Professional Democrats

Good post from kay at Balloon Juice:

It occurs to me that Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald don’t claim long-term membership in the Democratic Party, and don’t base their careers on membership in the Democratic Party. They’re not “Democrats” so much as they are “liberals” and they don’t support a Party platform so much as they support individual issues. But that’s not true of Carville and Rendell and Reich and the rest. They’re Party people.

I wouldn’t expect individual liberals or issue advocates to rally ‘round Obama. Instead I would expect the people who identify as members of the Democratic Party to rally ‘round the Democratic President and broader Democratic platform, because that’s one of the roles of a political Party.

The "Professional Left" does not work for the DNC, where the Professional Dems reside. You have to ask yourself if the Professional Dems are earning their money. I'd say not.

Speaking for me only

< Alan Simpson Should Step Down From Deficit Commission | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think I saw Tim Kaine's picture on a milk carton (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by steviez314 on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 12:56:56 PM EST

    Haven't seen the Dems in D.C. doing (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    a whole lot of supporting or adhering to the party platform lately. Call when they do and we can talk about support. Until then, I never have supported a moderate Republican agenda and I'm too old to start now.

    so (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:14:20 PM EST
    you will tacitly support a completely fanatical right wing republican agenda instead?

    Voting the best of two evils may (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:40:32 PM EST
    also in a very short time result in the best being the fanatical right wing republican agenda that you rail against. Only difference is that it will no longer be out of the mainstream but the new Democratic position since the right has moved even further off the charts.

    the (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:46:57 PM EST
    The overton window is moving (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:53:55 PM EST
    ever rightward. The very issues that the Democratic Party fought tooth and nail against just a few short years ago have now become Obama's and the Democrats positions.  

    the OW (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:01:58 PM EST
    talks about political possibilities.  the possibilities are moving right.  no question.
    its interesting to note that the "evil inadequate right wing" health care bill is very possibly going to end up being the "socialist takeover of health care" that could end up losing them control of congress.

    "politics is the art of the possible"
     -Otto Von Bismarck

    "Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."
        -John Kenneth Galbraith


    What was possible was not ever (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:14:34 PM EST
    seriously explored even on issues that had strong initial public support. Obama and the Dems started almost every negotiation from a "give away the house position" and negotiated downward from there.

    The "possible" was right of center because that was what was wanted and what was being sold by both parties.


    Those possibilities are not (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:58:27 PM EST
    moving to the right on their own - use of the passive voice avoids the truth that those who have the power to govern and legislate are the ones who - by their development of policies and legislation, by their acceptance and/or rejection of vital elements of party platforms, by their over-developed sense of their own importance, are doing the moving.  The possibilities are along for the ride - at least those that have not been summarily booted off and run over along the way.

    As for the health-whatever bill, that's just framing, and just as the Dems think it helps their cause to refer to it as Obama's single greatest accomplishment, the GOP thinks it helps them to place it just this side of communism.  

    The GOP may be wrong in making it out to be a leftist nightmare, but no one will care what kind of label to preface "nightmare" with, because the Dems own the whole ugly mess, which means they are not only going to get all the blame for it, but they will forever be branded as the party that absolutely, positively must never, ever be trusted to touch health care ever again.


    That kind of false equivalence, (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:54:11 PM EST
    where non-support of A is declared to equal support of B, doesn't work anymore.  And the reason it doesn't work anymore is that the quality of both parties is in such decline that it is now possible to support neither.

    Those who reject the non-progressive Dems because they have moved ever-rightward are not likely to ever support a GOP that has moved even farther in the same direction.

    I fail to see how continuing to vote for politicians who make decision after decision after decision against one's interests will EVER result in having candidates who make those decisions to one's benefit.

    It is actually possible to reject both parties for being totally inadequate and damaging to one's interests.


    Do you support a President who (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by observed on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:42:39 PM EST
    tacitly supports a radical right wing agenda, by his words, his actions and his inactions?
    Right back atcha.

    I guess that would (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:46:27 PM EST
    explain all his republican "right wing" support, huh?

