To: candidate not chosen
I hope all the bad things in life happen to you, and only you!
Kidding, of course. I love harmony, and comity.
To: favored candidate
Oh, please don't disappoint us. Oh, who am I kidding.
Not sure what this thread is for; Billy Packer has already called North Carolina for Obama and Indiana for Clinton.
Darth Hillary and I have plans for those who mock us now, Mr. McQueen.
Gabriel is right, though. This will be a boring night. There hasn't been a primary with an unexpected result for months now.
I read this and thought "sure, it can be a bit negative at times, but is hate really the primary topic at unfogged?" Funny that i could make that mistake...
Senator Clinton, last week, calling the contest a "game-changer," said: "North Carolina will decide the next president of the United States."
Whistles; shoves hands in pockets; kicks gravel.*
(*But not Gravel.)
Once again, though "winning" isn't exactly winning. Although there's much less swing than in other states, the 9 congressional districts vary in delegate numbers from 4 to 6. On a per capita basis, Gary is worth more than the strip bordering Ohio. Depending on how and where Clinton wins, this may be a fairly insignificant result. 16 delegates are at large -- if HRC wins 55-45, she ends up winning at large delegates, what, 9-7. Even 10-6, if that's how the math works, is pretty thin pickings. And she has to win the districts with 4 delegates by 62.6-37.4 just to break out of a 2-2 tie.
8: Since Hillary needs a game-changer and Obama doesn't really -- taking an Obama state or two is her only chance to swing supers at this point, short of some kind of unbelievable Obama collapse -- Hillary might have been right in that quote. North Carolina is the biggest state remaining in the primaries, the last major Obama state, and she couldn't make a race of it.
I take back my "boring" comment above if Obama can win Indiana. That would be big.
North Carolina is the biggest state remaining in the primaries, the last major Obama state, and she couldn't make a race of it.
What does "make a race of it" mean?
We don't know the results yet. We just know she's predicted to lose, with hardly any of the votes in.
We don't know the results yet. We just know she's predicted to lose, with hardly any of the votes in.
Which means that she got trounced.
I have to say, I've been sympathetic to Clinton, for various reasons, throughout the primary, but if it turns out that she loses both Indiana and NC, I will cheer.
I want this race over with, and I would really like to have a vote that can mark a clear end rather than the end coming when the super delegates declare.
You're all going to hate yourselves when--as has always been the case, I think--it turns out that the exits are much too favorable to Obama, and he claims victory by the skin of his teeth. Having celebrated a blowout, you'll see the wisdom in doubts about Obama's electability in the face of a much smaller win (or even a loss).
Wait for the results. One hopes they'll vindicate this post, but wait for the results.
Exit polls:
North Carolina --
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225999/
Indiana --
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225979
Unweighted, so they have a large potential error, but they are usually pretty indicative.
13.1 pretty much sums up my feelings.
I don't think Obama has a chance in Indiana, at least according to what I've seen. Don't get your hopes up, Nick. But when they call a race before any votes are counted, that means someone won big, regardless of how far off exits can be.
when--as has always been the case, I think--it turns out that the exits are much too favorable to Obama
Yes, hasn't everybody noticed this pattern so far in the last few months?
In general, I think the candidate whose supporters are more deeply committed always ends up with more of his supporters agreeing to talk to the exit poll people.
17: I don't think it's actually wise to have such doubts; people will just be more susceptible to such arguments because Obama will have underperformed their ex recto expectations.
19: I'm not sure Obama's supporters are necessarily more committed than Hillary's supporters, but they are definitely younger and more highly educated -- both factors that could affect willingness to talk to pollsters.
I think I've finally learned the lesson I understood but didn't fully take to heart in 2004: don't pay attention to the fucking polls.
Apparently exit polls have a problem oversampling younger voters -- pollster.com had a piece about it, which IIRC attributed it to the fact that they're usually conducted by college-age volunteers, and even if they're supposed to be interviewing every 20th voter or something, they gravitate towards younger people. (There may also be an issue with oversampling urban precincts.)
It's not just an Obama problem -- you may recall that 45-minute window when we had President Kerry.
Jesus! Your vote is upcoming, no? Because I am sure all this shit will still be going on!
I am young and highly educated, and I don't do polls. Or at least not honestly. And the census hasn't caught me yet!
I hope Obama wins Indiana soon, damn it, so I can go to bed.
Is that right? Isn't it more the case that the exits are leaked without the weights?
you may recall that 45-minute window when we had President Kerry.
And a lovely time it was. Virginia looked like it was going Kerry for like 15 minutes. And then I got on a train for 45 minutes, and when I got off we had Bush again.
||
I went to brunch on Saturday, and my fiancee said, "Has anyone else noticed an exceptional number of really tricked-out pregnant women walking around?" I had not.
|>
the Indiana margin has gone from 57-43 to 54-46, as the percentage of the vote has gone from 33% to 52%.
you may recall that 45-minute window when we had President Kerry
Oh, god, was that terrible. I was in Nevada doing GOTV. Labor people and politics people had been calling me all day with super-secret poll information. Feeling good, I took my team for a dinner break. "George W. Bush has already been told that he has to pack his bags," I said at the A&W. "Now we have to get back out there and kill 'em so hard they stay dead."
The urban areas in Indiana are just starting to come in, I think.
36: I was a poll-watcher in Ohio, same type of deal. The Republican poll guy started to gloat as the day went on, too.
Your vote is upcoming, no?
We just got our ballots in the mail. For the first time since I've lived here, this state will see some action—though as I've mentioned, I've seen scores of Obama lawn signs around here and not a single Clinton sign, so I'd be surprised if she comes close, especially in Portland. We live to dream.
||
Big Papi!
|>
No results from Gary & environs yet--Indianapolis is about half reported....the final exits are less unreliable than the early leaks but still not all that reliable.
Jesus lives in the stoner granola hipster neighborhood. Grain of salt.
||
Manny! 497!
This is shaping up to be an okay night.
|>
40.--Okay, I give up. This is going to go to some grim little flourescent-lit room at the convention. Florida and Michigan (but especially Florida) will whine and threaten and stamp their feet, and Bill Clinton will prod and wheedle and charm the rules committee into seating their delegates for HRC, and it'll be an utter disaster.
Don't get your hopes up, Nick.
Eh, I'm also still blithely confident that Obama will end up as the nominee when the dust settles.
Mostly it was one of those moments that clarified my emotional response. It's been a couple of months that I've been supporting Obama and hoping (and expecting) that he will win, but this was the first time I found myself genuinely happy at the thought of Hillary losing.
41: Dude, that's Hawthorne. I live in the stoner granola hipster mixed-race neighborhood. Totally different.
I flee for Europe in the morning, so I am indifferent to the outcome.
Indiana margin down to 6%. 4% was predicted at one point. That will be unimpressive for Hillary if it maintains.
If McCain wins, Gonerill, he will track you down and have you abducted to Guantanamo. You should care.
Hey, Gonerill, are you going to be a humanities center fellow next year or something?
50: Something like that, yes. Not the humanities center, though, because social scientists have no humanity.
51: Dude, you're not leaving the US's sunny climes, are you? It's going to get better, I swear!
Too bad. Hum center fellows get free lunch.
I get lunch as well. And a whole summer camp vibe, too, so I can relive the American childhood I never had.
And that lunch will consist of ...
Fricassee of Irish baby!
Gonerill is going to be a Hoover Fellow?
34 - "Mystery Pollster", former professional pollster Mark Blumenthal. And more Mark Blumenthal: "In fact, according to the Edison-Mitofsky report, [exit polls] have shown a consistent discrepancy favoring the Democrats in every presidential election since 1988." Mind you, those posts are two years old, and Blumenthal said that people were trying to correct for those errors, but skewing young + urban would explain both a Democratic bias in the general and an Obama bias in this year's primaries.
To buck the trend, I would like to report that I feel better about Clinton as the nominee than I did in this thread. Which was wow, 11 months ago. And even more startling, 1,746 threads ago despite being only 11 months ago.
Oh, excellent. Obama in his victory speech in NC just called for people to vote Democrat in the general regardless of who the Dem candidate is.
"We cannot give John McCain the opportunity to serve out George Bush's third term."
That's a good line.
Fricassee of Irish baby!
So that's where all those immigrants went.
And NC still at 20. This is working out much better than I expected.
62: Yeah and no Lake County (Gary) yet. ~40K margin - Lake might bring it back in 20-30K I'm hoping
You're country is calling you, Gary.
What? Obama claims he is not perfect? Obamma sugests that his statuxsz as Democratic nomenee might tno t be inevitable? What is he doing?!?!?! Okh, I love this suispense so much!@!!@
Obama's speech style is changing, isn't it? Someone (AWB?) had mentioned that somewhere. The new style, repeating lines, a sing-song delivery, lots of "I love America" is perfectly reasonable given american voters' expectations.
Ahem. Yes, it's fine, fine. God bless America.
71: The Antichrist would be perfectly reasonable, wouldn't he.
71: I don't think so. Repeating lines and a sing-song delivery are basic to a black church oratory style that he was always indebted to. Some of his longer speeches have been more dense, but he's always had this register for occasions like this.
Good speech.
Whoa, they're taking back the call of Indiana for Clinton! Too close to call now.
Indiana is closing right on up, innit?
74,75: Both IU & Purdue counties only 1/2 to 1/3 counted and no Lake. I think it is going to come down to turnout in Lake County. NC tightening as well, though. (He will win, but looks more like 55-43)
In other news, can Russerts big face shut up? Signs point to no.
Meanwhile, a senior analyst from the Clinton camp was just on NPR alleging that she was an 8-point underdog in Indiana, among other patently absurd bullshit.
Meanwhile, a senior analyst from the Clinton camp was just on NPR alleging that she was an 8-point underdog in Indiana, among other patently absurd bullshit.
Oh for fuck's sake.
78: hey there's nothing more accurate than Zogby's daily tracking poll.
By the way, 25 makes me so happy, Jesus. Welcome to the team!
Lake had 114K Dem votes in 2004, 2/3 of Marion (Indy), Marion probably has more crossover Repubs, but total votes tonight are about equal to 2004 Dem totals.
So say 100K in Lake 60-40, 65-35?
73.1: Okay, I just hadn't heard him speak in that register before.
*But not Gravel.
Gravel was on the ballot here. One voter in the precinct I worked looked at the ballot and said, "Gravel? Well now I'm just torn," before laughing aloud.
Very, very high turn-out. Very active GOTV operations. Very few Republicans, who are cursed with a Presidential primary that's already decided and a bunch of gubernatorial candidates no one recognizes or likes. My off-the-cuff guess is that, not counting absentees, there was well over 50% turn-out among Dems in my precinct. Very, very, very high for a partisan primary in NC. People were mostly but not entirely nice (during early voting, every single person is nice to us).
The next time you motherfuckers vote, take five seconds to thank* the people who are sitting in an elementary school gymnasium for fifteen fucking hours, banned by state law from leaving and returning again. Especially thank your chief judge, who probably has another two hours of sitting at the Board of Elections to have her/his results audited to make sure no ballots are missing or otherwise unaccounted for, etc.
----
* "Thank you" and "why the hell did that take so long?" are not, for the unaware, equivalent sentiments.
Thanks for hurrying the fuck up, RMMP!
So Indiana is more like Missouri than like Ohio?
You're the fuck welcome, Sifu! Now take your fucking sticker!
there was well over 50% turn-out among Dems in my precinct
Folks from the SBOE thought we might break 50% statewide.
And even more startling, 1,746 threads ago despite being only 11 months ago.
Pacing!
Also, I am not reliving election night of 2006 but I am having a generous cocktail and by "cocktail" I mean "regular-sized glass full of bourbon and diet soda."
The sticker I got this year sucked. I forget just what it was like, but I want my good old "I Voted" oval back.
shivbunny informs me he is not voting for Hillary in the general.
94: I doubt many people will, since she won't be on the ballot.
Gonerill, I'm shocked.
84: banned by state law from leaving and returning again.
I'm curious about this: why? Is it so that you won't sneak out some kind of voting results and bring back altered ones (somehow)?
shivbunny informs me he is not voting for Hillary in the general.
I take a similar position. I wonder if poll workers accept green cards as valid ID.
Upside of travel to Europe: last 1-94 form evah.
You're going to be a fellow on a hill, Gonerill? If it's what I think it is, I've heard lots of good things about that place.
I'm curious about this: why? Is it so that you won't sneak out some kind of voting results and bring back altered ones (somehow)?
Yes. It is so that nothing in the voting enclosure can be removed from the premises by someone with keys to the ballot box and replaced with falsified balloting materials (ballots, voter lists, absentee lists, provisional ballots, whatever) while balloting is in progress. The rules are more forgiving during early voting but on Election Day no judge is allowed to leave and come back. It's a very old law from way back in the day and I would find it hard to believe that someone would try to pull such a stunt these days... but, it's the law and enforcing election law is what we do. So, bring breakfast, bring lunch, bring dinner, bring drinks, bring snacks, bring books, bring deodorant.
"The premises" includes a bathroom, I take it?
Also, of all the hundreds of people who voted in my precinct today, one (1) tried to kick a fuss about NC not requiring ID to vote (our chief judge talked him down) and one (1) voter asked about a receipt or what we do if the machine breaks. (The machine breaking is meaningless in our county, as we use paper ballots for everything including HAVA compliance. He was quite happy with the answers he got.)
"The premises" includes a bathroom, I take it?
Kitchen
Bathroom
Living room
Bedroom
♥
∴ home
"The premises" includes a bathroom, I take it?
And bring Depends.
Really dragging out Indiana. Lake cast over 10% of Dem votes in Indiana in 2004 - my read is: 65-35 there plus college counties gets it to a tie. 40K lead and I think the last of the quasi-Appalachian counties with any real population are just now in.
Why don't they have two shifts, or variable length shifts. it can be like baseball. You can leave if you want, but you can't get back in.
Target in NC is 200K, 180K lead right now at 78% (heaviest Obama's seem to be in - commies around Chapel Hill etc.)
You can leave if you want, but you can't get back in.
Non-judge pollworkers can do this but most precincts have enough trouble staffing that there simply isn't available headcount for two shifts. There are also laws banning family members from working the same precincts at the same time so a lot of time the only shift changes will be between spouses or, at my early voting site, between a parent and child who both wanted to work the last day.
For judges it's possible but limited to emergencies. The three required judges all sign what's called a "zero tape" in the morning to certify that all three are satisfied no votes are already cast on their equipment when the polls open. The BoE really wants to see the same three signatures on the paperwork at the end of the day certifying the results.
Trust me, I can keep up snooze-inducing talk of NC voter laws all night long. If anyone has insomnia in need of a quick cure I have got the goods.
108: My father does this in Ohio, from what he tells me, average age is about 70 (he is 83), any younger down there?
any younger down there?
Last year, in a very rural precinct 2/3 staffed by emergency judges from outside the precinct, I was thirty years younger than the next-youngest judge. At early voting, I was middle of the pack; I'd guess the average age at my early voting site was 35. At my precinct this year, I'd guess an average age of 45.
In general, poll workers are past retirement age because they're the people with time to devote. Durham has specifically targeted younger people for recruitment, professionals and young adults, to try to diversify the workforce. At pollworker training last year the average age for my session was probably 60. This year, for my session, it was probably more like 50 with a lot more 30-somethings in the mix than before.
Knew this was going to happen - Clinton camp claiming some kind of political shenigans in Lake County vote counts being delayed.
An aside: there are plenty of things to like about Oregon's vote-by-mail system—it's it's easy, it's efficient, it obviates many of the problems people have with getting to the polls on election day elsewhere—but I miss the ritual. The first time I went into the library of my kids' school, I remembered, this is where I used to vote, man, and that made me remember going with my mom when she went to vote, in an actual booth with a curtain and levers and everything. Oh well, fallen world and all that.
Hillary is giving a victory speech in Indiana?
112: I dunno, in addition to all that I really, really like the sanctity of the secret ballot. Vote-by-mail is not at all reassuring on that front.
Lake has already said they aren't going to report until after midnight. So HRC either crosses her fingers and does it now or waits til after midnight and is seen in the joyous throes of victory by none.
Okay, goddammit, I'll admit it. Clinton is getting on my nerves. Could she possibly pretend to be any *more* obtuse?
Clinton is getting on my nerves.
Just think how'd you feel by November.
115: I can imagine situations in which ballot secrecy is compromised, but the system has been in place for many election cycles now, and I feel pretty comfortable with it.
118 is the southern coming through, apo. Let it free!
She's really phoning it in tonight. Maybe she realizes that it isn't going to happen.
112, 115: "Sanctity" is an interesting word. It becomes a question of whether we want to (continue to) promote any notion of citizenship characterized by ritual and attention, requiring some effort and a suspension of the daily routine. Everything in our age presses toward ease.
Sorry, distracted by Hillary's speech.
There's an argument that a return to (roll callish, one at a time) voice vote would cut down on fraud. Which I guess it would, but voter intimidation would almost certainly be back in a bigger way.
Okay. Gas tax, votes in MI and FL, and now 9/11?
Lady, puhleeze.
The next two weeks are going to be a real "test" for the Clinton campaign, the only card they really have in hand now are some exit polls that basically say "our Dems won't vote for the elitist scary half-black man". You can imagine where this might lead them especially with West Virginia in the middle. I hope Dean, Pelosi et al are on the phone right fucking now! I suspect this is part of why Obama campaign seems to be suggesting they are ready to begin talking on MI and FL.
120: There is the fact that the only significant voter fraud issues in recent years have been with absentee ballots, in fact NW Indiana had one per the Supreme Court decision and a Miami FL mayoral election (before 2000).
125: She said 9/11? Fuck, I missed that. Er, what'd she say?
(There is a fox shrieking outside my house; it's a characteristic call, a repeated harsh shout in an upper register. It generally means hey I'm here, I have business to conduct, you have a problem with that? The answer is, nope, nope, no problem at all, and you're beautiful by the way.)
Foxes are so awesome. They were the real stars of that movie about the crazy dude who decided to commune with the grizz.
130: They are. That movie, what, Grizzly Adams or something? Anyway, one generally gives foxes a wide and respectful berth. I love that they still consent to live among us.
