home

Denial And The 50 State Strategy

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:18:32 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Remember the heady days of Obama Mania when he was going to compete in all 50 states and change politics as we know it? Well, we know those pipe dreams are over. It is now fashionable in the Obama blogs to discuss the grief stages for Hillary Clinton supporters as she is very unlikely to be the Democratic nominee. I am struck by how that process is playing with Obama supporters' faith in Obama's ability to compete in 50 states. First there was denial that primary results meant anything for the general election. When that became too silly a position to maintain, they began lashing out in anger at people who pointed out Obama's difficulties in important swing states. Now we have reached the bargaining stage. Charles Blow bargains for Obama's electability in today's NYTimes:

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.

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), he will have won more electoral votes than in Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky and West Virginia combined.

(Emphasis supplied.) There is nothing more ironic to me than to read that winning Ohio and Florida will solve Obama's "Appalachian" problem. In case Mr. Blow is not familiar with the current polling, John McCain beats Barack Obama handily in both Ohio and Florida. Hillary Clinton beats McCain handily in both these states. It is the heart of her electability argument.

To be fair, Obama has a much better electability argument than that presented by Charles Blow. I have presented it myself. It is the Horace Greeley plan -Go West (and Midwest). Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada. Of course Obama needs to hold Michigan and Pennsylvania and the rest of the Kerry states under all scenarios. And if he can flip Ohio, he will be assured of the Presidency. Indeed, Obama is the favorite to be our next President.

But it is quite funny to see the 5 stages of grief that the Obama supporters love to use to mock Hillary Clinton supporters being so central to the acceptance by Barack Obama supporters of the death of the dream of 60% of the vote, 400 electoral votes and a 50 state Presidential strategy.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Colorado State Convention Gets Underway | The Logic Of Clinton's Argument To the Superdelegates >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Denial And The 50 State Strategy | 223 comments (223 topical)
    Charles Blow presents a lot of "ifs" (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:32:31 AM EST


    A Bridge Too Far (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:00:26 AM EST
    Any plan that relies on everything going right is not a good plan.

    Parent
    Heh. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Cal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:03:56 AM EST
    I drove my kids crazy saying that when they were growing up. Now they thank me.

    Parent
    I watched the movie. (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:10:50 AM EST
    It sparked an interest in military strategy and strategy in general.  

    Parent
    Another good one... (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:30:43 AM EST
     Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine. That drives teenagers cra-zy!


    Parent
    That Was One Of My Favorites When I (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:51:23 AM EST
    was working in corporate America.

    Parent
    Kind Of Reminds You Of Bush's Plan For (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:25:19 AM EST
    the invasion of Iraq. Plan A equals being greeted with flowers and candy. Throw all dissenting opinions and requests for post invasion strategy or contingency plans out the window. Label people who disagree as stupid or traitors . Do nothing to develop a Plan B or correct the situation, just change a few faces and everything will be just fine.

    Parent
    We must really try to stop doing that. (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:36:31 AM EST
    Even if we are tempted by the endless opportunities to compare the two.  Especially if.

    I just can't imagine anything that would enrage an Obama supporter than to compare their choice to you-know-who.  It's only because I'm still a registered Democrat that I don't name names.

    Parent

    Obama supporters enraged? (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:21:13 AM EST
    I'm just curious... Obama supporters say it's the math, he's inevitable.... Why is how they react relevant.  I don't think the Obama supporters are the concern here.  If he's got the nomination, why are they so .. 'angry'?  I wonder why they aren't moving to the GE and supporting downticket races.  All of these new voters in the party and they choose to spend their time slapping at Clinton supporters.  Why aren't they out donating and supporting other candidates?

    Frankly, I could care less how any Obama supporter feels.

    Parent

    If Obama wins (none / 0) (#119)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:34:00 AM EST
    I hope Hillary campaigns for him in the style we've become accustomed to.

    Because every time people see her, they'll think  "Wow!  Why isn't she nominee?"  and every time they'll see Obama they'll think  "Looks good, sounds good, but there's just something missing."  and then they'll think about Hillary and realize what it is.

    Actually, I expect they'd push Hillary to woo her base far in the hinterlands, far far away from the media eye.  Obama will be testing his Media Darling status as the Republicans gear up the Mighty Wurlitzer.  

    Parent

    I Agree That Bill And Hillary Will Be Disspatched (none / 0) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:47:46 AM EST
    to the hinterlands to try and convince people there to support Obama. I'm just not sure how successful they will be no matter how hard they try. Maybe, I am just putting too much weight on how I feel about this. As far as I'm concerned if Obama isn't willing to work to get my vote, Hillary is not going to get it for him. He will be the president and he is the one I have to trust will work for my interests.

    Parent
    If nothing else (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:55:50 AM EST
    She and Bill can educate the voters.  People do like being treated like they are intelligent and capable of understanding the issues.

    Can they win enough votes for Obama?  It really depends on Obama, doesn't it?  There's always a chance that if they don't they will be blamed for not "delivering" their base for Obama.  Predictable really, since the IATCF! meme will never die.

    Parent

    Win enough votes (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Arcadianwind on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:58:06 PM EST
    for obama? No, I don't think so. Only a few of his negatives are partially fixable, the rest are character and judgment flaws, intrinsic stuff that cannot be cleaned up. Pretending does not help at all.

    PR can only do so much; in the case of "total warfare" (as in the GE) it has quite limited functionality. Fighting real battles with paper armies and imaginary rules is a recipe for disaster....

    Parent

    That might as well be (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Arcadianwind on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:42:00 AM EST
    the O campaign theme.

    Let's all just ignore the "Panzers" in Arnhem while we are at it, oh, and lets do a paratroop drop in the daylight, great idea!

    A Bridge Too Far--good film--good campaign theme....

    The Dems can forget about winning OH, FL, MO, AK, WV and IN, if the nom is Obama, period. PA and MI are not in reach for him either.

    If "Operation Market Garden" was a deeply flawed plan, then I'm sure it looked better on paper than a Dem win in November with this absurdly flawed plan/candidate.

    Parent

    That's AR (none / 0) (#81)
    by Arcadianwind on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:48:20 AM EST
    not AK.

    Parent
    That's (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:55:42 AM EST
    the crux of the problem. Obama has more ways to lose than win.

    His western strategy might be a sellable option if he wasn't running against John McCain. How can anyone think that he's going to beat a regional candidate out there.

    The whole scenario is based on some awfully false assumptions.

    Parent

    His Western Strategy, (none / 0) (#186)
    by Arcadianwind on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:24:45 PM EST
    yeah, that should work well.

    Maybe even as good as the Maginot Line.

    Maybe some of us should get together, and compile a list of awfully false assumptions. Many here have already begun the task, it seems.

    We could go state by state, and draw a composite view based on: demographics, change in demographics from say, 96, polls vs results for the last 3 GEs, anecdotal evidence, trend lines, graphing strengths and weaknesses of each candidate, gut feel, issues identification, economic factors, current polls, and other sundry instruments.

    Then present our conclusions to the SDs.

    Parent

    Quite funny indeed. The bargaining stage (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:33:18 AM EST
    is always the most amusing.  I love the term "heavily Appalachian".  I expect to see "Appalachiness" appear on the Colbert Report soon.

    Really, if they want to say redneck, just say redneck. People are proud of their southern mountain heritage, and have a sense of humor about it.  Jeff Foxworthy made a whole career out of it.  If you won't vote for Barack Obama, you might be a redneck.

    "IF he wins Virginia and FL" - well, as long as that's the plan, I guess I won't worry anymore.  HA.

    Your Go West plan is a lot smarter.  Too soont o see how likely it is to work, but they should be arguing for its virtuws rather than make fools of themselves hoping for OH and FL, or even VA  to come their way.

    Reneck to me means Southern hick -- (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by jawbone on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:49:41 AM EST
    "Hillbilly" is more Applachian hick. But, then, I'm from the Upper Midwest originally and now ive in NJ, so I may be revealing the smugness of my regional upbriging.

    What's being pointed out in both cases is the "hickness" of the people. A strong sense that they are of the lower and wrong class.

    Northerners referencing Clinton as "Bubba" was not a gentle joke -- it was meant to point out he came from Arkansas and was of the lower classes. He was both redneck and hillbilly, in their eyes. Educated as he might be, Rhodes sholar that he was, he was being told he could not escape his roots. And elites strongly felt their elitism threatened by this man. Probably by Jimmie Carter as well.

    Parent

    That was Carter the peanut farmer framing (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:11:45 AM EST
    instead of Carter the nuclear physicist.  You called it.

    Parent
    When I was making WV GOTV calls (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by samanthasmom on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:22:59 AM EST
    with my strong NE accent, I would let the people on the line know how proud I was that my dad was from WV. A couple of the guys told me some cute redneck jokes. They were proud of who they are and enjoyed poking some good natured fun at themselves. I think Bill Clinton wears his "Bubba"title with pride.

    Parent
    My officemate is from WV (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:30:57 AM EST
    and I have learned a lot from her.  She too tells the redneck jokes and tells funny stories about her old home, which she clearly loves.  Her husband is her WV college sweetheart and they have a lot of family up there, with a never ending supply of funny stories.  

    I'm from Illinois originally, and have lived out west mostly until I moved here to FL, so this part of the country has been a new experience for me.

    Parent

    I'm interested and amused by the perceived need (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:24:36 AM EST
    to come up with this new euphemism 'Appalachian'.   They know that 'redneck', 'hick', 'bubba', etc are all not really positive terms, despite the fact that they are sometimes used affectionately.  So they think they are safe by referring to people by some kind of geographical designation instead.