    Why should they support him? (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by observed on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:51:25 PM EST
    They have the best of both worlds: a President who is becoming wildly unpopular AND who is not pursuing a liberal or progressive agenda.

    The ability to see nuance (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:52:20 PM EST
    is a sign of intellectual maturity.

    The ability to keep creating dichotomies where they do not exist is a sign of something else.  


    oh! nuance (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:56:44 PM EST
    like Boxer is not a progressive?

    You are not capable or nuance (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 03:03:31 PM EST
    nor of reading adjectives, either?

    Stop derailing discussions with your games.  Put them on video, since you can't read words.


    nuance (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 03:06:01 PM EST
    is in the eye of the beholder

    Your 51st comment today (none / 0) (#47)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 03:09:23 PM EST
    and the day is young yet.

    When you have these days, and ignore past warnings from the blog host, it's not worth it to try to wade through your tweets that pretend to be comments so as to try to find those here who actually complete sentences to contribute to discussion.

    So bye again, enjoy clogging the blog, and I'll be back when you're behaving.


    cmon now (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CST on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 03:12:37 PM EST
    Howdy hasn't been attacking anyone today, he's been making his points. And I grant you in the past that has not always been the case.  But just because you disagree with those points doesn't make them derailing.  They are in fact relevant to the discussion at hand.  No need to make it personal.

    Frankly, this post was more of a personal attack than anything else on this blog today.


    ooo (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 03:10:45 PM EST
    comment counting.

    we must be getting to the nub.


    Wow (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 03:14:30 PM EST
    Funny what lengths you will go to when you disagree with someone. Maybe time for your own blog where you can ban those whose content and style you find disagreeable.

    Derailing? (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 03:07:53 PM EST
    If anyone is derailing this thread, it is you.

    Once a progressive (none / 0) (#51)
    by hookfan on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 04:21:57 PM EST
    always a progressive. . .

    By the way, have some cat food. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by observed on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    I am first to admit that (none / 0) (#6)
    by JamesTX on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:32:54 PM EST
    we've been had in the worst way, but being had by one's own siblings is nothing compared to being trampled by evil. If, after 30 years of dark ages, just when we are catching our first wheezing breaths and pulling our fingers out of the mud, we are destroyed and sent back to hell, then I give up. The good citizens and "issue" voters should step back from this and think about it a little.

    The 'Professional Left' , what there was of it, (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:35:18 PM EST
    did not work for the DNC during the Clinton years either - as well they shouldn't.

    Maybe the Professional Left hoped to be a lot more buddy-buddy with the kewl kidz in the WH this time around. i think it is time to start wearing being dissed by the WH as a badge of honor and stop calling for the likes of Gibbs to be fired.

    may be a little OT (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:17:49 PM EST
    but maybe not.  this morning on "Joe" there was an interesting Douglas Brinkley (not a total fool I always thought) segment in which he talked about several interesting things from Obamas possible two term strategy to Vice President Clinton (again) and the interesting possibility and even more interesting possible outcome of a three way Obama, Palin, Bloomberg race for president in 12.

    meh, maybe he is a fool.

    Gawd (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:26:14 PM EST
    that was stupid.

    Thanks for reminding me why I never watch cable tv political talk anymore.


    stupid (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:34:43 PM EST
    but something about the three way Obama, Palin, Bloomberg race rang creepily possible to me.

    Impossible (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:38:13 PM EST
    Let me put it this way, if Bloomberg was going to run in 2012, he would not be talking about the "GZM."

    you think (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:44:16 PM EST
    he strikes me more of a centrist sane and pragmatic guy.
    not a milk the muslim hate guy.

    and I think, with his money, if he decided to run he would be a serious factor.


    You don;t want to be leading that parade (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:51:58 PM EST
    if you need to get votes period.

    sadly (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:56:22 PM EST
    true probably.  but if there was ever a year open for an indie run I think it might be 12

    in 2 years (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:00:10 PM EST
    do you really think anyone will care about this?

    I see it as being one of those "hot in the moment topics" like terry schiavo or something.  Not anything people will be talking about much in a presidential election 2 years later.


