Mon, 05/19/2008 - 11:28pm — lambert
[Welcome DailyKos readers! Let me spell out the point of the post. It is: Getting a big crowd does not necessarily lead to electoral success. Got it? And welcome, again, Sadly No readers, to the world of warblogging. If any of you are bearing olive branches, you can leave them in the coat check room -- down the marble stairs to the right of the Department of If I Don't Laugh I'll Cry.]
75K, right? Well, Kerry pulled 80K-100K in Philly in 2004. Man, that was a great feeling, wasn't it?
Just sayin.
UPDATE Even Nags gets it:
One of the many discordant things about this campaign is that the huge rally crowds that have greeted him have not necessarily turned into victories.
Exactly.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
»
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
The Decemberists gave a free concert
That might have something to do with the large size of the crowd.
I went to it
to see the Decembrists (and also to see what all the hubub was about). I was much more impressed with Chelsea (and Bill) on Saturday.
happily immune to all religious indoctrination
- “I do not think that word means what you think it means"
54/40 or Bust!
My etsy shop
75K is the new 100K
Do the math! Hope! Yes we can!
The adoring crowds...
I have elderly friends who were young adolescents in Germany during WWII. Several weeks ago, they sheepishly offered the observation that, to them, Obama looks and sounds like the American version of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda.
I know Kerry (with the help of Bill Clinton) drew 80-100K in Philly in 2004. I saw the pictures of it and was unphased. Hell, 60K show up for a football game. But last night, seeing the picture of Obama, in what looked to be a boxing ring, surrounded by oceans of bodies, my heart sank.
This just doesn't seem like a sensible way to go about choosing the president of the United States.
75K
75K is a large number. Supposedly it shows the strength of support for Obama or does it?
Obama rented a large enough space for at least 75K. Well, if you don't get involved and only 4K show up. The place looks really bad. Thus, ahead of time the campaign devises a complicated plan to get the people. You do a small get out the vote (guys) to go to the polls (stadium). You probably rent enough buses the carry the guys back and forth.
Such operations are common in countries such as Iran (demonstrate against the US), Syria (same), Serbia, etc. They are all government run demonstrations.
Obama has the money for the buses and the need to orchestrate a spontaneous gathering.
I am impressed, not.
KoshemBos
Decemberists! Really. I'd put up with Obama to see them
as well.
If we are the ones we have been waiting for, then we have met the enemy and he is us.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
And the headliner in Philly in 2004??
Bill Clinton.
Mere _weeks_ post-bypass, the big dawg hauled his recovering butt to the campaign trail - in this case, the streets of Philly - for the benefit of the Party and it's lame candidate.
When I saw Kerry endorse Waffles McWhiney this year, I blew my stack. No one has done more for this party than Bill and Hill, and no party deserves it less.
yup--it was all about Bill,
and how much he outshone Kerry--SNL even made fun of it.
75 K
good weather and free music. Say, what did he say? Anything new? Or just same old stuff. I think they got ripped off, if it was all the same. Did they all go away inspired ready to stop the war?
pre-rally, he was scaring old folks--
and practicing that "politics of fear" he derides so often-- Obama warns seniors on Social Security
Lose-lose
If few people showed up for the Portland rally then Obama would have been described as someone who cannot get the support he will need to win. If tens of thousands of people show up it is "look at Kerry in '04" and "big deal."
Not liking a candidate is one thing, but spinning everything that occurs on the opponent's side as a negative weakens one's arguments, yes? It out Colberts Colbert.
I will vote for the Democratic candidate in the fall election. My ranking this election cycle (in terms of my preferred candidate) went like this: 1. Gore. 2. Dodd 3. Edwards. 4. Hillary 5. Obama (I really like Kucinich, just not for President--maybe for head of the FDA?).
Someone mentions Goebbels? Methinks all sense of proportion is subject to personal animus these days. ++++
Je repete...
... Huge crowds are no guarantee of electoral success. My counterspin to the spin, but counterspin generates counter-counter-spin, and so it goes, unstoppable.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
& it's fact, not spin--the caucus states like ID
and others had larger rallies and stadium attendance than they had actual caucus attendees. It's the celebrity, looky-lou thing--many people go to see and hear him but it doesn't correlate to state wins.
He can fill stadiums--we already knew that, and we also already knew that he was supposed to be now doing smaller more interactive events where he wasn't up away from people reading from scripts too--he gave that up quick, i guess.
Note to Brad of Sadly, No!
S,N! is blocked where I am now, so I can't comment there...
Yo Brad,
Your point that Lambert's comparison is an unfair comparison is a fair point.
However, your comparison of Lambert to warbloggers (because he made an unfair comparison) is entirely fucked up wrong.
Yes, I do agree the madness needs to stop, on both sides of the pie-fight.
Calling people in the lefty blogosphere and in the Democratic Party things like Nazis, Right-Wingers, Racists, Misogynists, Dupes, etc. is hyperbole, sure, but it's going to do some irreparable damage.
Thanks, but....
... again, I seem to have hit a nerve of some kind.
And I'd say "unfairness" is a pretty slippery concept, especially with a headline "... EVAH..." that's clearly snarky.
I would also note that both on racism, and on the practice of misogyny, the first pie did not come from this direction.
Frankly, I don't have time to go around attacking S!N, what with our famously free press and the A list to deal with. I suppose I could get into that mode, if desired. I'm sure with a few cherry-picked comments and a little tendentiousness I could have grand old time. Should I? Why or why not?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
nah.
Save your ammo for the inevitable deluge of A-blogger attacks.
Now that the MSM has gotten their head out of their ass (and, according to the NYT article I read today, actually listened to Clinton's phone call with y'all), they and the A-blogs will try to add our distinctiveness to their own, if you know what I mean (and I think you do).
Only caution I make: Remember ratfuckers thrive when the media refuses to keep itself honest, and chooses a side while pretending not to.
Wow--forgot about that Kerry rally...
and don't forget that Portland had good weather that day also--probably the most important factor.
kc
I would say Not, Lb
I think C-list blogs attacking each other is a waste of snark. There are more worthy recipients.
"As long as they spell the name right..."
I guess I'll sit back and take the hits, then!
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi