The charm has lasted 15 months. I think it will survive another 6. I have never been more confident that he will beat McCain. The GE poll numbers that have come out in the past week look great (for both our candidates now that they're not ripping out each other's throats). I hope someone will poll FL, PA, and OH soon, but I am feeling rather good about McCain going down.
And has diminished even inside the party. The GE poll numbers you refer to don't say that much. I've seen Democratic losers before with better poll numbers 6 months out.
Are you serious? Really? Are you? Please allow me to refer you to the flood of superdelegates ever since Super Tuesday, a flood that has continued unabated and will continue unabated.
Recent GE polls are the WHOLE reason we MUST elect Hillary, but when they look good for Obama they mean NOTHING?
You folks are tiresome and I won't miss these types of exchanges when this is finally over. At the same time, I wish the very best to the Clintons, who are icons of my (and your?) party.
Between the devil and the deep blue sea. I don't envy them.
I want answers damn it! Why are GE polls all-important when they favor Clinton and meaningless when they look good for Obama? Whey are the only GE polls that matter the ones that come in the middle of the Rev. Wright controversy instead of the ones now, or in a few weeks when he is the official nominee, or back in February when Obama was handing McCain his ass in the GE polls?
The superdelegates are choosing between two good candidates whose GE numbers are roughly the same even after Obama sustained an all-out assault on his electibility from both the Clinton camp and the Republicans, and one of who is the clear leader after fifty-something DNC-sanctioned contests.
all I said was that polls 6 months out are not particularly good indicators of the final result. I wasn't going around touting Clinton's poll numbers during the Wright publicity, either.
Not that it matters anymore, but I always have felt that Clinton was more electible than Obama not because of polls (public opinion can be fickle) but because of:
1) More relative experience and seasoning (at least to the perceptions of voters);
2) More relative strength in larger battleground states (partially because of the Clinton brand of moderate pragmatism and competence);
3) Better support demographics (women, Latinos, moderate to moderately conservative lower middle and middle class whites) for the general election than Obama's (African Americans, latte liberals, youth). Clinton's have expansion potential outside of the Democratic party. The first two of Obama's have little. The last one does but is often unreliable.
You owe me, everyone on this site, and everyone in the Democratic party answers as to why you are still trying to torpedo the all-but-certain Democratic nominee. It's time for unity, my friend. Hillary's on board. Most of her surrogates and financiers are on board. Now it's your turn.
and beat old man McCain in this political climate, we'd better pack it in and move to Canada.
What was trollable about that remark? Contentious maybe, but trollable?
I called this user out for TR abuse on another thread, and he/she immediately went to this thread and started TRing me here. Don't worry about it... he/she's been doing it for a long time.
A lot of the metaphysical TR abuse that has gone on in the blogosphere in general is probably a hangover 'from other threads'
No doubt about it... Everybody's gotta have a hobby...
TR'd for ratings abuse. My comment was impatient, contentious, and not that well thought out but I am not a troll and will never be one. I have voted for every Democrat in every race I have ever voted in. That will not change in November. I advocate for Democrats in every way that time will allow. I have NEVER hoped for any Democrat to lose in a general election. I am most certainly NOT a troll, nor was my comment in any way trollish.
The unity train is on its way and you are missing it. See the Rendell/Casey letter and the recent unity meeting between Clinton/Obama financial backers. See also the complete reversal of tone from the Clinton camp. No amount of troll rating abuse is going to change it.
Thank you for recognizing that. Since there is no rating for jusr plain old bad posts, I gave you a 1. I should also say that I know far more about what is actually going on behind the scenes. I won't descrobe details since I don't think you are quite ready to understand how politics works, or etiquette amongst those in power. If you read either of Senator Obama's books you will clearly see that he is a very intelligent, sophisticated person who does understand the trappings of power. No one in the campaign is advocating verbal thuggery to force anyone to get on the Unity train. Decisions were made weeks ago, fool. No one has sent the alert out for first time cattle prodders,fool.
TR'd for third-grade name-calling and personal attacks. The rating for "plain old bad posts" is "none." Anything else is ratings abuse.
I also love your "I know what's going on behind the scenes, but I won't tell you because you can't handle it" bit. Who was that Georgia Congressman who said going into the 2006 elections Bush had a "secret plan to end the Iraq War," but he wouldn't say what because then the terrorists would be expecting it. Thank you for reminding me of that entertaining moment in history.
Also, I don't need Obama to tell me what to do. I "cattle prodded" this person only because the subject line of the post irritated me, I was pissed, and I wrote it very rashly. I think I've already expressed in so many words that I wish I hadn't. Doesn't make me a "troll" or a "fool." Just a fallable human being.
And by the way, my new definition of a "fool" is anyone who in any way encourages or enables the election of a Republican President in 2008 after the past eight years.
Those are all very strong arguments for Clinton. Unfortunately, over the last six months or so, Obama's arguments seem to have been more compelling with both the voters and the party interests represented by the super delegates. It's been a close thing.
"Well, let's see how long that charm of Obama and 'the youngsters' lasts. Their solutions for things don't get to the bottom of problems, and their tolerance for suffering and ability to deal with failure is not great".