130: Yeah, but what made the fox scene perfect wasn't the fox per se, but Herzog intoning "I believe the common character of the universe is not harmony, but chaos, hostility, and murder" in his flat German accent.
Oh my. The mayor of Gary:
"Let me tell you, when all the votes are counted, when Gary comes in, I think you're looking at something for the [world] to see," [Rudy] Clay, an Obama supporter, said in a telephone interview from Obama's Gary headquarters. "I don't know what the numbers are yet, but Gary has absolutely produced in large numbers for Obama here."
131: I love foxes, but I don't think they consent to live among as as much they're forced to by the way our civilization has slowly gobbled up their habitat.
134: For example.
If wishes were something, something something I'd be getting laid. Or something.
Obama is definitely going to earn an at-large delegate tie in Indiana, right? (16 divided proportionally). And in the districts, he might win the 7th (Indy) and 1st (Gary) each well enough to go 4-2 on delegates. She might just have won the 8th and 9th well enough to take them out of a 3-3 tie, but its close. The second is going to be a 3-3 tie too, I think, and the third is as well. That leave 4, 5, and 6 -- each has 4 delegates -- she'll win all three, i think, but not all three by enough. Clinton might just finish the night up by a net of 4 delegates from Indiana. Maybe 6. Another great victory like that and she'll really have to hang it up.
But, she's balanced out Guam!
Gary Indiana is such a fucking tease.
133: Yeah, it is still within shooting distance. Here will be a signal on where the Clintonistas are going over the next two weeks, whether they try to demonize the results from Gary. If it were Repubs you know they would & I am sure Carville and the other slimeballs have this one all loaded up, just awaiting the word.
That's just Werner Herzog's recycling his Nerve.com ad.
138: Yeah, but you're not a fox, are you, RFTS? I assumed that your handle identified yourself as a shrub, albeit one with red-fox-tail-like characteristics.
I have little Opie Cunningham in my head: GAry, Indiana, Gary, INdiana, Gary, IndiaNA!
Just in your head? I just had it on iTunes.
||
Brad DeLong does precisely the right thing about John Yoo's tenure status at Berkeley, and gets a totally crap answer.
|>
Lake Michigan wears Gary like a helmet.
Where can I listen to Clinton's Indiana victory speech?
Oh dear. This isn't going to look good if BHO wins. From that interview with Gary's mayor:
In March, Clay predicted the race would come down to Gary, telling the Northwest Indiana and Illinois Times that tonight on CNN, "They are going to point at Indiana and say Hillary Clinton is leading by one point but Gary ain't come in yet."
That movie, what, Grizzly Adams or something?
Jerky Grizzly Man. A classic.
150: Oh, come on! It's not like anyone in this campaign would get bitterly litigious over a thing like that!
I was a fan of the show Eerie, Indiana.
So was I! I can only remember two episodes, though - the one where Indiana's non-observance of Daylight Savings Time traps the kid in a timeless no-man's-land, and the one where his girlfriend gets a heart transplant from his recently-deceased romantic rival and hilarity ensues.
135: I know, but let me remain respectful of, somewhat hushed by, the foxes' ingenuity in dealing with what we've done. It's one reason I welcome their yelling out there. Please come around more often, I'm so sorry.
And ah, oh, the Herzog Grizzly film. Haven't seen it. Shall I?
They were the real stars of that movie about the crazy dude who decided to commune with the grizz.
I don't know, I think the bears that ate the guy at the end had a pretty strong presence. As did the guy himself.
And ah, oh, the Herzog Grizzly film. Haven't seen it. Shall I?
You totally should. It's one of those perfect matches of director and subject that just makes for an amazing movie.
That really is a crap answer. How can the existence of a fact-finding committee be defamatory?
Dude, less than 20K vote difference in Indiana with 91% in.
Oh dear. This isn't going to look good if BHO wins. From that interview with Gary's mayor:
In March, Clay predicted the race would come down to Gary, telling the Northwest Indiana and Illinois Times that tonight on CNN, "They are going to point at Indiana and say Hillary Clinton is leading by one point but Gary ain't come in yet."
Was there reason (like, say, more paper ballots, or past experience, or what have you) to expect Gary's votes to come in later than the rest of the state? I heard someone on some satellite radio show saying they were counting absentee ballots still. Maybe that's it?
</Asking totally non-trollingly and out of curiosity>
158: Okay, I'll see it. The spoiler isn't a problem -- I seem to have read a long review of it somewhere anyway. I'm not sure plot development is the point.
Lake County has 28% of the precincts in and Obama has an 18K lead in the county. This is going to end up a tie.
I'm of the opinion that all of the Herzog oeuvre should be required viewing, but Grizzly Man is pretty damn brilliant.
Personally, I thought the bug-eyed, overdramatic coroner really stole the show, but yeah, the foxes. Sooooo cute!
This isn't going to look good if BHO wins.
No worries. Indiana has put an end to voter fraud in our time.
161 -- Wouldn't it be funny if he won the popular vote but she got more delegates. We'd be hearing about how delegates is how you keep score in contests like these -- the ones that count, anyway. And Clinton will have won the 5th district -- which sends Dan Burton to DC and went 71% for GWB in 2004.
160- Facts have a well-known liberal bias.
Does the bear eat the man? Or the man the bear? Suspense!
I hate Gary. What a prima donna town, and a shithole too.
You know what I hate about Gary? Too many eggheaded latte drinkers.
Given that all that matters for Clinton's momentum-centric campaign is the media narrative anyway, the night's pretty much already over, since everyone's going to bed on "too close to call," which more or less cements the notion in everyone's mind that she didn't get a clear win (although really, talking about the notion of "wins" at this point, given the delegate math, is infuriating).
Obama pulling this out and HRC dropping out because of the loss is becoming the only acceptable outcome for me, mostly because this screwed up my planned evening of TV watching.
Damn you, Hillary!
Where can I listen to Clinton's Indiana victory speech?
I found a piece of it here. It's the one at the top of the third column.
I promise that if Gary pulls this off for BHO tonight, I will stop telling people that Gary is the long bad stink you have to drive through to get to Chicago.
I just clicked over to MyDD, where I saw someone wishing "Donna Brazile's coalition of blacks and kiddies" good luck in the general. Just a data point -- I don't think online douchebaggery really reflects more on one candidate or the other.
176: I was thinking the same thing. Gary, never again I will never roll up my windows when I approach. I will drink deep of your powerful smells.
177: Have you looked at noquarter recently? It's like stormfront, no lie.
1) I can't believe the stupid media is putting so much emphasis on who won by 2) I can't believe we're all watching it hoping it will flip to Obama so he wins under the stupid emphasis of 1.
Holy shit people. Looks like Obama might take it. Gary is coming in strong. Very strong. Butler University still has 1/3 of its votes to count. Indianapolis still has a smattering to count and Union is bumfuck tiny town.
I'll probably swing on down to the Obama campaign center with my roomie and some booze, and I will report if any mayhem breaks out. This could be a fucking beautiful thing.
*fingers crossed so very hard*
177- Try talkleft. Armando is even more insane than when he got kicked out of Daily Kos.
I think Obama comes up about 8k short. Not all of Lake is as heavily Obama as Gary, the 75-25 split districts were mostly Gary so the more even ones have yet to report.
expect Gary's votes to come in later than the rest of the state?
It's in the CST areas that closed an hour after the rest of the state, isn't it?
Sorry, Parsimon--I went off to read other things. She said blah blah 9/11 drew America together blah blah.
About a third of the precincts in Monroe County (where Bloomington is) have yet to report.
Fucking Dean, Pelosi, Reid et al better be on the phone right fucking now. You know the fuckwads at Fox and assorted friends will be all over the "suspicious" results and I sure as hell hope they are laying down some threats if Carville et al join in.
185: Yes. But there will be mighty hollering about this. It will be pounced on as fishy.
I still think she wins, barely. But it's not very suspicious for the big liberal county right next to Chicago with the high black population to go heavily for the liberal black candidate from Chicago.
Unless I screwed up Obama would still regain the 20,000 with something like 57% of Gary. That's a pretty good fall from 75-25.
189: Yep, I'll take a dollar for every media mention of JFK/Daley/Chicago in 1960.
190: yep, that is exactly why most networks held off on the call.
182: My god, I've just been reading Armando again lately, out of pure curiosity.
Though. Guys, I mean people, this is not a sports game. Blow-by-blow accounts aren't required.
190: Oh, I agree entirely. The super-late reporting will be pounced on nevertheless.
193: But they aren't not required.
What's up with Union Co.? I call shenanigans on those honkeys over there. 0% reporting? Sure . . .
Holy fuck! I've just looked at CNN. 51% to 49%! Could he actually do this?
The mayor of Hammond was on CNN saying he knows Clinton won there, even though the county hasn't released the numbers. What does that mean? It's nearly as big as Gary, but he didn't say how much she won by there. (He rattled off a list of other Lake County towns he knows she won, but I think they're all tiny.)
Looks like the forces of evil gained a split tonight. Hillary loses, but the Celtics win.
wow. Talkleft has gotten crazy for Clinton. I hadnt realized. Too bad.
196: Fine, just don't treat it like a sports game.
Eh.
fwiw, the BBC half-hour report on NPR is playing the snippets from Obama's speech saying that we should vote for the Dem candidate regardless, against McCain; and the snippet from Clinton saying that Indiana would be the tie-breaker.
This is from a front page post at Noquarter: (I believe it is unironic)
MAY I RECOMMEND that you watch FOX NEWS? I don't think a single one of us should give MSNBC ANY rating numbers. Besides, Fox News does a great job, and Karl Rove's analyses are quite fascinating since he knows the country so well.
According to Kos: "Russert: Hillary Clinton has cancelled all her morning appearances."
Is this to face the music? Or to file a lawsuit? Ugh!
I'm of the opinion that all of the Herzog oeuvre should be required viewing,
Last year's "Rescue Dawn" was a really good Herzog movie within a feel-good Hollywood format that was unjustly overlooked, I thought.
Re Hillary: her speech was wobbly and inferior to Obama's, but you have to admit she won the fashion part of the evening. She's pretty much revolutionizing the possibilities of the pants suit. The jewel tones are brilliant.
Ah, now he says: "Senator Clinton won Hammond, Indiana by more than 600 votes."
More than 600? The hell? That seems completely insignificant. Stop trying to spin this as some Hillary triumph in Obama territory, dude.
Fine, just don't treat it like a sports game.
How about a musical?
"I will say without a moment of hesitation
There is just one place
That can light my face.
Gary, Indiana ..."
I do realize that this will be a mini-scandal (size of which is entirely up to the Clintonistas) and will not play well with the "bitter", but part of me is going, Yeah! Jam those votes right up their asses! (You know they would do it if it were reversed) .... not that I'm treating it like a sporting event ....
Hillary loses, but the Celtics win.
The Celtics are evil, but Lebron had his worst game of the year and it went down to the last minute. You have to think this is going to be a long, hard-fought, enjoyable series.
In other news: McCain only got about 75% of the vote in NC and IN.
Is this to face the music?
I suspect so. She needed two wins and got a draw and a drubbing.
It would be so fitting if this interminable race didn't end with Obama's convincing performance tonight, but wound up in a lawsuit. That said, I really don't think that even the monstrous witch, Hillary Clinton, would do that. But I am bitter enough to be prospectively peeved at anyone who might feel grateful if she drops out tomorrow.
Stop trying to spin this as some Hillary triumph in Obama territory, dude.
How can you say that?
The fact that she has consistently received slightly fewer votes than Obama means that she should be the nominee.
211: really? That would shock me. In a good way, but still shocking.
Now, if we can only find a way to get "Fuck you, clown" into her concession speech.
That would shock me.
They know they're not going to be able to raise money. They'd have to just keep spending their own.
Obama's slogan is YES WE CAN, but Hillary's slogan is YES WE WILL! How can you guys choose potential over certainty?
Anyway, I think barring some catastrophe for Obama, Hillary will drop out by mid-June. There's a difference between tough and stubborn and evil.
Certainly, this emerging story about Operation Chaos could have legs tomorrow morning:
One exit poll question asks Indiana voters who they would support in a Clinton-McCain contest. 17% of them say McCain. Of those voters, 41% say they would vote for McCain over Clinton. In other words, these voters, 7% of the Indiana electorate, voted for Clinton in the primary but have no intention of supporting her in the fall.
My guess is that she'll stay in long enough to do victory laps in West Virginia and Kentucky, but tomorrow they're huddling to plan the shutdown and the interim message.
Sen. Clinton must have known for a month that it wasn't going to work, not with winning elections anyway. I can't imagine her dropping out just now, though, and leaving the good people of West Virginia wondering why they don't count.
Yeah, the Limbaugh/Republican story hasn't gotten any play at all, even though it figured in some earlier primaries.
But seriously -- what is up with Union Co.? Whole town go on a bender and forget to vote?
220: I think so as well. Man if you want to cry yourself to sleep tonight, read the comments section at openleft*. Probably better not to, we all need a cooling down period.
223: Not to worry - total of 1,000 Dem votes cast there in 2004. They probably had some manner of counting foul-up. IU's county is still only 2/3 in as well.
Those who are treating this as a musical can sing along to the live blogging at a local newspaper here.
New update - don't think he is going to make it - gained another couple of thou, but they are saying most of Gary itself is already in. (Plus most of the rest of IU county in now as well.)
We had a handful of registered R's come into my precinct and insist that we have an open primary in which they could vote the D ballot; we were legally required to disappoint them.
Gary, Indiana, IIRC, was the original sample setting for Vampire: the Masquerade. This moment of gaming trivia has been brought to you by the little fanboy squee! I emit every time I see Bruce Baugh in an Unfogged thread.
NPR, which none of you are white enough to listen to (honkies don't have cable tv) mentioned the Limbaugh thing. They said yes, it could be an issue in Indiana's open primaries, and there was indeed a report of a number of Republicans showing up to vote on the D ballot in NC (they argued that there had been a mistake in their registration; their ballots were held pending investigation, and will be thrown out if it turns out they were lying, duh).
Gee, Indiana's sure got a more lattes since I was last through there!
I'm more than white enough, B. I'll end up listening to eight hours of npr on some days.
Either I can't hear (possible), or Anderson Cooper just said something about Gary being close to Obama's "homepage."
230: I used to listen to NPR while driving around in my Volvo 240DL wagon. For realz.
Oh! And I was interviewed on All Things Considered once. I sounded like a choad.
Forget about Modern Love, how about Auto Ego? Namely, how does a UPS deliveryman swing a house with not one, but two Bimmers in the garage? I didn't know there was big money in driving those brown trucks.
The term "choad" is considered a neologism based on standardized Wiktionary criteria.
234: I get it confused with "chobe" (which via Urban Dictionary now seems to be "a dick wider than it is long" so in UD's view they have merged), which my kids used as a shortened form of "chobo", which seems to be Korean for "newb" (and I think they picked it up via Starcraft which makes sense).
I think barring some catastrophe for Obama, Hillary will drop out by mid-June. There's a difference between tough and stubborn and evil.
This is just really ignorant. She's done tonight; she lost, she'll figure out how to bow out gracefully, her campaign's signaled in at least three ways that she's not going forward, and she didn't have the means to win anyhow.
I thought "choad" meant "taint". I stand corrected.
237: OK, they are almost all in and she held on at ~20,000 vote margin. In the end Lake was 55-45, per upthread he needed 65-35, If the %reporting are right, just some odds and sods left that won't swing things more than a few thousand.
Networks just called Indiana for Clinton.
Also, MSNBC later said (before the race was called) that the Clinton campaign said Clinton was never officially scheduled to appear on morning shows. And if she's not officially scheduled, she can't cancel! And that she'll be at a fundraiser and the press are invited.
237: I thought "choad" meant "taint". I stand corrected.
That is listed as a secondary definition at Urban Dictionary.
236: Glad to see that you're a fellow believer in Hillary's basic goodwill and dedication to the Democratic cause. "By mid-June" would include this week, which is before mid-June. But it's not impossible we might have a couple of more weeks yet.
her campaign's signaled in at least three ways that she's not going forward
elaborate? Everything I've seen suggests the opposite.
I think we'll have two weeks, for sure. She'll be touring Kentucky and West Virginia for appearance's sake while negotiating with the Democratic Party for whatever she can get for loyal staff and supporters. But she is out now; she'll officially bow out before May 21. If only for the fact that she does not have the money to campaign through mid-June, and anyway, to what end?
Digging into the exit poll results, we find that 16% of Indiana Dem primary would vote for McCain in a Clinton-McCain matchup. Curiously, out of those 16%, fully 41% of them voted for Clinton over Obama today. If the exit polls can be believed, here we've got fully 7% of the electorate consisting of votes for Hillary from people who will vote against Hillary in November. Call it Operation Chaos, call it people making their second choice, but any way you slice it, if it wasn't for the people voting for Hillary who don't intend to vote for her in November, Obama would've won by more than 5 points.
she does not have the money to campaign through mid-June
As I listened to her entreat the TV-watching audience to go to HillaryClinton.com and empty their wallets, it occurred to me that she could now be staying in it just to raise money to pay off her campaign debts. It's a lot harder to fork in contributions when you're out of the game, after all. So maybe she'll continue a very low-key campaign, stripped down basically to fundraising solicitations, for a few more pro forma weeks.
TV announcers: I don't know if it was ever a "dream ticket" but it isn't now so stop using that phrase.
Brock's 216 wants to fight Armsmasher's 236.
At least she said "no matter what happens I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party." She's got a little time to make me believe it.
245: if it wasn't for the people voting for Hillary who don't intend to vote for her in November, Obama would've won by more than 5 points.
Right, but they still count because they're old white guys.
She's in it to win it, dammit, so she ain't gonna quit until they drive a stake through her heart and bury her at a crossroads.
max
['New slogan for HRC: 'Fuck you, you losers! I'm workin' for ME!'']
Brock's 216 wants to fight Armsmasher's 236.
No, no—that's why HRC gave the speech that she did when she did, so reporters would have a message to take to press. She claimed the victory she could and said she'd "broken the tie".