    The lengths we go to to avoid saying what we really mean. I know we all do it, including myself.  I sincerely do hope that if Obama is president we really can start having more honest conversations.

    Parent

    Well Obama Did Say What He Really Meant (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:27:19 AM EST
    in SF. He just didn't think that it would become public knowledge.

    Parent
    Ha. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:32:52 AM EST
    Yes, some things are better said in a non-election year.  and not behind people's back, to people who think they are better than the people you are talking about.

    Parent
    Maybe but I seriously doubt it (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by RalphB on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:36:09 AM EST
    I sincerely do hope that if Obama is president we really can start having more honest conversations.

    From all I've seen in the campaign so far, if Obama becomes president any disagreement with a policy or action might just be because you're a racist.  You couldn't honestly disagree with the Precious.  That's as bad as Bush using the support the troops crap to knock down criticism of him for years.


    Parent

    "holding the troops hostage" (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:37:53 AM EST
    became the apparent strategy in 2007.

    If Obama makes it to the White House (very doubtful unless the GOP implodes) then we'll hear about POTUS Obama leading a Unified America boldly into the future and anyone who disagrees will be told that they are "holding America back" and "disrespecting their fellow citizens".  "racist" is just so yesterday.

    Parent

    That is what I fear (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:42:21 AM EST
    and why I said 'hope' instead of 'think'.

    Parent
    Maybe obama will just refer to the entire (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    electorate as sweeties.

    Parent
    I think redneck is more widespread (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by daria g on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:56:48 PM EST
    I'd even say it about rural Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as other parts of Appalachia too.. and "hillbilly" would just by virtue of the name only work for those folks who actually live in mountainous regions.  I don't know too well if Southerners or Midwesterners from rural areas would call themselves rednecks too.

    Having grown up in Appalachia myself.. I say "redneck" or "hillbilly" in an affectionate way & I guess with a bit of irony.. because I know what it's about.  It's quite different if the news media from out of town do a report which is basically "look at these crazy rednecks" or if you perceive a politician looks at you with detachment as a curious specimen of a crazy redneck.  :)  I think a big part of the attitude I picked up on from growing up in small town Appalachia is not thinking or acting like you're better than anybody else, that is about the most offensive thing you can do. (It kind of sucks to be a nerd there.) And being a little over suspicious that outsiders ARE in fact thinking they're better than you.  So if news media or politicians come off as thinking they're better, hell no I will never vote for them, that's a #1 deal breaker.  I can see how Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comment could've caused irreparable damage to his candidacy in the region.

    I love Bill Clinton and especially the great Clinton-is-a-redneck stories like him going jogging to the McDonald's, driving around a beat-up pickup truck with astroturf in the back.. he just doesn't fit in with the DC elites and that's kind of what makes him awesome.

    Parent

    Redneck (none / 0) (#172)
    by liminal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:34:11 PM EST
    I know that the most popular explanation for the term is that agricultural workers got "red necks" from being sunburnt, but there is an alternative explanation: during the Battle of Blair Mountain (1921, the climax of the WVa mine wars), the striking union miners who were marching on the southern coalfields wore red bandannas to help identify each other and called themselves the "Red Neck Army."  

    So, I think redneck is a perfect term to describe people in Appalachia.

    Parent

    Goes back further than that-- (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:55:24 PM EST
    "In colonial times, they were often called rednecks and crackers by English neighbors. A letter to the Earl of Dartmouth included the following passage: 'I should explain ... what is meant by Crackers; a name they have got from being great boasters; they are a lawless set of rascalls on the frontiers of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, and Georgia, who often change their places of abode.'[6]

    That from Wikipedia, which also says that some Scotch Presbyterians wore a piece of red to identify themselves before they left Scotland for Ireland and the US (my dad's people.)  Cracker, of course, became identified with Georgia (and maybe north Florida).

    Parent

    A Redneck is a farmer (none / 0) (#177)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:46:30 PM EST
    and could really be from anyplace with working farms.  You do know the term originated for the effect the sun had on the bared neck of the guy doing the hoeing?

    Now I am a hillbilly--family in ET mountains since 1792, at least.  I am not sure whether Bill qualifies as redneck or hillbilly; would depend on what land around Hope is like.  (You can't farm hillbilly land where the cows have to have short legs on one side--all the better to walk 'round the mountain.)

    A repub recently informed me that Bill was the most brilliant man to live in the WH for years (since Jefferson???).  And I believe Carter was a 'nucular' engineer from Annapolis?  Now he was a redneck peanut farmer (who laughed all the way to bank).

    Parent

    The farmers where I grew up in WI did have (none / 0) (#219)
    by jawbone on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:50:01 PM EST
    sunburn on the backs of their necks, usually. Today, with the cabs on tracktors, maybe not so much.

    I got my red neck gardening.

    But, another term for people in Applachia used to be Scotch-Irish (or, more accurately Scots-Irish). Which I first heard, actually, when I began to learn about the music of the region during the folk music resurgence in the 60's-70's.

    I don't know all that much about my ancestors, but did hear that my maternal grandfather's people came from KY--and were slave holders, which always embarrassed me terribly. We stuck with the English/Cornish/Irish/Bohemian parts wer knew more about.

    Parent

    The Go West Plan (none / 0) (#189)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:39:02 PM EST
    Which, truthfully, is really the only Obama plan that might work, is already bumping up a little roadblock with the fact that McCain is the nominee and has popularity out west.  That little roadblock could turn into a huge one if he chooses Romney as his running mate, which I think is a very distinct possibility.  

    I think, by choosing Romney, McCain burnishes his economic credentials nationally and keeps a lock on AZ, NV, NM, CO and even gives them a shot at MA.  I hardly want to mention CA because I live there and I just can't bring myself to think of that.  If Obama's plan relies on those states I just mentioned, and we all know they do, then Democrats are in serious trouble.  

    Parent

    The question for Mr. Blow (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:33:42 AM EST
    is as follows: if Obama is so weak in Appalachia, how is he going to win Ohio?

    Mr. Blow needs to look at previous maps of Ohio where Democrats won. He should show a winning map that doesn't have the characteristic "backwards c" for the Democratic winner. I believe there is not one.

    Ohio is probably not winnable for Democrats without strong (enough) Appalachian support. Obama doesn't have it (yet).

    I have now read two Charles Blow columns (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:36:24 AM EST
    By now it should be apparent to anyone that he does not know what he is talking about when it comes to politics.

    I suggest the NYTimes save him from further embarrassmnet and have him write about other subjects.

    Parent

    That's right, (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:39:00 AM EST
     he's the graphic artist.  I do hope they keep him around for comic relief.

    Parent
    Yep, he makes pretty maps (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:14:07 AM EST
    but doesn't make sense.  That previous column was so ignorant, too.

    The NYT is desperate for an AA op-ed columnist, and that is telling of the NYT.  There are many very smart AA columnists across the country that the NYT could hire.  But that's the problem -- they're from the rest of the country and not Noo Yawk cool.

    Parent

    Well, Bob Herbert is better (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:15:24 AM EST
    than half of their white columnists, so I think they just stink at selection in general.

    Parent
    Wish the NYT would invite real alternative voices (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:23:22 AM EST
    In the frozen cultural tundra that has been the Bush / Cheney era, two areas that have been consistently strong and independent have been within alternative music (esp. the outer reaches of hip hop, ragga and spoken word) and editorial graphics.

    The NYT was being lazy -- Hey, there was this black dude in the can today ... let's get HIM! -- instead of inviting someone interesting, brainy and black if the last is really the first thing they want. I mean, if they wanted blackness as an attribute, why not Method Man, or Kanye, or Aaron McGruder, or Ursula Rucker, or ... gaaah, those aren't even fringe.

       

    Parent

    You would think the (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:41:57 AM EST
    name would have been a clue.  

    Parent
    Surname missing an 'S' perhaps ... ? n/t (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:46:32 AM EST


    Parent
    They asked their graphics designer (4.88 / 9) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:40:50 AM EST
    (and apparent Obama maniac) to do op-eds for them. What were they expecting?

    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:46:02 AM EST
    An incredibly bizarre editorial decision.

    He is ignorant of the most basic facts of this political campaign.

    Parent

    There are dozens of African American writers ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:45:18 AM EST
    ... who'd easily think and write rings around this pap, but IMO the Obama campaign has become so innately indefensible using fresh thinking and phrases, the NYT pretty much has to use hacks to do it.

    TeamO relies excessively on the language of self-help to promote itself.

    (cf how many dozens of astro-trolls, spokesbots and oPods proceed from "I sense you're angry and ... " WTF? They have no ability to glean that and are spinning in this weird self-help program addicted fugue that Obama has offered himself as the cure to all itches. It doesn't p!ss me off so much as mildly freak me out: degree approximation, < breakdown of a major electronic item but > a pet hazard on a rug or upholstery.)

    Parent

    I just discovered he is African American (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:57:50 AM EST
    I had no idea.

    Parent
    Yep. You're familiar with his grafix though (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:06:58 AM EST
    Exquisite design sensibility, no?

    (So I'm an art snob. I admit it.)

    Parent

    Yes. Blow makes a common mistake of (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by chancellor on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:37:46 AM EST
    thinking that "Appalachian voters" are centered in a geographic region. They're not.

    Parent
    Exactly. More migrated to Detroit (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:17:48 AM EST
    in the Great Migration than did AAs, I read in a history of that epoch.  To understand a massive part of the Michigan vote requires understanding that it is still part of the Appalachian heritage . . . just as many pockets of the Midwest were settled by other Southerners first, even in the 1800s -- and still reflect that heritage, too.  The lack of info about the regional origins of migratory Americans, the lack of recognition of how much that heritage still shapes their cultural values, shows how clueless so many analysts are (especially Eastern analysts, it seems).

    Parent
    Right: This is a key point missed by most (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Amileoj on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:35:57 AM EST
    ...who try to analyze regional politics in the U.S.  Each of the groups that initially settled one major region later migrated in substantial numbers into other regions, carrying their cultural patterns with them, and thereby shaping the eventual politics of those regions.  

    The Scots-Irish diaspora, for instance, as Jim Webb and others have pointed out, stretches (with gaps) nearly from coast to coast, and shapes much (though of course not all) of the cultural style of white working-class and rural America.  The places where it does not do so (e.g., Wisconsin, Minnesota) are places where BHO has done better with those groups.  

    This is why BHO does not just have an Appalachia problem: he has a problem with borderlands/mountain folk in general, and their (both literal and cultural) descendents, who are legion.  That is a much, much bigger problem to have, electorally-speaking, than a narrow regional weakness.  

    That is particularly so because this somewhat amorphous group is one of the major natural audiences for the economic populist message with which progressives have sought to combat the GOP's "social issues" appeals.  In this effort, the Obama campaign and supporters have apparently not yet assimilated Lincoln's classic lesson to the temperence movement: "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

    Parent

    Wrong; Wisconsin is very Irish (none / 0) (#185)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:22:31 PM EST
    and we're second only to Germans here.  

    What happened here was, in part, Republican crossover -- including by a lot of the Scots-Irish among the white-flighters from Milwaukee now -- having their fun with an open primary.  And there were other factors, but I won't go into them here again.  (They're in earlier posts of mine.)

    Btw, Wisconsin along the Mississippi was settled by a lot of Southerners, too, and that still shows there.  It's just not so simple to explain it here, important as heritage and origins are, when you get into the open primary factor and others.

    Parent

    appalachian voters are us! (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:11:27 PM EST
    the faster the obama campaign get that the better. the shame of it is they won't. anglachel has a good diary up on the northeast versus the rest of us today. she perceives a power play against the clinton bubbas. now isn't that just special! we are going down the tubes and the dems won't fight a turf war. yeah righ!

    Parent
    how does Obama get those voters? (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:46:40 AM EST
    Appalachians are the voters he described to his Billionaire donors as racists, clinging to their guns and religion - and voting against their own best economic interest.

    On Tuesday, "those people" voted for their economic interests due to Hillary's excellent positions and leadership on the Economy.

    Obama responded to his brutal beating in WV by sporting a flag pin.

    Parent

    Not to mention a whole bunch more... (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by jackyt on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:42:33 AM EST
    "anyone who votes for Hillary is a racist" stories oozing out anecdotally.

    Parent
    I was so offended by that (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by daria g on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:02:15 PM EST
    And I can't even own a gun (DC) and do not go to church, but jeez.. on a level when I hear Obama make those comments, and Michelle give a speech saying Barack is going to challenge you and won't let you go back to being insular and closed minded, etc.. it kind of makes me want to go do all those things just to spite them.  And anyway if that's what he thinks about small town voters he needs to look in the mirror on who has a closed-mind problem.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by pantsuit chic on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:54:07 AM EST
    There is no evidence that Obama can win Ohio.

    Parent
    Blow is a great name for him....he truly blows :) (none / 0) (#97)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:10:22 AM EST


    Parent
    It's so ironic b'coz charting's his Actual Job (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:47:04 AM EST
    Your question is one he should have been able to answer easily, but appears to have taken great pains to avoid entirely.

    And is it just me or do I become increasingly dumber as the pro-Obama arguments get amped up in the media? I'm not just talking about feeling dumber having to address some of the intellectual dumpage that gets trolled here, or that I see in the public discourse.

    I try not to take references to my "type" or reductions of my motives and actions to idiocy personally, as I'm just a drip in the bucket and might be an anomaly. Yet I find much in common with many of the commentators here who ARE dismissed for reasons that are more based on bigotry than reality and merit.

    I'm so outside the cartoonish one-note stereotype of the pro-Clinton supporter as has been painted by the O-campaign with the help of short and long-pants media for the opportunity, IMO, to engage in unrestrained sexism and CDS that all of the above prefer to indulge rather than, you know, SOLVE PROBLEMS.

    And like many of the commentators I've read here, and based on their input, I'm so beyond the self-flattering glittering staircase of the prototypical Obama voter I really have to wonder who's counting the heads.

    Education, morning beverage, or economic "class" aside, I distinguish between owned and used intelligence and the merely purchased (dumb) kind that never gets taken out of the box.

    Parent

    Clinton has it, Obama doesn't (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by pluege on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:34:25 AM EST
    its all comes down to electability: Clinton has it, Obama doesn't.

    The dem "leadership", the dem party in oh so terribly typical and familiar style refuses to face reality, instead preferring to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with the Obama pipe dream.

    And BTW (5.00 / 11) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:35:28 AM EST
    The way Hillary was ridiculed as looking for a "51% Presidency," um, can we apply the same logic to the nomination?

    heheh.

    Not just the nomination (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:37:01 AM EST
    We are hoping for an Obama 51% win in the general.

    Parent
    That's (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:02:50 AM EST
    an awfully big hope IMO. Frankly after reading the article in Salon from Howard Deans former pollster it is beyong obvious that there's no way Obama can win the general election short of a McCain implosion.

    It think that he has zero chance with the working class voters after his SF statements and Rev. Wright. And that's all before all the other stuff to come out.

    Parent

    and there will be other stuff (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by bigbay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:47:06 AM EST
    or increased attention on things previously ignored

    Obama has said so many contradictory things over the last 8 years that he is a gold mine  for the Repugs. Even starting with his so-called Iraq War opposition.

    Parent

    Yes indeed (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:37:23 AM EST
    I'd be more convinced that he could expand the electoral map if he could have expanded the demographical map.

    Parent
    But the Indies... (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:42:59 AM EST
    the Republicans...remember them they are all crossing over Jordan.  

    Parent
    Everyone is crossing over (none / 0) (#117)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:29:47 AM EST
    this time around.  People are disgusted with govt.  Voters are trying to send a message.  The people blame the Repubs for where we are and the Dems for not doing enough to stop it and for not doing anything now.

    This election was to bring the people back in to the process and actually get some things done.  What happened to that.

    It is going to be a desperate grab for an angry electorate.  I expect to see both parties finger pointing and saying 'you did it too'

    Parent

    there was a day maybe he could have (none / 0) (#165)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:15:56 PM EST
    done just that but the inherent weaknesses in his campaign have come out. the underlying associations with racial divisive figures, the tainted rezko group, the 60s bomb loving ayers. with a little thinking that could have been avoided and addressed very well in eight years. but the northeast power players wanted to drum out the southern bubbas way too much. you see it in the comments by the braziles and axelrods. we don't need them bullsxxx.

    Parent
    Why is it when BTD talks about Obama's (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by bjorn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:38:48 AM EST
    electability or strategy I really can get behind it?  Maybe it is because he is one of the few bloggers who has kept his head this election season and presented both sides with honest, objective data.  WHere have all the bloggers gone?? (remember the song, where have all the flowers gone...)   Anyway, thanks for staying sane and pushing the facts for both sides.  Your approach will help us unite, I only hope others will start to follow your lead.

    BTDs ideas are more realistic (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:44:33 AM EST
    and so are more convincing to me also.  We'd all love to see the west more blue, and there really is a better chance for it this year than ever before.

    It did not necessarily have to be at the expense of losing "Appalachia".

    When will they ever learn?  

    Parent

    And what of Flordia? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:40:54 AM EST
    Adam C. Smith at tampabay.com thinks Florida is ripe for Senator Obama. He advises the Senator
    "What we're seeing is the beginnings of a major sea change,'' said Mark Bubriski, spokesman for the Florida Democratic Party. "When you add up all of the major factors that go into the analysis of an election, everything is going the Democratic Party's way."

    Well, maybe not everything. There's that delegate debacle and primary boycott. You've got a lot of work to do introducing yourself in Florida and soothing the simmering resentment among many Democrats who claim they might not vote for you.

    The point, though, is that even amid controversy and zero attention by your folks, Democrats are gaining market share in this state.

    We are also reminded that the St. Petersburg Times presents St. Pete Times Forum for Obama on Wednesday.

    Obama can do his usual show of (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:42:20 AM EST
    $5M on ads in one week, and then he can still lose.
    Ugh!

    Parent
    The evidence of that sea change (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:43:36 AM EST
    is all in Adam Smith's mind. There is no sea change.

    Right now. Obama has NO CHANCE in Florida.

    Parent

    When the money is against you, (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:45:08 AM EST
    talk about polls, when the polls are against you, talk about trends. . .

    Parent
    What trends? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:46:33 AM EST


    Parent
    When the local trends are against you (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:50:11 AM EST
    talk about the national trends, and vice versa.

    Parent
    What national trends? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:56:33 AM EST


    Parent
    Democrats are ascendent! (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:58:15 AM EST
    Or haven't you gotten that memo? heh.

    Parent
    Oh they are (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:02:32 AM EST
    and they very well may carry Barack Obama across the finish line.

    It is ironic that the candidate who began his campaign running away from the Dem brand may win because of it.

    Parent

    I hope so (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:05:06 AM EST
    but I think he's actually quite compromised.

    We'll see.

    Parent

    Reverse Coattails (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by BDB on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:54:55 AM EST
    You have to love that it looks like the democratic party is going to nominate someone the down-ticket candidates will have to try to carry across the finish line.

    I hope his money is worth it.

    Parent

    That is not fair of me (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:44:40 AM EST
    He was quoting a Florida Democratic Party official, who has to put on a good face.

    My previous comment was unfair.

