How quickly we forget. Remember when proof of Obama's crossover appeal was his win in Elko, NV:
Obama’s strength in rural Nevada speaks to the breadth of his appeal and to his campaign’s organizing efforts in Republican strongholds that Nevada’s Democratic Party has traditionally written off...
“What they found is that people in rural areas see themselves in Barack Obama. They see him as a true American success story. They see him as representing something new and fresh.”...
Haven't heard about Elko much these days. I wonder why?
Lets take a look at county maps since March began: TX, OH, PA, MS, NC, IN, WV. I've skipped obvious ones. It's pretty clear that the big deal about Obama winning rural America was not grounded on much. Go ahead and look at the exit poll numbers at those links. Take a look at Obama's support amongst Independents from early in the cycle to now. Not very promising.
There was all this talk about Obama being a map changer. [If I wanted to increase traffic to the high traffic blogs who wanted to throw the dice on Obama because he would most likely win bigger than Hillary, I would name names. But I don't want to give them the time they definitely do not deserve. You are all free to look up some of their statements.] But what are we seeing now? Obama losing most of those Republican counties. We are seeing his nearly 2-to-1 lead amongst Independents early in the cycle vanishing.
Now that it's pretty clear that Obama's "map changer" argument is going down the toilet, what is his justification? Experience? Judgment? His awesome awesomeness? I'm particularly interested in someone like BTD at TalkLeft answer that question rather than playing an underhanded WWTSBQ v 2.0 game. I'd rather BTD talk about reasons why Obama should be the nominee than him just assuming he'll be the nominee, especially in light of the fact that Hillary is likely to receive more votes than any other candidate. It's coming down to Super-Ds no matter what. They can change their mind, but BTD doesn't seem concerned with making a positive justification for Obama's candidacy. Assuming someone will be the nominee isn't a reason to support someone, especially if your main reason for supporting Obama has been because he's "more electable".
- gqmartinez's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Does this mean I'm not getting a Unity Pony?
Waaah!
------------------------------------------------
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde
x
------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
DC Establishment support
is the only thing left--and it's no justification at all or a reason to vote for him but the opposite--but it's why he'll be the nominee. They wanted an anti-Hillary and chose him over Edwards or the others.
Whoever the DC Dems want is always who the nominee is. And them rushing en masse to act as surrogates for him now about Bush show how much they're all behind him.
I'm astonished that anyone dares say "he brings people together" and "he wins IND/GOP support" or anything when it's beyond proven he doesn't anymore, and won't do so in the general.
& the big $$--
he must be spreading it around to everyone from Supers to DNC to House and Senate candidates, etc--he's raising far far more than others and it's still primary money--i guess he can give that to others, but not general money?
i couldn't believe NARAL actually
gave that as their reason alone--they're an issue organization but didn't even use his positions on choice or women as the reasons...appalling.
Exactly why,
I think if there is a Progressive Blogosphere 2.0, it should be modularized such that some parts are excluded completely from any candidate advocacy, or even advocacy of any political party.
I'm a partisan for historic reasons (e.g. civil rights, economic justice) and will admit that freely. I don't think, however, that the PB2.0 should be caught up in partisan politics directly. Perhaps some part of PB2.0 can be allowed partisan/candidate advocacy. But it should come from a different level than the issue/narrative part.
(I would love posts dedicated solely to hashing this out more. *hint hint wink wink*)
until now,
that's how it was--orgs were about issues, and most bloggers attacked Dems as well as the GOP when they didn't act right (like on Iraq, spying, rights, having a spine, tactics, votes, etc). Issues used to be key, and it wasn't person-based.
we'll have to see if after Nov they go back to normal, and we'll see if any are wholly compromised by their current behavior --MoveOn certainly is, for one.
ProgBlog2.0
should be:
This is our position on the issues, this is how the candidates reflect those issues:
Candidate A: Says this . . . Has voted . . .
yadda yadda yadda
NO ENDORSEMENTS UNTIL THE GENERAL
------------------------------------------------
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde
x
------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
i'd say
no endorsements ever from organizations or networks--they're not needed if the organization has analyzed candidates on their specific issues and accurately said who is closest to their stance, or who is where.
plus, everyone knows that progressive orgs wouldn't ever endorse a Repub, and shouldn't be endorsing Dems who aren't strong and active on their specific issues.
and there are much better
ways to devote resources--esp if it's an issues-based org.
Stratification
I think PB2 should be stratified. There should be the nonpartisan level which does exactly what you say in lines 2 and 3. This is the most important level, IMO.
The other level should be more "whip-like". That is, discuss strategies for implementing the agenda. I personally would prefer the "partisanship" to be candidate based, rather than Party based. It's harder to change the narrative if you are devoted to a single party, and thats where I think the conservative movement went wrong (in addition to their policies not working).
The second level, I think, mostly resembles what we have now. It should be replaceable, but not the first level.
OK, I'm writin the thesis, so this is just my ramblings. More time for thought after June 6.
Controlling The Money
"he must be spreading it around to everyone from Supers to DNC to House and Senate candidates, etc—he’s raising far far more than others and it’s still primary money—i guess he can give that to others, but not general money?"
amberglow. Money can be spread around through a PAC.
With the money he's tossing around I'm guessing he has a PAC. I believe the maximum donation TO a PAC is $5000. I'm not sure but I believe that leftover campaign money can also be transferred to a PAC.
It seems Obama has bought a lot of SDs and could be using PAC money or pimping his donor list. I'd bet Edwards prostituted himself for the donor list. Incredibly Edwards sent an email to his contributors on that day asking for donations to one of his causes. I unsubscribed.
If he is using a PAC to make his SD buys it's use of a system that allows larger sums of money to flow into PACs. Bigger money through the back door.
New politics that sounds strangely like the old.