Just because you do not like Obama is not the best of reasons to go trashing the decision of an individual youngster or youngsters as a whole.
At best your characterization of youngsters is a reflection of your character and the youngsters you know, it is not an accurate general rule.
It seems that young people are the only demographic left that are "fair game" for open ridicule and disparagement.
typical white persons and bitter rural voters seem to be quite open game from Obama's point of view.
Hardworking blacks appear to be open to be mocked by Hillary.
Hey, I'm just using your standards, and she said it, not me.
What a great liar you are! Is this what your parents taught you?
Show me where Hillary said this ridiculous thing?
I think you reading something into what I said that isn't there. Obama meets a present need for a politician who operates in the political center and helps some ascendent groups who have been locked out and demand their share and participation- young, black, the pretty well educated. Which is good.
One fundamental problem is that he operates on an attractive but simplistic and partially revisionist theory of history and our present place and problems in it. Secondly, he's allied himself with the conservative/moderate and Left establishment in the Party.
His young supporters don't see these two things or quite understand their consequences, which I don't blame them for. All I can do is point to those things and tell people that there's going to be a lot of profound disappointment and disillusionment with an Obama Presidency after a year or two.
I can't think of a president where disillusionment and disappointment DIDN'T creep in (except perhaps FDR and JFK?) but the point is well made.
What I would add, however, by way of warning is that you're seeing this all slightly through the alliances, constituencies and political demographics of the 90s. Two things have changed - the activism of the young and the african american vote. I think some like Axelrod and Plouffe understand that there is both an election to be won, and a new coalition to be formed, because of changing demographics. They may be wrong, but from everything I've seen - and Poblano is a master of describing this - it's not like they haven't thought about it.
Well, it's been 10 years since 'the Nineties'. We've only turned over what, 15% of the electorate? We've lost the last FDR Democrats, mostly- who were basically moderate Republicans.
Pollings show breakdowns that the political blocs in practice- on the left side of the spectrum Moderate Democrat (6%), Left (8%), Liberal (24%)- still exist.
I agree there's ferment. I agree that the Left bloc resurrected as force in 2003, the Moderates in 2004 or 2006, after their flagrant selfdestruction in the Eighties and Nineties. And I agree that in all the activity and initiative, they've blurred terms somewhat ("progressive") and people are shuffling around inside the wings of the Party. The sorting out is still happening, and it won't settle until some bloc is elected to office, dominant and put to the test of actual governing.
However, what you and those folks claim, in effect, is that these resurrections means that the Liberal bloc proper is transcended in the Democratic Party.
As one of that bloc that is supposedly transcended, I'm not in a hurry to like the claim. It's a standard, fact of life, power grab of Left and Moderate sorts (which young people and black people are, generally speaking) more than a description of reality. Made easy by that Liberals don't lust for, clutch, and cling to power for its own sake, unlike those other blocs. We're always the bloc of last resort, elected to clean up messes.
There are places that Liberals go, politically, that those other two blocs don't. Difficult social rights legislation, letting Republicans go without giving them a retaliatory or gratuitous personal beating (just taking their offices and killing their agenda), comprehensive cleanup of messes, selfsacrifice for particular just causes. Ability to give up power. And admitting that Republicans represent, when elected, and how ever badly and objectionably, The People's desire for some particular actions or state of affairs. (Always a lot less and more humane desires than Republicans claim as mandate, but nonetheless.)
The Left and Moderates are practically all with Obama. The Liberals have split between Clinton and Obama- I thought they might yet unite around Clinton, but just enough are sticking with Obama. There are all kinds of fairly superficial reasons given for them sticking with Obama- why should I vote for a woman just because I'm a woman, Obama is "once in a generation", Clinton offends me by saying X or not saying Y.
But the basic reason seems to be a feeling that the country as a whole sees dispelling the Bush/Republican messes and elected officials responsible for them as priority. The objection to Clinton is the that country doesn't want an ideological atmosphere or continuing the fights and seeing the people- right or wrong- of the Bush era. It doesn't want to make certain kinds of hard commitments and decisions just yet, or strong reversals of course. It wants the obvious things dealt with in a practical way- taxes, health care, Guantanamo. In short, it is a centrist atmosphere. That of course needs gussying up as New rather than Obvious. And that's what Obama is positioned for. A lot of people interpret New to mean that their great ideas are going to get a hearing and serious consideration. I don't know whether the latter part is true in a centrist atmosphere- experience says no.
Clinton has organized a coalition that is going to be there when there's a feeling of need for more and harder changes. When the collective decision has been made do harder things than Obama and his coalition can or want to.
They're doing something interesting, in that Clinton demonstrates that liberals and small c conservatives proper feel related and in many ways agree in being essentialists. Obama demonstrates that moderates feel akin across Party lines in the muddle of compromise that that they consider political life.
Agreed. That is what I am worried about. I dont want voters to get disillusioned and angry at Democrats when reality sinks in. 2008 is not the end of it. We have 2010 coming up.
No, I will not get off your lawn!
I'm so chuffed you think I'm still young. Though the fact I have a teenage daughter might alert you to the reality that a lot of middle aged people support Obama