But then she sent out a soft email to her supporters that thanked them for their work and only sort of gestured at asking them for more money. If she decided tonight to exit the race, she'd still be on the campaign trail through the races where she can pick up some easy wins and some cash to pay off her campaign debts—plus she'll want to negotiate for all her people and so on and so forth.
I don't really know how she'll work for Obama's campaign now. One way to start would be to take the stage in West Virginia and Kentucky, which she'll mostly likely have alone (why would Obama bother to campaign there?), to put out a seriously moderated and conciliatory message. She has the upper hand as far as healing the rift goes.
As an Obama guy I really don't feel the personal hostility that's been clogging my arteries for the last few months now that it's done but I imagine the story's different for suckers who thought she had a chance.
Hear the lamentations of the suckers.
251: I'm right with you. I feel better about Clinton than I have in some time. That said, it's time for her to switch tactics: bash McCain, stump for the party, and limp quietly into the night. If she comes after Obama at all over the next weeks, I'm sure my anger will return. For now, though, it was a good night.
re: 234
re: choad.
It doesn't come from Hindi/Punjabi? Choad means 'fucker'.
Her speech was a masterpiece of asshattery, though.
I woke up with the BBC saying Obama won big in North Carolina and Clinton barely scraped through in Indiana; sometimes it's good to miss the nailbiting suspense and cut straight to the ending.
Her speech was a masterpiece of asshattery, though.
She seemed rattled and exhausted, both of which are no surprise. And neither of which excuse the horrible writing.
wow. Talkleft has gotten crazy for Clinton.
I think August J. Pollak is right on this. Somewhere along the line a bunch of these people went a tad nuts.
Lake Michigan wears Gary like a helmet hernia brace.
251 is probably insightful, even if it is the conventional wisdom.
if it wasn't for the people voting for Hillary who don't intend to vote for her in November, Obama would've won by more than 5 points
The narrative on CNN this morning seems to be that Obama has recaptured the momentum, and that yesterday will prove to be the last gasp of Hillary's campaign. Depending on what HRC does, this could still set up another narrative shift around WV and KY, but I think the MSM is finally ready to write her off.
Watching a clip of Obama's victory speech, the full significance of the moment finally dawned on me: In January 2009, 145 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, a black man is going to be President of the United States. All at once, the messianic feeling around his campaign made sense to me: Obama is the redeemer who will cleanse the nation of its original sin.
Obama is the redeemer who will cleanse the nation of its original sin.
Dude, get a grip.
Somewhere along the line a bunch of these people went a tad nuts.
This example of that is truly mind-boggling:
He will not win Massachusetts. (none / 0) (#209) by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:37:39 AM EST Sorry. McCain is already competitive with him there and the Republican 527's haven't even begun to get nasty.McCain even puts portions of New York in play.
It's a complete disaster.
Dude, get a grip.
To be clear, I didn't mean to endorse that sentiment, merely to describe it.
I actually think the messianic message has some dangerous qualities (if we've atoned for our sins by electing one of them president, what else to we owe them?), but I am not totally immune to its psychological appeal.
McCain even puts portions of New York in play.
And Obama puts portions of Mississippi in play! What a crock of shit. If McCain wins Massachusetts--hell, if McCain comes within 5 points in Massachusetts, I will eat my metaphorical hat.
265: Corrected: Dude American liberals who watch a lot of Ken Burns documentaries, get a grip.
263: I certainly don't think that Obama will redeem the nation's sins (too late for that). And apparently neither does KR. But the notion that a black man will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, and the odds-on favorite to win, is simply stunning. The Wright debacle, coupled with a blanket unwillingess to talk about race, will make it hard for the MSM to cover this issue in any meaningful way at all (save, perhaps, for self-congratulatory rhetoric about how far these United States has come). But the rest of us shouldn't lose site of what it could mean for the nation. Now if only I could figure out what that is.
In January 2009, 145 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, a black man is going to be President defrauded of the Presidency of the United States.
Still a huge advance.
268: Cynically, one thing it'll mean is that it'll be very hard to convince your average guy that racism is still a problem.
As an Obama guy I really don't feel the personal hostility that's been clogging my arteries for the last few months now that it's done but I imagine the story's different for suckers who thought she had a chance.
I'm right there with you, 'Smasher. Surrounded by stories suggesting it's over, my warm feelings towards and slight sadness for HRC seem to be returning. Fight those feelings. She's not out of it until she's out of it. We've seen a ton of stories about the race being over--including one round in which everyone saw gestures by her campaign to concession--in the past.
270: The average guy hasn't believed that racism is a real problem since the 1960s, when the federal government ostensibly started screwing the white man, an impression that deepened with busing and affirmative action, and, yes, I'm sure you're right, will be cemented if Obama wins. In other words, I'm not sure much will change on that front.
Cynically, one thing it'll mean is that it'll be very hard to convince your average guy that racism is still a problem.
You know, I was thinking about that early in the campaign, and I convinced myself that it's already hard to convince the average guy that racism exists. (At a minimum, it's hard to convince him that it's best addressed by talking about it in a share circle.) OTOH, convincing him that the African-American community has a lot of good people who face a lot of bad and even strange problems, seems easier.
Obviously, this is all ex recto.
270: Also: you're a Negative Nancy. And so is Tim in 271. (Of course you're both also right.)
"We cannot give John McCain the opportunity to serve out George Bush's third term."
This is a really good line, and all the more effective, I think, when delivered in the context of the ongoing Democratic primary. You can launch this kind of criticism across the aisle that much more effectively when you are in a position to say: this is a blanket statement about this guy, not just a reason why you should vote for me, personally, instead. Plus, you look gracious. And then you've got the line out there by the time you're actually going head to head. All this may not matter much; maybe the line would be just as good if it was first pulled out post-primaries, but it seems like a nice tactical touch to me.
It appears that Durham County gave Obama his largest percentage win of any county in NC, at 75-23. Woo, Bull City!
One thing that I think would be super important about an Obama presidency is the distance it would go to convincing black people that racism in this country's not an insurmountable problem. That and convincing the rest of the world that we might be idiotic jingoistic warmongers most of the time, but we're not always actively fearful of anything and anyone that reminds us of the rest of the world's existence.
White people, being some cracker-ass racists, I have less hope for, but you never know.
From TPM:
After initially canceling public appearances today, Hillary has added a public event to her schedule.
In the spirit of getting disappointed by someone new, I'd settle for an administration that wasn't actively malevolent.
277: Yes, the nation's standing in the international community surely will improve if Obama is elected. Unless, of course, he tacks to the right in the general and then proves he's a real man by invading Cuba or something (not unprecedented). Still, although I disagreed with the particulars of Cala's point, I wonder what an Obama presidency means for African-Americans. As you suggest, symbols matter a great deal, but will Obama have to be extra careful not to help the black community, not to be too black in other words? I just don't know. A lot, I suspect, will depend on his margin of victory in the general -- assuming that happens -- and the nature of his coalition going forward.
In my compulsive dicking around on the interwebz last night, I learned that whoever the Dem. nominee is will be delivering his/her acceptance speech on the anniversary of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech. I wonder if that'll be significant?
Spaz is banned. Monty Python reference in the first degree, with premeditated hyperlink.
280: yeah, okay. I will rephrase my 277: if Obama is elected, who the fuck knows what it will mean, but it seems like it could be good, with a little luck.
I truly think she cannot come forward with "shame-on-you" rhetoric or anything approaching it at this point because there's not enough narrative left in the campaign trail. WV and KY are both too easy and too small for Clinton to make the case that she's a fighter. She could make a momentum push for Oregon and the press would probably bite, but she doesn't have the money to get there. A personal loan at this point would be her third and that would look like madness. And anyway, IN frustrated every angle she had against Obama. Her campaign would have to come up with a new rationale, explain it to voters and the press, etc., in less than two weeks. She hit the worst of all possible spots: the doldrums.
So I do think it's time for we supreme primary victors to start humming the Blue and the Gray and talking reconciliation. People like Talk Left are going to be very bitter. But, you know, at the end of the day, we like them!
But also we must be clear: no, sorry, regretfully, no, she can't be vice president.
284: Thank you. And remember: no enthusiasm! This is critical.
but will Obama have to be extra careful not to help the black community, not to be too black in other words?
I think there are real constraints on any Democrat's ability to address the problems of the black community in a targeted way. Basically, they can't. But neutral changes--for example, with respect to incarceration--that help the black community are still available.
I do wonder whether some of the the older African-Americans who support HRC do so out of a belief in the viability of the old model of achieving change, and a fear that an Obama presidency would destroy the credibility of that model without giving him the space to fix or address problems in the African-American community. (As distinct from my belief that the model is already pretty much dead.)
No need to worry yourselves about what an Obama presidency might or moght not mean; McCain is going to trounce him in the general election.
Yes, the nation's standing in the international community surely will improve if Obama is elected.
Hell, Obama's saving the world before he's even out of the primary! This is kind of the greatest story ever—Obama never brokered a truce for Niger but doesn't want to walk back on the story and make war break out. So he gives some ex post facto appeal for truce to (I think it was) Politico.
Meanwhile, Harry Reid has to walk back on HRC's Iran nonsense. No, she can't be vice president.
287: If I can think of a group of people into whose thinking I have less insight than older African-Americans who support Clinton, I'll let you know. But don't hold your breath.
; McCain is going to trounce him in the general election.
Too old. He would be 76 before the end of the first term. If you wouldn't trust him to drive your car, why would you trust him to drive your country?
It's only a matter of time before McCain falls asleep at one of his own appearances.
Is 288 serious? Because if so, I'd really, really like to bet. And I'm offering excellent odds for all comers.
147, 160: Good for Delong. However, this is evidence in favor of mcmanus's view of procedural liberalism. Just wanted to get that out there.
I like the idea, implied in 285, that narrative is a fixed resource that candidates have to gather on the campaign trail. It's politics as Gauntlet.
Clinton needs narrative badly.
Remember, don't shoot narrative!
Shots do not hurt other candidates.
Clinton is about to lose.
268: Cynically, one thing it'll mean is that it'll be very hard to convince your average guy that racism is still a problem.
My uncle already believes that Oprah's success proves that racism is not a problem.
My uncle already believes that Oprah's success proves that racism is not a problem.
Don't forget Bill Cosby!
288 is serious. Although I hope it's not ultimately correct. But I grow more pessimistic by the day. Other than the age thing, McCain is an almost perfect candidate. I worry that the experience issue is ultimately going to catch up to Obama. And I don't like his chances in Tennessee.
Other than the age thing
Insert Mary Todd Lincoln joke here.
Dude have you seen McCain talk? Have you heard anything he's said? In the total abstract McCain is the perfect candidate. In reality he's Sky Captain Andy Rooney, only less coherent and more curmudgeonly. He literally has no idea what's coming out of his mouth from moment to moment, and he's like 150.
Other than the age thing
And vowing to continue the policies of the most unpopular president in modern American history.
McCain is an almost perfect candidate
Are you high, Brock? He's stiff, dumb, inconsistent, murderous, crazy, untrustworthy, and on and on. It's a matter of examining a tiny handful of clips to discover that he's changed his positions on everything on Earth. If he was a perfect candidate, ever, it was in 2000.
265: I actually think the messianic message has some dangerous qualities
And
294: However, this is evidence in favor of mcmanus's view
Slowly, insidiously, the mcman-ia spreads.
Don't forget Bill Cosby!
Him too! He mentioned both of them at the same time.
298: As goes TN, so goes America? And McCain is an almost hilariously imperfect candidate: infirm, hated by his base, mean as a snake, not telegenic, deeply ignorant about domestic and international issues, etc. The media loves him, yes, but we'll have to see if that continues after he snaps a few times, makes obvious gaffes in public appearances, or generally doesn't hold up very well under scrutiny.
291. Only 2 years older than Saint Reagan in 1981
McCain's a great general election candidate for the Republicans now. The media love him, he has a reputation as a moderate, and he has experience. But the media haven't had a reason to fall out of love with him yet, and there isn't much to him besides the image. I think image tends to be more important than substance, but it can be taken down pretty quickly.
Other than the age thing, McCain is an almost perfect candidate.
His biography makes him every bit as unbeatable as Kerry was.
300: Actually, to tell you the truth I don't think I've listened to a word McCain's said since his 2000 bid. Maybe he's gotten older and more incoherent since then. But at the time he seemed like a strong candidate.
I realize his "policy proposals" are all either garbage or evil, but I don't think that will count against him as much as it should.
Other than the age thing, McCain is an almost perfect candidate.
Well, the age thing and the Republican thing: everyone--everyone--hates them at the moment. (If I were a big Dem, I wouldn't be pushing the idea that McCain and his wife voted for Gore in '00 (or whatever the specific charge is).) And the age thing seems gigantic: everyone has experience with it of some sort, it happens to everyone, it's unstoppable, it's a "more in sadness than in anger" thing, and it might be the thing Americans as individuals fear most.
And I don't like his chances in Tennessee.
Because Tennessee is such a vital Democratic stronghold?
All Obama needs is the Kerry states plus one, or the Gore states plus New Hampshire. I'll be genuinely surprised if Obama doesn't win - he's polling decently against McCain right now, and that's without any of his attacks on McCain getting play in the press. Once he starts attacking McCain in earnest, putting up ads in major states, etc., Obama's advantage is going to show pretty clearly. And the debates are going to be brutal for McCain, who inevitably comes across as a testy, hapless old man.
Only 2 years older than Saint Reagan in 1981
Reagan didn't look that doddering in '81. Or at least, if he did he covered it well.
I don't think I've listened to a word McCain's said since his 2000 bid.
He's aged pretty well, but we've still had eight years and George W. Bush in the interim.
But how old is McCain really? He seems spry for his age, right? I don't think people care much about the number, per se. Maybe I just haven't seen enough of him recently, though--if he loses control of bowels on national television or something, all bets are off.
Brock is still hung over from last night, I think. (Seriously, look at the way McCain's people flipped out on that "100 years" commercial, which simply showed footage of McCain saying what he really thinks.) Even with the media's collective tongues firmly up McCain's leathery sphincter, I don't think McCain has a very good chance of pulling this out; for one thing, McCain turns out to be a surprisingly poor campaigner for a guy who's been in the Senate since 1914.
Like Sifu, I'd be willing to give odds. (61/39, the current Intrade numbers, seem about right to me, possibly even a little low for the Dems.)
All Obama needs is the Kerry states plus one
Is that true. I thought that the map had changed. Maybe I'm just thinking that the Gore states with Florida weren't enough to carry an election.
When I think about the general election I like to remind myself that Obama will have at least twice as much money as McCain.
He seems spry for his age, right?
Not particularly, no.
Maybe he's gotten older and more incoherent since then.
Yes.
He seems spry for his age, right?
No.
Only 2 years older than Saint Reagan in 1981
Or two years younger than Reagan was in '85. Lots of people believe Reagan suffered from Alzheimers in the second term. One hopes that the Dems will be happy to rehash those and related issues, like Reagan's tendency to fall asleep in meetings (inc. first term, I think). I think that there's lots of good stuff out there about the problem with Reagan as executive, validated by then-Republicans. As long as the Dems focus on that stuff, instead of things written by lefty-ish Dems, they'll be fine.
Also, my recollection of 1980 is that it was to the Republicans what this year looks like to the Democrats: everybody hated the other team.
309 - He was a magnificent candidate in 2000, probably stronger than Bush in the general. I'd have quite possibly voted for circa-2000 McCain over a ticket with Lieberman in it, because the depths of his foreign policy madness and domestic policy indifference weren't really clear then. I knew him as a reform-minded Republican with Bull Moose-esque rhetoric and a willingness to name and shame the hatemongers on the Christian right. Every one of these strengths has either been discarded since then or is currently a liability.
If by spry you mean cantankerous, then yes.
Oh, come on. McCain could surely still take Obama in a fight. I know it's petty, but voters pick up on that sort of thing (not always consciously).
To clarify, that's a 61% chance of a Democratic victory in the general, not a 61-39 popular vote.
Maybe I'm just thinking that the Gore states with Florida weren't enough to carry an election.
Gore + NH would have been enough in 2000, but isn't now; the numbers haven't changed since Kerry but will be different (and less favorable to a Rust Belt- and northeast-centric Democratic map) in 2012.
Thanks for making me think about McCain's leathery sphincter, snarkout. And a good day to you, too!
323: he really, really doesn't. The guy looks and acts old. Really, watch one of his recent victory speeches. He looks immobile, befuddled, and spent. His neck wattles have wattles. He takes a good picture if the angle's right, and he does okay on a morning talk show where the host is fawning over him, but put the guy in front of the crowd and he looks like he can't decide whether to whimper or grab his shotgun.
I know enough liberal grad students who are torn between McCain and Obama that I am suspicious that McCain's frailty and lack of a plan are actually that much of a weakness, because if one is in 'no more Bush' mode, McCain is still thought of as that guy who told Bush to fuck off. And these are, what, Obama's alleged base? McCain hits a lot of the same notes.
With any luck, the charm will fade, but it's not as obvious as everyone here seems to think.
Typical Obama Supporters ever gracious in victory
I shake my head in disgust when I see you driving your aging minivan down the street, ketchup dribbling down your chins as you turn your attention from your McDonald's to the latest Clay Aiken CD ("Isn't he so cute?").I imagine your careers to be no better - your cubicles, plastered with posters of kittens clinging to branches (an apt metaphor for your candidate) and generic motivational platitudes that you picked up for 2 for $100, framed, at Sam's Club, reek of mediocrity and the decay of the American Dream.
If any of you were on fire, you'd better hope that I have diarrhea - I'd be willing only to drop a deuce onto the crackling flames, now bubbling after reaching your manifold deposits of subcutaneous fat, that consumed your sad, pitiful excuse for a body.
Ding, dong, the witch is dead! Finally.I'll be more than happy to see the tiny cult of online Clinton-supporters splinter over to the Republican party. Their rhetoric makes pretty clear that they are not (and never really were) Democrats... Meanwhile the vast population of offline, low-information Clinton voters will be plenty happy to vote for Obama.
326 should have begun with "e really, really couldn't."
Oh, come on. McCain could surely still take Obama in a fight.
HA HA HA, no.
McCain could surely still take Obama in a fight.
