Tue, 08/12/2008 - 10:35pm — vastleft
...are there enough rank-and-file Republicans whispering their support at Obama rallies to actually make a difference on Election Day?
As I discovered from examination the last 18 months of head-to-head general election polls, the answer is an emphatic "no." In fact, John McCain's share of the Democratic vote has typically been larger than Obama's share of the Republican vote.
No worries — there are still several more Amendments Obama can burn to light the way for potential recruits from "the party of ideas."
Of course, he could try energizing the Democratic base with something more than honeyed vapor, but heaven forbid it comes to that!
»
- vastleft's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
But...
But, we'll come home, the base, that is. We don't have anywhere else to go, right? Well, maybe, many of us will come home...we just may not come out of our homes to vote.
I never bought the idea of a significant number of "Obamacans". It was one of those things that if they repeated it enough it became fact, to them, but it was never a fact.
But, I guess we're going to have to sit to watch a few more new episodes of the "Everybody Loves Obama" shows. Actually, hold that. I think they are all reruns...
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
Evidence piles up every day: The Democrats ARE Republicans.
"You'd better get this straight. Wise up before it's too late." -- Sister Sledge
Ain' no mo' Motown Review
And the Beatles have broken up too
JFK has been shot
We miss him a lot
He always knew what to do
-- Philly Cream
Heh, slightly OT
but I saw a right-wing site (forgot which one) where a commenter rather insightfully said:
The difference between the parties' convention themes:
RNC: Putting America first
DNC: Sticking it to Hillary
It always makes me sad when wingnuts get it right.
Getting it Right?!
Yeah, because the RNC is "Putting America First", right? Absolutely ridiculous.
I guess I can see what some of you meant by adopting wing-nut attacks and memes.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
Good Heavens
What I was noting is how the conventions were billing themselves. The RNC is free to trot out their usual Patriotism-R-Us schtick whilst the DNC is still in purgeapalooza-land with the never-ending high-fives over bashing Hillary.
Yes, kiddies, we all know the RNC is full of it and makes a mockery of patriotism and all the values that make this country great.
Crying out loud, I thought some of you were way smarter than this. What idiots...
O&M, though I wasn't one of those "idiots"
You did lavish some high praise on the Repub's post, and it was 1/2 badly wrong. That's worth noting, isn't it?
Not really
The DNC's total lack of integrity and leadership (as well as its total infatuation with sticking it to the Clintons which borders on vendetta) has deeply damaged its appeal to its base and alienated millions of voters at the very worst possible time.
It's stupid politics. Leaving the field wide open for the party that has given us one of the most incompetent presidents ever to gad about flying the flag while the DNC still desperately tries to shore up support among its own base is staggeringly stupid. I just thought the winger person had made a great point about how the parties have positioned themselves to reach out to the public. Evidently, I wasn't "boldly shrill" enough for some (not you VL who I so very enjoy reading) who seemed to need a more DKos-ian screech prefacing it.
Let's fix that one:
RNC: Putting the party first
DNC: Sticking it to Hillary
"You'd better get this straight. Wise up before it's too late." -- Sister Sledge
Ain' no mo' Motown Review
And the Beatles have broken up too
JFK has been shot
We miss him a lot
He always knew what to do
-- Philly Cream
Let's really fix this
RNC: Sticking it to America
DNC: Sticking it to America, but at least they'll let you use Vaseline...
...for the rest of us
...for the rest of us
Mark Warner is Keynote speaker
This one is for Bringiton, who basically called me an ignorant fool for saying Clinton was NOT the keynote speaker as Chuck Todd said last week on Meet The Village. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you were wrong and I was right.
I don't think Warner is a bad choice, but he is not Clinton and frankly I think he will be completely unstaged; it is a little unwise and foolishly petty to do it like this, like top billing Soul Asylum over U2, both good bands, but....
Now, as for VP, it looks like corporate Republicrat Evan Bayh is the front-runner, so it looks unlikely Chuck Hagel will be Obama's pic. Then again, who knows? Bayh is a Democrat (nominally), but has no foreign policy or military experience and with Obama's disquitingly weak showing on Georgia, he may be feeling heat to beef up the ticket on that score.
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
-----------------------------
I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.
Score one for Herb
No sense worrying about the running totals though, is there?
For the record, I don't say anything "basically"; when I have something to express, I speak out clearly. Also for the record, I don't think you're an ignorant fool. If I should, at some future time, decide that you are, never fear; I'll make it plain.
Oh, wait; this e-mail is from Mike Henry, the same Mike Henry that gave one crappy piece of advice after another to Clinton, finally got tossed off the campaign with Solis Doyle and went running back to Mark Warner's campaign but then almost immediately skipped out on him to work for Obama? That Mike Henry? Could be true, but you might want to wait for confirmation directly from the top before crowing too much.
Bayh's resume
Bayh is a Democrat (nominally), but has no foreign policy or military experience
actually, Bayh serves on both the Armed Services and Intelligence committees in the Senate, which qualifies as "foreign policy and military experience" if you've been in the senate for 10 years, as Bayh has been.
Bayh looks good on paper (2 terms a governor, in his second senate term), but if Obama is running as the "judgment" candidate based on his (supposed)opposition to the Iraq War, the choice of Bayh looks awfully hypocritical -- Bayh not merely voted for the AUMF, he was one of its architects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Bayh
Basically, if you consider a VP pick a sign of how a nominee will govern, a Bayh pick will take Obama fron 2% less evil to 0.5% less evil...
Admitting defeat gracefully is an art. If the information is
accurate then the nature and character of the source should not be an issue. Not being able to formulate an original thought myself, I'll note that others have posited that the keynote speaker position is a preview of upcoming presidential candidates. Mark Warner makes for a good choice if the following criteria hold true: experienced (check), served as governor (check), served successfully as governor (check), served successfully as governor of a southern blue state (check), no apparent aberrant behavior issues (cautiously check).
I love this job!
I love this job!
If the keynote speaker represents the candidates's stands, we
have a pretty conservative Dem as the speaker--meaning...?
Well, seems to fit, but I still have no handle on how Obama will actually govern. I'm not even sure his Senate career (well, short Senate career) gives much indication, as he was essentially running for president from the git-go. He has few issues to evaluate, and what there is makes me uncomfortable (Excelon and FISA being the biggies that come to mind immediately).
Damn, what will he do? How will he do it? What are we voting for? Or not, for some.
Again, I have never felt so at sea in having an idea of how a Democratic candidate will govern. Never. Other newbies to the national scene, such as Carter, worked hard to make their views clear.
I still have some difficulty realizing this is really happening. Stop the dream--I want to wake up! Help!
Well, duh
How did Republicans vote in 2006, the Dems romp? Oh yeah, over 90%. That despite scandal and corruption on the front page every day.
The GOP rarely votes Dem (and I don't think its just about the particular positions). That's part of the reason I think having more liberal/moderate Republicans makes sense.
A matter of perspective
You know it's stupid politics. I know it's stupid politics. But if you believe, as the Democratic leadership apparently does, that the vast majority of Americans are conservative, then it makes sense.
Everything the Obama campaign has done makes sense if you proceed from the assumption that there aren't enough progressives in America to influence elections. The only way I know around this is for progressives to win more elections, but the Catch-22 is that progressives have to run in those elections first.
Either the progressive blogosphere is going to have to start running its own candidates, or get the hell out of electoral politics altogether and concentrate on community-building. There are really no other choices.
...for the rest of us
...for the rest of us