best electability argument

    This is the reason that many Dems ... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:15:00 AM EST
    are afraid of Clinton.  

    The Democratic Party doesn't really want to beholding to ALL the people. Especially not those pesky poor people.

    They'd be much happier to lose with the Arugula salad brigade, than even look at a plate of bisquits and gravy.

    [ Parent ]

    This gave me the giggles (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:16:46 AM EST
    from that site: "Obama is unlikely to win the heart of Appalachia in the general election, but he may not need to if he can make up ground on its northern frontier. If he wins New York and Pennsylvania (he lost both in the primaries) and flip-flopping Ohio (another primary loss) he will be in good position."

    Oh, that's all he has to do.  And it's a pro-Obama essay!

    [ Parent ]

    Giggles and groans here... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by NWHiker on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:20:36 AM EST
    That all: win three states that he couldn't win in the primary, flipping one of them from red to blue. Piece o' cake!

    This is what got to me:
    Clinton said in her victory speech on Tuesday night that no Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without taking West Virginia. True. But they all could have won without it. The margins of victory in those races ranged from 23 to 515 electoral votes. West Virginia has five.

    Iirc, if Al Gore had carried WV, we'd be talking about VP Lieberman's election campaign right 'bout now. (OK, fine, sometimes things aren't perfect... Hee).

    [ Parent ]

    lol!~ Florida?! (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by nycstray on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:38:46 AM EST
    The electoral votes of the other heavily Appalachian states could be offset. For instance, if he wins Virginia (where a corner sits in Appalachia and which seems to be in play although it hasn't swung Democratic in more than 40 years) and Florida (which almost swung -- or maybe did swing -- Democratic in 2000) . . .

    Uh, have they forgotten that lil' issue down in the sunshine state? AKA, we kinda said they didn't count . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:41:46 AM EST
    Lots of old people (McCain) and plenty of Latino's (McCain).

    With Hillary running she could get those voters.

    [ Parent ]

    And she was also down there on (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycstray on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:56:02 AM EST
    Primary night. She tried to keep up the good will instead of toss it aside. I think Obama has as many states under the bus as he does demographics at this point . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Have they really thought of what they say (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:44:54 AM EST
    before they speak?  Western Pa were I have lived is as Appalachia in heart as you can be specially about guns and religion.  And so is eastern Ohio outside the big cities.  Ergo his substantial losses in the primaries there.  Maybe they should look at the map a little better.  Or is it that they consider the vote in the heart of Appalachia is racist?   Don't think so I think is more divided along class and a perception of his being elitist, a problem IMO that extends beyond the Appalachia.

    [ Parent ]
    This is another good quote, (none / 0) (#31)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:23:43 AM EST
    Obama has proclaimed "change" his mantra. That change may well be evident in the electoral map come fall. Appalachia is all American, but America is not all Appalachian.


    [ Parent ]
    I have recently figured out (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:40:11 AM EST
    That the "change" argument simply means that no one can question Obama or his electability with any amount of logic or reason, because with Obama, for some reason, everything is different and no case can be argued.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is creating his own reality (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:52:16 AM EST
    Hmm...where have I heard that before?

    Obama "won" by focusing on undemocratic caucuses and red states with high delegate counts - and expects the Clintons to persuade Dems in FL, OH, PA, TX, WV, KY, etc to vote for Obama in the general.

    Oh- and now we learn from Ed Gillespie, Bush's remarks weren't directed specifically to Obama or even Carter although Carter would be a better fit.
    But Obama did what he accused Bush of doing - inserting politics into foreign policy. Obama used Bush's remarks to say, "Look at me! Look at me! I'm the Dem nominee!"

    And Obama used Bush's words for a 2nd day news cycle to boost his "toughness" on foreign policy.
    sheeeeesh


    [ Parent ]

    Heh, have they checked NY's Republican history? (none / 0) (#37)
    by nycstray on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:34:47 AM EST
    He's gonna have to win over Hillary Dems along with her Indies and Republicans. She won reelection with 67%. And we have lots of those demographics he avoids . . .