    I think you are right on (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:03:34 PM EST
    that election will turn on competence

    Say only 5% care (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:06:12 PM EST
    Do you think you are winning those votes?

    No upside to it. None.


    Yep. Two yrs from now (none / 0) (#23)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:31:45 PM EST
    easily, people will have moved on (hopefully, if history is any guide).  But Bloomberg will be thinking, I took a clear stand on a tough issue that the president, when he decided to weigh in, eventually hedged on.  People may not agree with my conclusion, but they might credit me for stepping up to the plate and taking a swing.

    It's not crazy at all to consider a Bloomberg 3d party candidacy.  Last I checked, the guy is about as politically ambitious as he is rich.  And he isn't getting any younger.

    If the economy is still in the dumpster by early 2012, 50-50 that he tosses his hat in as an Indy.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:39:55 PM EST
    Politics rewards courage . . . NOT.

    Maybe not at the time, (none / 0) (#34)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:52:09 PM EST
    but later -- 2012 -- when passions have died down and perhaps some have seen the error of their ways.

    But there's also the angle of plain speaking/telling it like it is in the Harold Truman/Howard Cosell mold -- worked for HST in '48, and Cosell, well his legacy is still up for grabs.

    A 3d party candidate isn't always going to go by the book, and by definition he's going to want or need something special by which to stand out, apart from his money.


    Sounds like the start of a joke to me: (none / 0) (#9)
    by steviez314 on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:39:42 PM EST
    A Kenyan Muslim, a quitter and a billionaire walk into a bar....

    ha (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 01:45:14 PM EST
    "you think I asked for a 12 inch pianist?"

    spend the night at a farmhouse (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:59:10 PM EST
    and the one in the middle ends up dreaming about skiing at the winter olympics..

    Not a chance (none / 0) (#52)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 09:39:22 PM EST
    Only we think Palin will be on the republican ticket.  That's only our wishful thinking.  Outside of NY, no one in the country has heard of Bloomberg.  I'm hearing republicans talk about Chris Christy in NJ for 2012.  I don't know if that will happen but I can guarantee it won't be Palin.  Mainstream republicans, those very active in the party, have no use for her.  Sorry!  

    I keep hearing about how most republicans (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:09:58 AM EST
    dont like Palin.  the numbers do not agree.

    Palin 76%

    Huckabee 65%

    Gingrich 64%

    Romney 54%

    so she is 10 points ahead of Huck and Newt and 20 ahead of Mittens.

    July 16, 2010


    one more thing (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:11:29 AM EST
    from the poll

    PRINCETON, NJ -- Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the best known and most positively rated of five possible contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Her 76% favorable rating among Republicans is higher than those for Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Bobby Jindal.

    Palin can fill a sports stadium easily anywhere she goes.  name another republican hopeful who can do that.


    So, when's the last time you saw (none / 0) (#56)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:58:58 AM EST
    or heard Romney or Huckabee give a speech or make an appearance somewhere - think that might have anything to do with those ratings?  Kind of hard to be popular when you're not in the mix, not seeking out the cameras and microphones, don't you think?

    This will change, and soon.  And, I'm sorry, but once you compare and contrast almost everyone else on that list with Sarah Palin, her numbers are going to fall.  

    But, let's just say that doesn't happen as dramatically as it could.  Let's say Newt and Mike and Mitt go out there and give it their best shot, and Palin is still rockin' the poll numbers.

    They have two choices: go with that, go all in and start helping her win primaries and delegates and get the nomination, and go full-tilt supporting her candidacy - or - take advantage of her ability to draw crowds, but undermine her ability to win if she decides to get in the race - and you know they can do that.

    It's just a question of how stupid the GOP wants to be, and so far, they seem to be proving that there is no limit on that, so I guess we'll see.

    I know some Democrats want her to run, because they think she can be easily beaten, that there can't possibly be enough people who think she's smart enough and capable enough to actually run the country somewhere other than into the ground (although by 2012, I expect Obama will have made considerable headway in that regard).

    I guess we'll see soon enough how this is all going to play out; what kind of popcorn do you prefer?


    sounds like a strictly booze (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:04:51 AM EST
    affair to me. And I don't say that lightly.