    Parent

    Plus (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:56:45 AM EST
    I think he's talking about an overall attitude towards Repubs. Remember with Repubs running the state as well, the bad economy is a hard issue for them to deflect. And who doesn't have a couple of houses in their neighborhood in foreclosure now? Plus we have home insurance problems and huge budget cuts for the schools that everyone is talking about.

    Of course, the Dem party has worked hard to blow all the advantages by pissing off the loyal Dem voters. Its why it makes me so angry when Obama supporters talk about how they couldn't have won Florida anyway. A Dem could have won it, still might, but it will be the Dems fault if they don't.

    Parent

    Crist remains quite popular (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:03:17 AM EST
    The anti-GOP feeling is not nearly as strong on the LOCAL LEVEL in Florida.

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:06:57 AM EST
    I sense no specifically anti-Rep feeling on the ground here in FL.   Very much the 'a pox on both their houses' feeling dominates.

    Parent
    He does (none / 0) (#68)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:32:02 AM EST
    Crist is extremely popular. Thankfully they aren't running against him. But the legislature is Repub controlled as well. And they have been a HUGE disappointment to many people lately.

    They've done nothing with home insurance. Property taxes are still high. And they accidentally screwed up PIP last year. My local news commercials almost always have some local economy story on them - and not a pleasant one. Crist was even putting forth the idea of a gas tax holiday (sound familiar?).

    The Diaz-Balart v Martinez election was just changed to leans Repub I believe. Who would have ever considered that that seat would never be a cake walk for the Repubs.

    Parent

    I wonder (none / 0) (#216)
    by Nadai on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:22:48 PM EST
    if McCain is considering him for VP.  He could certainly do worse than Crist.

    Parent
    Fluffing for Obama's impending visit (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:48:07 AM EST
    is all Mr Bubriski is doing.  The One has to be convinced of a warm welcome before he will bestow his blessed presence upon the sunshine state.

    If FL goes for Obama in Nov  I'll boil a bunny for dinner.

    Parent

    Ah (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by pantsuit chic on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:58:40 AM EST
    I'll boil a bunny for dinner.

    Oh, then you and Hillary aka Glenn Close will have something in common, at least in the eyes of the Obamaphiles.

    Parent

    Do not say that very loudly (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:25:59 AM EST
    We have a family of bunnies in our yard and they might hear you!

    Parent
    I won't (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:36:34 AM EST
    I almost said 'boil my golden retriever' but I was afraid he could read.

    Don't worry, all animals are safe with me.  I have a gator in the pond behind my house I  won't even call animal services on.

    Parent

    But is your dog (none / 0) (#171)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:24:48 PM EST
    safe with the gator?

    Parent
    I have a fence (none / 0) (#200)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:22:31 PM EST
    It is the bar style so I can still see the lake, but no gators can get in or dogs out - well I suppose they could if they tried real hard, but the dogs are content and the gators have easier food elsewhere!

    I was pretty scared of gators when I first moved here, but now I'm fascinated.  They are so primeval.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:04:11 AM EST
    I will boil in honor of Hillary because only she and Bill campaigning here will win FL for Obama.

    Parent
    Ack (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:55:42 AM EST
    Florida not Flordia.
    I'm a moran.

    Parent
    But... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:59:09 AM EST
    Are you a moran in all fifty states?

    Parent
    lol n/t (none / 0) (#42)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:00:28 AM EST


    Parent
    Here's an awesome graphic to use (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by annabelly on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:42:02 AM EST
    Against those condescending comments about stages of denial. (h/t Reclusive Leftist)

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2498722291_03940192f6.jpg

    Feel free to use it.

    HA. That is funny! (none / 0) (#86)
    by leis on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:58:32 AM EST


    Parent
    People can have all sorts of expertise (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Klio on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:47:07 AM EST
    but this guy is the Times' visual op-ed columnist.  Nothing in the piece itself suggests we should give any credence to this "analysis."

    Oh, I loved his view that Appalachia was voting as a bloc -- certainly we've not seen that before this election cycle.  And his binary, the Dukes of Hazzard versus the Huxtables, was utterly charming.    I really don't like to scoff, but this was laughable.  The word shill comes to mind ....

    That binary (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by daria g on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:07:18 PM EST
    What kills me is, the columnist translates the polling into "Dukes of Hazzard versus the Huxtables" and tries to put those words in Hillary's mouth, when the writer is clearly the one with the prejudice issue.

    I've seen that time and time again in this primary.. people coming up with the wildest, most offensive racial/ethnic/class-based stereotypes all on their own and then whining "YOU made me think of this!"  

    Parent

    I agree with BTD analysis (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:50:25 AM EST
    modulo his conclusion

    Indeed, Obama is the favorite to be our next President.

    There is not much evidence of this in the current percentages of a McCain-Obama potential matchup.
    I live in MA and it is scary to see MA will be at play in November for the first time in ages!!
    McCain and Obama are in a statistical tie
    (Clinton wins it by big margin).

    And it won't change; Deval Patrick is very unpopular and his Adm. is a huge dissapointment to many that strongly voted for him.

    There is however strong evidence in a McCain-Clinton
    match up. So although the probability of Clinton the nomination is smallar than that of Obama it is not over yet: the SD canb change their minds and honestly do so all the way to convention day.

    So, the argument imho , should be: let us elect the strongest candidate to beat McCain in November and the one that is the most qualified to be our next President.That is HRC.

    It is not over but everyone needs to work positively to make SD understand this.

    By the way; please TAKE ACTION for Florida and Michigan to be counted.

    Write to the Commission meeting May 31 (click here)  and make
    the argument for seating the full delelgations and  for FL & MI to be part of
    the decision process that will decide our nominee.
    Seating the delegations "later" is a scam.

    Allow Florida and Michigan to be counted? (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:06:19 AM EST
    I say we give them each one seat.  They can sit them where they please.  OR the Democrats in the state can impeach and remove all of the legislators who were at all involved in moving the date up.  In which case they get half of their delegates.  

    There has to be some price to be paid for cheating, and unfortunately for the people, the representative that they voted in were the ones who did the cheating (the people of the state probably should have made a bigger fuss about this before the election).  Otherwise, if I was California, I'd move my next primary to December.  No other states would even need to bother having a primary.

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Steve M on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:15:15 AM EST
    What should New Hampshire's penalty be?  Some price has to be paid, right?

    Parent
    Great Strategy (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:16:08 AM EST
    Gift wrap FL and possibly MI and hand it to McCain. After McCain is sworn into office in January, the Dems can hold their heads up high and say they stood firm on penalizing voters. They couldn't stand firm on Iraq, habeas caucus, torture or FISA but boy could they stand firm on disenfranchising voters.  

    Parent
    Nobody Loves a Noble Loss (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by BDB on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:27:13 AM EST
    quite like the Democratic Party.  

    And, honestly, what are they fighting for - so NH and IA can keep their undeserved place at the front of the pack.  Here's an idea, instead of using a strategy designed to lose the WH, why doesn't the party take the next four years to fix its primary schedule so that it's fair to all 50 states, not just 2.

    Parent

    I Would Like To Hear What Actions They Have Taken (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:00:24 PM EST
    just to correct the problems in the 2000 and 2004 elections. What have they done to make sure that the AA communities will have enough voting places and machines so that they are not forced to stand in line for hours just to be able to vote? If they are excepting a record turn out in the AA communities (reasonable expectation), will they be able to vote without jeopardizing their job(s) or leaving their family untended?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:07:23 PM EST
    And in how many presidential elections can the Democrats afford to lose Florida?  Maybe Florida voters won't hold a grudge past this election, but maybe they will, if they're bulldogs like me.

    Obama supporters really need to come to terms with the fact that you can't penalize (or insult) voters and expect them to vote for your candidate.  Some people just don't care about joining onto the cool thing.

    Parent

    Yes! (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by BDB on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:25:35 AM EST
    Democratic party rules about primary schedules are so much more important than winning in November.   Screw Florida and Michigan and their 44 electoral votes.  We've got Iowa and we're pretty sure we're kind of, maybe going to win Colorado.  That's 16 EVs right there.  That'll show 'em.

    If the democratic nominee loses Michigan, the democratic nominee won't be president.  It's that simple.  And before you tell me how Obama is going to win MI, the polls for him there have been almost entirely within the margin of error against McCain and the last two have McCain up by one.  Sure, he can lose Florida and still win, but he can't lose Florida and Michigan, and even just losing Florida means an awful lot of other things have to go his way.


    Parent

    What should (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:38:28 AM EST
    be South Carolina's penalty for moving up its primary also? MANY states moved their primaries;
    why hand-picked for blame FL &MI.
    Besides, the ruyles (if you care to read them!) say nothing about stripping thesse states of all its deleates. This is a new "add-on" courtesy of
    the destructive and un-democratic Ms. Donna Brazile.

    Your arugument doesn't hold any water.

    Parent

    I'm from (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:13:17 PM EST
    SC, and I hereby give the DNC permission to take away our delegates.

    Parent
    typos (none / 0) (#130)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:43:40 AM EST
    that should have been "rules", "these" and "delegates"  (sorry).

    Parent
    and (none / 0) (#131)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:44:03 AM EST
    "argument"

    Parent
    Why punish... (none / 0) (#138)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:48:35 AM EST
    Each state was specifically dealt with, and each knew the consequence of their change.  Some states actually pushed their dates back to get more delegates!  The fact of the matter is that every state knew what the impact of their change before the election season began.  The rules were clear.  There's no inconsistency there.  

    Each state went with the consequence of their change.  Florida and Michigan thought that the impact of them having early votes would be more important than seating delegates (as they thought it would set the trend).  They made their bed...

    Parent

    'Stormy Weather.' (none / 0) (#163)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    just ahead, unless....

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#187)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:25:21 PM EST
    you still don't understand who made the changes in FL especially and that the people that voted and will be the ones voting come November had nothing to do with this. It is the people who the DNC is disrespecting; it is Democracy.

    Parent
    No, they (none / 0) (#224)
    by denise on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:40:48 PM EST
    made OUR bed along with the DNC. All of this could & should have been foreseen. Those who caused this situation need to step down now.

    Parent
    Well, the rules ARE the rule. So when the SD's (none / 0) (#109)
    by leis on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:25:07 AM EST
    exercise their judgment and go with Hillary, you will of course respect that, because the rules are the rules. No stealing the nomination BS for you, right?

    Parent
    I agree... (none / 0) (#129)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:43:32 AM EST
    Rules are rules.  I have no problem with the SDs giving the nomination to Hillary.  Or for that matter, if elected delegates switch sides.  I do think rules are rules.  I think there will be ramifications in the GE, but I think all of that is legitimate and part of the process.  But I do think that changing the rules (seating the full set of delegates from MI and FL) is wrong.  

    If every SD decided tomorrow that they wanted Hillary and not Barack, I'd support their right to do so.  As a voter I may vote against their decision, but I would not say that cheating had occurred.

    Parent

    Glad to hear it. I hope all those who support (none / 0) (#157)
    by leis on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:09:59 PM EST
    Obama are as reasonable as you. He has run a tough campaign and I'm sure he has a wonderful future in our party.

    Parent
    There has to be some price to be paid for cheating (none / 0) (#113)
    by samanthasmom on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:26:44 AM EST
    Does that include plagiarism? Cause my 12 year old nephew wants to know before he enters high school.

    Parent
    A classic example (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    of an Obama supporter who does not care about winning in November.

    Parent
    I want to win in November... (none / 0) (#134)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:46:08 AM EST
    I do think winning in November would be great.  With that said, I don't think that losing is the end of the world.  I don't think we should change the rules in a way that benefits those who broke the rules.  And again, I'm fine with the SDs doing whatever they want.  If you can convince them to vote for Hillary, and Obama can't convince them to vote for him, that's a failure on his team.  Not of the system.

    Parent
    Ah, the killing fields (none / 0) (#168)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:18:21 PM EST
    of November.  I remember them well.

    Parent
    Shuffle off to (none / 0) (#160)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:12:07 PM EST
    Buffalo, huh?

    Parent
    I live (none / 0) (#51)
    by pantsuit chic on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:08:29 AM EST
    in MA too, and I will DIE if it ends up being competitive. In fact, I would love this state even more than I already do if we went to McCain.

    Deval Patrick is the best argument against Obama. It's my nightmare that if Obama is elected president, it will be Deval 2.0 on a national scale.

    Parent

    Another MA resident (none / 0) (#70)
    by Coral on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:33:09 AM EST
    Deval Patrick is not popular here, and we are going through continued retrenchment in school/town budgets. This has been ongoing through the recent republican administrations (Romney, etc), so I don't blame Patrick completely. Unlike the Republicans, at least his heart is in the right place. He's just not able to get his program through the legislature, which is obdurate and has been...well...forever.

    However he did run on rhetoric similar to Obama's, and that's a problem for Obama.

    That said, I think it is doubtful the state will go to McCain. There is real enthusiasm for Obama in the college towns, and there are many here. It will be much tighter than it would be with Clinton (or with Clinton on the ticket, talking working-class/middle-class issues).

    I am waiting for Obama to embrace some rhetoric that appeals to the hard-pressed folks that, in Bill Clinton's words, "work hard everyday and play by the rules". People like that (other than blacks who are justifiably proud of having a viable presidential candidate) are having a hard time warming up to Obama, whose rhetoric is vague.

    Parent

    Obama won't do (none / 0) (#122)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:35:15 AM EST
    much better in the GE with college kids than what he already achieved in the primary. And in the primary here (MA) Obama still lost by 15%, a huge margin. In the GE many more people than college students , fac. will be voting. Worcester, Springfield and the Berkeshires won't go to Obama.

    Parent
    Clinton suffers from... (none / 0) (#152)
    by jackyt on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:05:04 PM EST
    a melanin deficiency!

    The SDs are so afraid of being tagged "racist" that they'll put the future of the country in untried, untested hands. If the country was ticking along on an even keel, (like it was in 2000, for instance), I might be inclined to go along. But the next president will not have the luxury of just skating through.

    In my book, the SDs are caving to emotional blackmail, and salving their racist consciences is a luxury the country can ill-afford.

    Parent

    There is no revolution (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by pixelpusher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:50:56 AM EST
    Obama's campaign is being run by white men, isn't it?  So where is the revolution, exactly?

    Find sand. Insert Head. (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:53:42 AM EST
    LOL at Blow's column. It is typical of how some of Obama's supporters deal with real data!

    Like the anger/denial-..-acceptance stages I wonder if there's a dismissal/look-at-data/bargain/accept/guilt/shame  that will come to bite Obama supporters like these. The performance of the Dem. party in November will rest solely on their heads.

    This article is good in a way because it only re-inforces Senator Clinton's argument and positions wrt. Obama's in-electability!

    Obamiacs reminds alot of Deaniacs (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Exeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:14:45 AM EST
    Remember the Dean spin that this giant and previously hidden blogosphere was going to come out of the woodwork and sweep Dean to victory by huge margins in the nomination and the general? Just like Dean, Obama's campaign is entirely faith-based and not evidence based.

    Not only is there no polling that shows Obama doing well in anything other than a handful of red states, there is IS polling that shows him doing poorly in many blue states. In addition, even the positive polling is suspect, because he has NO general election track record to reference.

    This is what's killing me. (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by LibOne on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:44:37 AM EST
    I totally support the 50 State Strategy.  I believe Howard Dean had and still has some great ideas.  I thought George Soros would be our Richard Mellon Scaife.  I read George Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant" and became a true believer.  

    Never in a million years did I think they would turn those weapons on fellow democrats.  I believe the sexist "dog whistle" statements made by BO came straight from the Lakoff devotees.  Maybe trying to implement all these ideas in four years was too ambitious a project for the DNC.  If HRC isn't the nominee, the DNC will know that they need a better plan to bring in blue collar workers and women.

    Parent

    What the heck? (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by Steve M on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:02:18 AM EST
    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.

    Doesn't this argument that WV doesn't -really- matter sort of ignore the elephant in the room, the 2000 election?

    Bush got 271 electoral votes.  Gore got 267.  West Virginia has 5.

    What a great addition to the editorial page this guy is.  Couldn't they have given us an extra Bill Kristol column or something instead?

    The real elephant in the room is the (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:06:58 PM EST
    discussion that the Obama camp really, really doesn't want people to have about the fact that each of the primaries in the region have been worse than the one before.  Ohio was a loss, then Pennsylvania was worse, West Virginia was humiliating.  He has been losing ground - not holding his own or gaining.  That is an ugly trend and why I think he finally relented and asked for Edwards' help.

    Parent
    The winning of WV has less to do with the (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:43:57 PM EST
    Electoral votes than it does demographics. If you can't get the people of WV to vote for you, the chances of getting their fellow citizens with the same demography isn't good. It has to do with who the candidate appeals to and convinces, not where they live. In WV you have a huge concentration of middle, lower middle and poor working class. That is the demographic that has to vote for you if you are going to win. That is why WV is so important. It is a microcosm of the strongest voting bloc in the country. It has nothing to do with how many Electoral votes they have, it has everything to do with who they are. Now do you understand?

    Parent
    The real elephant (none / 0) (#93)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:07:55 AM EST
    Actually the real elephant in the room for the 2000 race is that Gore did win.  How quickly many forget what the Supreme Court did in that election.  WV was not necessary for that election, because Gore won it.  The Supreme Court gave it to Bush.

    Parent
    My gosh (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Steve M on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:19:27 AM EST
    Has ANYONE forgotten the role of the Supreme Court in the 2000 election?  Anyone on the planet?  My God, what a comment.

    With West Virginia, the Florida recount wouldn't have mattered at all, and the Supreme Court would have had no basis to get involved.  Sheesh.

    Parent

    What about Texas... (none / 0) (#141)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:52:27 AM EST
    If Gore would have won Texas we also wouldn't have had to worry about Florida.  If Canada became a state and Gore won that, then Florida would also be a non-issue.  

    What-if's are a nice parlor game, but doesn't win you elections.

    Parent

    Sheesh (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:10:08 PM EST
    Please stop. The stupidity, it burns!!

    Parent
    Yup. (none / 0) (#175)
    by liminal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:42:50 PM EST
    Gore could've won it.  The difference was only 6%.  He just took it for granted, ran too far away from Bill, didn't strike back forcefully enough against the NRA, and didn't campaign enough here.  It doesn't take much, especially in the general, but it does take something.  IIRC, in 1996, Bill went on a literal whistlestop tour, on a passenger train, through the region.  It was really effective.

    One think Bill and Hillary understand about rural voters is that ... you have to work for their votes, too.  You can't just throw up television ads.

    Parent

    Exactly Which State Was In Dispute In 2000? (none / 0) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    IIRC wasn't it Florida. The state that Obama is losing to McCain. The real elephant is that you cannot keep writing off states and expect to win in November.

    Parent
    2000 != 2008 (none / 0) (#144)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:53:46 AM EST
    That simply makes no sense.  Unless you plan on following the exact same trajectory as 2000, of course the map will be different.  It's absurd to think otherwise.  This election coming down to Florida and WV will not happen.  