    [ Parent ]
    I wrote him (none / 0) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:25:36 AM EST
    a nasty note...


    [ Parent ]
    That is quite a site. (none / 0) (#14)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:01:51 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    sight....tired. (none / 0) (#15)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:02:04 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Uh, so depressing (none / 0) (#40)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:37:05 AM EST
    There are so many what if's to the Obama wins argument it makes me crazy.  Aside from the simple fact that their maps imply that Clinton runs better and yet the article implies the very opposite.

    [ Parent ]
    I just read the article (none / 0) (#94)
    by ajain on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:59:56 AM EST
    The Op-Ed was initially posted without the text.

    Nonetheless, its stupid Obama electability argument is proof how good of an electability argument Clinton has. They have to create ridiculous scenarios to prove Obama's electability that have no basis in reality.

    [ Parent ]

    Will McCain be seen as Bush II? (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:37:58 PM EST
    I really doubt it. In fact, I think if the choice is between Obama and McCain, Obama is the one who will look like more of the same. McCain's team is brilliant at packaging him and coming up with the right themes---especially the green stuff.
    Also, the proposal to institute the practice of the President taking questions, as PM's do in Britain, really shocked me. This is one thing in particular which I have really wished for this country.
    No, McCain won't be seen this way (none / 0) (#73)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:17:11 AM EST
    for one, the press won't help the DNC win an election.  McCain is already doing poverty tours, he is talking about climate change, he is reaching out to working class people.  Trying to paint him as Bush II will look foolish.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain is not being treated with kid's gloves (none / 0) (#77)
    by independent voter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:38:05 AM EST
    by the media. I have seen several stories (print and video) pointing out his flip-flopping on Hamas and questioning whether his age will be a factor (in a very leading way, I might add). It looks like right now, the MSM loves Obama more. Let's hope it lasts.

    [ Parent ]
    Representative Tom Davis... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by jerry on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:43:31 PM EST
    I sure hope Al Franken gets in.  He's got to be pissed about what Tom has done.

    Al Franken would be nice ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Robot Porter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:16:53 AM EST
    but he's no Paul Wellstone.

    [ Parent ]
    No, but he really wants to be. (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by jerry on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:49:35 AM EST
    Paul Wellstone deeply affected Al.  And Al is Good Enough, Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Him.

    So I'd so love to see him get in.  A smart, funny, dry witted, ironic Jewish comedian on the floor of the house.  Man, I'd so have a nerdgasm.

    Anyway, my original post was a riff on Al Franken's original partner, Tom Davis....

    [ Parent ]

    The Senate voted to override (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:07:04 AM EST
    the media ownership rules, the new relaxed ones. Here is the story. And some details..
    Senators, on a voice vote, approved a resolution nullifying the new, relaxed ownership rules adopted in December by the Federal Communications Commission.

    The vote moved lawmakers a step closer toward overturning the new FCC rule.

    Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, a co-sponsor of the resolution, said he was deeply troubled by the FCC's rule relaxing media cross-ownership.

    "As corporate ownership over our media grows more concentrated, we see less and less of the diversity of our nation. When programming is the same from coast to coast, our airwaves will no longer reflect the rich mosaic of our country and our citizens," said Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat.

    Hopefully, this is the first wedge in breaking apart the corporate consolidation of the news.

    It's nice to see (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:10:11 AM EST
    The Dems on the Hill are actually doing something lately, it looks like. Gotta love an election year.

    [ Parent ]
    It would be great if we could (none / 0) (#78)
    by independent voter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:41:06 AM EST
    focus all the passion on this site to push for things like nullifying these new rules and the many other laws that are stifling our liberty, and limiting the scope and quality of "news".

    [ Parent ]
    Before or after (none / 0) (#80)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:46:46 AM EST
    the nomination?

    [ Parent ]
    BOTH! n/t (none / 0) (#89)
    by independent voter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:49:21 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Regarding the NARAL endorsement (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:24:10 AM EST
    I think this was just about the most depressing thing I've read in awhile, and as we all know, there has been plenty of company for that:

    "In an interview with Politico, NARAL President Nancy Keenan said the group's nine-member political action committee chose Obama after extensive deliberation that included studying the two Democratic candidates' delegate counts (both pledged and superdelegates), their viability in a matchup against the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, and their cash on hand."

