Monday Late Night Open Thread

I'm working on my latest theory, that the only thing that still matters in this election is whether there are more evangelicals and right wing extremists in the big swing states or more of everyone else.

Did anyone else see Weeds? It was intense, to say the least.

This is an open thread.

< Prison Guards Seek Schwarzenegger Recall | Palin 's Per Diem Issue: Lived at Home, Billed the State >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Latest data indicates (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:32:33 PM EST
    female voters who don't fit into the evangelical and right wing extremist catagory are also an important factor. Surprisingly.

    polls or data? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:38:08 PM EST
    The polls will change.

    Polls. Isn't that date, however (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:38:54 PM EST
    subject to change?

    Data to me means demographics (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:40:23 PM EST
    and numbers in each group in the swing states.

    Polls are data subject to change. . . (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:39:44 PM EST
    Poor FL. First the DNC slaps (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:44:56 PM EST
    them, then Obama gets the nomination, then they get all their delegates seated but a vote by acclamation, probably some discomfort among Jewish voters about Obama's past reach-out to Palestian causes, now they get socked with an evangelical.  What is a FL voter to do?

    vote for Obama (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:05:16 AM EST
    against the evangelical. Bigger threat.

    Poor Florida indeed (none / 0) (#34)
    by ap in avl on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:20:36 AM EST
    I fear that for the reasons you mentioned that there will be many particularly nasty Republican 527 ads run in the state specifically designed to scare Jewish voters and distract from fears of Palin.

    It could (and probably will) get pretty ugly.  


    I think FL, VA and OH (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:51:08 PM EST
    are about even difficulty now. That's a bad sign, because it makes Colorado the center of the political universe. And Colorado is going to be a hard state to win.

    I'll have Colorado numbers up tomorrow (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:13:04 AM EST
    I did a long post on them today for 5280.com that will appear tomorrow. I'll cross-post it here after it's published. I ended up with Obama slightly ahead, based on the four largest counties that will overwhelmingly go one way or the other, Denver, El Paso (Colorado Springs), Boulder and Douglas, and the four largest swing counties. (Based on 2004 election results and factoring in newly registered voters.)

    If he can match Ken Salazar's 2004 performance (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:17:27 AM EST
    we'll be in good shape.

    The bad news is that John McCain isn't Pete Coors.


    And Obama isn't Salazar (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:34:36 AM EST
    Salazar is a total centrist and Obama is being sold in McCain ads here as a tool of the liberals.  The latest ad playing all night shows Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Pat Leahy, all one at a time, and says Obama represents more of the same and isn't ready to lead.

    McCain is playing the inexperience card here very heavy while asserting Palin represents change. I think Obama needs to counter that and hit back on the experience argument.

    I still like my idea of an anti-Palin ad showing her answering the phone at 3pm while McCain is napping and searching for the rolodex in the non-computerized office to figure out who to call.

    Or an ad playing a clip of her speaking at her church about G-d's will and politics in the Valley Girl voice. It's very difficult to conceive of her as she was in the church video, less than 2 years ago, meeting with a head of state.


    Justice would be: (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:58:10 PM EST
    Obama loses the popular vote and Ohio, but wins Florida by a few thousand votes.

    Twisted mind. (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:09:39 AM EST
    Been doing a lot of reading on Palin.... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:23:13 AM EST
    ....no blockbusters yet, but the big question I have hasn't been answered yet; Is there any evidence that she has crossed the line, other than Library-gate (or attempted to, ) in her official duties as mayor and/or Gov? It just seems every accusation, upon research; either is debunked or mitigated to a point of irrelevance.
    If this continues, and there really isn't any "there, there" the public will take it out on the Dems and Palin/McCain will be unbeatable.
    I wonder if Obama and his advisors have considered this and what changes to his strategy would have to be made.
    Not looking too good right now.

    I find all this talk about having to (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:35:28 AM EST
    protect America from the evangelicals kind of funny, considering how hard Obama has worked, and the concerted effort he has made, to reach out to them.  He wants their votes, he wants to expand faith-based initiatives - clearly a move to garner their support - he has ideas on education the appeal to evangelical views - so I have to ask, why there is no fear being expressed about the influence evangelicals could have if Obama is elected, or any concern being expressed about what they will want from him in return for helping elect him?