    Parent
    2000 was 2004 (none / 0) (#190)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:09:06 PM EST
    except better.

    Your belief in a drastically different map is the one that defies belief.

    Parent

    Another ???? (none / 0) (#196)
    by boredmpa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:46:04 PM EST
    Anything other than a horrible pundit...and it doesn't help that he's a kool-aid drinker.

    His op-eds are some of the worst I've seen...the race-baiting backlash one, then this one.  just ugh.  2/3 is pretty bad...and i didn't read the third article so it could be just as blah.

    Parent

    The far west, Greeley 2.0 plan will fail. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by wurman on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:09:12 AM EST
    In my opinion(s)--

    There are 14 Western states (I include TX, the Census Bureau does not).

    On gun control, Sen. Obama will just flat lose every one of them with the possible exceptions of CA, OR & WA.  The rest--ziff.  This is a core issue in these states & it crosses party lines & there are not enough intelligentsia (sniff) plus college students (puff) to overcome the massive number of Dems, GOoPerz & Inds who will not ever vote for a proponent of handgun control.  NOT.

    Sen. Clinton has staked out a position that neuters the out-and-out "anti-gun" negative & she finesses the whole process very well.

    And that is just one of the core issues.  God & gays will also work against him in all 14 of the Western states.  His religious affiliation will be an issue & it will be negative.  His "present" votes will also hurt, a great deal.  The unknown factor that attracts so many hopeful Dems to him will not work with Inds & GOoPerz.  As a matter of fact, "change" is not a popular concept with voters in the West--stability is a far more prevalent value--not as a political goal, but rather an overall cultural preference.  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the theme here.  And some sense of amorphous change for the sake of change--not a chance.

    Sen. Obama is not a viable candidate in the West.

    mccain is quite popular with latinos. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:20:03 PM EST
    overall obama isn't. that can make a big difference in california. take a good look at who is governor there now.

    Parent
    Pardon the pun--Sen. McCain's . . . (none / 0) (#184)
    by wurman on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    . . . campaign will definitely "fly" with the demographics (cross party, too) in San Diego, South of Los Angeles, East Bay San Francisco.  His Orange County, Ventura, etc., bona fides are automatic, etc.

    I think CA wants to be a Democratic state, yet there are counter-trends at work that could derail the Obamarama.

    Parent

    A Grimmer Picture (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by BDB on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:09:58 AM EST
    A more honest assessment of Obama's chances come from Howard Dean's former pollster - in Salon.  He tries to put a good face on it, but it ain't pretty.  It starts with listing Michigan as a "must win" state (most recent poll there has him losing by one, he's never been up more than three, see here) and also includes Pennsylvania as a must win (he does a bit better in PA polls).  

    Here's the conclusion:

    So which of these 17 states do I think Obama really is going to win? How does he reach 270? Taking all these demographics and long-term trends into account, and then whipping out the dartboard, yields the following assessment:

    States that strongly favor Obama ("strongly" in the context of close states, that is): Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington. That's 43 electoral votes. Add that to the safe blue 157 votes in 11 states and D.C. and Obama is at 200.

    States that slightly favor Obama: Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Another 55 votes. He's now at 255

    States that strongly favor McCain: Florida, North Carolina. Their 42 electoral votes are probably going to the Republicans.

    States that slightly favor McCain: Colorado, 9 votes; Missouri, 11 votes; and Virginia, 13 votes. Obama's chances are better here.

    Pure toss-ups: Nevada, 5 votes; New Hampshire, 4 votes; New Mexico, 5 votes; and Ohio, 20 votes.

    Clearly, and I'm being cautious, I think it's going to be a close race. If Obama wins the 255 votes in the states where he's favored, then to get to 270 he needs to choose from the following menu: 1) Win Ohio, which takes him to 275; 2) win in the West -- Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado, for 274; 3) win the three N's (Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire) for 269, plus one other state; or 4) win two of the three N's and either Colorado or Virginia.

    The bottom line is that 270 is achievable, provided the Democratic ticket keeps all of these 17 states in play as long as possible. And it looks like it can. Obama has the money to fight in the truly purple states and force his opponent to defend some of the redder ones. For the moment, McCain doesn't have the money to respond in kind. Obama can stretch McCain's scarcer resources. He can also improve the Democratic Party's odds of breaking through and winning its first Electoral College majority in a dozen years.

    If this is supposed to reassure me, it does not.  But, then again, this guy was Howard Dean's pollster, so maybe it isn't supposed to reassure me, maybe it's supposed to prepare me for the possibility that the democratic leadership intends to abandon a sinking ship.  Hey, a girl can dream.  

    I don't think New Hampshire is a toss up (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:53:33 AM EST
    state and I don't think McCain is only slightly favored in Missouri and Virginia. He is consistently winning New Hampshire in the polls. They love him up there. He's pretty close to their ideal Republican. And in Virginia, he is as close to the beloved John Warner as they can get. Missouri hasn't been considered a pobbible Dem get for months.

    Parent
    He (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by sas on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:06:13 PM EST
    cannot have my vote.  Hillary will forgive, but I will not.

    Bravo (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:53:50 AM EST
    Stellar post, BTD.  Blow is certainly wed to a lot of fantasy "ifs", isn't he?  I'll remind Mr. Blow:  "It's the map, stupid."

    I've never subscribed to the 50-state aerie-faerie pipe dream.  Anyone who's paid attention to electoral politics knows it's nothing more than a siren song.

    I'm actually even a little worried (none / 0) (#48)
    by Lil on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:05:33 AM EST
    about NJ. I'm starting to see lots of McCain signs popping up.

    It's probably too expensive (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:07:17 AM EST
    for him to steal. The Democratic machine there is also pretty strong.

    Parent
    McCain is using"Irish" roots in Mass (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Exeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:29:52 AM EST
    if Obama is the nominee.  Let's face it: Irish Catholics Dems, at last in the NE, have a  have a problem with Obama. And McCain is already exploiting his Irish sounding name. Although, I believe McCain is Scots-Irish and English... not exactly IRA matierial ; )

    Parent
    O'Bama has Irish roots.. (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:49:55 PM EST
    on his mother's side. Perhaps he will get her and grandma out from under the bus for the MA campaign. Heh.

    Parent
    O'Bama is more Irish than McCain (none / 0) (#179)
    by Exeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Scots-Irish isn't really Irish IMO.

    Parent
    Of course, it's "really Irish" (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:00:20 PM EST
    as there are many kinds of Irishers.  That's like saying that JFK's Fitzgerald forebears weren't really Irish (the "Fitz" part tells you they were among French migrants there.)  

    They're as Irish as Irish-Americans; Scots-Irish simply migrated sooner from Hibernia to Caledonia.

    As long as they're not Orangemen, they're okay with me.

    Parent

    I was being a bit tongue in cheek... (none / 0) (#220)
    by Exeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:35:09 PM EST
    ... but now that I think about it, I wonder if anyone has looked into whether McCain is really Irish. Remember when they made a big deal out of Kerry not really being Irish?

    Parent
    Hmmmm. . . . (none / 0) (#222)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:31:51 PM EST
    My Irisher parents (yes, on both sides -- so I'm more than half Irish, with some other ethnicities, too) always said that there are two kinds of people in the world -- those who are Irish, and those who wish they were.

    It would be interesting if McCain was a wannabe.  Yes, the Kerry story was something else, wasn't it?  And then the Madeline Albright story about her Jewish heritage, too.  Good reminders that we are not so far, today, from immigrant ancestors who faced so many horrible situations.

    Parent

    Nice reversal on the 5 stages (none / 0) (#58)
    by Faust on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:20:51 AM EST
    I like your reversal on the 5 stages. Some nice rhetorical play there.

    I did not like the way Kos chose to use the five stages. The whole point of the 5 stages of grief is to help people be more compassionate to people going through a loss. Not to use as a platform to mock their grief.

    the stupidity of Obama supporters (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:26:22 AM EST
    has been immense.

    A unified party is not their goal at all.

    Parent

    They want to cleanse the Democratic Party (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Exeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:34:21 AM EST
    They honestly believe that the "redneck wing" of the Clinton camp should either change their views or vote Republican and that the vaccuum will be filled by progressive Independents and Republicans.

    Parent
    Yup, that is the plan (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    Somehow they think that "progressive independents" are more liberal than the Clinton Democrats.  Even if they do somehow win, they will never get these independents and Republicans to support a truly progressive agenda, but they don't really care about that.  It is all about Obama, not progressive politics.

    Parent
    Clinton Democrats? (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:00:22 AM EST
    I think many (not all, but I am one of them), believe that the Clinton/Reagan Democrats harm the party more than they help.  They are to the Democratic party what the evangelicals are to the Republican party.  They both get pandered to, but both require the party to take positions that aren't in the best interest of America.  

    I know I'm extreme, but I'd like to see the Clinton/Reagan/Southern Democrats form their own party (supporting things like the DMCA and Welfare Reform), while progressives do liberal politics.

    I've actually believed this before this election.  The signs were there with Dean in 2004.  But it's crystal clear now.  There are two Democratic parties.  At the national level a split may result in no more wins for "Democrats", but I think it will make local politics a lot clearer.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Steve M on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:05:08 AM EST
    Ceding a permanent majority to the GOP at the national level could, arguably, have deleterious effects for the nation.

    If we want anything at all as progressives from the federal government, we're going to have to play coalition politics.  Would you rather give back the New Deal, the Great Society, etc., because they were all accomplished with the help of those icky conservative Dems?  Heck, the Dixiecrats were a whole lot more unsavory than the folks we partner with today.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#99)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:12:48 AM EST
    I think if we can get the Republicans to get back to their core beliefs (state rights), and focus on politics at the local level, things won't be so bad.  If you live in the South, where the Clinton/Reagan Democrats are, you'll deal with abortion being illegal, bans on gay marriage (probably bans on being gay), mandatory prayer in school, no affirmitive action, no maternity leave, etc...  But presumably that will be because the local population desires it.