    It does, of course, go on to say that Clinton's record is actually better.  

    I mean, have we, as Democrats, lost all sense of reason, all sense of ourselves?  Do we desire to stand for something?  Do we even desire to win? Someone please wake me from this horrible, incessant nightmare!!

    I call it Stockholm Syndrome (none / 0) (#33)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:25:56 AM EST
    we learned from out oppressors.  

    [ Parent ]
    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:12:27 AM EST
    I just can't even believe anyone said "cash on hand" as a sound reason for an endorsement.  It boggles my mind.  I feel like we've lost all sense of direction.

    [ Parent ]
    naral is afraid of having money taken (none / 0) (#98)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:21:55 AM EST
    away hence endoresement. cynical but spot on!

    [ Parent ]
    Brain Snatchers. (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by nycstray on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:28:51 AM EST
    I swear that's what the O'Camp is beginning to look like. Perfectly, reasonable smart people that I once knew, I no longer recognize. I was questioning O's days in Chicago as to actual hands on experience during his community organizing and lawyer days with someone I've known for several years. Yes, I know shouldn't have gone "there" but . . .

    "Where is all the great work he did as community organizer?"

    I think you're smart and wise enough to understand that if he went into vast detail about those experiences -- there are those who would very well use it as a racial topic, Scoot.

    AARRRRRRRRGH! {Bangs head against wall}

     

    Same mentality (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:34:40 AM EST
    as during the build-up to the war.  Absolute abdication of critical thinking.  Now tell me, do we want him with all that power and those followers, committed to keeping him saintly?  I myself am scared.  

    [ Parent ]
    I just don't get it. Really, I don't. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by nycstray on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:48:21 AM EST
    Now, I do understand how they are playing the voters with their message etc, and I understand why some people follow etc, but geeze, this is getting out of hand. Thankfully none of my friends around me have fallen down the "path", so I can still feel some sanity around me, lol!~ For some, all I had to do was compare him to an old boss {grin}. That led to another round of drinks and lots of laughter as we remembered some of the 'stuff' I did while working for him. Department meetings were always fun when I showed up!  ;)

    I can't believe that a good chunk of the country is falling for this crap after Bush. Of course, I couldn't believe he got reelected either. Sheesh. And now the Dems are doing it :(

    [ Parent ]

    I had a friend give me the (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MarkL on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:52:31 AM EST
    "he'll have good advisers" line, in reference to foreign policy.
    That really made me want to hit my head.

    [ Parent ]
    When he said that during a debate (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by nycstray on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:59:35 AM EST
    I looked into who was currently advising him. Oy.

    we. will. be. so. screwed.

    [ Parent ]

    the guy who told me this is a poli-sci (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by MarkL on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:00:51 AM EST
    professor.

    [ Parent ]
    Oy. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by nycstray on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:10:38 AM EST
     

    [ Parent ]
    creative class? (none / 0) (#99)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:22:38 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    they view everything from a racist angle (none / 0) (#70)
    by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:51:19 AM EST
    No other factor is considered. Obamamites even interpret Huckabee's remarks to the NRA as "racist", rather than Obama's wishy washy record on guns and lying about a survey. Instead, Obama the "victim" is alive and well.

    Huckabee:
    "That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he was getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor."

    DK diary:
    There's a racist component of the old Steppin Fetchit stereotype of the fearful black man who is clumsy and dumb that Huckabee invoked.

    And of course they apply a double standard by bashing Hillary and the Washington establishment that supports Obama for not jumping up to denounce Huckabee's remarks. He did apologize, but Obamamites race-baiting is out of control and makes Obama appear weak.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think some people quite understand (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:34:55 AM EST
    how strong a candidate John McCain really is. He's the best one they've had in decades. He's the best one the party could have possibly put up this year. GWB, his pappy and Dole don't hold a candle to this guy. He has the best personal story of any candidate since Kennedy. Possibly better even. The man spent 5 and a half years suffering because (as the story goes at least) he didn't want to be sent home before anyone who had been there longer. He and some other men sewed a flag out of old clothing so they could say the pledge in the mornings.    That's the kind of stuff movies are made out of. That's "the American Spirit".

