Just How It Is

One factor that everyone mentioned after the 2006 elections for, oh, a day and a half, was that the majority of NEW democrats elected in 2006 were CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS.  Yet this election cycle the media is staying away from that topic like it’s the new racism. 

If Obama is the democratic nominee, the white house will go to McCain.  FACT.  The ultra-left is attempting to dominate the democratic party in the same manner in which the ultra-right usurped the republican party.  This time, however, it just ain’t gonna fly. 

At this point, I’m voting for Biden anyway as a write-in.  I’ve warned you all more than enough times. 

Advertisements

28 thoughts on “Just How It Is

  1. If Obama is the democratic nominee, the white house will go to McCain. FACT.

    Fact? Really? You know this is a foregone conclusion almost 8 months before the actual election itself when even the staunchest of polls change from day to day?

    Sorry Jamie, that’s an opinion, not a fact. It is perhaps an educated opinion, but it’s also clearly buying into the media message that Republicans would like to establish. While I may not support him (although I still have yet to not support him and there is a difference), he has just as good a chance at beating McCain in November as Clinton. Possibly better as, say what you like about the man, he can mobilize like no one else.

    Besides, I think the latest Clinton staffer step down in seeming confusion and disgrace is probably the last nail in her coffin. As for voting for Biden…well, the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland is starting up soon and in may produce black holes. Should one be stable enough to investigate, perhaps we’ll find your vote inside…

    🙂

  2. Nope, it’s a fact. Okay, precognition. Same thing. It will be recognized as a fact after the fact. And I will be petulant and stomp my feet thusly *stomp stomp* until the world recognizes my brilliantly astute political mind.

    Bookmark this puppy, and call me in 6 and a half months.

  3. lol

    Let’s just say I’m really sure about this one. I just used the word “fact” to get some damned comments.

    I feel so abandoned these days. *sniff*

    lmao

    overtired from waiting for the damned horse to pop.

  4. Oh, and it’s Precognition=Fact, not the other way around.

    Like, not all fruits are apples, but apples are fruits? Like that.

    Speaking of which, you never did lend me any advice on how to sell that grocery article. . .

  5. lend me any advice on how to sell that grocery article

    Meh, I’ve been too busy wallowing in my own inability to sell pieces and/or get contracts to do it. First off, I’d shop it around to local newspapers, particularly if you rewrote it to include references to specific locations and places to find deals and such. Then, check craigslist, guru.com, freelancewriting.com and my favorite place, freelancewritinggigs.com. See who’s putting feelers out there and if there’s a match-up between your content and what they seem to be looking for, go after it.

    Also check around on blogs covering food, cooking, groceries, money saving tips, etc. The only one I can think of at the moment is gomestic.com, but that would be a great one to start with.

  6. Precognition?

    I didn’t realize you were part Betazoid too. Or (to continue our national discussion on race) are all white males telepathically linked to each other. If that’s the case, somebody forgot to send me a memo. 🙂

    In all seriousness, I think it’s too early to write Obama off completely. He has ran into some problems because of his religious associations. And the racially charged debate that stems from them. But there’s still plenty of time to overcome those handicaps. It also seems likely, based on the CQ projections, that the Congressional Democrats have a very good chance of retaining a majority. This is also true of the state and local government contests. Depending on how well the Obamanistas connect the dots, this might create a ‘trickle up’ affect in a close election.

  7. Nah, I’m not so sure that Obama nomination = McCain election.

    We still have a three ring circus of activities for the next seven months before that becomes a foregone conclusion. And it won’t start for real until the Democratic nomination is secured by Clinton, Obama, or neither of the above. At that point, McCain won’t get the free ride that he is getting now when he confuses Al Qaeda with Iran, or whatever the heck he was doing. McCain’s negatives will start going up. The Iraq war will become more of an issue.

    At this point, I am about 47/47/6 on who will secure the nomination (the 10 being neither Obama or Clinton), and about 60/40 that it will be the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is, that will win the general election.

  8. And it won’t start for real until the Democratic nomination is secured by Clinton, Obama, or neither of the above. At that point, McCain won’t get the free ride that he is getting now when he confuses Al Qaeda with Iran, or whatever the heck he was doing.

    Exactly. That’s one of the many reasons I’m putting very little faith in the current round of polls that say McCain will kick Obama’s ass in November. So far, no one’s actually campaigned against McCain, including the other Republican candidates who managed to knock each other out of the race quite effectively without McCain getting involved. Whoever gets the Dem nod at this point, so long as they can avoid getting video taped defecating on the flag while they eat a baby as they get a blow job from an 8 year old and smoke a joint made from meth-laced marijuana rolled up in the original Constitution, is going to be able to slap McCain around like he’s in a Vietnamese POW camp all over again.