Are you kidding me? McCain couldn't take me in a fight. He's seventy-one, senile, slow-moving and can't move his arms above his shoulders. Hell, my three-year-old niece could probably take him out on a good day.
Bob I would expect more of even you than cherry picking commenters at Yglesias's blog. Why don't you find some YouTube comments to cluck sadly over?
298
288 is serious. Although I hope it's not ultimately correct. But I grow more pessimistic by the day. Other than the age thing, the short-tempered thing, being the shorter of the two candidates by seven inches in this superficial age, consistently supporting the current disastrous war, having been loathed by his party's base until three months ago and willingly tying himself to Bush, McCain is an almost perfect candidate.
Fixed.
I mean, not to sound overly optimistic or certain of a McCain win. I don't expect a blowout. Partisan loyalty and gerrymandering matter and Obama is more liberal than most of the country seems to be and you're right that a lot of people will vote based on experience and militarism. But McCain isn't as strong a candidate as he looks at the moment.
327: grad students are largely political idiots, though, and likely haven't been paying that much attention to what the guy's been saying. The general hasn't started yet, after all. Most people are coasting on memories of 2000.
I am suspicious that McCain's frailty and lack of a plan are actually that much of a weakness, because if one is in 'no more Bush' mode, McCain is still thought of as that guy who told Bush to fuck off.
McSame ad + "100 years" ad + Bush hug photo + Katrina cake. Over and over and over.
Really, watch one of his recent victory speeches.
Dear god - was it the one in New Hampshire that lasted something like over twenty minutes, and just went on and on? All I could think was, "it's like this man's campaign wants him to look like Grampa Simpson."
I would love to see McCain fight someone. I picture him charging at old-school, slow zombie speed, arms half-raised, and kind of just bouncing off. He'd give you a good bite at the moment of contact, though.
American liberals who watch a lot of Ken Burns documentaries, get a grip.
Someone really needs to set an Obama speech to the tune of "Ashokan Farewell."
336: exactly. And when his supporters chanted "Four more wars!" or whatever the fuck it was he looked so confused and unhappy, like "Who are all these people? Why are they yelling at me?"
I picture him charging at old-school, slow zombie speed, arms half-raised, waving a rake and yelling at people to get off his lawn.
McSame ad + "100 years" ad + Bush hug photo + Katrina cake. Over and over and over.
Also, bring on the anti-Neocon John attacks. We now have Republicans saying that it would be the younger neocons who would be in charge of the McCain foreign policy initially. Added to the fact that he was the Weekly Standard's candidate in '00, the failure of the Iraq war, and the neocons' Trotskyite past....
I would love to see McCain fight someone.
I imagine that McCain physically attacking Obama would look pretty much like Don Zimmer attacking Pedro Martinez.
McCain is an almost perfect candidate
Others have already exposed the folly of this statement, but I will take it a step further:
McCain, at this point, is propped up by nothing more than (1) the partisan loyalty of the GOP base; (2) residual good will from 2000 among low-information independent voters; and (3) the swooning love of the national press corps.
Number (1) wins you 100 EV's, max. Number (2) is going to prove a fragile advantage once the campaign heats up and a combination of attack ads and self-inflicted wounds catches up with him. And number (3) is a volatile compound. Look at how much Obama, a bonafide excellent candidate, suffered when a love-struck press suddenly turned on him.
Ex recto, I would say that the press corps advantage is worth at least 10 points in the national polls to McCain today, and it will be down to 2-3 max by November. In the toxic environment bequeathed by GWB, that's not enough to put a Republican in the White House. Especially not one as deeply flawed as McCain.
C: PRIMARY.exe
Go read a book while I get my act together. . .
Welcome to adventure, CLINT0N! Would you like instructions?
>NO
You are at the bottom of a seemingly endless stair, winding its way upward beyond your vision. An eerie light, coming from all around you, casts strange shadows on the walls. To the south is a dark and winding trail.
>Secure presidency
You are not able to do that, yet.
>Secure vice-presidency
You are not able to do that, yet.
>Go right
John McCain is here.
>Take a shot
Taken.
>Railroad Michigan and Florida
You need the pledged delegate count to do that.
>Take pledged delegates
I don't think Obama would agree.
>Secure presidency
You are not able to do that, yet.
>Call media
Who do you want to call?
>George Stephenoplfsps
You call George Stephanopoulos. He arranges an ABC interview and enables you to call into question his journalistic credibility while distancing yourself from Nafta.
>Secure presidency
You are not able to do that, yet.
>Deploy sports metaphor
"We're going to knock balls out of the country's park for the home team, which is America."
>Secure presidency
You are not able to do that, yet.
>Secure vice presidency
You are not able to do that, yet.
>Take a shot
Taken.
Is it me, or is one of Clinton's arguments for continuing that many of her supporters are racist and won't support Obama in the fall?
342: I imagine that McCain physically attacking Obama would look pretty much like Don Zimmer attacking Pedro Martinez.
Hee!
I predict I'll enjoy laughing at McCain during the campaign as he'll continually remind me of that Rebel soldier charactiture who doesn't know the war is over. Then after he loses the election, I'll feel guilt over having laughed at an old man.
McCain could surely still take Obama in a fight.
A 5-1/2 foot guy in his 70s who can't lift his arms versus a 6'2" guy in his mid-40s who can still hoop it up?
How many McCains could you take in a fight?
Cindy McCain would have a better shot in a fight with Obama.
They could've done a lot worse than McCain for a general election candidate but he's quite beatable. And his main weakness is that people don't like Republicans or Bush at all this year, & Obama is quite good at policy attacks.
BTW, have you noted that one of the leading issues that the press uses to justify the continuation of the St. McMaverick treatment is McCain's opposition to torture (such as it was)? Maybe it wasn't a good idea for the Congressional Dems to let a major contender for the GOP nomination to play voice of reason & morality & define the left-most part of the debate on that issue for all those years. Not that it'll be all that decisive in November--I think what'll be decisive is the crappy economy & McCain's inability to come up with a response that doesn't sound exactly like what Bush has been saying for 7 years or credibly debate those issues. But relying that heavily on a GOP presidential candidate was never very bright.
A 5-1/2 foot guy in his 70s who can't lift his arms versus a 6'2" guy in his mid-40s who can still hoop it up?
Plus, Obama's from Chicago, so you know he would fight dirty in a second if the outcome were ever in doubt.
352: sure. But biting is allowed, and assume he's had his medication.
With any luck, the charm will fade, but it's not as obvious as everyone here seems to think.
Or, to put it another way, it's every bit as obvious that Obama will win as it was that Kerry would win. Whenever I think of 2004, I am filled with fear for the future of this country. (But then I think of 2006 and get over it.)
continually remind me of that Rebel soldier charactiture who doesn't know the war is over
"Remember the Maine McCain!"
327 is my experience, too, except they're not grad students. I know a number of relative centrists who really "like" Obama (optimism, energy, charisma, smart policies), but are just terrified by the idea of a guy with little "national" experience and who practically looks fresh out of college becoming president "in this day and age". It almost doesn't matter if McCain is senile; he's been through wars and gathered decades of experience in the Senate.
My worry is that for all these reasons the Republican "fear" campaign may be even more effective in a McCain/Obama election than it was in Bush/Kerry. 2001 is a more distant memory, but it's not at all forgotten.
But I could be completely wrong. I hope so!
The structural models predicted a Bush victory in 2004. This time, they predict an Obama victory.
327: Obviously analytic philosophy grad students with their trademark reality sense.
This time, they predict an Obama victory.
Don't the predict a Democratic victory? It's not over until it's over. HRC has been written off before.
WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton lent her presidential campaign $6.4 million over the past month....She gave her campaign $5 million earlier this year.
Holy crap.
362: That is so much more money than I will ever see in my entire life. This primary is so, so soul-crushing.
If HRC decides to stay in the race through the May 20 primaries, then Oregon will not only matter (for once), but will likely put Obama over the top in pledged delegates, seeing as how he's got under 40 to go and WV will be a Clinton blowout.
362: That's gotta hurt.
356: I really don't think Kerry ever had the deep support Obama has. He really wasn't as good a candidate. He had the right political agenda, but the wrong image. ("Elitist" stuck to Kerry because he was a bona fide member of the elite. Calling Obama "elitist" just doesn't ring any bells unless you're assuming that wanting to end war and change infrastructure are "elitist" positions.) I wasn't only worried about Kerry not winning; I was worried myself that I didn't actually want anyone to win. I couldn't bring myself to contribute to his campaign, which was running against Bush, not for himself. Obama is simply not in any of those positions.
BTW, have you noted that one of the leading issues that the press uses to justify the continuation of the St. McMaverick treatment is McCain's opposition to torture (such as it was)?
Not sure that his purported opposition to torture was either a necessary or a sufficient cause of the press love affair. The "maverick" image is a symptom, not a cause of the press fluffing. His unorthodox pronouncements on CFR, tax cuts, CO2, and torture could easily have been framed another way: as gadflyism à la Ron Paul, as personal/regional quirkiness à la Martinez and immigration, as opportunism à la HRC and flag burning, or even as not noteworthy, à la Harry Reid and abortion.
But no, he gets "Maverick above the partisn fray", the best possible framing.
Why? Because he flatters the press with his Straight Talk ®.
The press is slowly catching on that the McCain they used to love--the one who shared off-the-cuff, completely unspun personal views with them on the campaign trail--is last year's model. The Time or Newsweek cover story "What ever happened to straight-talkin' John McCain?" cannot be more than 90 days off, at this point.
I say that not because I have any faith in the national press, but because I have no faith in them at all. No amount of substantive flip-floppery, shameless pandering, or outright bamboozlement could ever dent their image of St. McMaverick. But a few poorly timed snubs or tired recitations of campaign talking points on the trail sure might.
$50,000 / year for 40 years is $2,000,000.
Plus, Obama's from Chicago, so you know he would fight dirty in a second if the outcome were ever in doubt.
He's from Hawaii, so when threatened he would offer the aggressor a fat doobie and a hug. This is why we must vote for Hillary, who learned how to use a switchblade on the mean streets of Park Ridge.
I agree that the main cause of the press love affair is access, barbecues, & the "we've repeated it so many times it must be true" effect.
Kerry was clearly a compromise, consensus candidate. He had very little personal base, just fewer weaknesses than the others.
This is a cliche, but nominating Mondales and Dukakises and Kerries and Gores is the Democratic disease. I don't think that it's purely The Media. Too much caution and play-it-safe.
Speaking of weaknesses for this candidate or that, I'm very eager to see Obama's strategy for reuniting the party over the next couple of months. Perhaps he'll choose Petey as his running mate. Regardless, if Clinton is in on the Democratic unit project, I'll learn to like her again.
He's from Hawaii, so when threatened he would offer the aggressor a fat doobie and a hug snarl "What? You got one beef, haole?" before slashing the aggressor's tires and stealing his i-pod.
Re: 2004, I'm pretty sure no incumbent running for reelection during a war has ever lost. (Vice-presidents running for president and other candidates from the incumbent's party have, though.) It would be great if Bush had been the first, but I don't think we can read too much into the fact that he wasn't.
grad students are largely political idiots, though, and likely haven't been paying that much attention to what the guy's been saying. The general hasn't started yet, after all. Most people are coasting on memories of 2000.
Sure. But they're the guys voting, and generally aren't considered to be low information voters. I am not saying, contra Emerson, that they're providing political analysis.
I'm saying that a roomful of anti-Bush voters thinks McCain is pro-choice, experienced, a straight-shooter: basically his 2000 image. I think that can be overcome, like snarkout illustrates, but it's not at all clear that it's going to be easy.
This is why we must vote for Hillary, who learned how to use a switchblade on the mean streets of Park Ridge.
You're not from these here parts, are you?
Regardless, if Clinton is in on the Democratic unit project, I'll learn to like her again.
I urge everyone to resist this. There were substantive reasons to hate Bill and Hillary Clinton long before they became an irritating obstacle on Obama's path to the White House, and those reasons will still remain valid long after this campaign is over.
Also, 363 is so true. Well, not the part about that being more money than I'll ever see in my life. In fact, I think the platinum shower/bath we just had installed during the remodel is worth just shy of $11 million. But the suggestion that the amount of money sunk into this primary has been the biggest scandal of all is right on. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the war, of course, but it's really sick and depraved that we spend this much time and cash on so little.
The Field speculated that it might begin with asking his supporters to help w/ her campaign debt. I can't say that financing debt incurred characterizing me as an out of touch eltist cult member would make me want to donate very much, but it might be smart.
I know this goes against the Unfogged consensus, but I think Kerry was a fine candidate. He didn't run a great campaign, and the other guys did.
Perhaps he'll choose Petey as his running mate.
That is hilarious.
if Clinton is in on the Democratic unit project, I'll learn to like her again.
I thought one of her new talking points was that the superdelegates should back her because many of her supporters wouldn't vote for Obama in the fall. I know this is framed as a prediction but it sounds more like a threat, to me.
Kerry is a fine person in many ways & probably would've made a fine President, but I foresaw the "not running a great campaign" thing around the New Hampshire primary. Actually, I thought at the time that the convention & debates were better than I expected.... Sometimes it's better to trust your lying eyes over the polls or the press when evaluating a candidate's political skills.
367: he meant all at once, in a big pile.
374: they are low-information voters, though, they just think that they aren't. This, at least, has been my limited experience. Grad students here, and grad students I'm dating, obviously (obviously!) excepted.
365: John Kerry got tagged as an elitist because that was what the media decided to do - as it did with Gore. The idea that Kerry was somehow more "elite" than the Ivy legacy son of a president has no basis in reality. Lack of a rational basis didn't make that attack any less effective.
Obama has a fancy education and liberal ideas - that's more than enough to get the media's "elite" tag. And, don't tell anyone, but Obama is black. This country has a long history of white politicians getting race-baited.
But yeah, I too think Obama has the skillz, and the liberals have started to grasp that the media is an enemy, and has started doing something about it. And for the record, I've made the bet Ari is seeking in 293, and I have a lot of confidence that I'll win it.
378: But surely Bill can just give a few more speeches? Sloppily embrace more journalist-beheading despots?
376: Stras, I agree that the Clintons have a lot to answer for. But the party needs mending right now, because McCain needs beating. Demonizing Clinton, if she comes back into the fold, is not going to do much to reassure women of my mother's generation -- who vote in huge numbers -- that there's any percentage in turning out for Obama in the general.
Seriously, it's Clinton's move. If she demonstrates that the party matters to her more than her fool's errand/vanity project of a campaign, it's time to reach out to her supporters.
Also, fuck a bunch of elitism-charging from Clinton. $11 million out of her personal fortune to keep her campaign alive? Christ.
The worst thing about the cost of campaigns is that most of it goes to toxic broadcast media. We're fattening up some of our own worst enemies. And enemies of the American people and democracy. Even when they're not being Republican, they're shits -- look at Chris Matthews. He's a non-partisan centrist of sorts, but almost always completely worthless.
My concern about Kerry was when I heard people who had worked closely with him "I just think to myself, 'John? Really?' I mean it's great, but..."
He just didn't have the political skills Obama does. Not by, like, a whole lot. Also Walt's point about the models with an excellent predictive record is important, and oddly widely ignored.
I don't disagree with 385, it just reminded me: the one big demographic change I saw in the results yesterday was that the gender gap shrunk dramatically & female turnout was relatively low compared to most other states.
I'm pretty sure no incumbent running for reelection during a war has ever lost.
Lyndon Johnson.
My beef with carry, and it's a big one, is that his campaign took a sort of vacation in August while the Swiftboat BS was seeping in, and in general took a high-road approach to the Republican shit-flinging. That works in Massachusetts, but not in the actual U.S. of A. we know and love.
And not deigning to respond is quintessentially elitist.
391: Didn't he just decline to be placed in the position of losing?
369-
A little nitpicky, but he's still citing a country that no longer exists... McCain just said the United States should set up a missle (sic) defense system in Czechoslovakia. Should we assume he meant the Czech Republic?
MSNBC getting nitpicky on McCain.
391: um, he didn't actually run.
My beef with carry
Are you using voice recognition software, John?
Dammit Jetpack, I'm the historian. That's my thing. It's really all I've got.
If it helps, I was pwned too. Damned classicists claiming everything for their field.
Obama's a lot better than Kerry at actually responding to hits. He doesn't attack back with the same viciousness, so he keeps most of his above-the-fray dignity, but he acknowledges what the attacks are about and what issues they raise. The Swift Boat thing was something Kerry wasn't willing to even acknowledge was happening, semi-understandably. He thought his reputation would speak for itself, but reputations don't speak to low-info voters. Obama seems to get that.
Didn't he just decline to be placed in the position of losing?
Well, if you want to say that when Hillary drops out, she didn't "lose," be my guest. The point is, a war president can certainly be beaten if the war is perceived as futile.
385: Of course the party doesn't matter to Clinton; that's been clear for weeks. Hell, it was clear during her husband's presidency that he didn't give much of a fuck about "the party," and saw liberals as his enemies. I don't want to "demonize" the Clintons - as I've said, they've done an excellent job of that on their own over the last decade and a half - I want to marginalize them. And to do that, I'd like to appeal to those who've been temporarily jarred out of their partisan love of "the Big Dog" to actually consider the records of the Clintons, the DLC, and the neoliberal movement in general, and to consider them not by the metric of whether they were "good for the party," but in terms of whether they were good for liberalism, for the country, and for the world. And I would suggest that when we judge these people by the same standards we use to judge Republicans, that answer becomes a resounding "no."
399: Oh, I didn't see that. Damn, a classicist pwned you; you're slow.
That is, reputations are constantly being reconstructed by the media, and so are notoriously malleable. I look forward to seeing Obama's campaign do some serious damage to McCain's so-called reputation, which I think they can do without sounding biased or nasty.
401: but you don't actually know that this is the case. You -- and at the time Johnson -- are making that assumption. Even if you take that assumption as valid, which, hey, sure thing, so many other aspects of the situation (President's party, state of the world, actual war we're talking about, state of the nation, state of the economy, general prevalence of hippies) is so different as to make it's value even as a counterfactual sort of minimal, leaving us once again with the bare fact that no incumbent president running in wartime has ever lost.