    As for the suggestions about ads that will make fun of McCain's age and Palin's voice - yeah - that'd be helpful.  For someone who bans people and deletes comments for perceived personal attacks on the candidates, those ideas seem pretty personal, and not at all funny.  

    My inclination is to disagree with your theory (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:30:18 PM EST
    Democrats win national elections routinely. They also win statewide for federal office in every swing state.

    But they routinely (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by standingup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:32:52 PM EST
    lose when they belittle other groups they need to vote for them.



    Do they? Or is that a new phenomena? (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:33:44 PM EST
    They do (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by standingup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:43:34 PM EST
    in Missouri where the rural voters are more conservative but not necessarily evangelical or right wing extremist.  We'll know November 5.

    Well, that's a little vague (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:37:02 PM EST
    but your point (rather, snipe) is clear.

    I sit in the middle of a swing state (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by standingup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:53:10 PM EST
    where voters feel a great disconnect when they hear what they believe are Democrats talking above and about them in this manner.

    Quite simply (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by standingup on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:00:24 AM EST
    Rural areas are populated with people of all political persuasions but the share a common sense of community.  

    The evil right wing extremist might be the first person to show up asking what they can do to help when a family member is ill or passes away.  Or the evangelical neighbor who is a stay-at-home mom could be watching your children after school.  

    So while they might not agree politically, they have more that connects them.  They will stand together when they feel some of their own are being wrongly singled out.    


    Anyone watch Greta interviewing (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:03:19 AM EST
    Sarah Pilan's long-time friends from before and during mayoral times?

      They say you can tell something about a person from the friends they choose.  They were good people, intelligent too, and they love Palin.  

      From the beginning she was knocking on people's doors as mayor of this small town, saying she'd heard they had some concerns and she wanted to hear them, and she got things done.

      This doesn't relate to moving to a VP position, and it's the later move to governing a state with a lot of heavy duty battling with oil companies and her own party that has more to tell about her apparent abilities and gutsiness.

      But her downhome attitude, her insistence on being called by her first name always, the no-airs approach that goes against some of the things I've read.  I think she's a pitbull with business types and single-minded about such things and ruthless when she has to be, but there is that other side too.

      From what I saw, if she is still on the ticket, she will be a killer in the blue-collar areas the Dems need.  She kept getting elected, re-elected despite problems with people who didn't agree with her goals or who didn't like her aggressiveness in pushing her programs -- because she connects with ordinary people.  Factcheck.org indicates she's not really been a huge cutter of funds when you check the details more closely.  All of that is big trouble for us if she stays on the ticket.  I can see why some have been panicking and trying to get anything on her so they can knock her off the ticket, but I don't go along with that unless it's something that really warrants it.

      I was amused to see Hillary's sr. staffer Ann Lewis, replied re requests for Hillary's help with Palin, that she would not be attacking Palin specifically (assigned to the female VP) as Hillary was not the VP.

      Yes, that's Biden's role and it'll be interesting to see how he handles it.  It's a bit like walking on a tightrope.

      In the meantime, a lot of women voters moved over to McCain to a lot of people's surprise (per polling breakdowns).


    Inelegant statement, but maybe not so far off, (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:35:56 AM EST
    here we have a country at war, to the tune of $12 billion per month (off budget and borrowed from China, Japan, Mexico), continued casualties, inadequate care for veterans, and more saber rattling with every foreign disruption, and rekindled tensions with Russia.. Terrorist threats and Bin Laden at large.   An economy becoming worse, not better (e.g. take over of F.M. and F.F, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp needing cash infusions to cover bank failures, jobs going and gone, joblessness up, gasoline prices up, food prices up, consumer confidence down, 40l-k's and other retirement accounts plummeting, the major asset of the middle class, home equity, disappearing,  housing foreclosures, and short sales abound.  Benefits and health care, for those who have it, decreased and costs shifted to the employee, For those without health care, the solution is go to the emergency room.  Solutions to all of these and other problems not in sight: downgrade science, no stem cell research, no global warming issues.  All of this and more, and McCain/Palin is just the ticket, because God is on their side, as are guns and all those disconcerting social changes that need to be reversed.  