    Or. as that guy in Airplane said, "I picked a helluva week to quit sniffing glue"


    sounds like a strictly booze (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:05:08 AM EST
    affair to me. And I don't say that lightly.

    Or. as that guy in Airplane said, "I picked a helluva week to quit sniffing glue"


    that's one I dont mind (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:06:10 AM EST
    saying twice :)

    actually (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:17:09 AM EST
    I am more afraid of the second name on that list.
    I think nominating Palin could be a good thing.
    I do not think nominating Huck would be a good thing.
    he is Palin without the stupid.

    As a Dem, I have little (none / 0) (#66)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:29:36 AM EST
    fear of the Huckster.  Yes, twice as smart as Palin, but only half her appeal.  And given his sorta fundy Xtian profile and RW views generally, his appeal would largely be limited to the Repub base with indies either going O or staying home.

    Oh, and he has a major Willie Horton problem from his time as gov, only worse.


    this is true (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 12:54:44 PM EST
    but after the last couple of years I honestly wonder if that Willie Horton would be a plus or a minus.

    I really do.


    so (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:10:08 AM EST
    first it was

    "Mainstream republicans have no use for her"

    when shown that clearly they do it becomes

    "well, they may now but SOON mainstream republicans will have no use for her"

    we will see.


    They obviously have SOME (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:21:00 AM EST
    use for her, the question is, how much?

    The commissar of right wing talk radio is still madly in love with her..The good part about this is that the Right has painted itself into a corner in a sense - and hopefully created a lot of rifts - by playing to the cheap seats for so long..


    he and others (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:22:37 AM EST
    have created a monster called the "tea party" and it will bite them on the a$$

    Stupid (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:29:48 AM EST
    Well for one, I do not think Palin is stupid. And for two, Bush also came across as "stupid" and won two terms.

    The anti elite, populist draw in the US is pretty high right now. If 60 or 70% of Americans can be manipulated to argue against building a Sufi Community Center in downtown NYC, 51% of Americans can vote for Palin.


    I stand corrected (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 12:55:58 PM EST
    he is stupid in the way Bush was stupid.  that is she has the power to make her audience THINK she is a stupid as they are.

    but she is not.


    three strikes against her.. (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 01:05:43 PM EST
    nowhere near the brand name recognition Bush had, she never Texacuted anyone and she's of the gender that whispered in Adam's ear and is required to "subject themselves" to their husbands..

    well (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 01:07:24 PM EST
    she never Texacuted anyone

    she still has two years


    oh, and this (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:11:51 AM EST
    heard Romney or Huckabee give a speech

    you think they could fill a stadium when they decide to give a speech?


    I think Palin (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:28:48 AM EST
    has a certain "base" of the Republican party these days, whether it's the traditional base or not, I don't know, but it's her base.

    And I think the primary will be key in finding out how big that base really is.

    I think Romney will get more of the old school fiscal conservative, rich white guy vote and some Indies.  And Huck could peel off some of the "Palin base" and Indies.  By Palin base I mean the social conservative "real Amerrrica" crowd.  I am curious (scared?) to find out how large that group really is.


    Both Pat Buchanan and (none / 0) (#69)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:33:39 AM EST
    Ed Rollins last night both said she seems to be making some moves to position herself for a 2012 run, and both seemed high on her chances.  Well Pat was.  Rollins just said it looks like she's running.

    And I hope she does and gets the nom.

    She'll lose badly to O, unless in the meantime we've gone deep and deeper into an ugly second recession, in which case it would still be a contest given her lack of experience and know how and the GOP rep for running the economy badly.


    Do you want her to be (none / 0) (#68)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:31:23 AM EST
    the MOST POPULAR REPUBLICAN EVER?  And if you do, is it because you think that is the best way to sink the GOP for the forseeable future?

    I mean, what is behind your constant insistence that Sarah Palin is IT, and why do you brislte so at anyone who doesn't share that opinion?

    It's my opinion that the GOP is using Palin as much as they can now, but when it comes time to anoint someone to lead the charge in 2012, she will not be on the short list - UNLESS - the Tea Party completely takes over and the old guard is summarily relegated to the sidelines.