403: Watch it, n00b. Or I'll go all Harmodias and Aristogeiton on you.
Ok, I will try one more time, though on a blog that calls "cherry-pickin" while having front-page posts about hate and dreaming of Clinton getting hit by a bus I am not optimistic.
After 400 years of violence & oppression what exactly would we expect the first viable American black candidacy to entail? Would we presume there was no rage or anger left in Black America, that they had "gotten over it", had internalized reconciliation and forgiveness? But an "angry black" wouldn't be a viable candidate.
And not just the blacks, but the other major demographic, the college-educated urban professional, with their college debt and constrained opportunities and constant reminders they aren't the greatest generation or boomers, facing a catastrophic future.
So one should actually look for a dynamic of Nietzschean ressentiment, one should expect it to be there. One should expect an uplifting rhetoric, an over-positive self-image, combined with a barely hidden homicidal rage.
Rage acknowledged & expressed can be cathartic. Rage repressed is a killer. I think I need to read Genealogy again.
328: So, I click through to discover that post is a joke, and the Clinton supporters are the truly insane shitshows on that thread. You probably didn't even notice that, did you.
402: I wonder if events mightn't be doing the work of marginalizing them for you, and if people are more concerned about helping their supporters -- a significant minority of the Democratic party, including some with (unfortunately) buckets of money -- not feel as marginalized as they (hopefully, in the case of the bucket types) actually will end up being?
Oh wow -- so McGovern has switched his vote to Obama and urged HRC to quit?
408: or he was making a (rather successful, I must say) self-deprecating joke on us, in that strange, cranky mcmanus way that will remain opaque until, oh, ever.
409: They'll be a lot less marginalized if high-information Dems start getting the warm fuzzies for them again once this is all over.
How is the Zimmer fight video not on YouTube?
412: we can pretend well enough without inviting Schumer and the hedge funds over for dinner. Obama doesn't need their money in any case, what leverage will they have?
The Bread and Peace electoral model has the Republican share of the vote at 47%. (This changed from 50%-ish late last year, apparently as the economy started to stall out.)
405: Lyndon Johnson ran for re-election in 1968. He lost. But if I've got Ari against me on this, I don't suppose I'm going to convince anybody.
As to the relevance of Johnson's defeat to the particular question at hand, that seems self-evident. If a wartime president loses an election, that demonstrates that a wartime president can lose an election.
413: I know, I wanted to link to it! I can only assume that Zimmer sits at home snarling in front of the computer, constantly refreshing YouTube and having his lawyers contact them immediately whenever someone posts it.
If a wartime president loses an election drops out in the primary, that demonstrates that a wartime president can lose an election. drop out in the primary.
Yes, very true.
416: Ari seems to be engaged in semantics here. Johnson's reelection bid was a failure; it was a failure because of the war. That he chose to drop out instead of losing in November doesn't make it any less of a failure, and it seems like that failure can be directly attributed to Vietnam.
You can see it at the beginning of this video, but it's brief.
How is the Zimmer fight video not on YouTube?
Damn, a classicist pwned you; you're slow.
Don't knock the classicists. We'll need all their help to translate McCain's early policy statements and vote records.
401: There's good reason to believe that Johnson would have won in '68 and very little reason to think that he would have lost.
407: One should expect an uplifting rhetoric, an over-positive self-image, combined with a barely hidden homicidal rage.
Oooh, nice twist on the "fascist cult leader" meme. This is a return to form, Bob!
420: but it isn't semantics! He dropped out rather than face what he believed would be defeat in the general, but he didn't run in the general! The proposition that he, an incumbent president during wartime, would have lost in the general, was not tested.
424: If you say so, Professor Turtledove.
Who loves ya, baby?
The Apostropher!
Points to Zimmer for pluck, but that remains hilarious.
And I mean, outside of everything else, Johnson also signed the civil rights act. If you want to point to one thing that sunk his candidacy -- given the Democratic coalition of the time -- I would consider looking there, first, especially given the climate of racial strife in 1968.
If Obama wins he has to remake the party, which means going into the DNC and extracting the DLC / Clinton tools. Dean started the job and Obama should definitively finish it.
They should also put together a blacklist of consultants, too, starting with Carville and Penn.
I actually admired Carville during Clinton's first term, because he's good at playing the game. But he's a mercenary jerk, and his politics are about as bad as a Democrat can get.
Also, fuck a bunch of elitism-charging from Clinton. $11 million out of her personal fortune to keep her campaign alive? Christ.
They had a lot less money, personally that is, in 1992. I wonder if being really rich as opposed to very comfortably upper middle class has changed their abilities at all.
Kerry can fight and do more than stand above the fray. He just didn't know how to do it in a national election. When he's been challenged in MA, he hasn't been super refined or anything.
It's hard for me to read 407 as anything but the racism I've always suspected was lurking beneath Bob's antipathy for Obama finally leaking out. Good for you, Bob, embrace your inner George Wallace!
426: And he lost by dropping out of the primary. If Hillary Clinton drops out before the convention, we'll all say that she lost the nomination to Barack Obama, not that "she dropped out, but she didn't lose, because who knows, if she'd gone all the way she could've totally taken it, man."
416:
Wikipedia doesn't give exact delegate counts, but makes it seem like Johnson dropped out from the race for the Democratic nomination long before enough delegates could have been assigned to say that he would have lost. Wikipedia also makes it seem like he would have had an uphill battle to the nomination, but his health concerns were at least as important a factor to the decision to drop out of the race. You can say that he would have lost if he had gone all the way, but it looks like it was still up in the air.
Actually, upon re-reading 407, I have no idea whatsoever what to make of it.
He dropped out rather than face what he believed would be defeat in the general
Someone more in command of the facts can correct me here, but I always thought he dropped out because he was worried about his chances in the primary (what with the possibility of a challenge from Dixiecrats on the right, McCarthy on the Left, and potentially RFK on the center). I never thought that he was that worried about the Dems chances in the general.
There's good reason to believe that Johnson would have won in '68 and very little reason to think that he would have lost.
Ari, George Wallace is the reason to believe LBJ would have lost in '68.
435: b-but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about 2004, and whether Bush was beatable by Kerry given the historical record. If he had dropped out in favor of Bill Frist, would Frist have been beatable by Kerry in '04? Who the fuck knows? Who cares?
But on the bright side, if 407 is correct, David Brooks & Andrew Sullivan did NOT know something that Obama's liberal Democratic supporters didn't when they swooned (or in Brooks' case fake-swooned) over him...
The tut-tutting from Joe Buck and Tim McCarver is the icing on the cake. So great.
Wow, 407 is like all of Bob's greatest hits rolled into one. I half-suspect he's joking because it reads as such obvious self-parody, from the barely-sublimated racism to the crazily paranoid generational tribalism.
And I mean, outside of everything else, Johnson also signed the civil rights act.
And aside from Iraq, W was uncontroversial ?
Gene McCarthy's issue wasn't race.
424: Ari, what's the narrative for Johnson's departure from the race, then. He didn't see himself as politically crippled ?
Anyway, this gives us a good conciliatory unity narrative for the Hillary supporters: She didn't lose, she just dropped out !
439: That's what I thought too. But what do I know? I'll just go back to the reforms of Cleisthenes . . .
426: Look at the general that year. Humphrey, Johnson's horrible campaigner of a veep, nearly won. And that with Wallace in the field. Also, Humphry was a Yankee, whereas one has to assume that Johnson would have pulled away some of Wallace's votes. Johnson would have won.
I think Johnson dropped out because he just didn't like being President that much. (No, really.) He was worried about the primaries and he was worried about the general, but neither of those was in itself good reason to drop out so early instead of fighting.
And aside from Iraq, W was uncontroversial ?
Among his own party? Pretty much, yeah. I would even say "beloved".
Oh, and, I hate to be mean, but where does Yggles find these people?
I took a look at McCain's site this evening I have never gone there before when I came on line to check things out I checked mainly blog sites. Then selected the HillaryClinton.com site when I got a new computer and did not have my bookmarks.
I have donated bought a wardrobe,jackets, shirts, hats, misc. and saw that there are some neat things at McCain's site tonight that you may force me to sample if Hillary is not the choice.
452: that's a convincing argument, though.
He didn't see himself as politically crippled ?
Of course he did, but he wasn't necessarily right about that.
Also, 439's right. Right, that is, insofar as anyone really knows why Johnson quit (bad health, depression, worries about losing the primary, wanted to spend more time with Ladybird, etc.). Which raises this important point: there's no way of knowing if Johnson would have won had he stayed in the race. But it seems, based on the final vote tallies, that he would have.
441: Oh, are we talking about the "was Bush beatable?" thing? I don't know if he was, but if he wasn't beatable it wasn't on general "no one can beat a war president" grounds. It was because Democrats ran a guy who couldn't meaningfully challenge him on foreign policy, and in fact refused to do so at all until very late in the campaign. The war itself was already very unpopular by 2004, and Bush himself had an approval rating that was dipping into the low 40s. But the Democratic Party couldn't meaningfully fight him on the war, because almost all their candidates had voted for it.
Johnson's a bad example of a wartime president who lost even if you accept that he did lose because the whole civil rights thing can't have helped. It would have been like if Bush had converted to Satanism and sacrificed a virgin in Golden, Colorado.
Wartime presidents aren't invincible, but they're still a safe bet.
452: Or rather, why do they keep finding him? Maybe he has an air of barely-hidden homicidal rage.
416 - it's not exactly right to say Johnson ran for re-election and lost. Johnson didn't announce any plans one way or the other, but it was kind of generally assumed he was running. McCarthy declared his candidacy, and nearly beat Johnson (who won off write-in votes) in New Hampshire.
Then, as Wisconsin approached, polls made it clear Johnson would lose. Believing his candidacy deeply damaged, Johnson decided not to run again. But I don't think it's at all clear that if he'd gone all in he would have lost the nomination.
Humphrey won the nomination entirely based on support from non-primary states. By the time of the convention, he wasn't looking especially more viable than LBJ. Johnson might very well have been able to claim the nomination, if he'd wanted to. He just decided it wasn't worth it - that he wouldn't possibly win the general election, and that it was better to give Humphrey a shot.
(Something similar happened with Truman in 1952 - another deeply unpopular wartime president).
In 1968 LBJ ran in one primary, NH, which he won (Mar. 12). However, McCarthy did surprisingly well, showing LBJ's weakness, and RFK entered the race on Mar. 16. LBJ withdrew on Mar. 31. The next primary was Indiana -- McCarthy vs. Kennedy vs. an Indiana favorite son (Branigin) standing in for Humphrey, who was now in the race. Kennedy won. After that it was Kennedy vs. McCarthy, vs. a series of favorite sons, and maybe Humphrey himself a few time.
So LBJ entered one primary, won it, and withdrew before the next one took place.
Re unification of the party and bringing Clinton back into the fold. This morning the Campaign said they were going full speed ahead and argued that Obama was unelectable because her supporters were so loyal that they wouldn't vote for Obama in the fall. I would think that loyalty to Clinton would mean loyalty to health care, withdrawal from Iraq, and reproductive rights. The only way I can make sense of this claim to loyalty is that she is reminding the superdelegates that Obama is black (wink wink). Well, Hillary Clinton's chief strategist just argued that "the North Carolina contest, which Obama won by 14 points, represented "progress" for Hillary because she did better among white voters there than she did in Virginia."
Obama should continue to reach out to white, working-class voters by reminding them that it is in their best interest to vote for him. The Clintons, on the other hand, lost any right to reconciliation this morning, at the very latest.
Forgetting 1968, for those of you who haven't waded into Yglesias's, or Ezra's, or MyDD's comments recently, DON'T. Those places are where hope goes to die.
457- But the Democratic Party couldn't meaningfully fight him on the war, because almost all their candidates had voted for it.
Correct. Kerry didn't so much lose the election as much as he couldn't win it.
Pretty much, yeah. I would even say "beloved".
"It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile."
Johnson would have won.
Bullshit. Humphrey did as well as he did in part because he tried to two-step himself away from Vietnam. Johnson had no way to distance himself from the war because he'd have to distance himself from himself. I'd expect Johnson to do worse than Humphrey, not better.
463: I did last night when someone linked to T/yl/r M/rsh. My goodness. Not even concealed racism and unhinged ranting about "that bitch, Michelle." Seriously?
458 to 457. I do think we're squabbling around the margins; I think the fact that Kerry got so close, despite allegedly not being a particularly strong candidate and running against an incumbent President (one popular among his own party, running in a time of (admittedly illusory) economic prosperity) in wartime, argues against the idea that his candidacy was such an obvious bad idea.
I argue this in part, I should say, to convince myself not to be too hard on the guy. He had a lot stacked against him besides his own personal failings, and he did come very close.
462: Give her until week's end. She and her staff have to be hurting and angry today. They've been involved in an effort the likes of which most of us can't understand. They've gone from inevitable to (likely) an afterthought. And they really believe that it's totally unfair and wrong and bad for the country and, don't forget, a harbinger of joblessness (for many of the key operatives). Again, give them a couple of days to sort out what's what. If she's still attacking on Friday or Monday, we can talk about the hog option.
449 - Johnson would not have won. That's absurd. What states would he have won that Humphrey did not? Note that Humphrey won Texas. He would have been more popular in the south than Humphrey, but not enough more popular to actual win any states besides Texas (Wallace basically won the states that Johnson didn't win in 1964; Nixon won states which he had already won in 1960, plus South Carolina, which voted for Goldwater in 1964)
Humphrey was losing by massive margins throughout the campaign, and only came back at the end to make it close by distancing himself from Johnson and coming out against the war (or coming very close to doing so). Johnson could not have distanced himself from his own administration's policy, so he would not have come back and made it close.
Plus, for all Humphrey's mediocre campaigning ability, Johnson could not have campaigned. By 1968 he could only make appearances at military bases - everywhere else protesters would come and heckle him so much that he couldn't even speak. Humphrey faced some of that, but not nearly to the same extent.
I'd say that, looking at the electoral map, a Johnson/Humphrey vs. Nixon/Agnew vs. Wallace/LeMay race would see Nixon winning all the states he actually won, plus Washington, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Maine (which Humphrey won largely thanks to Muskie, I think). He'd have a good shot at New York and Connecticut, too. Johnson could have ended up winning only Texas, Minnesota, D.C., West Virginia, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Hawaii.
I like the fact that this primary has everybody here so amped on arguing election hypotheticals that they no longer have to be about current elections.
I argue this in part, I should say, to convince myself not to be too hard on the guy.
I'm not all that hard on Kerry at all; I personally kind of like him, or at least about as much as I like any major former presidential candidate. There was nothing wrong with him that wasn't (and isn't) wrong with the Democratic Party. His campaign was a product of the party, from his decision to avoid foreign policy and focus on "pocketbook issues" to his initial decision, along with the majority of Senate Dems, to vote for the war in order to "take it off the table" for the 2002 midterms. Democrats who blame 2004 on Kerry are like dogs who bark at their tails.
466: Stras, Humphrey was getting creamed until the eleventh hour. Then a decent minority of the electorate realized that Nixon was venal and Agnew was nuts. Again, this despite the fact that Humphrey was a lousy candidate. seen as illegitimate by a good portion of his base. Johnson, by contrast, was an incumbent, a Southerner, and a brilliant campaigner.
All of that said, 'tis but idle speculation. The key point is that Johnson didn't lose. No incumbent ever has during wartime in American history. Lincoln and Truman both came close, though.
I do sort of wish he'd listened to my mom when she pleaded with him not to vote for the war (true story!).
474 to 472. As far as I know my mom never talked to Humphrey.
I was enjoying the following realization the other day: annoying as this incredibly drawn-out primary season has been, it really has enabled me to forget, for a surprisingly extended period, that Bush is still president.
476: I think he's forgotten too.
Johnson, by contrast, was an incumbent, a Southerner, and a brilliant campaigner.
Johnson was a brilliant campaigner in 1964. By '68 he was wiped out and washed up, which is one of the reasons he quit (and thus lost the race! hint: you can't win if you quit.).
You know what I never get tired of? Drawing conclusions about immutable rules of American politics based on the outcomes of presidential elections with a sample size of like, 4.
.....a harbinger of joblessness (for many of the key operatives).
:-)
:-)
:-)
Any chance that some of them will end up on food stamps or working at a quicky-mart?
479: boy are you in the right place!
You know what I never get tired of? Drawing conclusions about immutable rules of American politics based on the outcomes of presidential elections with a sample size of like, 4.
GOD, YES.
479: Who said, other than you, that it's an immutable rule?
a sample size of like, 4.
Katherine beat me to the punch.
483, meet 405.
leaving us once again with the bare fact that no incumbent president running in wartime has ever lost
I think that the Vietnam War destroyed LBJ's own morale. At the end of his life he explicitly said that he's been misled by his generals. By 1968 I think that he knew that his reputation was irreparably damaged, and that there would be no way for him to extract himself from the Vietnam mess.
Some think that he failed to effectively support Humphrey. 1968 also destroyed Humphrey's reputation, after a very successful and in many respects path-breaking career (e.g. on civil rights).
479: But don't you think it's remarkable that incredibly unpopular presidents have won so long as there's a war going on?
Ari, you're making distinctions without differences.
485: but that's all it is. A bare fact, which is literally true. I make no claims for the idea that it can't be done. Only that it is difficult enough that it hasn't been done, something that is, again, literally true.
485: Stras, there's a quite a distance between a bare fact and an immutable rule. It is, actually, a bare fact that no incumbent president has ever lost during a war. It is not, though, an immutable rule.
My fellow Americans, on this glorious day, rather than looking back, we should be looking forward, forward to the elimination of our political enemies.
I hate you with the fire of a thousand suns, Jetpack.
But don't you think it's remarkable that incredibly unpopular presidents have won so long as there's a war going on?
No, given that the circumstances in each case were pretty damn different. In 2004, for instance, there was no anti-war candidate; there wasn't even a coherent anti-war critique being voiced by the opposition. In 1972, Nixon wasn't unpopular at all, and his anti-war opponent was slagged by an intraparty brawl. Who was the last one before that, Truman?