    He knows how to play that maverick image. Obama is running as a new bipartisan, post party candidate... based on a record of 20 months. McCain has been living that &%^# for 20 odd years.  

    Democrats underestimated a half brain dead shmuck lik Bush. I can't believe they are underestimating John McCain.

    Hillary is not underestimating McCain. (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by MarkL on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:36:01 AM EST
    I am sure of that. Obama is WAY too confident.. very worrisome.

    [ Parent ]
    Also, I find Obama's treatment of (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by MarkL on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:45:25 AM EST
    McCain disrespectful, much as it was with Hillary. That will really come back to bite him, if he keeps it up.
    Reagan  was senile when he zinged Mondale on the age question in 84. McCain is not, and he will clean Obama's clock if Obama pulls the "old man" routine on him.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, I don't think Obama will be able (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:56:49 AM EST
    to brush McCain off his shoulder the way he has tried with Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    I liked her attitude in the phone call (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by nycstray on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:06:15 AM EST
    to bloggers earlier about all the crap that's going on.

    I think McCain will be more combative to a degree, but he should have the media on his side, so he'll be able to utilize her approach also.

    I like the fact those to are moving forward and engaging like she's out of it . . . they may have taken their eye off her to a degree, but she's got her's on the prize  ;)

    [ Parent ]

    "The phone call" should be (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:53:04 AM EST
    required listening for all Hillary Clinton supporters.  The woman keeps her focus under fire.  So should we.  

    [ Parent ]
    plus (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by bigbay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:43:06 AM EST
    Obama, not Mc Cain is the one looking haggard on the campaign trail.

    [ Parent ]
    obama is disrespecful of everyone he (none / 0) (#95)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:02:15 AM EST
    runs against. take a look at wipe off his shoulder, wipe off the shoe, shoot the bird viedo. take a look at the races in ill. keyes was a gift. disrespect is part of the mo of the campaign. tak a look at just how many groups are under the bus. respect, i think not! and the shame of it is this wasn't necessary. all it did was destroy the primaries and the presidential campaign to come.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:53:07 AM EST
    And, liberals think no one will vote for him because he is a "war monger".  Actually, the majority of anti-war Republicans chose him because they trust him on the war.  Crazy.  Above someone posts a link to a wonderful graphic that shows Hillary's strength in the Appalachia region of the country.  Rather than posit that this might make her the stronger candidate the author concludes perhaps BO can win...Virginia.  Virginia?  Against John McCain.  It's like all the hopium has gone to their brains.

    [ Parent ]
    Right, the idea of Obama picking up Virginia (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:02:57 AM EST
    is pretty silly. He's not Jim Webb and McCain ain't George Allen.

    The number of states that Obama was supposed to flip (Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, deep red states like Alabama and Georgia, etc.) are rapidly dwindiling. This is going to come down to Obama trying to hold onto Penn and the Great Lakes states and expand into Ohio. Just like Kerry. Expcept Obama won't win New Hampshire like Kerry did.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:06:49 AM EST
    I think the expanding DC suburbs in northern VA, and an open-seat Senate race will actually push Obama over the top. Kaine and Webb were able to win VA in the past few years, marking a very noticable Dem trend. And trends are fairly accurate, carrying on to an election season. It is my opinion, personally, that as far as electoral politics is concerned, these types of trends are far more important than the actors themselves. I believe history tells us that, at least.

    [ Parent ]
    You have got to be kidding me. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:13:34 AM EST
    There is huge military vote in VA.  

    [ Parent ]
    Here's my counter argument before I'm (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:20:51 AM EST
    off to bed. Allen imploded. Webb would not have won without the racial slur. Kaine won close in 2005, but Dems lost both the Lt. Governor race and the AG race. It's not all roses.

    Furthermore, there is the example of Wisconsin. Over the years it has gotten more Democratic at the state level. There are more House dems, and (since the early 90's) it has gained a Dem Senator and Governor. However, it is getting more Republican at the national level with each passing election. Kerry squeaked by. Another example is New Hampshire. Huge swing to the Dems in 2006. Sunnunu will lose this year. But McCain will likely win. State and national results can diverge.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain is one of those (none / 0) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:53:53 AM EST
    candidates that are nearly exempt from those trends.

    He is truly sui generis.

    [ Parent ]

    Dalton? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:19:49 AM EST
    I tried to post on your diary that I really found what you had to say very interesting.  You seem to have done your homework.

    [ Parent ]
    You DO realize (none / 0) (#86)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:39:18 AM EST
    that outside of NoVA - Virginia is a pretty conservative state, don't you?  And that Webb and Tim Kaine and even Mark Warner really aren't that liberal?

    I don't see VA turning blue in the fall.

    [ Parent ]

    obama picking up virginia? (none / 0) (#93)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:59:00 AM EST
    naw! won't happen! by the way kiss off michigan and florida also. wv, texas, and ohio!

    [ Parent ]
    You're totally right (none / 0) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:49:51 AM EST
    IMHO.  And on top of that, he really is a very charming and personable guy-- not phony frat boy personable, but genuinely likable (at least his public personality).  Even Hillary likes him a lot on a personal level!

    I think it will be very hard, probably impossible, to make him equate to Bush in most voters' eyes.

    And he could hardly be a greater contrast to Obama's "um, uh" drawn-out treatises.

    [ Parent ]

    Aside from McCain's (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Grace on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:38:57 AM EST
    moderate reputation, one thing I really like about him is his age.  He's old enough that he doesn't need to worry about a continued career in Republican politics once he leaves the White House.  He can do what he wants to without worrying about "the party."  (The party hasn't always been fair with him so I imagine he might do what wants to when he wants to.)  I see his age as a good thing.  

    McCain used to be pro-choice.  I don't know his personal opinion but I think McCain might be inclined to pick more liberal judges than other Republicans might like.  A lot of McCain's stances are in line with moderate Democrats.    

    I see McCain as being pretty strong on common sense, and I like that about him.

    I don't think he could have run at a better time.  Electing McCain will mean continued gridlock on a lot of issues (which isn't bad) plus a lot of moderate Democratic issues have a good chance of passing.  McCain can work with the Democrats which is a lot more than Bush could do.    


    [ Parent ]

    Hi folks... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Benjamin3 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:47:02 AM EST
    In a previous thread there was a lot of discussion about the popular vote.  Just thought I'd share some good information.  A group of MA women called EVERY VOTE COUNTS has been corresponding with Howard Dean, and Dean has acknowledged that the raw vote totals from MI/FL do indeed count.  In fact, the DNC ruling was about delegates only - they had no authority to strip these states of their popular votes.

    Of course, the popular vote total is important and is a powerful argument to SDs.  Throughout this campaign we've heard various leaders pontificate on the role of SD's, with Dean and Pelosi both interjecting themselves.  The most consistent theory has been that SDs should not "overturn the Will of the Voters."  Well, which metric more accurately reflects that Will:  the popular vote total, or a pledged delegate lead mostly racked up in red state caucuses.  Below is part of the correspondence from this group:

    "Thursday, May 15, 2008
    LETTER TO HOWARD DEAN REGARDING FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN
    The letter below has been sent to Howard Dean by the Democratic Women's Leaders, Every Vote Counts, organization (which can be found at COUNTTHEVOTES) which followed a face to face meeting with Dean regarding the seating of Florida and Michigan.

    As you will read, a deal is in the works to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. Dean also acknowledged that the popular vote totals of Florida and Michigan were separate from issues involving the DNC and the delegates and that the raw vote totals were valid. As of now, including the Florida and Michigan popular vote totals, Clinton leads Obama in the popular vote by 25,016 votes, something the media is still ignoring.

