MyDD :: Likely blowout in November

Considering the state of the economy, and Bush's approval ratings, it should be a win for Obama.

There has never been a time in history when a) the economy was a mess and b) the Presidents approval ratings were so low that the party held on to the White House.

Consider 1932, 1952, 1968, 1980, and 1992.

So all these people who think Obama won't win are pretty ignorant about voting trends.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:56:26 AM EST

Did you vote for McGovern? (1.00 / 0)

Just curious.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:06:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you vote for McGovern? (none / 0)

I wasn't alive yet. Did you?

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:08:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you vote for McGovern? (2.00 / 3)

No. My first election was 1992 where I voted for Bill Clinton.

But knowing a little bit about the 72 election I don't think its right to compare Obama to McGovern. First, it is difficult to unseat a sitting President, so that was in Nixons favor. Second, his VP choice-Eagleton- was a bit..um..questionable. Granted, the Vietnam was was still ongoing, but the economy wasn't bad like it is now, and people do vote their pocketbooks.

So I'm not sure the comparison between 1972 and 2008 is really..as big as you think it might be.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:13:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're not concerned about the coalition (1.00 / 0)

that Obama is getting (and not getting)? Well you sound confident, so I will not bother you.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:16:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not concerned about the coalition (2.00 / 4)

Maybe you can provide for me an election in US history, when the economy was in such poor shape, the president was so unpopular...that his party won that election.

1864 doesn't count.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:19:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not concerned about the coalition (none / 0)

1864...Lol. Kudos to you.

What do 1864 & 2008 have in common?

Both had unpopular Republican presidents whose most hated nemesis was named McClellan.

If you're a Republican president, don't hire someone named McClellan.

McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.

by catilinus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:16:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not concerned about the coalition (2.00 / 1)

McGovern didn't get his "coalition" to turnout and he picked a problematic VP and stuck by him way after he should have kicked him to the curb. The only real comparison is that other Democrats stabbed him in the back. I expect to see that happen here as well.

by heresjohnny on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:14:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not concerned about the coalition (none / 0)

It stopped being about policy long ago.

by heresjohnny on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:07:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lobbyists and Israel (none / 0)

I hate aipac.

*&=4eva

by BlogSurrogate57 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not concerned about the coalition (none / 0)

Tip-off: "concern"

by mikeinsf on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not concerned about the coalition (none / 0)

"You're not concerned about the coalition that Obama is getting (and not getting)? Well you sound confident, so I will not bother you."

catfish2, can you add me to the "not bother" list? Thx!

by Rumproast on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:59:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope... no concern here (none / 0)

From what I've seen, his coalition cuts across every demographic. Just because Clinton has performed better among some demos during the primary does not mean Obama cannot win most of those people in the general. If they already voted for one Democrat, they are more likey to vote for the Democratic nominee in the fall.

And then there is that whole thing about McCain being attached at the hip to Bush and his neocon buddies. Yeah, I guess Obama will lose the freeper and the neocon dead-ender demographic... but Clinton was never going to get those votes either.

by protothad on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:16:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Also (2.00 / 3)

McGovern didn't have the internet.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:16:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Also (none / 0)

He also doesn't have Eagleton as his VP.

by Rumproast on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:01:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely blowout in November (2.00 / 0)

This year, it would be easy for anybody to win against the GOP, but sadly, between Clinton and Obama, the one most likely to lose against McCain is Obama.

by zenful6219 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:03:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely blowout in November (2.00 / 2)

Actually, it's Clinton. Just thought I'd clear that up......

by RP McMurphy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:15:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your assessment is based on?

by heresjohnny on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:15:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Huge segments that he pissed off? Please provide evidence.

by heresjohnny on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:53:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely blowout in November (none / 0)

No kidding! Obamas disapproval rating is at what, 31%? Clinton's is sitting pretty around, what, 50%?

Who has pissed off more voters?

Vote Change in '08!

by iowa dem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:41:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely blowout in November (none / 0)

Don't confuse them with facts.

by interestedbystander on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:13:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely blowout in November (2.00 / 2)

What about the sections of the population that will be pissed if Clinton is given the nomination in what they see as an illegitimate manner? I am an Obama supporter, but I really do like Clinton and would honestly be happy to vote for either one in November. But it is unrealistic to say that some people wouldn't be at least a bit peeved if Clinton comes out of this thing as the nominee.

by mnl1012 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:56:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely blowout in November (none / 0)

I voted for Dukakis.

Likely same result.

by redwagon on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:48:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I forgot to add...I find it absurd people try to compare the 2008 election with Kerry and 2004. 2008 is so different from 4 years ago in terms of another 4 years in Iraq, and the housing market, that trying to compare now with 4 years ago really isn't applicable.

It's like trying to compare 1968 with 1964. Or 1932 with 1928. So much is different now and most voters won't want to put the same party back in the White House.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:01:07 AM EST

I think it's the elite thing (1.00 / 0)

I saw early on Obama reminded me of John Kerry in certain ways. And how easy it is for the country to turn against somebody they see as an elitist. But you clearly disagree and I don't want to argue.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:17:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think it's the elite thing (2.00 / 2)

Discussing is not arguing. I'm not against discussing the topic, but I won't be talked down to.

My opinion is...as I've said. 2008 is nothing like 2004. Compare Bush's popularity in 2004..to today. Regardless of what most people think of McCain, they're still going to equate this economy with a Republican White House, and either 1) vote for the Democrat or 2) stay home.

I'm not saying I'm confident Obama will win. He could do something stupid, but you know what, so could Hillary. No one is exempt from doing dumb things.

But what is important to me, is voting for someone who I believe will protect the right to choose, get the economy back on track, address our health care needs. And I ..along with 18 million others during this primary..believe that is Obama.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:24:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you think the pastor thing (1.00 / 0)

will turn off some voters? Obviously a lot of voters do not care. But some do. Do you think that will affect votes? Even among people who are not racist?

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:31:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you think the pastor thing (2.00 / 3)

You'll find alot of things about McCain, Hillary, and Obama that will turn off voters.

As I've said (and I think Carville put it succinctly in 1992) "it's the economy, stupid"

When it gets down to it, are people going to care more about what someones pastor said many years ago, or that they're one step away from being foreclosed on their home, or their job lost?

I don't know you, but if you're more concerned with a comment by a pastor than that oil is over $4 a gallon, jobs keep being shed for the 4th? 5th? month...the list goes on...personally I'm not certain what your priorities are.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:36:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think (1.00 / 0)

the talk of reparations will make a lot of working class voters anxious.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:39:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think (2.00 / 3)

You're really not interested in a Democratic win in 2008 , are you? The Democratic Party survived 200 years before Hillary, and it will survive 200 years after. At some point you have to move on.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:48:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes I really am interested (1.00 / 0)

and you've clearly shown no curiosity in understanding why we think Hillary is the more electable candidate and will make the better president.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:51:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're not big on explaining that bit (2.00 / 3)

You really haven't said much about how Clinton is more electable. You mostly dwell on how Obama isn't.

Not a very convincing argument.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:08:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes I really am interested (2.00 / 3)

You..and the 18 million people who voted for Hillary...are ..or were..as some likely became Obama supporters...entitled to your preferences..as the 18 million among myself..who prefer Obama.

You clearly seem to have little regard for the 18 million who felt Obama was a better choice.

I think it would be interesting to find out why.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:08:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes I really am interested (none / 0)

I think most of us know; HRC's combination of economic liberalism, insider experience, and (recent embrace of) conservative identity politics, to say nothing of her ability to inspire and mobilize women, would have made her the most electable candidate in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, maybe even '88. She has perfected the politics of being a Democrat in a Republican-dominated nation.

Fortunately, and in my opinion at least, we don't need those politics anymore. Every imaginable metric is against the Republicans and it's time to swing for the stands. She should have ran in '04, when we needed an experienced trench fighter--and, by the way, the fact that she didn't have the courage to take a shot at it then makes it much harder for me to feel sorry for her now.

by leftneck on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:14:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She didn't run in 04 (none / 0)

not necessarily because she didn't have the courage but because she said she wouldn't - that she needed to finish at least 1 term as a senator. Can you even say with a straight face that she would have had a shot in hell as a first term senator?? Only BO gets away with that crap

by emmasaint on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:23:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She didn't run in 04 (none / 0)

Well I think it would have been hard for any Dem to win in '04. The electoral landscape was a minefield, which is why the scrubs came out--John Edwards the one-term Senator, Kerry the caricature. It would have been reasonable for HRC--the biggest name in the Democratic party at the time, beyond Gore and ex-presidents--to take a rational look at the way things were and decide it would be better for her career and arguably for the party/nation--to run in '08 instead.

I also, personally, think that HRC is terrible general election material in general, so I do agree with you that she would have had at least an uphill battle in '04. The nomination would have been hers for the taking, though. She would have destroyed Bush in the debates. And if she had managed to beat him in the general, she probably would have made a great president.

Anyway, on to the last point, did those four years in the Senate really matter? Did she accomplish anything notable? What sort of relevant experience did she gain? Does "30 years of experience" really sound that much less impressive than "34 years"?

All that being said, you can't blame her for keeping her word if she said she wouldn't run in '04... still, though, I doubt the people she promised that to would have minded if she reneged, and goddamn did we ever need someone like her in '04.

by leftneck on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:36:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think (2.00 / 1)

When did Obama talk about reparations? If you have evidence of this I'd love to see it; otherwise, I gotta say it's a pretty standard NoQuarter trope that I'm ashamed to see on this site.

But if you have evidence, then fair enough.

What is The October Protocol?

by Koan on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:25:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, didn't you know? (2.00 / 1)

Some guest priest at a UCC church talked about reparations once. Obama must believe that too since he knows someone who knows someone who once saw someone who said that. Simple logic.

Swish. Nothing but net.

by GFORD on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:13:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Reparations? Where do you get this stuff? (2.00 / 1)

There is nothing on the public record, anywhere, to support this statement. You are a troll and an idiot for bringing it up.

Because he's black, some people will throw anything at him they think will stick. Sickening, but a sign of things to come.

He's got white folks shaking in their boots.

If it goes to Denver, we all lose. Not Obama, not Clinton, WE ALL LOSE IN NOVEMBER.

by blue2008 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:11:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

now you're just disappointing everybody! (2.00 / 1)

Catfish? Diamond Jay (who recced it)? Anything at all to show that Obama's talked about reparations as a policy proposal worth considering? Or at all?

I mean, geez, I don't really want to take silence as an indication that you just made that shit up out of whole cloth--but if you have evidence I'll stand corrected.

What is The October Protocol?

by Koan on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:58:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's what I thought n/t (none / 0)

What is The October Protocol?

by Koan on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:28:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think (none / 0)

who the hell said anything about reparations ?

John McCain's pick-up line is, 'Did you know that 150 is the new 130?'"

by wellinformed on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:17:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're spot on (2.00 / 2)

I was a Deaniac in 2004, and after a lot of isolation therapy to get over his loss, I did eventually work quite hard for Kerry, too.

It's night and day this cycle.

Looking back, I was in a bubble in 2004. Between the friends I had backing Dean and the Meet-up crew - what we lacked in numbers, we made up for in excitement and energy...so it felt like more people.

Like I said below - in retrospect, I had pretty poor luck getting friends and family on board with Dean (and later Kerry).

This time around? I call folks that would ask me why I bothered in 2004 to get them to back Obama, and they're telling me how they're already volunteering and inviting me to events, registration drives, etc.

by zonk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:45:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How do you account (2.00 / 3)

for the heavy youth support?

The youth vote generally doesn't come out for stuffy elites -- they most certainly did NOT for Kerry.

Had Kerry simply duplicated the youth turnout and margins that Bill Clinton garnered in 1992 - he probably wins with ease (and more than by just Ohio... IA and NM probably flip dem, too).

I remember 2004 - and one of the single most frustrating aspects of that race, but in the primary when I backed Howard Dean, and then in the GE for John Kerry was that I simply could not find (what I thought to be) the right level of excitement for Dean or Kerry...

...and Lord knows I tried. All my cousins, my younger siblings, friends, siblings of friends - I had virtually NO luck winning any new voters. The excitement just wasn't there. At best, I'd get lukewarm "if I remember to vote, I'll probably vote for him".

This cycle?

It's night and day. The hardest thing about doing voter registration drives now is that 1)it's too crowded, and 2)so many folks are already registered and are looking for opportunities to get involved in other ways, thus blocking registrants.

I was talking to a friend that teaches at a local high school - and brought up the idea of holding a registration drive for the HS seniors...

Her response? Don't bother - it's already been done - there's actually an 'Obama group' at the school (led by a HS junior, incidentally) that already did it.

I helped out with a registration drive at several local colleges... even though we thought we had come with more than enough forms - we ran out.

This is so different from 2004 - when I painfully remember lugging large numbers of blank forms back.

It just doesn't track -- unless the youth are somehow attracted to elitism.

by zonk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:34:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How do you account (none / 0)

by Quinton on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:52:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh he's different from Kerry. (1.00 / 0)

Yes, he has strengths Kerry doesn't have. But Kerry also has other strengths Obama lacked - depth, experience, foreign policy knowledge.

So it's somewhat awash, with Obama coming out ahead.

Now add in the racist preacher, and yes, his preacher is racist. Another preacher surfaced yesterday. Also add in that Obama is arrogant AND he lacks experience. Kerry never demonstrated the same arrogance or self-absorption. Granted, Obama's identity journey was part of his appeal, but he seems to be stuck there and still figuring out who he is.

To some voters, experience is a threshold you must meet for voters to respect you and even consider voting for you.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:55:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh he's different from Kerry. (2.00 / 5)

That other preacher?

He's Father Michael Pfleger, a Catholic priest from St. Sabina (one of the largest and oldest Catholic parishes in Chicago).

I'm not going to defend his display - but you'll want to be careful with the broad brushes you're using.

Father Pfleger, just as with Reverend Wright, has done a lot, and I mean a LOT of good work in Chicago. From fair wages to community activism to immigration to virtually any number of other issues, both Wright and Pfleger have decades of doing lots of good work in Chicago.

Again - I'm not defending what he said any more than I'm defending things Wright has said.

But you're pissing me off quite a bit with your oh-so-expert pronunciations on two men that have done one hell of a lot for the people of this city, especially the poor, the immigrants, the suffering from illness, the downtrodden in society based on a few minutes of clips.

I refuse to demonize two men who, on balance, have done one hell of a lot more good in this world than many of the people that are so casually demonizing them.

by zonk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:01:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh he's different from Kerry. (2.00 / 3)

If experience and depth were the very important factors then Biden or Dodd would be the nominee.

That's not what this is about. It's about ideas and the ability to move people in a positive direction.

by heresjohnny on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:17:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Or Hillary. Biden or Dodd or Hillary. (1.00 / 0)

I know it's hard for some people to get their head around, but she really does have a lot of experience.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:22:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or Hillary. Biden or Dodd or Hillary. (2.00 / 4)

Not compared to Biden or Dodd.

by heresjohnny on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:29:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

His preacher is racist? (2.00 / 1)

He believes that whites are inferior? Crazy!

Is the white preacher of St. Sabina, not Obama's church, also racist for talking about Clinton's entitlement complex and the voters who admit that they won't vote for a black candidate?

You don't know what that word means.

by heresjohnny on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:18:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: His preacher is racist? (1.00 / 0)

Yes, and the white preacher is racist too. Racist against whites.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:23:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

lol (2.00 / 1)

Please explain.

by heresjohnny on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:30:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You'll figure it out. (1.00 / 0)

In November.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:32:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Unable to explain. That's what I thought (2.00 / 1)

by heresjohnny on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:35:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unable to explain. That's what I thought (none / 0)

Why even try? You all know they don't have any substantive answers and half the time they are just pulling crap right out of you know where...

Most sound like 9 year olds who stomps their feet, shut their eyes and cover their ears when they choose not to believe reality...

Easiest approach, let them be. They will come around.

And the very few who won't, oh well, their loss...

Believe me, the youth turnout and huge new voter registration drives will overrun those few who still choose hold out...

Like Jon Stewart once said, Hillary will be campaigning 50 feet away while Barack is being sworn into office...

and no doubt that she will have her fevered few out there waving their Hillary signs...

lol

by mukloidy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:43:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unable to explain. That's what I thought (none / 0)

I know I know but it's funny to watch.

by heresjohnny on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:35:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whites Should Surrender Assets to Blacks (1.00 / 0)

Transcript of the rest of the video:

In his Trinity United oration, Pfleger asserted that white people have a moral obligation to surrender their assets, which, he suggested, properly belong to blacks (the video clip begins in midsentence):

--honest enough to address the one who says, "Well, don't hold me responsible [gesticulating] for what my ancestors did." But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did and unless you are ready to give up the benefits [voice rising], throw away your 401 fund, throw away your trust fund, throw away all the money you put into the company you walked into because yo' daddy and yo' granddaddy and yo' greatgranddaddy--[screaming at the top of his lungs]--unless you're willing to give up the benefits, then you must be responsible for what was done in your generation 'cuz you are the beneficiary of this insurance policy!

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:50:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whites Should Surrender Assets to Blacks (none / 0)

So nothing to do with Obama then. As we thought.

by interestedbystander on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:20:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whites Should Surrender Assets to Blacks (none / 0)

What? He didn't say those things belong to black people. He's saying that whites have benefited from slavery and racism financially and can't just wash their hands of it all.

by heresjohnny on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lol (none / 0)

catfish can't explain things he/she pulls out their ass how the hell can he be racsist against whites when he is white ? and rev wright is not racsist either

racist
One entry found.

racism

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

you find me one quote that any of these pastors said that fits the true definition of racist catfish !!!!!

if you have a quote I will apologize

if not do not call rev wright or pfleger racsist dipshit !!!

catfish

John McCain's pick-up line is, 'Did you know that 150 is the new 130?'"

by wellinformed on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:25:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right (none / 0)

people in Ohio and PA and WV will look up the definition of racist before deciding how they feel about that preacher's statements....Riiight.
Keep lol'ing all the way to November....

by emmasaint on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:27:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah because they'll really give a shit (none / 0)

about a white catholic priest from Chicago.

by heresjohnny on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How do you account (2.00 / 2)

The youth vote WAS there for Kerry. The 2004 election saw the most votes ever cast in an election. Youth vote made up a higher percentage than previous elections, which required a large increase in turn out due to the big increase in turn out across the board and young people were the only age group that broke in Kerry's favor. Stop repeating things that just aren't true and that have been debunked many times before on this blog and elsewhere.

by Quinton on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:55:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by zonk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:13:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I might be misremembering the article - and I am trying to find it - but proportionally Kerry did not win the youth vote by the margins he needed.

I'm near certain he didn't take the margin Clinton did in 92.

I'd be surprised if Obama were not attracting a lot more youth than Kerry did, even if Kerry did get them in record numbers. Obama has harnessed the internet as a social networking and fundraising tool to an extent that we've never seen. Unless you have some numbers, it's really hard to go against the conventional wisdom that Obama is attracting a lot more new voters (many young) than Kerry did.

by minnesotaryan on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:22:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Quinton on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:26:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm certain Obama is attracting much more youth support than Kerry did. I was just commenting on the myth that young people didn't come out and vote for Kerry (or Dean for that matter) when they did. It feeds into the "young people don't vote" thing and that leads to politicians continuing to ignore the needs of younger people and I'm sick of that ;)

Oh I'm right there with you on that one. I think there is a discernible and important difference in the relative "youth appeal" between Kerry and Obama (and even Dean and Obama, but I thought Dean had more "youth appeal"...the internets and all).

I volunteered and voted for Kerry, and I certainly don't know any young people who did that for Bush.

by minnesotaryan on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:59:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Black, single mother... (none / 0)

Those are always the indicators of the elite.

The guy smokes, he plays basketball, and he was a community organizer in Chicago.

I don't understand the elite thing. It makes very little sense.

The most elite in this race is the guy with 8 houses and a sugarmomma.

John McCain

by ottto on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:20:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"...turn against... an elitist" (none / 0)

I hate that this is my first comment on MyDD, but...

how easy it is for the country to turn against somebody they see as an elitist.

Unfortunately, you are right. I think part of the reason the Hillary lost is because (early on) she was running on the mantle of inevitablility. I don't know how much more elitist you can get.

And she paid the price. It wasn't enough to get people excited about here campaign. Not those that hungered for real change. She has done much better lately, but for right or wrong, it was a hole she was never able to dig herself out of.

I like the way you phrased that, though somebody that they "see" as elitist. It doesn't matter whether they are or not.

by marchmooner on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:41:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is the attitude that lost Hillary the (1.00 / 0)

nomination. Good luck, maybe it will work better for you and Obama than it did for Hillary.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:05:26 AM EST

Re: This is the attitude that lost Hillary the (2.00 / 1)

I don't think Obama HAS this attitude.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:08:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is the attitude that lost Hillary the (2.00 / 1)

Obama doesn't have that attitude. He didn't walk into the primary process expecting the nomination to be handed to him, and he's not going to walk into the GE expecting that to be handed to him.

He is working quite hard for getting to where he wants to be.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:15:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No one (2.00 / 1)

has worked harder than Hillary Clinton...you can't say she hasn't worked hard with a straight face

by emmasaint on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:21:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You know what...this is not meant to be a knock on Hillary, but if she really worked hard at what she did, we would have had health care reform back in 1994.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:25:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow. Great attitude. (1.00 / 3)

So you support some guy who never attempted it, has no proven track record.

You know what? Screw you and your candidate and all your fellow supporters who refuse to show a modicum of respect to a great woman who has worked her entire career to bring health care to children, families, and veterans. So 1992 did not work but incrementally she has still been at it.

I think you want to lose in November. I really do. Good luck, I hope you get what you want.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:33:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow. Great attitude. (2.00 / 2)

I support the guy who has a different attitude than the one I've felt Hillary exhibits, or the one you're exhibiting now.

Such pessimism on your part.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:38:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Such snottiness on your part. (1.00 / 0)

Good luck.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:40:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A sore winner, you. (1.00 / 0)

Did you learn anything about sportsmanship?

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:41:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sore winner, you. (2.00 / 3)

You're entitled to your perspective. I've supported Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004, but I didn't get so upset over the loss. Sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose, and you have to move on.

My argument, is I find it strange that after 8 years of Bush, there are people in the Democratic party who threaten to continue it with 4 years of McCain.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:44:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You show no curiosity (1.00 / 0)

as to why they would feel this way. So stop wasting people's time, you really don't care to know.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:48:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You show no curiosity (2.00 / 3)

I don't have to be curious. People put alot of time and energy into a candidate they believe will 'save the world' and feel disappointed when their candidate loses.

I don't know how old you are, but I'm in my 30s, and somewhat of a cynic. I'm under no delusions that Obama will 'save the world'. But I believe it will be better than it is now.

And how dare you assume I don't 'care to know'. Assigning motives to me is the wrong way for you to get any kind of respectable debate out of me.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:50:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You just agreed with me. (1.00 / 0)

"I don't have to be curious."

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:57:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You just agreed with me. (2.00 / 3)

Hint: Read what was after "I don't have to be curious".

You would have found "People put alot of time and energy into a candidate they believe will 'save the world' and feel disappointed when their candidate loses."

Am I right or wrong about that?

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:02:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Respectable debate (1.00 / 0)

you've demonstrated you have no will for this, even after you were treated politely.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:58:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Respectable debate (2.00 / 3)

No, my debate tactics are a bit different than yours. When I ask a question, I'd like to see an answer instead of drama on the respondents part. I give you and others the courtesy of an answer when you ask it of me.

But if all you're going to do is dance around my questions and play the victim, then I won't be as respectful.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:16:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is that your example of respectable dialog? (1.00 / 0)

As for playing the victim, why did Obama's campaign call everybody racist?

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:19:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is that your example of respectable dialog? (2.00 / 3)

Now you're just being stupid.

Obamas campaign never called everybody racist.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:22:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is that your example of respectable dialog? (2.00 / 1)

One of the more underreported aspects of this campaign is Clinton's failure to pass health care in 1994, and WJC's subsequent congressional blow out. Her plan was arrogant and short sighted, certainly did not build the type of coalition needed to make it law. We are expected to take her on her word she will be able to pass health care now ... when in fact, she hasnt proven she can build the necessary bridges needed to create a single payer plan.
I agree with AnnMarie on this ... 18m+ people voted for Obama, I am tired of having to continue to stick up for him in so-called progressive blogs like this. You claim to want change in DC ... or universal health care, whatever the hell that is ... well, mourn over the CLinton lost, then reengage ... we will need come November.

'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'

by stryan on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:27:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hell, why do we need a president to pass UHC? (none / 0)

HRC will still be a Senator, in a Senate that will, with any luck, have a decent majority. Even if BHO wanted to veto a health care plan sent up to him from Congress (which I very much doubt), it would turn a huge part of the Democratic base against him if he did--he wouldn't dare, especially in his first term.

This is the sort of thing the legislative branch is supposed to do.

by leftneck on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:27:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is that your example of respectable dialog? (2.00 / 1)

"why did Obama's campaign call everybody racist?"

It did not.

There you have your answer -- now feel free to answer the question that was asked by wiscogirl about why America didn't get universal healthcare back in the 1990s.

by Aris Katsaris on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:51:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You show no curiosity (2.00 / 5)

Catfish, all you ever do is bitch about how Obama is so terrible, then when someone describes why Obama isn't terrible, you tell them they just aren't interested in finding out why you like Hillary so much.

Instead of the never-ending concern trolling, why don't you do something more constructive, like say explain why you support Hillary to such an extent that you can never support Obama?

I certainly can't speak for anyone on this site, nor would I dream of trying to prevent you from stating your opinions on these boards, but if I were you I'd probably start trying a different tactic to get people to see your point of view because what you're doing right now makes you look like an asshole.

by minnesotaryan on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:27:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow. Great attitude. (2.00 / 3)

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to provide the election in US history where the economy was in such a bad shape and the president was so unpopular, his party still won the White House.

You can respond either here or above. If you can't come up with the answer, there is no shame in admitting to it.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:41:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If you want dialog, show some respect. (1.00 / 0)

I was trying to be respectful but that comment that Hillary never worked hard for anything was over the top, then you offer no apology.

If you're right, you don't need me to answer your questions. And your attitude shows you you're 100% certain that you are, in fact, right. So I'm not going to waste my time.

But we have no incumbent president. Kerry asked McCain to be veep - so the "McSame" campaign will only work to a point. McCain is the only kind of Republican who could win in a year like this, and given the Florida and Michigan mess, which gives McCain favorability in those two swing states, he could do it.

But just have your victory party now and stop bothering us.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:46:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you want dialog, show some respect. (2.00 / 3)

I'm really not interested in absurd dialog with people who exhibit so much drama. Kerry asked McCain to be his VP? You're assuming 2004=2008 again...which is..wow.

And you lied about my statement regarding the 1994 health care mess. Why don't you answer the question...why didn't something come out of it? Why?

Apparently also you're conceding my point about historical elections.

Like I said, I'm interested in electing a Democrat to undo the damage Bush has done in the past 8 years. With all the drama you've exhibited, I don't believe that is your goal. Apparently its solely to get into arguments with people on web pages and make unfounded accusations.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:01:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you want dialog, show some respect. (2.00 / 2)

Don't feed the trolls, wiscog. You keep asking relevant questions and catfish keeps giving you bullshit answers and slandering democrats left and right.

Save your reasoned and well-thought out questions and responses for someone who actually cares whether we elect the democratic candidate in the fall, be it Obama or Clinton.

by minnesotaryan on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:30:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you want dialog, show some respect. (2.00 / 1)

Actually, it's well documented that it was McCain who asked about being Kerry's VP. Kerry didn't go to McCain, McCain went to Kerry. That's neither here nor there though. The general electorate isn't aware of that and wouldn't care about it either so tying McCain tightly to Bush ie. Bush's third term isn't impacted by that.

by Quinton on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:12:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow. Great attitude. (2.00 / 1)

"So you support some guy who never attempted it, has no proven track record. You know what? Screw you and your candidate and all your fellow supporters who refuse to show a modicum of respect to a great woman [blah blah blah blah] "

Choosing the unknown politician over the known one is a perfectly valid strategy when you feel that the known one failed you or betrayed you (or when you feel she is evil incarnate ofcourse).

have some imaginary troll-rating btw.

by Aris Katsaris on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:21:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow. Great attitude. (2.00 / 2)

I think you want to lose in November. I really do.

Are you delusional or just plain batshit?

Finding God in a Dog

by maxomai on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:22:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow. Great attitude. (none / 0)

I'm voting batshit, and very, very angry.

by interestedbystander on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:25:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you. I will keep fighitng for Hillary (1.00 / 0)

thank you for reminding me what we are up against.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:42:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

How is that NOT meant as a knock on Hillary?

by VAAlex on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:42:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Because its my belief that with a Democratic President and Democratic Congress something should have come out of that that addressed health care. But it didn't.

And I actually hold all 3...Hillary, Bill, and the Congress at the time..responsible for dropping the ball.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:46:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No one (none / 0)

That doesn't address how your comment wasn't meant as a knock on Hillary.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:59:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Because the issue isn't whether it was a knock on Hillary, it is why didn't we have health care fixed in 1994.

If your sole concern is people 'picking on Hillary by pointing out factual historical results from 1994', and not why didn't we get health care addressed in 1994...I'm not sure you're the type of person who is capable of carrying on a debate.

Now. Lets try this again.

Why didn't we get health care reform in 1994? Who do you believe was responsible for its failure?

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:05:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No one (none / 0)

Well, you're trying to turn this into something it's not. It just irks me when people say in general "you know, this isn't meant as an attack on X..." and then go on and attack X. If you really don't mean to attack X, then there's never any reason to begin a statement with that. It's not limited to you but more of a general problem that a lot of people can't acknowledge.

And that's not my sole concern; why would you think that? You obviously have your anti-Clinton bias, which is totally fine. But based on some of your other comments on here, I'll just say good day to you and we can both be on our merry ways.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:09:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Since when does having concerns about a candidate history become equated with "anti Clinton" biases?

For the record, I would have voted for her if she were the nominee. However...she.does.not.impress.me.

And I'm not the only person who feels that way. I don't believe she is the victim that she..and so many others...portray her to be. Its offensive to me as a woman.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:13:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No one (none / 0)

That's absolutely fair enough. All I was doing was pointing out the inconsistency in your statement, that's all. It wasn't an attack on you personally, but simply that statement which didn't make a whole lot of sense.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:52:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And I note you failed completely in answering my question, which was 'why didn't we get health care reform in 1994'?

You could have at least thrown a bone and tried to answer that.

by wiscogirl101 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:14:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh wow (none / 0)

You have totally bought into BO's trash the Clintons haven't you? Honey, you have bought a snakeoil from an empty suit...you have been conned....

by emmasaint on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:34:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

At least she tried (none / 0)

How old were you in 1994? Do you know how revolutionary universal health care was then? Do you have any idea how far out on a limb she went, the ridicule she faced....I remember Bill Clinton explaining it..I had never heard of it. You are shameful if you truly are a real Democrat.

by emmasaint on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No one has worked harder? Why do you say that?