    Not saying that will happen, but I suppose there is a chance it could.  Maybe pigs will take wing and I will win the Mega Millions or PowerBall.  That would be nice, bu tthe chances are slim.

    My point about Huckabee and Romney was that they are not out selling themselves like Palin is, which has to factor into the poll numbers.  It's like anything else in our instant-gratification society with a very short attention span: if it's not right under their noses, it's not happening.

    The numbers will change as the presidential campaign season gets closer, and those who have an interest start showing up on talk shows and giving speeches to this group and that.  Can they fill arenas and stadiums?  Today?  Maybe not, but so what?   Maybe I should say that Obama filled arenas and look what that got us...

    Hell, maybe you could just admit you have a huge crush on Sarah and then we can all take your Sarah-fixation with a generous helping of salt.  And ipecac.


    I hate to break the bad (none / 0) (#70)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:38:12 AM EST
    news to you, but the Tea Party does seem to be taking control of the GOP, especially with the latest election returns.  Definite trendline there.

    Obviously this is only an early stage analysis.  They will have to announce and then show up for candidate debates and forums in the spring and fall, and we'll see then whether the half-baked half-term gov will be able to avoid seriously embarrassing herself, a real possibility but not a guarantee.

    Meanwhile I look forward to watching the circus.


    me too (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 12:57:49 PM EST
    I actually agree that once the public gets to know her they will not elect her. at least in a two way race.  I just happen to think its possible they will not really GET to know her until the bruising general election campaign.

    because (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 12:59:39 PM EST
    no republican nominee will be able to really take her on in the primary if they want to have any chance of winning.  IMO.  

    Doug Brinkley, my new (none / 0) (#25)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:38:00 PM EST
    Favorite American Historian, for endorsing the intriguing 2012 Obama/Hillary ticket, with Joe to State.

    And he's not at all off base in thinking a 3-way Obama, Palin, Bloomberg race could happen.

    Doug Brinkley:  better than Alan Brinkley and David Brinkley, just not quite as good looking as Christie Brinkley ...


    Palin (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by coast on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:48:16 PM EST
    will never be the Republican nominee.

    I am not so sure at all (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:50:10 PM EST
    I think there is a very plausible argument for her doing very well in early primaries.

    No one that I talk with (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by coast on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:55:36 PM EST
    thinks of her as a serious candidate.  She is a side-show for the left to ridicule.  Don't get me wrong she has her supporters within the party, but that believe she is presidential material are a minority in the party.

    that may be true (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:59:03 PM EST
    but they are vocal and organized and they vote in primaries big time.
    particularly the early republican ones.

    Not a chance, (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 09:44:24 PM EST
    Palin has ZERO republican party support.  Tea Party fringes like her, although even they have not had good turn out crowds for her lately.  Palin has NO republican party support.  She won't win primaries, if she even tries to run.

    but even so (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:50:53 PM EST
    forget Palin.  would a Bloomberg candidacy help the R or the D more?

    Yes, just assume for the (none / 0) (#42)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 03:00:38 PM EST
    purposes of this hypothetical that Palin does get the R nom.  

    Bloomberg clearly would take more from O than P -- i.e., about the reverse of Ross Perot who was seen as taking more from the R Poppy than from the Dem Bill.  The Muslim Mosque-backing mayor overall has a slightly center-left political profile, in reality and perception, and not that long ago was calling himself a Dem.  Pulls votes from the middle, mod Rs, indies, D-leaning indies, and moderate Ds plus maybe a sprinkling of pragmatic lib Dems greatly disappointed by O.

    Brinkley is also correct if it's a 2-way O vs Palin race:  O would probably blow her out of the water.  But not in the 3-way ...  


    agree with almost all of that (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 03:08:29 PM EST
    but I think the next presidential election is going to be about the economy.  he has a powerful argument to make there.  and I actually think he could appeal to some of the economic tea partiers.

    do you agree (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:48:09 PM EST
    that it could lead to a Palin win?

    I am undecided.  I think the odds are just as good either way.  he will get lots of sane republican support against Palin.