    With the issue of Florida and Michigan becoming more crucial every day. people can let their feelings known by calling the DNC regarding the delegates as well as contacting national and local news outlets about the omission of the Florida and Michigan vote totals when reporting the popular vote. Howard Dean's statement that the Florida and Michigan raw vote totals are valid results should speak for itself. You can also express your feelings to super delegates by clicking here to find a list of super delegates and their contact information at THE SUPER DELEGATES TRANSPARENCY PROJECT

    Democratic Women Leaders
    EVERY VOTE COUNTS"

    Yes, imagine if Dean had piped up (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:48:55 AM EST
    when the media, at the behest of David Axelrod I am sure, said they wouldn't count those votes in their totals.

    [ Parent ]
    thanks for the clarification (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:35:46 AM EST
    Of course Dean & Co and the Washington establishment minimize the popular vote to avoid flashbacks of USSC Bush v Gore.

    I sent your info to Steve Corbett and appreciate his efforts in taking a stand against Obama "winning" the nomination based on intentionally focusing on undemocratic caucuses and red state primaries with higher number of delegates - while assuming Dems in FL, OH, PA, TX, WV, etc. will fall in line for him in Nov.

    corbett@wilknewsradio.com

    [ Parent ]

    I would like to call attention to (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:24:45 AM EST
    the guys who are for Clinton.  I have been all het up about women power, and probably will still continue to be, but I think the most miraculous turn-around Clinton has had is with guys coming out in increasing numbers to support her.  

    And to the male Clinton supporters on TL who have been doing so all along, I am sorry if you feel left out when we go all "I am Woman."  Your vote counts, too.

    It's just a little giddy-making to be seeing Clinton fighting for the nomination despite the sexism and the rage and those who would seek to keep her "in her place."

    Rise, Hillary, Rise!

    I Think It Is Hard To Miss Who Is The Real (none / 0) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:48:28 AM EST
    fighter in this race. Our "energizer bunny" just keeps on going and going displaying her complete knowledge of the issues with strength and grace while Obama is increasing looking like his battery is about to quit. Also, his unwillingness to debate and accept televised Town Hall events to discuss issues, just makes him look weak. These are some of the reasons that I think account for Hillary's increase support among men. If you are paying attention, you just have to respect her.

    [ Parent ]
    MO Blue (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:51:52 AM EST
    I can't remember who said this the other day, but someone noted how ironic it was that neither Gore nor Kerry could appear strong and tough enough to appeal to male voters, but Clinton is doing it just by virtue of fighting it out to the end.

    Speaking for me, I feel energized about fighting for something after feeling like I was just laying down and taking it from Bush Co for the last seven years.  It's good to remember who we are, and what our core dem values are.  

    [ Parent ]

    Core Democratic Values (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:07:30 AM EST
    Obama being so willing to put core Democratic values on the table and under the bus is the main reason for my opposition to Obama as the nominee.  How many of the things that I value is he willing to negotiate away to keep his bipartisan creds? Is he willing to fight for anything other expanding his own personal power? I have seen no evidence that he will fight for anything other than himself and a lot of evidence of him backing away from taking a stand based on principle.  

    [ Parent ]
    some youngsters (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:47:03 PM EST
    who didn't live through it have forgotten that through the Carter years, repubs developed the strategy of either poaching dems or putting straw dems into office.  In many southern states, repubs ran as dems until they got elected, then they switched affiliation.  This was how the south was lost to the democratic party.  And, now I see folks cheering about anti-gay and anti-choice dems winning in MS and the like, and it gives me pause.  There is a huge difference between reading and memorizing history and living through it.  I suppose if Obama is crowned, they will find out soon enough.  

    [ Parent ]
    Awww (none / 0) (#96)
    by Steve M on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:13:53 AM EST
    Thanks, Kathy.  KUSA is still the best pollster ever!

    I didn't start out this primary season as a Hillary supporter (although I was a 4-time Clinton voter!) and I have to say, the enthusiasm my mom and my wife had for her certainly was compelling to me.  She inspires me too, frankly.

    [ Parent ]

    KUSA thanks you (none / 0) (#100)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:41:35 PM EST
    for your considerate support.