    And given the kids pouring out of that cult in Texas, the 8-year-old thing? Yeah, that may actually be okay.

  9. Of course, the polls showed Bush was running 51-41 against Kerry before the conventions in 2004. At the time, the Democrats dismissed those too.

    They reassured their nervous donors that the convention would be the turning point. They said ‘smart’ Kerry – with his impressive array of graduate degrees – would run circles around ‘stupid’ Bush in the debates. They also said the 18-30 demographic would close the gap in November. Well, the Republicans ended up with a better organized convention than the Democrats. Bush held his own by appealing to sappy 9-11 emotionalism, moral values, and patriotic fervor. And the little darlings didn’t close it enough apparently.

    I don’t think highly of McCain’s foreign and economic policies. But if you win elections by simply pointing out your opponent’s idiotic gaffes, grammar-challenged Bush would’ve been defeated very easily. McCain’s certainly no pushover when it comes to invoking emotional responses in the heartland. I recognize that he has a certain “Leave It to Beaver” / “The Waltons” quality, which appeals to voters outside of my particular circle of bi-coastal friends. So, I won’t make the mistake of underestimating him.

  10. the polls showed Bush was running 51-41 against Kerry before the conventions in 2004. At the time, the Democrats dismissed those too.

    True, but I think there are a number of differences between then and now that will prove to be more significant in this cycle.

    First, the economy in 2004 wasn’t nearly as bad as it currently is. I’m not going to get into a debate on the actual state of the economy versus the perception of it, but back in 2004 jobs were finding their way onto payrolls, people were still buying $350,000 houses when their annual salaries hovered around $30,000, gas prices were “high” but we still hadn’t come close to where we are now and people didn’t see their food expenses double or triple overnight in some cases. Our country is a lot more inclined to let things slide so long as nothing too bad is happening to us directly. Now that the economic tide has turned, blame for that is going to be laid directly at the feet of Bush and, by extension, McCain. Even if the economy picks up again in Q3 or Q4 as many economists seem to think it’s going to (and 68%-72% of me can’t help but feel that’s awfully convenient for someone…), that’s not going to help the psychological damage to the consumer that’s already occurred, at least not in time to help.

    Second, Iraq. Back in 2004, people were still struggling to decide how they felt about Iraq. It was still largely a popular war, even if more and more folks were starting to question it and exactly how we got there. Now, there’s a definite weariness of the operation, as evidenced by the 2006 vote of no confidence in Bush and his Iraq debacle, and while our general uncertainty in 2004 and Bush’s incumbency worked to save his reelection, they’re going to count heavily against McCain. Plus, we’ve now been there for five years and have seen no real progress, just Iraq getting rich on their oil while we pay billions to foot their bills.

    Third, and perhaps most important, likability. Say what you like about Bush, he was likable. No one ever accused Kerry of being likable. Far from it, in fact. People supported Kerry, but they actually liked Bush. I’m seeing that same kind of “like” for Obama. When I look at the past several elections, there’s a common thread. People liked Reagan, and he won. Liked him so much, in fact, they elected Bush after he was done. People liked Clinton, and he won, against an incumbent, no less. People liked Bush Jr., and again, he won. People like Obama, so…

    Also, while Bush did win in 2004, given all these advantages (a strong economy, an incumbent in the middle of a not-as-yet unpopular war, the guy you wanna have a beer with, etc.) he didn’t win by much, which was perhaps the most surprising thing.

    So you may be right and it may be a mistake to ignore the polling data, but I still think it’s far too early to tell. The complexion of the country is far different from 2004 and Obama is far more “likable” than McCain (or Kerry). It will be interesting to see how it all falls out when they’re actually campaigning against one another, but my money will be on Obama.

  11. Of course, the polls showed Bush was running 51-41 against Kerry before the conventions in 2004. At the time, the Democrats dismissed those too.

    So, I won’t make the mistake of underestimating him.

    John, so the polls had Bush up by 10%, yet he only won by 2%. Obviously, not enough to defeat Bush, but an eight percent shift is significant. But not as significant when Dukakis had a 17 percent lead coming out of the Dem. convention, and then he lost by 10 percent. So things can shift a lot in just in three or four months.

    Yes, it would be a mistake to dismiss the polls and/or underestimate McCain. If one is trying to win any contest, the point is not to try to win by 1 point or by 1 percent. You try to win by as much as possible, so if a couple of things don’t go your way, you can still hope to hang on to a smaller win.

    I tell students that when they prepare for an exam, they should be shooting for 100%. Those who study to simply get a C seem to succeed in failing the test instead.