    Likewise, if you live in the Northwest or Northeast, then you'll have just the opposite (stuff social conservatives will hate, higher state taxes, etc...).  

    At the end of the day it's not perfect, but then I think there is a lot less heat at the national level, and a lot more focus on the local level.  But I do think it will require a disintegration of the Democratic party for us to get to this.

    Parent

    Uh (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by Steve M on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:17:09 AM EST
    How do we get the Republicans to "get back to their core beliefs"?

    You might have noticed, or you might not, that the Republicans abandoned their belief in federalism right around the time they got control of the federal government.

    I cannot imagine how you expect to hand all federal power over to the Republicans and simultaneously persuade them not to use it.

    Parent

    Libertarians... (none / 0) (#127)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:40:32 AM EST
    I'd say more, but I don't think I'm allowed to.  But simply put, vote Libertarian.

    Parent
    So now you're gonna... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by jackyt on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:23:07 PM EST
    remake the Democratic Party as an exclusive club, (no people who work for a living need apply), AND you're going to re-make the Republican Party.

    Can you spell M-E-G-A-L-O-M-A-N-I-A Cookie Monster?

    Parent

    Democratic party? (none / 0) (#173)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:35:22 PM EST
    Doesn't need to be called the Democratic party... just needs to have people that have the same beliefs.  How is what I'm saying much different than what most on this board are saying.  We have fundamentally different beliefs.  Why are we the same party.  Doesn't make any sense.  

    It's not ego, it's just being true to what is happening in the world.  

    Parent

    So go form your new Party... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by jackyt on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    just don't hijack mine!

    Parent
    Of course we won't hijack (none / 0) (#204)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:33:04 PM EST
    But we need our people.  The Democratic party will need to be effectively demolished at the national level.  I hope you don't have a lot vested in the national party.  They're all hacks anyways.

    Parent
    careful... (none / 0) (#209)
    by jackyt on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:01:23 PM EST
    you're depending on those hacks to push your guy over the top.

    Parent
    If they don't... (none / 0) (#211)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:03:41 PM EST
    If the hacks don't push him over the top, such is life.  You can't be so invested in the success of others that you miss the larger goal.  The nomination of Obama is just part of the story, but not the goal.

    Parent
    Whistling Dixie (none / 0) (#150)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:03:46 PM EST
    Must be 'good living envy,' with the south looking progressively more comfortable every day.

    Parent
    Let's see ... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:54:29 AM EST
    You say Clinton supports = Republican evangelicals

    We harm the party more than we help?
    We're all going to vote Republican?
    We should form our own party (I guess we're not welcome in the Obama Party)?
    We don't support the best interests of American?

    Did I stumble onto Huffington Post by acccident this morning?

    Parent

    "Fiddle-de-de" (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:06:13 PM EST
    said Scarlet, most appropriately.

    Parent
    Wow... (none / 0) (#214)
    by otherlisa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:17:58 PM EST
    I might listen to your argument (for a nano-second anyway) if Obama were actually progressive.

    Parent
    Well, they say it is about progressive (none / 0) (#149)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:02:33 PM EST
    politics and then they say they want to build the movement based on Republican support.

    It is serious congnitive dissonance and I can't for the life of me figure out how they could think that a more progressive/liberal pary can be built by conservatives.

    Parent

    I agree... (none / 0) (#174)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:37:53 PM EST
    I support Obama, although I don't agree with what you point out.  I think that social conservatives, Clinton/Reagan Democrats are all equally negative forces on my life.  

    With that said, if they want to run their districts/states that way, I think they should have that right.  I never plan on going to the South or Texas.  Let them do what they please there.  I think that's fair.

    Parent

    With all due respect... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:23:27 PM EST
    these sound like really childish and narrow-minded ideas. "...social conservatives and Clinton/Reagan Democrats are all equally negative forces in my life" and "I never plan on going to the South or Texas". How old are you? And didn't your parents teach you to respect other people who you might disagree with a bit? Things are not so black and white in this real world we live in.

    I mean, I think the language in rap music is harmful and destructive to women and little girls, but I don't proclaim that "I'll never go to the inner city in my life" or that I'd like to kick urban voters out of the Democratic Party.

    Besides that, you are grossly stereotyping people with the 'Clinton/Reagan Democrat' label. What is that even supposed to imply about what their beliefs are? You certainly don't know.

    I can never get over how divisive the Unity Pony's supporters are.

    Parent

    Never childish... (none / 0) (#202)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:29:03 PM EST
    These are not childish views, but rather well reasoned views.  Why should we have a "party" where half of the people would never want to be in a room with the other half.  Likewise if you hate rap music, would you go to rap concert?  No, of course not.  But you also likely wouldn't ban them nor ban rap radio stations.  You'd let them exist, but you'd listen to your stations and attend your concerts.

    What's the problem with that?  You seem to be saying that unless you agree with me and MY definition of the Democratic party then there is a problem with you.  I don't subscribe to that.  And lots of others agree with me.  Barack I'm sure isn't one of them.  But I think many of us are willing to destroy the Democratic party to free up those of us that believe this.

    Parent

    Your last sentence (none / 0) (#210)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:02:41 PM EST
    is a premise that is both childish and doomed to failure. Sometimes you have to grow up and compromise just a little bit.

    Parent
    Compromise... (none / 0) (#213)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:17:15 PM EST
    Hahaha... are you serious about compromise?  I don't think you can get anyone on this board to compromise.

    Parent
    If your desire is to be free of the label (none / 0) (#212)
    by leis on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:06:56 PM EST
    Democrat, then free yourself.

    Parent
    How exactly (none / 0) (#218)
    by Nadai on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:38:40 PM EST
    has the Democratic Party enslaved you, that you must be freed up by destroying it?

    Parent
    It's not just the working class... (none / 0) (#193)
    by AX10 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:22:08 PM EST
    the Obamites don't want we moderates and latinos either.
    Obama deserves to be crushed in the fall if this is the mentality of he and his minions.  This overt disrespect of such a large part of the electorate is begging for a humiliating defeat.  But they seem to have no problem with that, just ask PreMaDonna Brazille.

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Coral on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:36:19 AM EST
    I really don't get it. Any theories? There must be a reason, because though their actions seem stupid, these are very smart people.

    Parent
    It's not about unifying the Democratic Party ... (3.00 / 2) (#121)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:34:22 AM EST
    it's about building the Obama Party.

    The Clinton wing is no more part of this new entity than the Republican Party. Either drink the Kool Aid (i.e. "unify" under their terms) or hit the highway.

    Case in point, Ed Schultz and Rush Limbaugh are now equally offensive to listen to. So pick your poison.

    Parent

    Trolls handing out troll ratings -- it must be ... (3.00 / 2) (#133)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:45:01 AM EST
    Christmas. Thanks TheKSG.

    Parent
    No personal attacks... (1.00 / 2) (#139)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:50:26 AM EST
    I didn't call you a troll.  Please don't call me one.  Lets not personally attack each other.  That's what politicians are for  :-)

    Parent
    Against board rules (1.00 / 2) (#126)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:39:31 AM EST
    This posts seems to violate board rules.  Please refrain from these types of attacks.  Thanks!

    Parent
    Simple. Class war. (none / 0) (#112)
    by oldpro on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:26:41 AM EST


    Parent
    When did the denial about primary (none / 0) (#98)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:11:49 AM EST
    results stop?  I haven't seen that.

    The thing that gives me hope for the general is the fact that the Obama camp finally made a change on Wednesday after what could only be called an embarassing loss in WVA.  It took too many states for them to adjust, but they did adjust and hopefully they will come up with a decent strategy to at the very least not get themselves completely trounced in November.

    How Did They Adjust? (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by BDB on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:14:32 AM EST
    Edwards is not an adjustment, it's the Ted Kennedy strategy to win California all over again.

    Parent
    His speech that night was an adjustment. (none / 0) (#105)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:19:54 AM EST
    He started talking about real stuff rather than that high-level changey hope gig he's been doing.  Edwards was an adjustment too.  Obama was foolishly (imo) resisting the kind of retail politics that both Clinton and Edwards brought to the race - and in that region of the world - that's not a smart strategy.

    Have you ever been to West Virginia?  Robert Byrd has delivered the goods and his name is ubiquitous lol.  Same with people like Murtha.  You gotta get with those people on stuff they care about.

    Parent

    But His Speech Was Terrible (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by BDB on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:29:01 AM EST
    I've never seen people so bored as those Missourians behind him. It's one of the worst speeches I've ever seen Obama give.  A woman popped her gum through it.  

    Parent
    Well we seem to disagree. (none / 0) (#140)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:51:02 AM EST
    I thought it was good because healthcare and poverty came back onto the table that night.  Clinton may still win this thing, but if she doesn't, now it seems that I am not going to be totally bereft about losing some key issues I care about - which is where we were headed with Obama until Wednesday night.  Of course, the content of this comment assumes that all of these politicians are honestly representing their positions and plans.

    Parent
    that is the big if with me. i don't trust the (none / 0) (#151)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:04:13 PM EST
    dem leadership to follow through for the welfare of the american people. just when have they done it since 2006? they quiver with anticipation of giving in. the corporations rule and that is the last word.

    Parent
    It is a leap of faith... (none / 0) (#158)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:10:07 PM EST
    I keep hoping that I'll hit the jackpot one day and get a politician who believes in what he or she says enough to actually follow through once elected.