Okay, folks, to backtrack about 200 comments, I just watched bunch of videos over at McCain's website. He doesn't seem nearly as decrepit and incoherent as you led me to believe. Seems to me to present relatively well. His hard push that "Bush botched the execution" may nullify that issue, I think. I still say we're doomed.
Also, fuck a bunch of elitism-charging from Clinton. $11 million out of her personal fortune to keep her campaign alive? Christ.
Money means nothing to her. She finds herself somehow possessing money, and the first thing she does with it is not hoard it, but sacrifice it for the good of her campaign, which itself is an act of sacrifice for the good of the country.
Meanwhile Obama, not being one of the world's wealthiest people, has nothing to lose and is risking nothing by this vanity campaign. Oh why must these elitists persecute the salt of the earth?
489, 490: A bare fact which is presented as though it has explanatory power. That is, as if it were a rule.
374: I'm saying that a roomful of anti-Bush voters thinks McCain is pro-choice, experienced, a straight-shooter: basically his 2000 image.
That's how McCain got the nomination (besides the under the table help from Bush); 'liberals' crossed over and supported him in New Hampshire by casting an anti-war vote. That's the Big Problem for D's in this election.
435: If Hillary Clinton drops out before the convention, we'll all say that she lost the nomination to Barack Obama, not that "she dropped out, but she didn't lose, because who knows, if she'd gone all the way she could've totally taken it, man."
If Obama loses, you're going to get months of 'If it had been me, we woulda won!'
Hillary is not going to drop out until Obama has actually gotten the actual number of delegates required to win. All of them. Full stop.
max
['Because she's a hamster on speed in the media wheel of life.']
That's how McCain got the nomination (besides the under the table help from Bush); 'liberals' crossed over and supported him in New Hampshire by casting an anti-war vote. That's the Big Problem for D's in this election.
This reminds me, the Republicans who voted for HRC in Indiana because they want her to be the losing candidate in November may not have been a lot of people, but it does seem that they swung the primary enough for her to win.
495: Oddly enough, they've chosen the videos in which he does well for his website. That's crackerjack marketing, that is. Seriously, pull up some YouTubes, especially of his speech the night of the Ohio/PA primary. He's practically translucent, or at least bluish, like skim milk.
Oh whatever, sue me for a little hyperbole. This is a constant, annoying feature of political analysis: Senators can't win because they haven't recently! Well, I guess that one will bite the dust for a while this year. Only Southern Democrats can win, because Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton were from the South. Wartime incumbents always win, and the one previous example of a war as unpopular as Iraq, where the wartime incumbent dropped out due to the war's unpopularity, isn't a relevant counterexample because LBJ might've pulled it out. The taller candidate always wins, except when he doesn't. etc. etc. Conditions in 2004 were less favorable for Dems than 2008--look at the Congressional situation for evidence of that--but Kerry could've won. He almost did, and it's not like he ran the ideal campaign.
495: check out his NH victory speech on youtube.
Re: 407
Why did I think that bob was African-American?
I just watched bunch of videos over at McCain's website
They're really going to showcase the unflattering videos of him over at his official campaign site.
Hypothesis: now that Clintons clearly toast, the difference between those who "objected to her policies" and those whose hatred of her is based in (unconscious, to be sure!) misogyny will reveal itself as the difference between gracious winners and folks who need to rub one out it in.
I just watched bunch of videos over at McCain's website
And products always look pretty good in commercials for them. You can do better, Brock. That said, I'm basically with Cala on McCain's strength as a candidate, but think the election will be decided by the state of the economy, Iraq, and terrorist attacks.
497: And thus begins the splitting of hairs portion of our morning. Honestly, Stras, you and I agree on nearly everything. Given that, let's put this unbelievably silly argument aside and focus on making jokes about McCain's age.
Then a decent minority of the electorate realized that Nixon was venal and Agnew was nuts.
Nonsense. Humphrey came back because he distanced himself from Johnson on the war, and because of Johnson's bombing pause. Agnew probably hurt Nixon a little, but not substantially.
And to the extent that Humphrey was hated by the students and anti-war types, it was because he was tied to Johnson, whom they hated much much more (Hey, Hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?)
And sure, Johnson was a southerner. But what southern states would have have won other than Texas (which Humphrey did win)? Humphrey didn't even come close to winning a single other southern state.
but Kerry could've won
On the other hand, you say this based on as little (less?) evidence as we are marshalling in saying it would have been very difficult. If all we're doing is indulging in pointless counterfactuals and blame-casting, why not summon a little history to our side?
505: Why would this be the case? I object to Clinton's policies, which is why I want Clinton, and her entire wing of the party, run out of politics.
507: technically it's no longer morning on the east coast.
505's not fair, B. Stras hates her for her policies. And his hatred of her and Bill is longstanding. He's no Johnny-come-lately hater. And though I'm being glib, my point is serious.
So, moving on: I think McCain's a lot weaker than we think. Turnout's gonna be high for the Dems, *if* Obama runs a smart campaign swing voters will have their noses rubbed in every one of McCain's idiotic demonstrations of ignorance (and who does *that* remind you of?), and frankly, if--as I'm sure will happen--Obama's candidacy gets pretty much every black voter who isn't disqualified by reason of past felony conviction (fucking racist bullshit laws) out to the polls, I think that'll make a sizable difference, especially in the south.
Also, would Ari like to argue that Truman would have beaten Eisenhower in 1952? Now there was an unpopular president.
489- Well, what's the point of mentioning that bare fact without the implication that it's a determinant. The fact that Katherine said 'immutable' and you didn't is immaterial to the point that the assertion is based on 4 instances.
507: technically it's no longer morning on the east coast.
Don't remind me, Sifu.
512: In that case, we will have to watch stras like a hawk for signs that he is being inconsistent with his principles and failing to sufficiently hate Obama.
Why did I think that bob was African-American?
And against the self-reported evidence, even.
I really love the name Spiro T. Agnew.
512: I have my own personal sense of the tone of Stras's criticisms and his inability to distinguish between Bill and Hillary, but I'm no inclined to get into personal judgment like that in public (notwithstanding what many of you think). I merely put it out there as a hypothesis to be considered by those who are so inclined.
505: I objected to her policies long before she ever declared her candidacy for president.
WTF, Tweety? You usually don't go in for this nonsense. I am basing my conclusion on the very close margin in 2004, everyone's uncertainty of the outcome the night before, and the proposition that campaigns influence candidates' chances of success. People arguing something was NOT even possible regardless of the actions taken by the Democratic party or its nominee have a higher burden of proof.
508: Sorry, I'm not fighting any more. I've said my piece. You've said yours. We disagree. McCain's still the color of skim milk.
I object to Clinton's policies, which is why I want Clinton, and her entire wing of the party, run out of politics.
Right. It seems that the opposite of 505 is true. People who were interested in the horserace and saw Clinton solely as an obstacle to Obama will be ready to make nice. People who genuinely object to Clinton and Clintonism, will push to keep them out. This is precisely not the time to make nice, nor to offer her any positions, or yadda yadda yadda. This is a chance to get the Penns and Carvilles and Lehanes and Blumenthals out of the Democratic party.
Why did I think that bob was African-American?
Because he's angry, incoherent, and ostracized?
/self-banned; anyhoo, I gotta get myself and my kid to school. Late.
bitch, a lot of hostility toward Clinton is not based on the fear that she'll win the nomination but on the fear that she'll drag things out despite the fact that she can't win & hurt Obama in November, which is still real enough.
Hypothesis: now that Clintons clearly toast, the difference between those who "objected to her policies" and those whose hatred of her is based in (unconscious, to be sure!) misogyny will reveal itself as the difference between gracious winners and folks who need to rub one out it in.
She needs to "graciously lose" first, which hasn't happened yet. And everyone needs to rub one out.
Okay, Ari, this is getting tiring. This is the first comment where the whole "wartime presidents don't lose" thing first comes up, and it's made by Cyrus in 373:
Re: 2004, I'm pretty sure no incumbent running for reelection during a war has ever lost. (Vice-presidents running for president and other candidates from the incumbent's party have, though.) It would be great if Bush had been the first, but I don't think we can read too much into the fact that he wasn't.
From there we go into a discussion of Johnson, and whether or not Johnson counts as "losing." Now, I find it very hard to read the above italicized passage as something other than a suggestion that wartime presidents don't lose reelection.
why not summon a little history to our side
See? See? He talks like history is at his beck and call.
He's no Johnny-come-lately hater.
A Johnny-come-hately, if you will.
Why did I think that bob was African-American?
Because he lives in Dallas, gets around on foot, and doesn't have a Mexican-sounding name?
522: I'm not really arguing that Kerry couldn't have won, so if I implied that, let me go ahead and back off. I'm arguing that people who say "of course he could have won, if he hadn't run a shitty campaign and been exactly the kind of anodyne pantywaist democrats always nominate" are ignoring historical facts which may well be more relevant than their sense of what should and shouldn't have happened.
520 is just unbelievably cheap, even for B. Oh, I'm just throwing out my little hypotheticals, don't mind me! Not talking about anyhow here! If you're going to accuse great swaths of people of sexism just f'in' do it, B.
Personally, I too objected to Hillary Clinton's policies long before she ran for President, but would love to move on and don't begrudge her supporters. What does that tell you about my personal level of sexism? Jack shit!
Why did I think that bob was African-American?
All those bobs look alike.
Why did I think that bob was African-American?
I always picture Bob like this, except with a butt-pack and berks.
People. The Clinton campaign has lost. Superdelegates in positions of real power have switched their promised votes. The party center's already shifting, and it's going to coalesce during the convention. Insisting that people who have already lost be continually punished suggests that *something's* going on beyond "we can't let them control the party"--since, after all, it's pretty clear that they won't.
520 is just unbelievably cheap, even for B.
Maybe I *want* to look cheap.
By the way, for review, here's our sample size for wartime elections in US history -
1812 - Madison wins re-election by a rather narrow margin over New York Governor De Witt Clinton
1864 - Lincoln easily wins re-election over General George McClellan, but only after Sherman's victories boost his popularity.
1944 - FDR wins re-election, but by the narrowest margin of all his victories, over New York Governor Thomas Dewey.
1952 - Truman, seeing imminent defeat, decides not to seek re-election
1968 - Johnson, seeing imminent defeat, decides not to seek re-election
1972 - Nixon wins a landslide victory over George McGovern, who is detested by at least half of the Democratic Party, at a time when it seems as though the Vietnam War is just about to end. (as it did)
2004 - Bush wins re-election by the narrowest popular vote win for an incumbent since 1916, over Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts - a shift of less than 60,000 votes in Ohio (1% of all votes cast) from Bush to Kerry would have made him president.
I'm not sure I see any strong pattern here. The really unpopular wartime presidents both decided not to seek re-election.
don't begrudge her supporters
If you'd like to keep that feeling, don't go reading Taylor Marsh's comment sections. Christ almighty.
529: only through the gracious efforts of the little people who worked so hard to write the books and articles I've skimmed.
People. The Clinton campaign has lost. Superdelegates in positions of real power have switched their promised votes. The party center's already shifting, and it's going to coalesce during the convention. Insisting that people who have already lost be continually punished suggests that *something's* going on beyond "we can't let them control the party"--since, after all, it's pretty clear that they won't.
"be continually punished"??? What I see here is commenters saying that people who have already lost should admit that they have lost, or at least stop campaigning against their party's candidate.
539: way ahead of you on that one.
537: well, I... fair enough, I guess. Everybody needs a hobby.
"we can't let them control the party"--since, after all, it's pretty clear that they won't.
They won't control the presidency. The Clinton/DLC wing still holds an enormous power center within the party and the media.
Why did I think that bob was African-American?
I can't even imagine. OTOH, I briefly thought Rick Astley was black, which is almost as mistaken.
She needs to "graciously lose" first, which hasn't happened yet.
No kidding. In light of last night, her campaign seems to be transitioning from "quixotic" to "batshit crazy".
"be continually punished"???
Well, I, personally, would like to see those supporters and their families wiped out unto the seventh generation, but I'm willing to set that aside in favor of implementing sharia first.
*something's* going on beyond "we can't let them control the party"--since, after all, it's pretty clear that they won't
The fuck? The very fact that HRC could credibly continue her campaign well past the point that an Obama victory was a mathematical near certainty--that she could raise money, that the press bought her narrative, that unpledged superdelegates were reluctant to cross her--speaks volumes about the influence of her faction over the party, win or lose. Even after her primary loss, she will still be the junior senator from the second biggest source of cash for the party, and her husband will be the first or close second largest fundraising draw. Now, I'm not as anti-HRC as some here, and I retain a pretty strong affection for Bill despite his recent antics, but it's not unreasonable, much less prima facie evidence of misogyny, for someone who finds her influence malignant to want to drive a stake through her heart.
drive a stake through her heart
Phalloviolent imagery. Sexist.
528: Again, I'm done with the argument. And not because I'm annoyed or certain that I'm right. It's just that it's a hypothetical. I've made my case. Others have made theirs. We can't actually run a test.
Also, on the other point, I don't think I read 373. Comity?
But don't you people see? It's just a hypothetical! B was making no claim as to whether her little theory had any basis in fact. She just thought her supposition -- more or less grossly insulting to many of the people on this thread, who are trying to figure out how to help the Democrat party become a force for better governance -- was a fascinating thought experiment for us to consider at our leisure. It wasn't an accusation, or anything like that. She didn't mean you, whoever you are.
Insisting that people who have already lost be continually punished suggests that *something's* going on beyond "we can't let them control the party"--since, after all, it's pretty clear that they won't.
It's not just about them not controlling the party; I want them to not have any influence in the party. I want them to be the kind of pariahs that Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are treated as. And if you think this is bitterness or misogyny or sour grapes, consider for a second that this isn't a fucking game, and that the Clintons and the Bayhs and the Bidens have left an America in which it's much nastier to be poor and black than it used to be, and a world with a lot more dead people in it. But I'm supposed to get all sad over the fact that one horrible amoral politician, whose one great career accomplishment has been to act as a cheerleader for a war that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, has lost her dream of being able to obliterate Iran? Fuck that.
The fuck?
B's just question-begging.
Insisting that people who have already lost be continually punished suggests that *something's* going on beyond "we can't let them control the party"--since, after all, it's pretty clear that they won't.
Remind me when she conceded? My gawd. She ran an inevitability campaign. She and WJC have been the effective heads of the party for fifteen or sixteen years. When was the last time that happened? FDR? There are no un-Clinton policy people: to get a job, you had to be a Clinton person. The distinction now is between those who were willing to declare against her by working for someone else, and those that will trundle in if she, in fact, ever concedes.
Let's be honest: if you have stras's political bent, you're a bit SOL, because to a great extent, everyone's a neolib. The saving grace of an Obama win is that you might not have to be a DLC neolib.
Jeebus.
Meanwhile, you know what isn't sexist? Frank, unapologetic racism.
The Japanese had lost World War II by late 1943. That didn't mean it was over then.
I have my own personal sense of the tone of Stras's criticisms and his inability to distinguish between Bill and Hillary, but I'm no inclined to get into personal judgment like that in public (notwithstanding what many of you think).
Praeteritio!
Well, I, personally, would like to see those supporters and their families wiped out unto the seventh generation, but I'm willing to set that aside in favor of implementing sharia first.
I'm willing to settle for having them airdropped into postwar Baghdad and left to fend for themselves.
I believe that the DLC Clintonistas should be continually punished. Most of them should be put in the stocks to be pestered by small children and nasty dogs, but Penn and Lehane and Carville go to the hog farm.
Those people have to be functionally out of there, so that they don't reinfect the party. (Hillary would certainly have purged the party if she had won. )
The really unpopular wartime presidents both decided not to seek re-election.
Sigh. You're just dead wrong. Lincoln was incredibly unpopular in the summer of 1864. He was sure that he would lose. But he but ran anyway because the cost of not running was too high.
433, 445:You're simply projecting. try reading it again, it's very sympathetic.
Hey I was there, I remember 1968. I remember MLK and cities burning down;I remember the flower children;I remember all the candidates talking of peace while the bombs were dropping.
And here we go again, a candidate who wants to "end the polarization and gridlock" (last night) in a year of nearly transcendental hate and rage. The rage & hate are completely justified; it is the rhetoric of comity and reconciliation that is literally insane.
Oh we are so fucked...again.
Okay, the NH speech was clearly not his shining moment, but it wasn't all that bad.
Hillary would certainly have purged the party if she had won.
The campaign has been threatening "wait till we win" for a while, at a minimum.
Johnson, seeing imminent defeat, decides not to seek re-election
Also, do you have any evidence for the "seeing imminent defeat" part of this?
his inability to distinguish between Bill and Hillary
I'd be more willing to distinguish between Bill and Hillary Clinton if Bill and Hillary Clinton tried to distinguish between themselves. The entire premise of the Clinton II campaign has been that she gets credit for the Clinton I administration, and I'll take that at face value if she wants it. But that's not a good thing in my book.
it is the rhetoric of comity and reconciliation that is literally insane the most likely strategy to win independent/low-info voters.
This isn't such a difficult thing to grasp, really.
Can't we just ignore the Clintons? Didn't Tim Russert's brilliant declaration just make them irrelevant? They have no power any more. Who cares if they're gracious or angry or whatever?
568 is endearing in it's wide-eyed naivete. Welcome, Bave. Would you like to read the archives?
As a hypothetical we also need to consider the possibility that Clinton's behavior over the past month or two has been sufficiently detestable that she's earned herself brand new enmity.
They have no power any more.
This is the part that isn't true. They still have their people in lots of positions of influence within the Democratic party. Consultants, pollsters, think-tankers, etc.
No way. Anyone who uses strikethrough is by definition an old hand.
it is the rhetoric of comity and reconciliation that is literally insane.
Not much of a New Testament guy, are you, bob?
Is it just me, or did ogged just totally get trolled by a (clearly kidding) asl?
Go asl!
if you have stras's political bent, you're a bit SOL, because to a great extent, everyone's a neolib.
This is very true.
The saving grace of an Obama win is that you might not have to be a DLC neolib.
My one hope for Obama in this regard - and I've been lowering my hopes for him by the day - is that his people aren't the self-styled revolutionaries of the neoliberal movement that Bill Clinton's were, who looked to actively pick fights with liberal groups and undermine liberal institutions because they thought that anyone to their left was the enemy. And that therefore Obama will be open to listening to views from slightly to his left on rare occasions, instead of actively seeking to prove himself to the right.
No way. Anyone who uses strikethrough is by definition an old hand. big ol' nerdy-nerd-nerd.
568 is endearing in it's wide-eyed naivete
You jus't cant hel'p yoursel'f, can you, Tweety?
Hey I was there, I remember 1968.
Get a haircut, hippie.
570: I know, I know. It's like my fingers moved themselves, against my will. Cursed, troll-prone fingers.
The really unpopular wartime presidents both decided not to seek re-election.
Quick ! Someone go fix the Wikipedia entry on Johnson:
and his reelection bid in 1968 collapsed as a result of turmoil in his party. He withdrew from the race
Wry, you've let Ari and Sifu catch you in their web of deceit, and you've adopted their bogus frame. Lyndon ran. His bid "collapsed" just as Wikipedia says. He withdrew. He did indeed seek re-election. He lost.
If we're going to give an exemption to candidates who drop out, are we also going to exempt candidates who run incompetent campaigns? "She didn't lose as such, she just ran a lousy campaign."
did ogged just totally get trolled by a (clearly kidding) asl?
I await a ruling from the judges asl.
Just to be clear, there are two (at least) separate issues: how to treat/what to do about Senator Clinton, and how to treat/what to do about her supporters. The two are related but not the same thing. This is so obvious I'm not sure why I'm hitting "post," but I feel like some people are conflating the two issues.
Consultants, pollsters, think-tankers, etc
...politicians. She has a fair number of superdelegates, most of whom declared early, and she has politicians who endorsed her. If Obama wins the nomination, and if he wins the presidency, then that will be the start of putting together the new a-(not anti-) DLC coalition. Which will have to include making peace with her/their strongest supporters, somehow.
528
I find it very hard to read the above italicized passage as something other than a suggestion that wartime presidents don't lose reelection.
I wouldn't have said, and didn't mean to imply, that Bush was unbeatable in 2004. There were many things Kerry could have done differently that probably would have helped him at least a bit, whether by swinging to the left or, anything's possible, to the right. And if a different Democratic candidate had won the nomination, who knows? I just think the odds were more against him than they "should" have been for someone challenging an unpopular incumbent.
Who knew the old man commenter had so much blood troll in him?
LBJ won the only primary he contested.
583- Upon review, the comment was not a troll, just stupid.
the new a-(not anti-) DLC coalition
Right. We still need the DLCers in order to form a governing coalition, but there's no reason they should be allowed to maintain their stranglehold on every power lever in the Party.
I'm willing to personally strangle Chris Lehane. Because I'm a feminist.
But if Obama was a phony it might be manageable. The problem is that he is sincere. There is a huge opportunity for analysis here.
He wants to bring the country together. This country can't be brought together. Obama is just another American tragedy, or the old one repeated.
I believe that the DLC Clintonistas should be continually punished.
Some regard it as anomolous that fundamentalist Christians see their belief in Hell as comforting. Emerson understands.
592- Not quite. What are we to make of the inference that the other sentences were correct?
This country can't be brought together.
You don't have to bring the country together. You only have to bring an additional 5-10% over to the D side for a stable governing coalition.
Kerry could potentially have won despite his war vote, by using one of two strategies:
a) He could have said that he was misled by the lying liar pants in the Bush administration, like the rest of America. This would have involved zillions of TV ads about Bush lying us into war.
b) He could have said that losing the war in Iraq was like tripping over your front step and breaking both legs. Bush is losing the war because he's an incompetent boob. A vote for Kerry is your last chance for victory.
Instead, he barely mentioned the war.
582: Web of deceit? Bogus frame? Serious queston: really? I'm only asking because I sometimes seem to misinterpret tone around these parts.
You don't have to bring the country together. You only have to bring an additional 5-10% over to the D side for a stable governing coalition.
...and get the media to reinforce the narrative that anyone who isn't onboard the bandwagon is vaguely un-American and not to be trusted.
It sure as hell worked for the other side, until GWB pushed the boundaries a little too far.
I can't believe nobody has mentioned that in 1968, primaries were not only very new but quite optional. Humphrey didn't even enter a single primary.
599: Or he could have campaigned in August, offering the nation a powerful speech about his service as a way of countering the SBVFT.
586: Not everyone who supported Clinton is/was pro-DLC. Barney Frank certainly isn't.
Can I just say that McCain winning Indiana and NC with 79% and 75% makes him appear less formidable?
Risking further mockery from Tweety: What's the downside, Bob? Say we elect Obama and you're right and I'm not: he really tries to unite the country and he fails. What then? The country isn't brought together, but I agree with you that it can't be, no matter who's elected. But you think something worse happens because the naive Obama fans get their hopes dashed than if Clinton or McCain is elected and nobody gets their hopes up to begin with?
If you're hoping for a heighten-the-contradictions presidency, wouldn't your predicted Obama disaster be a better way for History to indicate the ultimate emptiness of bourgeois meliorism? And if you're hoping for something less radical in terms of changing the mess we're in, isn't Obama the one most likely to pull off some positive changes?
re: Lincoln, indeed he was unpopular in the summer of 1864. He was renominated because the Republicans did not believe that they had any other options who would do any better (unlike the Democrats in 1952 and 1968). He won because the war turned around before election day - if Sherman had been stalled before Atlanta on November 8, McClellan probably would have won.
re: Johnson in 1968, he was certainly about to lose the Wisconsin primary to McCarthy. Given the results of the later primaries, he would have suffered a ridiculously embarrassing for an incumbent president series of defeats in the remaining primaries. He could probably have churned out the nomination, if he'd pulled out all the stops, but it would have been over an even more disastrously divided party than actually occurred, and this was already pretty clear at the point he dropped out. As to the general election, it had been widely seen to be a Republican year from long before McCarthy embarrassed Johnson in New Hampshire - possibly from as long ago as the 1966 midterm elections, when the Democrats lost 43 seats in the House. Nixon was leading in the polls throughout, and Humphrey only started to catch up by distancing himself from Johnson. Johnson was so hated that he couldn't have possibly campaigned effectively in 1968, because all his speeches would have been heckled. It would pretty clearly have been an utter disaster. I do not, indeed, have any specific evidence that this is precisely why Johnson decided not to run, but every account I've read of the subject suggests that his determination that he probably wouldn't win was his main reason for not running, or, at the very least, that such a determination encouraged his decision (as it did with Truman, whose choice not to run was more genuinely made on other grounds, I think.)
607: isn't Obama the one most likely to pull off some positive changes?
Nonono, Obama is a secretly homicidal fascist cult leader, Bave. According to Bob he's ten times more likely to nuke Iran to try to win conciliation with the Republicans, and meanwhile -- since everyone who likes him is a robot -- all opposition from within will be purged Khmer Rouge-style. Bob's objection to him is really more in this sort of vein.
wouldn't your predicted Obama disaster be a better way for History to indicate the ultimate emptiness of bourgeois meliorism?
Bave, Bob is not opposed to bourgeois meliorism because he fears it will fail, but because he fears it might succeed.
Also, McCain is the best candidate the Republicans could have nominated without the use of eugenics or animatronics. He's the only Republican of national stature who isn't tied to the Bush administration in the public imagination, the media loves him, and the public image of him is as a moderate. But the odds are stacked against him, and he shows signs of already fucking the campaign up. He needs to run as a moderate, and hope the base doesn't stay home.
This is so obvious I'm not sure why I'm hitting "post,"
Welcome to Unfogged! Now you must say who gets it exactly right.
I should make it clear that this isn't just about Clinton supporters. It's about the rightward tug that's been making the Democratic Party increasingly corporatist and increasingly right-wing over the last couple decades. Joe Biden, for instance, isn't in the Clinton camp - in fact, he gets constantly talked up as a possible Obama VP - but policywise he's as bad as anyone, an absolute corporate whore whose knee-jerk hawkishness is constantly praised as foreign policy expertise. The rot is pervasive and endemic; the Clintons are only the most obvious symptom of it.
613 gets it exactly right. Ironically enough.
Parsimon, you're hoping someone says that you get it exactly right, aren't you. Well, you're exactly right.
Your bill is in the mail.
DS, you're not supposed to give it away for free! How am I going to make any money?
619
gets
it
exactly
(continued on page 2)
TO READ THE REST OF THIS COMMENT, SUBSCRIBE TO FINANCIAL TIMES ONLINE!
609: Two quick points before I take a break. First, I'm really not sure why you think having anti-war protesters heckle him at his rallies would have hurt Johnson in the general election. It probably would have helped him in many ways, especially with some of the Democrats who went over to Wallace. Also, hard-core anti-war protesters didn't vote for Humphrey, either. So losing those votes wouldn't have made a difference in any purely hypothetical electoral math we'd try to do for Johnson.
And second, I'd be genuinely interested to know from which sources you're drawing your certitude about Johnson's reasons for withdrawing. I'm not familiar with a convincing argument that says that Johnson withdrew because he was positive he's lose -- not to say that he would have been right -- which isn't to say that such an argument doesn't exist.
I should make it clear that this isn't just about Clinton supporters. It's about the rightward tug that's been making the Democratic Party increasingly corporatist and increasingly right-wing over the last couple decades.
This statement strikes me as empirically dubious. I'm as frustrated as anyone with the performance of the Congressional Dems since 2000, both in their minority and majority incarnations, but can there really be any doubt that the median Democratic member of Congress is further left now than at any time in the last 40 years, possibly in history? We've bid good riddance to the racist wing of the party and its successors. An overwhelming majority of the caucus is pro-choice and a good-sized majority pro-gay rights. No Democrat opposes increasing the minimum wage, and only a handful oppose cardcheck unionization. Even the most pro-business Dem pays lip service to environmentalism--a far cry from the days of Bentsen, Breaux, and Boren.
The infuriating exceptions can be mostly chalked up to three categories
1. Cowardly hawkishness. By which I mean reluctance be seen as being on the wrong side of a foreign policy or defense policy debate, irrespective of the merits
2. Clientele politics. Where the Dem is beholden either to a home-state constituent or to a large bankroller. This explains Biden's heresy on bankruptcy, Hillary's on bank regulation, Boxer on intellectual property, and an unfortunately large number of other examples.
3. Issues where the "left" position is legitimately in dispute. Here I'm thinking of trade, fiscal policy in general, and arguably welfare policy.
There are only a couple of issues where a Congressional Dem takes an inexplicably right-wing stance, e.g. Baucus on tax policy. Other than that, there are very few issues where a sufficient political show of force by the member's own constituents couldn't bring them to a more congenial position.
It's about the rightward tug that's been making the Democratic Party increasingly corporatist and increasingly right-wing over the last couple decades.
It's also about what coalition you have. Recently the conventional wisdom is that the Democrats are pussies, that they are out of touch, &c, and the only people buying that faster than the Republicans are the goddamn Democrats themselves. So we keep getting a lot of 'to play in Peoria, I will be exactly like the Republican candidate, but with a different tie.' And faced with regular or lite, the voters pick regular.
I am sick to death of that, and that's what this primary has been. The only states that count, so goes the story, are ones where we have a shot at pretending to be Republicans. Not that we don't need to win PA, but fuck if we need to win it by buying into a story that says Jesus was a Republican.
619: Oh, crap. And the gift economy is about passive-aggressiveness and manipulation, if I remember correctly. I'm sorry. I just thought it was funny.
Um. To the extent that McCain is an attractive candidate to many people, and Clinton is similar to McCain in ways described by stras in 614, it's difficult to see how she and her type (i.e. DLC types) can be drubbed out the party easily. Yes, we'd like to see that, but I'd think that focusing on Obama's administrative team is of paramount importance.
Oh man, I'd be super depressed if Biden were VP. Do you think that Obama would do that to us? I don't want a credit card whore in the White House.
McCain winning Indiana and NC with 79% and 75%
Does this mean that people were voting for someone else or just leaving the line blank. In literally uncontested elections on a multi-office ballot, I sometimes don't vote for someone if I'm not enthusiastic. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't vote for the candidate in a contested election against someone I disliked more.
This statement Apostropher strikes me as empirically dubious. doobiest! Woo!
Does this mean that people were voting for someone else
Huckabee got 10% and 12%; Paul got 8% in each.
Huckabee, Paul, Romney, and "Uncommitted" got 25-30% of the vote in the last three Republican primaries.
625: 12% for Huckabee, 12% for Ron Paul, I would presume.
McCain's vote share is totally meaningless. He's already got the nomination sealed up so there is no reason for people who support him to bother getting up and voting for him in the primary, and especially not when there's an active Dem primary they can cross over to.
Interesting trivia: Romney got 19,500 votes in Indiana. Clinton only got 18,440 more than Obama.
Huckabee, Paul, Romney, and "Uncommitted" got 25-30% of the vote in the last three Republican primaries.
I wouldn't read too much into that result. If the field had been down to HRC and token opposition when I voted, I would have voted for someone else or left it blank to send a message, but I would no doubt cast a ballot for her in November.
623: Cala, you should read my roommate's book. (Because you've identified the problem that he addresses in the book, and because he could potentially put the spoils toward Wii games.)
Jesus, people. Stop the madness. Bill and Hillary are not the Lenin and Stalin of neoliberalism. American political parties are loose baggy coalitions that are not centrally run. Leaders are as much the creatures of the various social forces pushing their party to prominence as they are controllers of events. There have always been and will always be many factions within the party. Funding flows are critical -- Billary are far from having a monopoly on those, but to the extend they exercise too much influence it is because with the decline of unions the Democrats do not have the permanent institutional base the Republicans built around pro-business ideology.
For a "left-wing" party the Democrats are unusually capitalist / imperialist -- but this reflects the realities of power in America. The choices Billary made in both accomodating and opposing this power can be questioned, but were realistic for their time and circumstances.
The key question for the 80s and 90s was how to sustain and marginally expand the achievements of the New Deal and Great Society at the high tide of conservative reaction. The question today is how to build on the growing (and increasingly self-aware) popular majorities for liberal policies, which face substantial elite opposition. I have no doubt that both Hillary and Obama are genuinely interested in doing this, just as (as politicians) they are both deeply concerned with keeping and maintaining the power without which it cannot be done. It's becoming increasingly clear that Obama offers on balance better and more exciting possibilities for pulling this off than Hillary does -- and stopping him now would in any case almost certainly do more harm than good -- but that's no cause for hating Hill.
If you really want to understand how neoliberalism works, looking at Bob Rubin's career is going to give you a better perspective than Hillary's anyway. And I don't hate him either. People and politics are just creations of their time and circumstance, politicians and governments are not autonomous agents. Hating individuals is a stupid and draining distraction. At the least, it blocks you from understanding them.
623: So we keep getting a lot of 'to play in Peoria, I will be exactly like the Republican candidate, but with a different tie.' And faced with regular or lite, the voters pick regular.
Do the voters pick regular? I'm not sure about that. Militarism and corporatism, for example, are very popular, but the people in Peoria have their doubts, and a mediated message does actually seem to resonate.
Off to the pig farm with PGD. My patience is exhausted.
There's graffiti on a sidewalk near me that says "GOOGLE RON PAUL."
American political parties are loose baggy coalitions that are not centrally run.
Just like those hippity-hopper's pants. I knew they couldn't be trusted.
623: Cala, you should read my roommate's book.
Jesus, we stuffed the ballot! I don't think any of us need to pick up Flophouse: The Life and Times of Washington's Sexiest Print Journalist (Female).
People and politics are just creations of their time and circumstance,
So am I.
Politicians and governments are not autonomous agents.
Society is making me do this.
Hating individuals is a stupid and draining distraction.
Small pleasures like this are what makes life endurable.
At the least, it blocks you from understanding them.
I'm just a simple fellow. Let the academics "understand" those motherfuckers. Not my job. My job is feeding them to the hogs.
Society made Nader voters in 2000 do it.
Bill and Hillary are not the Lenin and Stalin of neoliberalism
No, they're the Klinton and Hitlery of neoliberalism. Smash! Burn! Kill!
Smash! Burn! Kill!
Finally, somebody's talking sense.
I think of a political party as a mouthful of individual teeth, some of which are perfectly healthy, some of which need to be filled, and some of which need to be pulled.
Actually, doing a root canal on Penn or Carville would be the most fun. First you scoop out all the pulp and then you fill the core up with a neutral synthetic of some sort. No more toothaches.
Actually, I half take back 633, now that I think about it more deeply. Lurid fantasies about purging the party have the following usefulness: they could define several ideological/policy boundaries over which Democrats could not be permitted to step without facing serious electoral consequences. This is what the conservatives did with taxes in Bush I. It has been extremely useful in helping them get greater control over the Republican party.
Although I'd point out that this is very different than cultivating personal hatreds, which are much, much less effective as instruments of control than insisting on some ideological uniformity.
Social Security and invading other countries for no reason are good places to start. More progress has been made on the first than the second. To the extent Hillary is perceived as losing the nomination over Iraq, it would help with the second.
I am looking forward to an orderly general election that will eliminate the need for a violent bloodbath.
PGD, we need to talk about your persistent rejection of hatred and vengefulness. Were you raised in some sort of love cult?
Perhaps he'll choose Petey as his running mate.
Is this old? Yes. Is this still funny? Yes, yes it is.
I think of a political party as a mouthful of individual teeth, some of which are perfectly healthy, some of which need to be filled, and some of which need to be pulled.
...most of which are crooked to a greater or lesser degree unless subjected to strong corrective controls, and which are generally more acceptable to the public the whiter they are.
can there really be any doubt that the median Democratic member of Congress is further left now than at any time in the last 40 years, possibly in history?
Yeah, I think there can be doubt, at least on economic/welfare/labor issues.
Emerson's plans for the Democratic Party.
My job is feeding them to the hogs.
John, you've never fed anybody to the hogs in your life and you're not going to start now.
Were you raised in some sort of love cult?
It's too much of that Willie Nelson influence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX9E_D_HjBo
I actually only came here because Ogged kept assuring me that Unfogged is Love. Imagine my disappointment.
OK, John, I'll agree to fantasize about Dick Cheney at the hog farm. But that's it.
I'm down with 633. If one is too ill-disposed to Bill and/or Hillary for whateve reason, one might instead examine the career of Al Gore to get a feel for how this works in practice.
Off to the pig farm with PGD.
Remember Nemoellor, you Obama supporter. After they finish with the Hillary sympathizers, y'all are next !
Love hurts....
If you do it right.
Congress is further left now than at any time in the last 40 years, possibly in history?
Yeah, I think there can be doubt, at least on economic/welfare/labor issues.
mrh is right.
Hi mrh! How's school? How's Mrs. Marvey doing?
then you fill the core up with a neutral synthetic of some sort
Asbestos.
633 does need to be strategically supplemented by 644. The Democrats do need more ideological uniformity. Grover Norquist is in some ways a Stras-type figure on the right who has built an enforcement structure to punish deviationism. But Norquist is clever enough to realize that personal grudges just get in the way of that. It's *much* more effective to accept a former enemy into the fold after they undergo a humiliating public recantation of all their beliefs. The Maoists understood this as well.
I don't know why my italics didn't work.
Yeah, I think there can be doubt, at least on economic/welfare/labor issues.
It's *much* more effective to accept a former enemy into the fold after they undergo a humiliating public recantation of all their beliefs.
Reëducation camps for Clintonistas would be fine with me.
Yeah, I think there can be doubt, at least on economic/welfare/labor issues.
Please articulate those doubts. Be sure to make reference to the partisan breakdown of the congressional votes that passed the most significant economic/welfare/labor legisislation (both good and bad) of the post-WWII period. I suggest starting with the legislative history of the Taft-Hartley act, in which 106 House Democrats voted to override Truman's veto, while only 71 voted to abstain (24-22 for Senate Dems).
The 1981 Kemp-Roth tax cut and Nixon's Family Assistance Plan should also be fruitful avenues for further inquiry.
I don't know why my italics didn't work.
That's OK, BG, my words of wisdom are worth a little boldface.
(School's good! Wife's nauseated!)
I don't know why my italics didn't work.
Because you started and ended with </i>.
"abstain" s/b "sustain", obvs.
Please articulate those doubts. Be sure to make reference to the partisan breakdown of the congressional votes that passed the most significant economic/welfare/labor legisislation (both good and bad) of the post-WWII period.
Why don't you make reference to the partisan breakdown of whatever I'm bored already.
Why don't you make reference to the partisan breakdown of whatever I'm bored already.
I just did.
I don't expect to alleviate your doubts with these examples, but I do mean to convince neutral bystanders that your doubts are unsupported by historical facts.
644: Lurid fantasies about purging the party have the following usefulness: they could define several ideological/policy boundaries over which Democrats could not be permitted to step without facing serious electoral consequences. This is what the conservatives did with taxes in Bush I. It has been extremely useful in helping them get greater control over the Republican party.
Thanks, PGD, for 633 followed by this. A bit of a reminder for those who want to establish control of the party, to just realize what they're proposing. We're allegedly a representative democracy, but the people (those who support DLC policies) seem a bit confused.
On second thought: I'm afraid Obama's agenda isn't extraordinarily different from Clinton's, so the purge is merely a changing of the guard. With important improvement in some areas.
Taft-Hartley and then 1981? Nothing happened with the Democrats in between that period, did it?
The liberals & conservatives in Congress used to be split between the parties much more than they are because of the old solid south anomaly. Congress is certainly not more liberal than it's been--that's absurd. I'm pretty dubious about the Democratic caucus being more liberal except on minority rights. Look at the Democratic vote on Gulf War I compared to the Iraq war. Look at what fiscal policies pass & which don't. If you exempt economic policy & foreign policy & civil liberties you're left with not much. I don't really know why the fact that the liberal Republicans & the Dixiecrats are no more would make me any less angry about the last 8 years.
Reëducation camps for Clintonistas would be fine with me.
Only for the lower level functionaries and their families. Show trials for the leadership, and summary execution for the incorrigibles! Also, Mark Penn has to wear a dunce cap and run a gauntlet of union members.
Congress is further left now than at any time in the last 40 years, possibly in history?
That's not what I wrote, BG; it's the median Democratic member.
I don't really know why the fact that the liberal Republicans & the Dixiecrats are no more would make me any less angry about the last 8 years.
I don't expect that it should. But it might make you more optimistic about the next eight, if you accept my contention that the vast majority of objectionable votes by Dems are the result of a handful of structural and cultural quirks which are potentially malleable, as opposed to a rigid ideological conservatism that used to animate between 20 and 40% of the caucus.
Part of my point in 633 was that "Clintonistas" as people seem to be imagining them here do not exist. Except for some Congresspeople, almost everyone with any prominence in the Democratic party had a job at some point in the Clinton administration. But the number of prominent party people who are true personal loyalists to the Clintons is quite small. The number who, like me, feel some vague sense of affection and respect for them but would not agree with them on everything is large.
621 - In terms of anti-war protesters, they certainly didn't help Humphrey's campaign, and it would have been much worse for Johnson.
The issue isn't losing their votes. It's losing the votes of people who are sympathetic to the anti-war movement. Humphrey had started to win at least some of them back by election day. I doubt Johnson could have done so.
Johnson was just a tremendously unpopular president in 1968, and something of a broken man, as well. It boggles the mind to see how he could do better than Humphrey, much less win the election.
As far as his reasons, I've read books on the subject, but only a long time ago. I will concede that Johnson probably did not decide not to seek re-election out of a certainty that he would lose. The fact that defeat was very likely, however, surely influenced his calculations. He withdrew at a point where it wasn't even completely clear he would win the Democratic nomination.
At any rate, whatever Johnson's own subjective interpretation of things, there seems plenty of reason to think that Johnson would have lost in 1968. He was much more unpopular than Humphrey, for one thing. For another, Humphrey didn't lose the election in the south, where Wallace took electoral votes that otherwise would have belonged to Nixon (Nixon would have won the whole deep south if Wallace hadn't been in the race, against either Humphrey or Johnson - recall that Johnson didn't win those states in 1964, either). He lost in the north. The key states that guaranteed Nixon's win were Ohio, New Jersey, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, and California. I don't see how Johnson's massive unpopularity and complete inability to actively campaign stands the Democrats in good stead in any of those states, and would likely have put at risk various states that Humphrey won, like Washington, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and New York - all of which Nixon would have won if not for Humphrey's late campaign rally.
The 1968 election was won that looks much closer than it really was. Humphrey surged at the end, but Nixon had been way ahead all along. Humphrey surged by distancing himself from the administration. How was Johnson supposed to do that? What states does he win that Humphrey did not? Other than the states that Wallace easily won, Humphrey was about ten points behind Nixon everywhere in the south. Improving Democratic performance in the south (which it is not clear that Johnson would have done, to any significant extent, outside Texas, which Humphrey won anyway) is not the way to make the Democrats win that year.
Obviously this is a hypothetical, and we can't conduct an experiment to test it, but the idea that Johnson would have easily won in 1968 seems questionable. Note that the Democrats lost 13 House seats and 5 senate seats - defeating 4 incumbent Democratic senators (Daniel Brewster of Maryland, Mike Monroney of Oklahoma, Wayne Morse of Oregon, and Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania)
Congress is further left now than at any time in the last 40 years, possibly in history?
That's not what I wrote, BG; it's the median Democratic member.
That's not what I wrote either, Knecht.
Also, Mark Penn has to wear a dunce cap and run a gauntlet of union members.
Run a gantlet. A gauntlet is a kind of armored glove.
A gauntlet is a kind of armored glove.
Made by union members.
He should really be forced to run the gamut of gantlets.
Nothing happened with the Democrats in between that period, did it?
I cited Nixon's Family Assistance Plan (a guaranteed annual income, for Christ's sake! what would we give to have that on the table today?), but there are lots of other examples: the failed Kerr-Mills legislation under Kennedy, the Social Security Act of 1965, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and so on.
The fact that Dixiecrats with effectively life-long tenure controlled most of the Congressional committee chairs during the days of the Solid South is the single most significant fact about the history of labor and social welfare legislation in this country. The fact that those fuckers are gone forever is very, very significant (even if the position of committe chair is no longer as significant as then).
Part of my point in 633 was that "Clintonistas" as people seem to be imagining them here do not exist.
Most of the groups I really dislike claim not to exist at some point. Neo-classical economists and analytic philosophers also claim not to exist.
675: Agree to disagree, okay? Also, in service of that agreement, I appreciate the points you're making. I just think that we're constructing very different counterfactuals/parallel universes, which leads to our different results. Either that or I've trapped you in a web of deceit which is stretched across a bogus frame. I'll really can't be sure.
680.2 Malcolm X, debating at the Oxford Union, made exactly this point. It was brilliant.
I've trapped you in a web of deceit which is stretched across a bogus frame.
That's my vote ! Thanks for paying attention !
Anyway, I concede. You're right about everything. You win.
But I didn't lose, because if I'd just stuck with it, I might have won.
Me too heebie! Also, his name anagrams to "grow a penis" if you leave out the middle initial! Humphrey, on the other hand gets "Uh, pure myth Herb." Boring.
Because you've identified the problem that he addresses in the book, and because he could potentially put the spoils toward Wii games.
Mario Kart!
684: Honestly, I have, as noted upthread, the hardest time reading your tone. I either kicked your dog somewhere along the way, and you're genuinely annoyed at me as a result. Or you enjoy poking fun at me, which is good sport. Perhaps I'll figure it out which one it is one of these days.
687: he's poking fun at your foot with his dog, which is consequently annoyed at the both of you. Clear as day, Ari.
687: Sarcasm/irony/friendly snark is tough to do in an emoticon-free environment. I'm just having fun in 684, though I really was pleased to see that you acknowledged my prior web/frame snark.
Barack Hussein Obama, on the other hand, rearranges to "baa hocks a submarine".
I think "Clintonistas", in the sense of people who won't abandon the Clintons utterly if Obama wins in the fall, are pretty rare.
684: The only way to win is not to play, so really, I win.
691: Heck, by that definition, it's unclear to me that even Bill and Hillary are Clintonistas. What happens when Obama says to Hillary, "Okay, you can be my vice president, but Bill has got to go" ?
I'm back. From way up there:
You don't have to bring the country together. You only have to bring an additional 5-10% over to the D side for a stable governing coalition
Is this the message of Dreams and Audacity?
Is the temporary movement of a small marginal part of the opposition for tactical purposes and thus passing better legislation...the limit of Obama's dreams, hopes, ambitions?
It's funny, there was an Obama supporter over at MY's the other day who said that Obama's supporters are the ones who assume Obama is a phony.
694: Congress disagrees. If Congress disagrees with you then, you know, you're probably right, but it also makes you a dirty hippie so it doesn't count.
pf, that's awesome. Please God, let that happen.
Is this the message of Dreams and Audacity?
Having read neither, I couldn't rightly say.
696: you can't even come up with links to the Yglesias trolls you're cherry-picking now? What's a weird obsessive conspiracy theory if you don't do the legwork?
Stras' 576 gets at what I'm hoping for at this point from an Obama administration. It's a given, alas, that he'll be a constant disappointment on a great many fronts. It's just that he's less likely than the alternatives to be actively morally abhorrent on many fronts, and seems to me likely to do a bunch of quiet good things too. I'm hoping (but not pinning any expectations on this hope) that the groundswell he's got going will slip out of his control and become part of an effective liberal pressure on Congress, which we need a lot. But really, I'm mostly looking to swap some of the horror, disgust, and despair for some disappointment and annoyance.
It's funny, there was an Obama supporter over at MY's the other day who said that Obama's supporters are the ones who assume Obama is a phony.
He's an idiot. So what? Oh, and it's 'Obama robot', thank you.
Also, "I smoke a cabana shrub." Racist!
What's the downside, Bob? Say we elect Obama and you're right and I'm not: he really tries to unite the country and he fails.
Ok, who would be disillusioned and disappointed?
Let me put it another way. If, absurd hypothetical, President Obama were to continue and accelerate the torture, attack Pakistan and then Iran, would those who had put their hopes in Obama go:"Oh well, if at first you don't succeed. try try again." or would they fucking move to Canada?
The tragedy of 1968 wasn't losing; it was the despair & disillusionment that set in after.
And a huge part of the tragedy is that the wrong people got blamed for the failure. For you who think that is (some) Democrats that are in your way, well, they will be around after the election, and since Obama wants to make nice with Republicans, I suspect you will wallow in Clinton-hatin for eight more years.
PGD: If you insist on "Clintonista", then sure, there's not all that many of them in a deep sort of way. But there is a neoliberal Democratic establishment dedicated to "free" trade, a reduced social safety net, liberal interventionism, and like that, which has a massive lock on party authority and funds. Howard Dean's stint at the Democratic National Committee is giving the Democratic Leadership Council some challenge, and for its effort gets a lot of DLC-supported media slagging. And look at what the party leadership in Congress has been supporting Democratic Congresspeople in, and what they've been discouraging and punishing. It's deeply entrenched, and it's a complete disaster for the party. People were saying back in the '90s that it was silly to try courting probable Republican muddle-headed "middle of the road" voters rather than reaching out to probable Democratic voters looking for a reason to get active. Obama's proved the potential in this, but is it making any difference at the top? Damn little.
The Clintons didn't create the neoliberal apparatus; they are its most famous products. When people like those of us here talk about purging the party, or wishing it could get purged, this is what we're talking about - not just the Clintons and their specific personal network, but the larger network (including consultants, campaign managers, and the like) around them, who share the same ideology and the same approach to political tactics and strategy.
And I suspect you knew that, but it seems worth spelling out because faux autism is only charming in small doses.
I think Obama's "let's reach out to Republicans" thing is a political play, if a basically honest one. Next year the Democrats are probably going to control the White House, the House and the Senate. But they almost certainly won't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, so the balance of power will be surprisingly similar to where it is right now -- there are precious few bills which can pass the filibuster bar but not the veto override bar.
So unless President Obama is content to let the Senate block every initiative except changing stem cell policy for his first two years, he's got to pressure the Republicans to be willing to work with us. One extremely good way to do that is to win with a mandate to "reach out to Republicans," because it puts an onus on them to reach back -- and it makes it a lot harder for them to claim it's the Democrats' fault when they refuse to reach themselves.
I suppose another school of politics would say "drive a hard bargain, make the Republicans reject it and then hammer them for being obstructionist until they lose their filibuster-proof majority". But I think this approach does a lot to conceal which party is actually preventing progress.
Mano negra: Certainly there's room in looking at Obama's Illinois career to think that he takes a strategy of prying apart solid-seeming blocs seriously. I would like to think it can work on the Republican machine after a big electoral loss, though I'm not really anything like hopeful about it. I don't think anything but a lot of primary losses to the kinds of challenges being turned out for Democratic toadies will actually open up the Republican monolith (which, unlike the one in 2001, makes everyone who touch it devolve into baboons with bonobo libido).
But I'd be happy to be found wrong about it.
And now, having spent all my political cerebrofluid for the moment, off to rest and check consumables for a first visit to the Black Temple. This has been your moment of entirely predictable geekery.
That's not what I wrote either, Knecht
Hey, I just cut and pasted from your comment, BG. You truncated my comment in a way that completely changed the sense of what I tried to argue.
Run a gantlet. A gauntlet is a kind of armored glove.
Your bitchy prescriptivism carries no weight with me. My dictionary says "gantlet" is a variant of "gauntlet", and that the two are etymologically indistinct (both deriving from the french gant).
Also, google-fighting yields 237K hits for "run the gauntlet", and 24K hits for "run the gantlet". So I'm sticking with the real Americans against the elitist coastal diction pedants.
710: the internet is not so convinced as you believe, although spelling-wise your imprecision seems to have won the day.
712: For consistency's sake, I expect Ben to insist on "run the gantelope" from now on.
The antelopes running the gantelope can't elope 'til running the gauntlet of loping antelope interlopers.
I think "Clintonistas", in the sense of people who won't abandon the Clintons utterly if Obama wins in the fall, are pretty rare.
They seem to have been fighting Dean pretty hard, and some of them I can't see doing anything more than lying low and biding their time once Obama gets in.
We need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to denazify and reeducate those who are educable, and to purge the remainder while settling old scores and making the lives of the worst of them a living hell.
My dictionary says "gantlet" is a variant of "gauntlet", and that the two are etymologically indistinct (both deriving from the french gant).
My dictionary says that "gauntlet", the glove, comes from F. "gant", whereas "gantlet", which is (nb) merely assimilated to "gauntlet", is "corrupted" from "gantlope", which comes from middle Swedish, so you can just suck it.
I thought that I was copying someone else's comment, KR. But really mrh is the person you were initially addressing.
712: For consistency's sake, I expect Ben to insist on "run the gantelope" from now on.
I don't see why consistency demands that you have that expectation, but, whatever causes your boat to rise with the tide, I guess.
The antelopes running the gantelope can't elope 'til running the gauntlet of loping antelope interlopers.
Screech, you can't elope!
As a Usenet discussion Unfogged thread grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler little bitchery over grammar approaches one.
Only the middle Swedes care about this any more, w-lfs-n.
In other news, "horde" and "hoard" are completely unrelated, but people tend to assimilate them, because they like the idea that the Mongol hordes were an undifferentiated mass, like a heap of coins and jewels and so on.
I really don't care if the Mongols whored.
For you who think that is (some) Democrats that are in your way, well, they will be around after the election, and since Obama wants to make nice with Republicans, I suspect you will wallow in Clinton-hatin for eight more years.
Surely you're correct and the more promising course of action is to nominate Clinton. After 36 unbroken years of Bush/Clinton in the White House, the country would be ripe for socialist revolution. This revolution would not be spearheaded by young people (too whirly-eyed and naive) or by oppressed minorities (whose allegiances are surely to their race rather than to their country) but by the most radical bloc of all, working-class white men over the age of 50.
Maybe Obama will say crazy things like "the era of big government is over" and then once in office he can "end welfare as we know it" and then his wife can run for President in 16 years and we can all be shocked by how her opponent is some kind of politician who tries to get votes and how this is the true obstacle to revolutionary change.
I wouldn't normally bother, but there seem to be a handful of commenters who think this is actually a coherent, if somewhat quirky, viewpoint.