    As for Kerry, it seemed like he should have been able to run circles around Bush during debates and the campaign. But either he didn’t, because he tried to play it safe thinking he would “easily” win by just enough, or we overestimated his ability. It was clear by 2004 how incompetent Bush was as President. And QuakerJono, I thought that by the 2004 election, the tide of popularity of the Iraq War had already turned. It should have been an easy win for the Dems in 2004, but an awful campaign did Kerry in.

  12. I would say not really. 2004 was only a year and change into the war. While the Far-Left was making noise, most people were still expecting the next camel’s ass we looked under to reveal massive stockpiles of WMDs with tags on them saying, “To be used against the Infidels in Poughkeepsie” in Arabic. I don’t think you really started to see massive numbers of people starting to shift positions until at least 2006.

  13. Nobody, except Jamie, denies that a Democratic president is still a possibility.

    But what we have here is the political equilvalent of going from a several touchdown lead at half-time. And then having so many turnovers that you’re straddled with a three point deficit by the end of the third quarter. Of course, there’s still plenty of time to win the game. But the heroics wouldn’t be necessary, if you didn’t make all those mistakes in the first place.

    Given the party’s structural advantages this time around (voters, money, momentum, control of Congress, control of state / local government), not to mention the spectacular ineptitude of one George W. Bush, the fact that McCain has opened any sort lead is nothing short of a stunning reversal. And the Democrats should take the threat seriously.

    As for the war, there’s an infectous ‘short and selective memory’ virus moving through this country. Many Americans who happily screamed “kill the towelheads” in 2003, 2004, and even into 2005…are now claiming that they were the ones who warned the rest of us about the “quagmire” of Iraq. As if we’re the jackasses. I recently had dinner with a perviously pro-war friend — who actually accused me of being unpatriotic in 2003 — tell me he was opposed to this strategy from the very beginning.

    Gotta love that Chickenhawk Fried Steak.

  14. Nobody, except Jamie, denies that a Democratic president is still a possibility.

    Ahem. Let’s be clear on this. I think Hillary could beat McCain, just not Obama. The deluge from the RNC is going to be deafening. And still no one is talking about the fact that it was a bunch of moderate to conservative democrats, not the moveon.org bunch, who actually took offices from republicans in ’06.

    Still gonna write-in Biden. My protest vote until we get more than 2 parties.

  15. And still no one is talking about the fact that it was a bunch of moderate to conservative democrats

    Let’s talk about them. They don’t exist, at least not in the numbers that you’re implying. The reason a great ushering in of Democrats happened in 2006 was not because of Republicans-in-Democrat clothing or even dyed-in-the-wool Dems who always fall near the origin on those internet political quizzes which put people in quadrants, but because people were giving a vote of no confidence to the Republican Congress and the President. The RNC can clamor as much as it likes, but the factors that caused the average joe to vote rebuke to the Republicans and Bush in 2006 are still in play and are even worse today. So long as whichever Dem candidate doesn’t make any egregious mistakes after they get the nod, they can walk away with Presidency and McCain’s best strategy will be to have a massive coronary and hope for a sympathy vote.

    The analysis of polls showing McCain beating Obama or even Clinton never seem to take into account that, even if Obama gets the nod and 25% of Clinton supporters don’t vote for him or even vote for McCain, 75% of Clinton supporters still will vote for Obama and that’s now, eight months out. I have no doubt in my mind that, as we close in on November, those 25% will largely fall in line when faced with voting for what appears to be a walking corpse who’s age is fully displayed in his outdated, benighted policy. They also fail to take into account Obama’s amazing ability to mobilize. Once he firmly sets his sites on taking down McCain, he’s going to have so much material to work with, what with Iraq, Big Oil and gas Prices, food prices, housing concerns, credit crunches and just simply Republican President fatigue, that McCain’s shocking informational blunders are going to be the least of his concerns.

  16. those 25% will largely fall in line
    I don’t know about that. That 25% is probably folks who refuse to vote for a black candidate regardless if the other candidate was a cross between Adolph Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer.

  17. Let’s talk about them. They don’t exist, at least not in the numbers that you’re implying.

    Really, QJ? Let’s take a look at the D’s elected to Congress in 2006–just the ones where seats switched from R to D, since that’s the salient point here:

    Here are the moderates I’m talking about–

    Senate:

    Bob Casey—defeated Rick Santorum. Positions: Pro-life, opposes embryonic stem-cell research funding, opposes same-sex marriage . . . and has curiously endorsed Barack Obama?

    Jon Tester—Opposes gay marriage, pledged to focus on preventing abortions.

    Jim Webb—Strong proponent of the 2nd amendment, previously endorsed (R) Senator George Allen for senate in the term prior to being elected himself.

    That’s 3 out of the 6, dear boy.

    House:

    (And note that the Dems only won Foley’s district in Florida by one point. And that’s after Foley’s page-boy scandal. Don’t expect that 16th district to go D in the general this time around.)

    Joe Donnelly—Blue Dog Democrat from Indiana

    Baron Hill—Blue Dog Democrat from Indiana

    Heath Schuler—NC Democratic Rep: Pro-life, opposes stem-cell research funding, voted NO to banning workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Pro-gun rights, and was instrumental in passing FISA telecom immunity. Blue Dog Democrat from NC.

    Steve Kagan—Strong supporter of an absolute right to gun ownership.

    Nicholas Lampson–Oh, come ON.

    Looks to me like they exist. In spades. It’s the moderates who will wield the power this election. NOT the liberals, not the conservatives.

    The point here is that the folks who elected these people are far more likely to vote Hillary than Obama, because in the general election Obama will be seen as too liberal, or too weak, or too sympathetic to Pakistan, Iran, and Palestine. Or a combination of all 3.

  18. Voters love to call themselves moderate and undecided because they don’t like being ignored. Even though research suggests that very few folks actually go into the final week without an idea of who they’ll vote for. And I wonder if legislators aren’t the same way. There are a few genuine mavericks. With most of them though, the tendency is to fall into line when push comes to shove.

    Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe have leeway to break ranks on a couple votes every year. But essentially, the differences between them and the Republican Party isn’t as huge as with, say, former Sen. Lincoln Chafee.

    Even on the gay issues, there has been very little dissent from the Democratic Party line. Which isn’t for same-sex marriage anyway. How many of the pre-2006 Democratic senators have explicitly endorsed same-sex marriage? Can we even name five? I recall only Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold.

    Casey, Tester, and Webb certainly haven’t gone out of their way to advocate for banning abortion. And they have all quietly voted for the Matthew Shepard Act and ENDA to advance in the Senate (without calling a press conference to draw attention to it, of course).

    And the Democrats have enough of a majority in the House (with Hastert’s old seat going Democratic, now 234-201) that Shuler and friends can only try to water down legislation. When you consider that Republican cross-benchers like Christopher Shays and Deborah Pryce often votes with the Democrats, there aren’t enough Shulers to actually block a vote. And if the Democrats pick-up seats in the House this year, the DINOs will only see their power erode even more. So far, the closest votes in the House has been on Iraq rather than any of the “special interest” issues.

  19. My point was never that there weren’t Dems labeling themselves as moderate or conservative for purposes of being elected. My point was that the voters didn’t give a damn and were voting for just about anything with a D in its title. Not because they necessarily agreed with the marketing, but because they wanted to send a message to Republicans.

  20. Obviously I disagree. The moderation of positions away from the Party Line made these particular candidates tolerable to those who’d not have voted for them in the first place.

  21. “The point here is that the folks who elected these people are far more likely to vote Hillary than Obama, because in the general election Obama will be seen as too liberal, or too weak, or too sympathetic to Pakistan, Iran, and Palestine. Or a combination of all 3.”

    B.S. Hillary would equally be seen as too liberal, too weak, or too sympathetic with the putative ‘enemies list, to attract the same voters. They hated her husband by the end of his term and they’ll hate her.

  22. By playing into the “too liberal, too weak, or too sympathetic to Iran” mode of thought, I wonder if you’re not basically doing McCain’s work for him. The senator from Arizona wants us to make those specious connections. He wants us to fear Obama for all the wrong reasons (religiously suspect, unpatriotic, product of affirmative action, etc.)

    But Obama isn’t really all that radical. Forget about being Hugo Chavez, Obama isn’t even Jose Zapatero. Barack has no plans to legalise same-sex marriage, grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, or reform the education system from the ground up. These are all things Senor Zapatero achieved in his first term as President of the Spanish Government.

    Since winning re-election, Zapatero has pledged to introduce a constitutional amendment to ban capital punishment permanently, change the succession law to allow female first-borns to become Queen (even if there’s a younger male heir), and repeal ALL property taxes. How’s that for some “change”?

  23. By playing into the “too liberal, too weak, or too sympathetic to Iran” mode of thought, I wonder if you’re not basically doing McCain’s work for him.

    That might hold some water if I hadn’t been saying it for months before there was a Republican nominee. I’ve had these same alarms going off in my head since the first time I heard Obama speak about Iran. My opinions are based on direct observation and knowledge, not McCain’s talking points.

    And you can say it’s “B.S.” all you like Tommy. We’re talking about true independents here, not Republicans with a grudge.

  24. What “experience” tells you that these “true independnents” would vote for Hillary? Perhaps if you shared the basis for your opinion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s