    For now, all I have to go on is their word and that is why I like the fact that they've had to keep talking a bit longer than normal.  It ups the ante in our favor.

    Parent

    i wish you well with that. (none / 0) (#167)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:17:04 PM EST
    their words mean nothing to me. i have more trust in past actions. i have seen bill clinton fight for us. the rest, no!

    Parent
    Oh past actions count too, but (none / 0) (#226)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:56:33 PM EST
    challenges, topics and the poltical environment change so past actions aren't always reliable either.  That's why I describe candidate support as a leap of faith regardless of who they are.  Honestly, Hillary Clinton totally winded me - surprised me - and disappointed me greatly when she voted in favor of the war.  She was a part of a small elite group of people who really pissed me off because I expected better sense on that vote than they displayed.  If I only went on past actions, I'd fully oppose her now.  As it stands, I am taking the leap of faith that she has learned from her mistakes.

    Parent
    Obama's (none / 0) (#164)
    by sas on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:15:21 PM EST
    humiliating loss in W Va, losing Indiana, basic tie in Guam, have all illustrated the bottom falling out of his campaign.  He thought he'd even take NC by 25.

    I know she'll wipe him off the map in KY, and I'm interested to see if she can get Oregon in single digits.  Is he still planning on declaring victory and 5.20?

    I hope so.  The arrogance and hubris will show through and maybe voters in PR , SD, and Montana will notice.

    Parent

    He can win without us, true, but we can also elect (none / 0) (#142)
    by Salt on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:52:50 AM EST

    McCain, that's real math, the ignorance is overwhelming the disrespect for a fellow Dem and Dem Icon both hard working public servants with a stellar record of serving this country is petty and peevish.  

    No Obama can't win without you. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:13:02 PM EST
    He really can't.  I don't care what pollsters say.  If half the Democratic Party primary voters stayed home or voted for McCain Obama would lose.  It is that simple.  The faster the blowhards who think they're doing Obama a favor by beating up both Clinton and her supporters are muzzled the better for Obama in the general.  If Obama were really, really clever, he'd find some new shiny object to distract those people with for the duration of the remaining political contests - including the general.

    Parent
    The Rs who are pitching McCain are nicer (none / 0) (#183)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:01:27 PM EST
    in their recruitment talk than "Dems" for Obama, IMHO

    777denny said...
    I don't think you Hillary Clinton supporters are getting enouvegh R-E-S-P-E-C-T. You also seem to be on the way to getting shafted by your party's "leadership."

    One thing you can count on with (most) Republicans is simple respect. We may vehementely and passionately disagree with you, but most of us believe in at least treating those with whom we disagree with with respect. This does not seem to be the case with many Obama supporters in their dealings with Hillary Clinton supporters. I have seen comments from Obama supporters all over the Internet that challenge Hillary supporters' intelligence and call them racists and other nasty names. Is this what your party is all about now?

    Please join Republicans, Democrats and Independents to defeat Mr. Obama and his most egregious elite friends this election cycle so that you moderate Democrats can get your party back from the radical leftists who now control it. If you do this, then you will not only get your party back to sanity, they will listen to you the next time you have concerns, and Hillary can run again in 2012.

    Thanks for listening.

    MAY 16, 2008 3:02 PM



    Parent
    the media for the most part along with (none / 0) (#148)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:02:16 PM EST
    dem leadership "assume' that hillary supporters will come "home" in november. what they are refusing to see is that many of us no longer think we have a home.

    I (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by sas on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    sent my Independent registration on Friday, aftger 37 years as a Democrat.  The party has left me. Now I'm a PA swing voter.

    Parent
    Write (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by BDB on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:43:03 PM EST
    Dean, Pelosi and Reid and explain why.  Because most of the remaining SDs appear to be aligned with one of these three.

    Parent
    No home? (1.00 / 1) (#203)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:31:32 PM EST
    If Hillary supporters say they have no home then that's apparently lovely.  If Obama supporters say the same then we're evil.  Just because Obama will be the nominee doesn't mean that we like the Democratic party.  The party betrayed us a long time ago.  Eight years of Bill Clinton certainly didn't help this parties story.

    Parent
    Hillary Clinton is a Democrat to the core! (none / 0) (#221)
    by jackyt on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:49:52 PM EST
    She is a democrat in the tradition of FDR and LBJ. And just how was Bill Clinton's success at holding the WH for 8 years a betrayal of your (peculiar) democratic principles?

    Is the Democratic Party perfect? No. Does its infrastructure need renovation? Yes. Does it need to renew its commitment to equal opportunity for all? You bet.

    BUT!

    Get this straight... YOU are the interloper in the Democratic Party, not Hillary Clinton. YOU are the one who should look for another "home". And yes, I consider anyone who threatens to destroy my home EVIL!!!!

    Parent

    Good job... (none / 0) (#206)
    by TheKSG on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:42:07 PM EST
    The party left you a while ago, you're probably just noticing now.  Look for alternatives.  Doesn't have to Obama or Clinton.  Look outside the party too.  Congratulations!

    Parent
    Your understanding of politics (1.00 / 1) (#215)
    by otherlisa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:19:52 PM EST
    and history is really awfully shallow.

    Parent
    Oh, look! A troll rating! (1.00 / 1) (#217)
    by otherlisa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:37:52 PM EST
    Can't say I didn't see that one coming.

    Well, since TheKCR (did I get that right?) seems to have joined TL two days ago, at least we won't have to put up with too many of his/her posts.

    Parent

    thanks to folks with your point of view (none / 0) (#223)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:09:34 PM EST
    the demise of the democratic party has been hastened.

    Parent
    "Obama is the favorite"? Not. (none / 0) (#188)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:36:13 PM EST
    Latest Holman montecarlo simulation gives Obama a 45.7% chance, head-to-head against McCain. (Even this is a marked improvement over recent estimates.)

    Hillary, OTOH, is cruising at 87.1%.

    In both cases there are some fresh poll results that have not yet been incorporated.

    Just a suggestion re posting links (none / 0) (#191)
    by bridget on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:09:18 PM EST
    esp. links going to pieces designed to annoy Clinton supporters

    How about alerting readers that they are about to hear from dkos - like was done with the NYTime guy. I would appreciate it.

    As is I Clicked - saw - and couldn't get away fast enough. I don't care anymore what kos (or anyone else on that site) has to say. He had his chance. Been there done that.  

    Just speaking for myself, of course.

    I know - I hate to accidently give him a hit (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:23:58 PM EST


    Parent
    LOL, I feel your pain! (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by eleanora on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:39:44 PM EST
    I can't deal with that place anymore either, even to read the good stuff that the dogged few are still posting.  If you hover your mouse pointer over the link for a minute, the url pops up on the lower left corner of your window. I saw http://www.dailykos... and shuddered away. Life is too short to make myself crazy :)

    Parent
    My mouse will hover from now on ... lol (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by bridget on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:48:27 PM EST
    thanks so much, eleanora!

    that was such helpful suggestion :-)

    Parent

    BTD, i can't understand why (none / 0) (#225)
    by kangeroo on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:49:48 PM EST
    you keep saying BO has a promising strategy in the west.  can you explain why you think obama would do well in NV and NM?  nothing in those states' demographics or voting histories gives me any reason to think he's any likelier to win them in the general than he is to lose them--whereas i see good reason to think hillary would win both.

    and for GE purposes, i think it's wrong to suggest that obama will be stronger in IA (which tends to lean blue) than hillary will be.  especially since caucus results are misleadingly skewed, i think hillary and obama have a similar shot there in the general.  and hillary is significantly stronger than obama in NM and NV.  not only did she win those states' contests despite their being caucuses--and had they been primaries, probably by much wider margins--but she's also clearly preferred among latin@s, who comprise large percentages of both states' populations.

    and how likely is obama to win CO in the general?  hillary has significantly better chances than that of winning TN and KY.  (and if anyone brings up VA or GA, i'll counter with TX.)

    and don't forget the huge problem of defections. if obama's the nominee, the GOP will suddenly be able to compete in all those states hillary would've won for us:  MI, PA, NH, NM, AR, WV, OH, NV, FL.  and our chances will be worse in TN, KY, and MO too.

    in short: we'll lose the white house, all for a high-stakes crapshoot to experiment with a "new electoral map."

    The last 7.5 years under Bush has been miserable (none / 0) (#227)
    by NvlAv8r on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:47:30 PM EST
    On that all Democrats can agree.  Seeing his smirking face making speeches, I'll bet most of us have to turn off the TV (or make a stiff cocktail to make it through it).  

    I am active duty military and am retirement eligible; but I told my wife I would not retire until someone else was in the WH...I did not want Bush's signature on my Retirement Certificate (uggh!), or any of my other paperwork.

    Now, I'm not sure who is gonna get the nomination, but I know either of the Democratic candidates would do well.  And to be honest, the main thing I care about is that it is a Democrat there.  No more signing statements, breaking the rules of FISA, illegal wiretapping, enabling torture, firing US attorneys, suspending Habeas Corpus, lobbiests writing legislation, jerks like Tom DeLay (remember him), and everything else that has made this a miserable, miserable time.

    And we have an excellent chance to take back the White House and increase our majorities in Congress.  But we have to realize that whoever we back right now may not win the nomination.  And that sucks, but that is the way it goes.  But we should also realize it is important that we don't cut off our nose to spite our face and stay home if our candidate is not on the ballot.  Because the last 7.5 years have been awful, awful, awful - with our constitution in tatters and our reputation in the world severely tarnished.  

    Please Dems, lets not have a third term of 'W'.  Vote a Democrat in the White House in November.

    Denial And The 50 State Strategy | 223 comments (223 topical)