    Pretty good example of: (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:33:56 AM EST
    Democrats talking above and about them

    Biden did mention his goal is (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:53:28 PM EST
    to protect the Biden "brand."

    I gathered he meant he wouldn't risk (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:08:17 AM EST
    sullying his good reputation by sliming Palin.

    too late (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:23:59 AM EST
    Biden won't pull out. It would be suicide at this point. The Democratic ticket is set.

    What makes you so sure? (none / 0) (#45)
    by blcc on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:56:20 AM EST
    I'm not trying to be argumentative, by the way.  I'm genuinely asking if you are truly sure, and if so why?

    After all, it was only a few days ago that you were suggesting an Eagleton by the Republicans, so what makes it genuinely off the table for Democrats?  

    Are the demographic shifts reflected in the polls not sufficient reason?  Because personally I think those look like the iceberg off the deck of the Titanic, but I also don't think that in and of themselves they are sufficient grounds for switching VPs.  It leads me, however, to speculate purely as a hypothetical as to what exactly would be sufficient grounds...

    It also leads me to speculate as to whether or not a "savior" VP candidate would realistically consider stepping in.  Because, the problem is that the only VP candidate who could produce such similarly game-changing demographic shifts may well be better off staying out of the race at this point.  

    (IMHO of course, but it's not like I've made any secret of my Hillary support - so you do know where I stand.)

    Is there something that could be promised to Hillary to get her to sign on?  A Supreme Court nomination, perhaps?


    RE:What makes you so sure? (none / 0) (#47)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:51:24 AM EST
    Reason, history, common sense.

    Such a move would serve no one's interest--except McCain/Palin. Even if Obama was silly enough to entertain this notion it's hard to imagine Clinton would join him in that silliness and accept.

    Whatever else they both are, they are both really talented professionals.

    It's still early--in this shortened campaign season--to see how game changing Palin ends up being. The honeymoon is still on.


    Don't forget Hispanic/Latino Evangelicals (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:42:32 PM EST
    Newsweek this week reports:

    Though polls show Obama beating Sen. John McCain among Hispanics as a whole by roughly 30 points, Hispanic evangelicals are a tougher sell. In 2004, 63 percent of them voted for President Bush. Comprising about one third of Hispanic voters overall, evangelicals are more affluent, more likely to be citizens and more likely to vote than non-evangelicals. (Hispanics make up 15 percent of the U.S. population.)

    also, especially the north. I used to live there and wow what an influence they had. I was a voting right's attorney there for Kerry.  Their only issue was abortion. Nothing else mattered at all.  They voted stright dem locally but not for president. All registered Dems also.  I left scratching my head.  I was in Jefferson County.  There is a larger Hispanic population in FL now though.  The Jewish population is not all that large, though that seems to be the myth.  However, in a close election that would be enough to swing the state.

    I just don't see that (none / 0) (#21)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:55:08 PM EST
    That wasn't my experience when I lived there. The republicans held all Constitutional offices and the legislature. But maybe you are talking about local mayors and councils.  

    The exception is Southeast Florida


    Agreed (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:07:53 AM EST
    Lakeland near Tampa is another. My parents lived there for a short time in the early 80's and all the "Jews for Jesus" signs I saw when I visited them were creepy. Lots of evangelical colleges too if I remember correctly. (The signs i haven't forgotten.)

    This time 4 years ago, Rasmussen showed (none / 0) (#22)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:57:13 PM EST
    Bush about 1 point above Kerry in Florida. Things don't seem to have changed too drastically since then.


    What's it going to matter if everyone who wants to vote isn't given the opportunity to vote?

    No, Jewish voters aren't all Democrats (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:19:57 AM EST
    But I can't think of any that would vote for an evangelical, say a Huckabee, for President. I suspect many won't vote for Palin even for VP.

    And I'd bet that any Democratic Jewish voters who were thinking of voting for McCain as being stronger on Israel will be scared to death of Palin on social issues and she will cost McCain their vote.

    My friends in Florida have been forwarding  me anti-Palin emails every few hours for days, and the list of cc's on the emails is so long you can be sure they are being widely circulated there.

    David Brooks (none / 0) (#37)
    by bjorn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:27:00 AM EST
    David  Brooks

    I don't always like what he has to say but I thought this column was interesting and maybe good advice for Obama.