    [ Parent ]
    ah, would that rep. davis were (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by cpinva on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:25:07 AM EST
    correct. if this were indeed the case, the villagers, pitchforks and lit torches in hand, would have gathered on the front lawn of the capitol and demanded bush's impeachment or his head on a pike, or both. so far, that hasn't happened.

    roughly (from the last polls i've seen) 30% of the electorate still think the pres. is doing just a bang up job. granted, these are the people who get sucked into the classic nigerian "419 scams", but what can you do, they still get to vote.

    kerry/edwards, if there truly is a god, should have beaten bush/cheney 4 years ago. and yet, here we are, getting ready to celebrate the 8th year of the reign of young king george.

    based on what i've seen from the DNC this year, they've learned nothing from the last two debacles.

    i'm not hopeful their learning curve will swiftly improve over the next couple of months.

    all this excitement! yeah right! (none / 0) (#92)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:55:14 AM EST
    and just what are we so excited about? electing dems? there was a time i would have been also and still feel they are far better than repubs. but i have to tell you i feel no excitement. know why? oh hillary is part of it. it is the end of any dream i ever had of a return of responsible government interested in our welfare. take a good look at what these dems have done since 06 before you get so excited. do they really care about our welfare? how can anyone say they give a daxx about us after watcing these presidential primaries and watching the lack of leadership from reid and pelosi?

    [ Parent ]
    So what they do is convince everyone that (none / 0) (#2)
    by Rhouse on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:30:13 PM EST
    Obama is a big fan of Reagan and keep hammering him with  video of him praising Bush and they win.  Oh, they will have to enlist the help of MSM to sugarcoat McCain and his "maverick" stance.

    I'm pretty sure that ins't pleasant (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by dianem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:33:14 PM EST
    I'm going to do my best here... I'm not good a not being cynical. How about... extreme Republicanism is on it's deathbed. The selection of McCain as their candidate indicates that they know what neoconservativsm is dead and buried. No matter who wins the upcoming election we will not have another Cheney/Rove as President.

    [ Parent ]
    With these DNC leaders seem to be convinced (none / 0) (#7)
    by felizarte on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:37:51 PM EST
    that even a dog can beat Bush this presidential election year. But that does not mean that the Democrats should not choose the strongest candidate against McCain.   McCain knows this and will certainly try to slowly distance himself from Bush.

    It will be a terrible mistake for the Democrats to underestimate the GOP's political dirty tricks department. They should be in a rush to push Obama for the nomination despite indications of his weakness for the General Election.  

    Dems for Dot.tee!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by nycstray on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:31:36 AM EST
    That's my dog. She'd look great on the WH lawn  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Awww, Congressional Republicans Are Seen (none / 0) (#9)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:38:33 PM EST
    as lockstep with Bush.  I can't imagine why that would be other than they've voted lockstep with Bush.  

    Couldn't happen to a more deserving crew.

    Awesome news tonight. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:49:42 PM EST
    Noriega is within the MOE in Texas, and trends are swinging his way. He is still relatively unknown, but as he becomes more and more known, more and more people like him. Cornyn is one of Bush's biggest lapdogs too.

    In Kansas, our Dem Senate nominee has shot up in polling. He is only 12 behind now, and closing fairly quickly. This would be an absolute shocker, and could open up a new slot for us.

    Franken in MN, according to the most recent SUSA poll is clawing back as well--once down 10, he is now down 7.

    Good news for Dems everywhere! By next week, we could see our candidates in Alaska and Oregon take over, as well as Udall CO opening up a gap. One thing this long process is definitely benefitting us with--strong organization and national name recognition. This could be one of the bluest years in awhile.

    Beautiful! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:54:29 PM EST
    One thing about being the ascendant party, you get a better class of candidates and a less impressive slate of opponents.  Strong candidates don't like to invest all the time in a campaign just to lose.

    I remember in 1992 when all the leading Democrats figured there was no way we would win the Presidency and we had to go with some bozo.  You hate to see that.

    [ Parent ]

    Some good stats to keep in mind (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:04:00 AM EST
    According to CIRCLE:

    Since 1932, in states where a Senate election took place between an incumbent and a challenger, if the challenger won, his/her party also carried the general election electoral votes by a 68-32 margin.

    In open seat races, the party whose candidate won also won the electoral votes for the state by an overwhelming margin of 86 percent to 14 percent.

    Why is this important? There are open Senate races in Virginia (13), Colorado (9), and New Mexico (5). They are all trending Dem. The most current polling is +18, +3, and +14-20 for Dems, and those leads have been on the uptake at that. These are all very swing states.

    Other Senate races where we are leading or very close: OR (7EV), -2, MN (10EV), -7, NH (4EV), +10, AK (3EV), +/-0.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm confused (none / 0) (#17)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:06:21 AM EST
    what do the numbers behind the states represent?

    Are you meaning Representative races?

    [ Parent ]

    (EVs), +/- current polling (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:08:42 AM EST
    For instance Colorado is (9)electoral votes, +3Dem Candidate.
    Oregon is (7)electoral votes, -2Dem Candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Ahhhh (none / 0) (#23)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:13:53 AM EST
    then, what is unique about the states that will have Senate races you did list, and the states that will have Senate races you didn't list?

    [ Parent ]
    Check my latest diary post (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:17:02 AM EST
    For a more in-depth analysis, but, all these states are ones where our candidate is polling within 10 points, or is way far out ahead. These all chances for Dems to pick up seats in the Senate. Furthermore, there is no Dem in danger of losing a seat this year--the closest is Tom Harkin in IA, who is up by 16 in the latest IA poll. There are other races, such as in GA and KS where our candidate is polling just outside of 10 percent, at 12 in each, respectively.

    [ Parent ]
    Completely forgot Noriega (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:12:23 AM EST
    He's only behind by about 3-4 points in TEXAS and is GAINING ground on Cornyn, and running a brilliant campaign to boot. He, Mark Begich in AK, and Tom Udall in CO need our help more than anyone else. We're prolly not gonna win TX in the fall tho', just to prepare everyone. :P

    [ Parent ]
    Amazing (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by phat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:49:21 AM EST
    it's amazing to me that Franken would have to claw back.

    Norm Coleman? Sheesh.

    [ Parent ]

    There is a news blackout (none / 0) (#83)
    by nellre on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:00:12 AM EST
    MSM has decided Obama is it so no need to cover HRC.
    Hope it backfires on them.

    I noticed that yesterday and today, too (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:50:14 AM EST
    and am just disgusted by the media agenda-setting.  Ever since the Edwards announcement -- and the sadly ironic thing is that it was Edwards who got the media freezeout before, but now he's all in the news . . . because he is within the Obamaura.

    I think it tells how Tuesday's coverage will go -- all Oregon, all the time.  And Kentucky?  Is that one of the 58 states?  But maybe that will be a sort of kindness to Kentuckians, who will not be so disparaged by media as were West Virginians.

    [ Parent ]

    Have you seen this? (none / 0) (#90)
    by sander60tx on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:03:23 AM EST
    if not, it's worth a look.  

    wasn't it also not so long after watergate (none / 0) (#91)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:48:30 AM EST
    that carter was elected and then kicked to the curb with some help from the dems, err kennedy. not to say that carter didn't help matters also. so false expectations can cost a lot. the people can be just as quick to turn on dems. why is that there is no comment in that "memo" about the fact that the dem congress approval ratings are lower than bush. what an arrogant out of touch bunch of appeasers! yeah i said appeasers! they know and have known how much bush wasn't liked yet they have done nothing for the american people.
    go over to anglachel and take a (none / 0) (#97)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:14:34 AM EST
    look at the blog diary about the perceived reason for the way this presidential campaign has been run. she thinks it is a power struggle with the northeast wanting to push the south out the door. yeah, that's right. and the west? why they think it is theirs. it never has been, but that's right this year it is. is that a prescrption to a win in november? i think not. go have a look and a good long read with a cup of coffee.

    Overnight Open Thread | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment