Because with Edwards out of the race, I voted for Obama.
PAD
141 comments on “My Super Tuesday Prediction for New York”
Wow. Check up that MSNBC link I posted above. The update has added a ton of delegates to the count and flipped it to Obama by a narrow lead of (at the time of this writing) four delegates. The Republican race still looks the same even with the higher numbers though.
Rightwing talk radio and Fox News are gonna be so funny to listen to today.
~8?)
I have to say that I’m amazed that Hillary won NY. She used this state’s Senate seat for the sole purpose of running for President all along. I can’t believe that people don’t realize this. She moved to NY within a month of making the residency requirement, for crying out loud!
McCain is not beloved by many rank and file republicans–the kind of folks you need for a real get out the vote effort.
So what?
See, my perception is that the rank and file may not love McCain…but they despise Clinton. And I think they will turn out in sizable numbers to thwart her return to the White House. That’s why I’ve repeatedly said I think she’s unelectable.
I mean, the GOP hasn’t even BEGUN its attack politics. Matters are not going to remain static. The GOP attack dogs can, and will, turn up the heat, and as much as the right wing pundits may be underwhelmed by McCain, I think they will move heaven and earth to make sure Clinton doesn’t get into the White House. Plus McCain still has plenty of time to actively court the conservatives.
And of course, sad to say, there are the unknowns. God forbid there’s another terrorist attack, for instance, which will be spun into “Who do you want protecting you? The experienced soldier who has never once stopped saying we have to present a strong offense? Or the constantly shifting politico who wants to bail out of Iraq?”
PAD
“You also have to remember something about McCain and his relationship with the most rabid rightwing conservatives and the NeoCons. John McCain has been portrayed as (and is still seen as) as traitor to the cause, the party and the very foundations of “conservatism” as it’s defined by these people. McCain has been the hated backstabber of Bush, conservative principles, decency and Reaganism for the last eight years.”
That’s how he’s being portrayed right now. It’s not how he would be portrayed in October.
There’s a very good chance that the Republican candidate will be settled before the Democrat candidate. That will leave a buffer time where McCain can sit back and look like a respectable guy while Clinton and Obama beat on each other. That will act as a bit of a cooling off period among Republicans.
Then, after both sides are settled, the real campaigns will steadily build. More and more of those Republicans who bickered about whether they liked McCain or not will decide that they really don’t want a democrat. The Neo-cons who are currently saying they like Clinton better than McCain will just stop talking for awhile, and when their listeners have forgotten those statements they’ll start rallying everyone to be good party supporters.
Really, it’s easiest to apply a sports team mentality to voting. If someone hates a particular football team, that lasts. It doesn’t matter if they grumbled about their team not winning in the regular season, once the Superbowl starts they’ll root for whoever is against the team they hate. Politics is exactly like sports fandom to a lot of people.
Also dont forget some of the hard hard right would rather put McCain in the white house if it would stop BILL Clinton not necessarily Hillary from winning.
Actually, that quote I used came from a fairly conservative site. As I’ve also said, most on that site tend to think that you put Clinton vs McCain, and McCain wins, even if they don’t like McCain.
I wasn’t referring to your quote but to the idea expressed by some that there’s such an enthusiastic cadre of conservative anti-Hillary voters out there that McCain is a shoo-in. Of course, I may not be getting any better of a sense of what the electorate thinks than anyone else. I know that several of the regulars at the National Review site hold a big grudge against McCain and Limbaugh’s antipathy is well known. I’m seeing some others saying that he’s the one most likely to beat Hillary or Obama. What I don’t see very much of is enthusiasm for him, more of a “he’s the best we can do” kind of thing.
A lot of the anti-McCain stuff is crazy, and this is from the people who are members of his party. Personally I can’t quite wrap my head around Ann Coulture’s logic; she doesn’t like that McCain helps Democrats against Republicans so she is threatening…to help Hillary…nope, just can’t make any sense of it.
McCain is not beloved by many rank and file republicans–the kind of folks you need for a real get out the vote effort.
So what?
See, my perception is that the rank and file may not love McCain…but they despise Clinton. And I think they will turn out in sizable numbers to thwart her return to the White House. That’s why I’ve repeatedly said I think she’s unelectable.
This reminds me of what Democrats were saying in the last election–many were unenthusiastic about Kerry but they thought it would be ok because so many people hated Bush that they would come out in droves. But it didn’t happen. You may well be right–if anyone can unite Republicans it would take a Clinton. But I think that recent history shows that it isn’t easy to beat someone you hate with someone you don’t like. Maybe in our little circle most of us end up voting against the other candidate more than we vote for someone but I think that isn’t the case nationwide.
And while I disagree with the anti-McCain fanatics I can see a small bit of logic in some of their arguments. The people who regard illegal immigration as the biggest problem we face are unlikely to be happy with any candidate now, but it will probably be easier for McCain to get through a pro-amnesty package than it would be for Hillary. In fact, one aspect of McCain that I rather admire could end up hurting him big time in the election–he’s probably a lot more willing than Hillary to expend political capital to fight for something that may not be popular. With someone like Hillary you can always justify supporting her even when you disagree with her position by rationalizing that she won’t actually do what she says once she gets into office. With McCain that seems less likely. If you don’t like his position on something you’d better be prepared to not like his actions either.
Now if Hillary wins over Obama by pulling a fast one (using the Florida and Michigan delegates for example) all bets are off. She has to make sure victory doesn’t require pìššìņg øff all of his voters. McCain could, theoretically, siphon off some Latino votes and if Blacks stay home in protest, she’s toast.
One interesting factor comes up now–from what I can see a lot of the upcoming states look pretty Obama friendly. It could be a while before Hillary gets the chance to win a big state and the constant drip drip of smaller states falling to Obama could create a bad situation for her–already the money is shifting to him. The plan all along was to wrap this thing up on super Tuesday. With that plan down in flames and Bill sidelined what does she do to recapture the Big Mo? A staff shakeup? Are there any endorsements left that don’t seem more likely to go to Obama (Edwards, Gore)?
“This reminds me of what Democrats were saying in the last election–many were unenthusiastic about Kerry but they thought it would be ok because so many people hated Bush that they would come out in droves.”
The thing is, they weren’t wrong.
In 2004 the Democrats actually did get out a massive number of votes. All the hatred for Bush you’re referring to did exactly what they said it would, it got tons of Democrats to the polls. As unappealing at Kerry was, he still got a lot of votes from people who didn’t want Bush.
The reason Bush won is that tons of Republicans came out to vote, also. His approval rating was still way higher than we’d like to admit and he still inspired the Republicans.
So will hatred of Hillary get Republicans out to vote? The 2004 election says yes. Would she also inspire the Democrats to go to the polls? I think so, but I think Barack would do so just as much. And I think he’d do it without inspiring so much hate from the Republicans.
I’m still not sure it’s enough, though.
”See, my perception is that the rank and file may not love McCain…but they despise Clinton. And I think they will turn out in sizable numbers to thwart her return to the White House. That’s why I’ve repeatedly said I think she’s unelectable.”
”It doesn’t matter if they grumbled about their team not winning in the regular season, once the Superbowl starts they’ll root for whoever is against the team they hate. Politics is exactly like sports fandom to a lot of people.”
”Also dont forget some of the hard hard right would rather put McCain in the white house if it would stop BILL Clinton not necessarily Hillary from winning.”
The hardcore football fans out there will do that. The more casual fans will simply not watch the game.
Right now, there are far, far more people on the right who are, and have been for the last eight years, expressing absolute loathing for McCain. McCain is the traitor, the RINO, the ultra lib, etc. McCain was the Republican that conservatives were swearing on their very lives was going to be ultra-lib Kerry’s VP pick to run against his own party. He’s been portrayed politically as just the same or no better than Teddy, Hillary and Kerry for the last six years easy with the only exceptions being a few short blips caused by his statements on Iraq. He’s been the subject of more insulting parodies by Rush, Hannity, Coulter and others in the last eight years then Bill & Hill combined have been in that same time period. That’s not going to be forgotten just because Rush and crew don’t mention it for a couple of months.
Besides, the pundit’s egos may get in their way here. Rush relished his early success in the early 90’s. He was “the majority maker” and an honorary member of the Republican Congress. He was a power player. Other pundits rose up and took that mantle to some degree as well. In this election, a number of them have taken early sides in the primaries for Rudy and Mitt and banged those drums as loud and as hard as they could. And even guys like Rush who claim that they won’t endorse or support anyone in primaries have made clear who they support and who they don’t by the comments they make and the attacks they launch. In Rush’s world, Mitt is a real conservative candidate and has been played up heavily on his show as one. McCain is all that stuff I mentioned above. McCain absolutely stomping these other candidates isn’t simply McCain winning the primaries. Oh no, it’s McCain beating them. When you’ve started to believe your own hype, it can be an awful blow when someone comes along and blows it up entirely. I can easily see some of those pathetic, petty bášŧárdš relishing the idea of McCain running and failing just so the can be “right” and tell their audience that they told ‘em so all those months back and all those years before. Remember, most of these guys don’t have any real principles or stands. God knows enough of them sold out their “deeply held beliefs and principles” whenever they needed to support some of the Bush plays in the last six years.
On the left side of the playing field, there’s nowhere near that level of hate being focused at Hillary by the Democratic and liberal voices in the media and blogosphere. There’s some, but for the most part there’s just less enthusiasm for Hillary then there is for Obama. Hëll, 90% of the negative comments about Hillary not being the ideal candidate isn’t so much about her as much as it’s about how the hypothetical rightwing hatred that she would foment would turn into an unstoppable wave of Republican voters that would crush her under its mass. It’s not anything like the venom being spit by the Right on anything like the level that it’s being spit.
Now throw in the Bush factor. You have the occasional idiots that like to inject themselves into debates just to declare that it doesn’t matter in the least who gets in because they’ll all do the exact same thing. Well, only a blind, deaf and dumb fool would still be singing that song after Bush. Hillary is far, far, far less likely to keep the country running along on the Bush prescribed path then McCain. A lot of the Left wants us off of that course as much as possible. A lot of the Right would like to change course. I think that there’s a stronger incentive for the Left to vote for Hillary and a greater possible shift from that course then there is for the Right to vote for a guy who’s suddenly trying to tell the world that he’s Bush Lite and would supposedly keep all the bad ideas going.
I think we’re even seeing some of that effect now. Look at the primary voter turnouts. Even in “Republican” states, there are more people voting in the Democratic primaries than there are in the Republican primaries. The passion for their candidates and what those candidates stand for isn’t there this go-round. There is a passion for a change of course on the Left if not one for Hillary herself. That will likely bring about a good voter turnout amongst the Left. The mythical beast that is the Anti-Clinton Voting Monster has never been proven to be true and will likely be proven to be as real as your average Jenny Hanover.
”Personally I can’t quite wrap my head around Ann Coulture’s logic; she doesn’t like that McCain helps Democrats against Republicans so she is threatening…to help Hillary…nope, just can’t make any sense of it.”
I think rush and a couple of others kinda told a close-to-almost truth in the last week. Their spin has been that they would rather the Liberal Hillary be in office then the Liberal McCain so that when the Liberal Ideas cause all sorts of damage it hurts the Democrats rather then the Republicans.
For the minority of them that have been drinking their own Kool-Aid, they might actually believe that. There’s also the group that might be thinking that Bush has destroyed so much so badly that the country is going to crash badly in the next two years no matter who is in office and they know (hope) that the blame will go to the party in charge. Why set your own team up for a fall? And then there’s the ego thing. Like I said, McCain winning not only the nomination but the Presidency itself after years them painting him as basically just shy of being the male Hillary… Well, that just can’t happen. It’s not only ”wrong”, it’s a personal defeat.
”One interesting factor comes up now–from what I can see a lot of the upcoming states look pretty Obama friendly.”
Yeah, but we’ve all seen how reliable “early indications” have been with this election process. Who knows what’s actually going to happen.
“Right now, there are far, far more people on the right who are, and have been for the last eight years, expressing absolute loathing for McCain.”
Are there really far, far more people who loath him? Or are there a few people who are just very loud?
If you take the entire staff of Fox News and add them up, that’s not enough votes to win a Primary in Rhode fricken’ Island. But they *sound* like a gigantic army. Among actual people, I haven’t heard anywhere near the dislike for McCain that I’ve heard for Hillary. Nowhere close.
We can be easily led astray if we only listen to the idealogues and pundits, whose stock in trade is hyperbole and sensationalism. Will Limbaugh and Coulter really vote for Clinton over McCain? That’s about as likely as those who claimed they would move to Canada if Bush won in ’04. They’re more likely not to vote than to vote for Hillary.
What looks to be happening, at least from my POV, is that the neo-cons are losing power, and making as much noise as possible to sabotage a moderate’s chances so that they can try and retain power a little longer.
The mythical beast that is the Anti-Clinton Voting Monster has never been proven to be true and will likely be proven to be as real as your average Jenny Hanover
Oh, that’s nice. I had the chance to pick up an absolutely great Jenny Hanover a few years back and passed on it. D’oh! Would look great on the wall.
Are there really far, far more people who loath him? Or are there a few people who are just very loud?
Well, although McCain won on Tuesday, he did it with only 41% of the vote. More Republican voters are voting against him than for him. Ok, it’s still a 3 man race, what’s worse is that the Democrats had 70+% greater turnout.
I think we may know how things will turn out tomorrow when McCain addresses the conservative convention. If it goes badly, I think he will have a very hard time uniting the party behind him. If he goes too far he will lose support from independents and those Democrats who would consider him. Usually this is when a Republican candidate would tack toward the middle for the general election. If McCain is still trying to reassure his base at this late date it doesn’t bode well.
“Right now, there are far, far more people on the right who are, and have been for the last eight years, expressing absolute loathing for McCain.”
”Are there really far, far more people who loath him? Or are there a few people who are just very loud?”
”If you take the entire staff of Fox News and add them up, that’s not enough votes to win a Primary in Rhode fricken’ Island. But they *sound* like a gigantic army. Among actual people, I haven’t heard anywhere near the dislike for McCain that I’ve heard for Hillary. Nowhere close.”
There are far more people on the Right who hate McCain than there are people on the Left who hate Hillary. And I’m not just counting the pundits and the Rightwing media figures. I’m counting their callers, their letter writers and their bloggers. I’m also looking at the literally hundreds of people I come into contact with on any given day and hear discussing the previous nights news and events. Many Conservatives, rightly or wrongly, rationally or not, dislike McCain greatly.
”Will Limbaugh and Coulter really vote for Clinton over McCain?”
No, but they and others may just decide to not vote at all come November. And I think they odds of people on the Right not coming out to for McCain is a more likely scenario than people on the left not coming out to vote for Hillary. That throws a lot of the outcome to moderates and independents and I think they’ll go with they candidate most likely to not act like a continuation of Bush or, again, not vote at all.
”I think we may know how things will turn out tomorrow when McCain addresses the conservative convention. If it goes badly, I think he will have a very hard time uniting the party behind him.”
McCain: ”My friends, I come before you tonight to…”
The Assembled Crowd (Mob) of Convention Goers: ”Burn the witch!!! Kill the witch!!!”
Well, PAD, I think the opposite is true. I think that Sen. Clinton is electable, just barely, but I think Sen. Obama has no chance in a general election. Why? Because of his race. Sorry, but that’s what I think.
Okay. WHat’s a “Jenny Hanover”?
Googling suggests it may be a fake mermaid or somesuch, but i’d like a specific reference.
What’s a Jenny Hanover?!? You poor, poor undereducated man you.
Mostly Jenny Hanovers are skates or rays that have been artfully sliced and trimmed, dried and the dipped in some sort of shellac or something and passed off as some sort of unknown sea creature. The mouth and eyes, when framed by the right “plastic surgery” end up looking almost humanlike. They’ve also been known as Sea Devils. It’s been decades since anyone really successfully passed one off as a “new scientific discovery” for more then twenty seconds.
There used to be a ton of good pictures of them on Google’s image search results, but I’ll be dámņëd if I can find any usable ones now.
And this is a better one. The link above looks like a fish version. This one is the more common or classic one. They have other photos under this image.
And this is a better one. The link above looks like a fish version. This one is the more common or classic one. They have other photos under this image.
Wait, try spelling it Jenny Haniver. Oh yeah, there we go. Lots of photos.
I’ve also seen some other fish–sea robins?–surgically altered into good gaffs. And the Fiji mermaids, of course.
There’s a small market for custom made chupucabras and such. Look at w*w.customcreaturetaxidermy.com/fantasy/fantasy.html
But give me a break. $450 for a “freak hairless squirrel”??? Give me A- a squirrel and B- an electric razor and I’ll give you a freak hairless squirrel for half that price.
Back to politics for a moment–you know one problem Obama has? When your base is young voters you are depending on a group that often ends up being undependable. Witness “Obama Girl”. She didn’t even bother to vote. Slacker.
Jenny Hanover, Jenny Haniver and Jenny Hanniver all work. I tend to forget that the one in my book of unknown creatures is the oddman out spelling of the three.
As for the Obama base…
The other problem with a youth vote that’s based on “inspirational leadership” is that they tend to drop off like leaves in the fall. If you’re voting for a guy because he speaks of “hope” and “change” and know nothing about the guys platforms, then you’re pretty likely to bail out when the shine gets rubbed off. As a number of Obama supporters being interviewed live back during the Iowa and NH caucuses showed that a lot of them (at least there) knew zilch about what he actually stood for beyond the pretty words; the Democrats better pray like mad that if he ends up with the nomination his shine doesn’t get too damaged by his opponent before election day.
Bill Mulligan: A lot of the anti-McCain stuff is crazy, and this is from the people who are members of his party. Personally I can’t quite wrap my head around Ann Coulture’s logic; she doesn’t like that McCain helps Democrats against Republicans..
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the questionable concept of “Ann Coulter’s logic” (wasn’t that one of the creature’s profiled on the Discovery channel’s Monster Quest?), she actually stated on Hannity & Colmes that she made this pledge because McCain led the fight against torture.
Leave to someone like Coulter to argue openly in favor of torture.
Posted by: Luigi Novi
Leave to someone like Coulter to argue openly in favor of torture.
Has to. If torture is ever banned, she won’t be allowed on teevee or radio any more.
Leave to someone like Coulter to argue openly in favor of torture.
Really? A lot of the pundits on the right do that, quite without a trace of irony.
I wish they would ban exit polling, and not be allowed to predict winners until ALL polls are closed. My mother, who’s logic is worthy of Archie Bunker, waits until she knows who the leader is, and then votes for that person, because, after all, the other person won’t win and who wants to vote for a loser? That would be throwing your vote away.
What scares me most is how many of the older voters have this mentality.
It’s not just the older voters, Susan. I overheard some of my younger coworkers following the polls as well. They wanted to be able say, “I supported him/her since the beginning!”
Yeah, since the beginning of the poll results…
Posted by: Susan O
I wish they would ban exit polling, and not be allowed to predict winners until ALL polls are closed.
I just like the 24-hour voting day policy – polls open at 8AM Eastern Standard Time Tuesday in all fifty states and the territories, and close at 8AM EST on Wednesday.
That way, it’s impossible to report a winner anywhere much more quickly than anywhere else, thus avoiding the “New York win prediction causes California voters to stay home” thing.
I don’t know that it’s possible to ban polling–free speech, after all–but I wonder how the mail-in early votes are factored in.
Hillary was way ahead in CA up to a few days ago. Early exit polls had Obama ahead. She won handily.
Is it possible that the mail in votes reflected her earlier lead and the exit polls reflected his new momentum?
Now, can any of you political types explain to me precisely WHY people like Rush and Ann Coulter and other are always being referenced and why anyone would give a flying fart what they say? It’s always seemed to me they’ve made a career out of being really obnoxious more than anything else. Hëll, I’m really obnoxious but I’ve never been referenced for anything and it hasn’t made me one red cent.
Now, can any of you political types explain to me precisely WHY people like Rush and Ann Coulter and other are always being referenced and why anyone would give a flying fart what they say? It’s always seemed to me they’ve made a career out of being really obnoxious more than anything else. Hëll, I’m really obnoxious but I’ve never been referenced for anything and it hasn’t made me one red cent.
Posted by: Sean
Now, can any of you political types explain to me precisely WHY people like Rush and Ann Coulter and other are always being referenced and why anyone would give a flying fart what they say? It’s always seemed to me they’ve made a career out of being really obnoxious more than anything else.
Because, regrettable as it may seem, they have influence (not so much as they or their hordes of dittoheads would like to think, but influence) on the process.
Yeah, they have influence. But again, why? I’m not trying to poke you with a pointed stick, Mike, I just really have never understood why certain people who aren’t, in fact, politicians can be so loud on the political process and those with airwaves put these people ON said airwaves.
My, that was a really long run-on sentence.
Look at another loudmouth, Sean Hannity. He’s an ex-contractor and an ex-bartender, neither of which occupation is likely to land you on either the radio or a news network. Yet, there he is. I’ve been trying to get on radio for years, but do I get on? No. Maybe I’m just not self-promoting enough.
I just really have never understood why certain people who aren’t, in fact, politicians can be so loud on the political process and those with airwaves put these people ON said airwaves.
Sean–basically it’s the fact that they have the proven ability to reach an audience. This allows them to charge advertisers money for access to that audience.
Simple as that. Now why have these particular individuals been able to do it when other, doubtlessly better educated people have failed is another question entirely. Radio looks easy. It isn’t, as the legion of failed Stern and Limbaugh imitators have learned.
(probably they would do better to NOT try to be the next Stern or Limbaugh but to be themselves–assuming that there’s an audience for it.).
Looks like Romney is out of the race…
Looks like Romney is out of the race…
Yep, looks like. What a terrific birthday present!
Sorry for Romney supporters, but after the psycho that is Rudy Giuliani he’s always been my least favorite of the GOP candidates. The President-as-chameleonic-CEO model has been more than amply played out and demonstrated as a Bad Idea, methinks…
Regardless of which Democrat gets the nomination (though I hope it’s Obama), I think this promises to be a far more interesting and potentially issue-driven fall campaign than we’ve seen in a long while.
TWL
Well, that happened sooner then I thought it would. Romney just quit talking (and spinning the hëll out of the fact that he was getting hi butt kicked into doing the right and noble thing for the party and the country) and he is now officially gone from the race. Looks like we get to see whether or not the rabid voices on the Right go McCain or not well before the convention gets here as it’s now him or Ron Paul.
And yeah, I know Huck is out there too. But I think he and McCain have a deal and the extreme Right have been making him out to be as nutty as a loon. Not that they’re totally off base there…
Posted by: Tim Lynch
Sorry for Romney supporters, but after the psycho that is Rudy Giuliani he’s always been my least favorite of the GOP candidates.
A New Yorker who is a friend-of-a-friend once looked at his watch, observed thjat it was one second past midnight and then spoke “the three most beautiful words in the English Language”: “Ex-Mayor Giuliani”…
AS to Rush and Sean and their ilk, demagogues have always made their living by appealing to the dissatisfied who feel that they have been done out of what should be rightfully theirs in favour of inferiors who only manage to succeed by chicanery and venality.
I refuse to Godwinise this discussion directly, but consider the attitude of the German people after World War One and what that led to.
Sean: Now, can any of you political types explain to me precisely WHY people like Rush and Ann Coulter and other are always being referenced and why anyone would give a flying fart what they say?
Luigi Novi: I’ve never been able to figure that out myself. The only thing I can think of is that there are two schools of thought on how commentary should be: One is that it be thoughtful, intelligent, objective, serious, and measured. But there is an aspect of the public, or its psyche, that revels in the Jerry Springer-like abandonment of all decency, that people like Hannity, Rush and Coulter appeal to that. They capitalize on the worst aspects of the human mind’s tendency towards bigotry, demagoguery and hatred.
Sean: Look at another loudmouth, Sean Hannity. He’s an ex-contractor and an ex-bartender, neither of which occupation is likely to land you on either the radio or a news network. Yet, there he is.
Luigi Novi: I don’t think one has to have had formal education or have been a professional politician to articulate an intelligent political viewpoint. That sounds like the ad hominem crap people give Peter when they complain about his expressing his political viewpoints on his blog by arguing that he should “stick to writing comics”. Me, I figure Peter could do as good if not a better job than a lot of the Talking Heads out there. My feeling is, if in a representative democracy/republic/whatever like the U.S., citizens are given the power to choose their leaders, directly or indirectly, with the power of the vote, what sense does it make to argue that they need to be professionals to express their political opinions? If part of Americanism is the assumption that we’re able to affect our politics by way of vote, what sense does it make to argue that we can’t talk about it? It’s one more reason why that particular ad hominem argument never made sense to me, which is why I made that point a couple of years back with one paralogist here who tried to compare politics to neurosurgery, as if expressing political opinions required technical expertise like being a surgeon.
Hannity isn’t a bad commentator because he was a contractor and a bartender. He’s a bad commentator because he’s a obnoxious bigot who never met a logical fallacy that he didn’t like.
Bill Mulligan: Looks like Romney is out of the race…
Luigi Novi: Ahhhh. Thank you. That means no matter who wins, we’ll have someone with a sensible view on religion in the White House.
Clinton did well in states that I could win as a Democrat in the general election. The fact that Obama thomped her in several swing states speaks volume.
I think the comparison of Kerry to McCain is apt — you should never count on hatred of the opponent to carry you into the White House. Hatred isn’t enough to get people to go out and vote.
However, I think Clinton’s failing is that she only speaks to Democrats who have been voting and will always vote in elections (women of a certain age, seniors, and so on). The way the red/blue state divide works out is that if only the party faithfuls vote, the Republicans generally win.
Democrats win elections when they get young people and independents (the latter is especially critical) to vote for them. That’s how Clinton won — with independents and the “Reagan Democrats.” There is one Democratic candidate who appeals to those two groups and it’s not Sen. Clinton. The biggest mistake Democrats can make is that thinking that Sen. Clinton’s appeal, which is considerable, is the same as Bill Clinton’s.
“Yeah, they have influence. But again, why?”
Because they’ve got a skill and a certain level of charisma that has given them a large group of followers and many of those followers will act on their suggestions. That makes them appear valuable to the power players and the wanna-be power players who’ll then prop them up partly to inflate their egos to better curry favors with them and partly to make them appear more important then they are to create the appearance of having power players, movers and shakers on their side. Everybody wants to say that they’ve got huge support amongst the common man and what better way to show that then by pointing to popular “representatives” of the everyday common man? It’s not enough to point to other politicians as being for you and it’s a better prop to have to point to than just saying that you’ve got large crowds of people showing up to support you. So what if you’ve got fifty to a hundred people showing up for your little events? I’ve got that and I’ve got Rush and his twenty million plus listeners on my side. Power is sometimes based on illusion and Rush, Hannity, Fox News and crew do still create a powerful illusion for some.
They’re also useful for, to quote Bush, repeating things over and over and over again for the “truth” to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. Rush has three hours a day, five days a week and “Best Of” shows on the weekends that a lot of his listeners tune into from start to finish. In many markets you then go straight to (former Rush fill in host) Sean Hannity who then repeats the same talking points (with only a few differences) for another three hours to most of the same audience. Six hours a day of talking points to fire up a base. Then it’s over to Fox News for more fun.
However, while Rush may have had some strong influence before, I think that their actual power is crumbling somewhat. They’re still good for creating a talking points echo chamber and for getting, spin, smear and distortion out into the public discourse, but I think that the present style of conservative talk radio is in decline and that when Rush finally slinks off into the sunset that it will be the end of that era. Hannity doesn’t have Rush’s style and the various Rush clones other then Hannity have never really amounted to much. The big attractions outside of them are guys like Savage and no one really gives him the illusion of clout and respectability or the TV time that they’ve given Rush and Hannity. And rightly so. Coulter is almost as loony as Savage and, while she’s propped up by Rush, Sean and Fox News, her sell by date is fast passing her by and she’s seeing less influence herself these days.
I don’t think that this means that people are learning to think for themselves or not follow clowns like these more then past generations though. I just think that it’s beginning to become apparent that this group of clowns‘ time as power players is winding down. Whether that means we get something better or worse for the next wave of clowns is anybody’s guess.
Hillary will win the NY primary.
Why?
Because with Edwards out of the race, I voted for Obama.
Right. Because everything is about you.
Ah… To live life without a sense of humor or the first clue about one.
~8?P
Right. Because everything is about you.
Of course it is. Whose blog is it, anyway?
Posted by: Jerry Chandler
I don’t think that this means that people are learning to think for themselves or not follow clowns like these more then past generations though. I just think that it’s beginning to become apparent that this group of clowns’ time as power players is winding down. Whether that means we get something better or worse for the next wave of clowns is anybody’s guess.
Oh, it’ll be worse, both because the current crew have lowered the bar for the next generation and because new technology will make it more pervasive.
BTW – Ann COulter is a Deadhead. Yup – by her own count, she’s seen them about 67 times.
For a pic and some remarks by her that will forever sear the retinas of your imagination (Purple Crisco? Eewwww…), go to http://www.theamericanmind.com/mt-test/archives/2006_06.html (Scroll way down, til you come to the picture of the scrawny blonde standing in front of a Grateful Dead poster…)
Luigi–I never meant to say that Hannity’s past was in some way indicative of his intelligence. Hey, the fact that anybody responds to anything I write proves that. All I was trying to say was it just seems that there’re a lot of talking heads out there whose only qualification is that they can talk. And they have a head.
A New Yorker who is a friend-of-a-friend once looked at his watch, observed thjat it was one second past midnight and then spoke “the three most beautiful words in the English Language”: “Ex-Mayor Giuliani”…
Maybe, but I certainly always thought that “Ex-Senator Santorum” was in the running for that honor as well. “Ex-President Bush” won’t be nearly as nice, given how much damage was done. “Convicted Felon Cheney,” on the other hand, would be really nice should it ever come to pass … not that it’s likely, mind you.
TWL
It’s now (basically) official, McCain will be the Republican nominee. My decision come November can already be foretold…
If Clinton wins, I’ll be voting for McCain.
If Obama wins, I’ll be voting for Obama.
I’m definitely one of those people that PAD was talking about when it comes to Clinton’s eligibility.
Posted by: Mickey Right. Because everything is about you.
PAD was utilizing the same joke that goes along the lines of “It’s going to rain because I just washed my car.” Or, you might have actually pointed out a here-to-fore unknown truth.
“Eligibility” = “Electability”
Oops.
“Maybe, but I certainly always thought that “Ex-Senator Santorum” was in the running for that honor as well.”
Amen, brother, amen. And happy birthday.
Ann COulter is a Deadhead. Yup – by her own count, she’s seen them about 67 times.
Heh. I wonder if that means she came out to support Obama on Monday.
• 
Wow. Check up that MSNBC link I posted above. The update has added a ton of delegates to the count and flipped it to Obama by a narrow lead of (at the time of this writing) four delegates. The Republican race still looks the same even with the higher numbers though.
Rightwing talk radio and Fox News are gonna be so funny to listen to today.
~8?)
I have to say that I’m amazed that Hillary won NY. She used this state’s Senate seat for the sole purpose of running for President all along. I can’t believe that people don’t realize this. She moved to NY within a month of making the residency requirement, for crying out loud!
McCain is not beloved by many rank and file republicans–the kind of folks you need for a real get out the vote effort.
So what?
See, my perception is that the rank and file may not love McCain…but they despise Clinton. And I think they will turn out in sizable numbers to thwart her return to the White House. That’s why I’ve repeatedly said I think she’s unelectable.
I mean, the GOP hasn’t even BEGUN its attack politics. Matters are not going to remain static. The GOP attack dogs can, and will, turn up the heat, and as much as the right wing pundits may be underwhelmed by McCain, I think they will move heaven and earth to make sure Clinton doesn’t get into the White House. Plus McCain still has plenty of time to actively court the conservatives.
And of course, sad to say, there are the unknowns. God forbid there’s another terrorist attack, for instance, which will be spun into “Who do you want protecting you? The experienced soldier who has never once stopped saying we have to present a strong offense? Or the constantly shifting politico who wants to bail out of Iraq?”
PAD
“You also have to remember something about McCain and his relationship with the most rabid rightwing conservatives and the NeoCons. John McCain has been portrayed as (and is still seen as) as traitor to the cause, the party and the very foundations of “conservatism” as it’s defined by these people. McCain has been the hated backstabber of Bush, conservative principles, decency and Reaganism for the last eight years.”
That’s how he’s being portrayed right now. It’s not how he would be portrayed in October.
There’s a very good chance that the Republican candidate will be settled before the Democrat candidate. That will leave a buffer time where McCain can sit back and look like a respectable guy while Clinton and Obama beat on each other. That will act as a bit of a cooling off period among Republicans.
Then, after both sides are settled, the real campaigns will steadily build. More and more of those Republicans who bickered about whether they liked McCain or not will decide that they really don’t want a democrat. The Neo-cons who are currently saying they like Clinton better than McCain will just stop talking for awhile, and when their listeners have forgotten those statements they’ll start rallying everyone to be good party supporters.
Really, it’s easiest to apply a sports team mentality to voting. If someone hates a particular football team, that lasts. It doesn’t matter if they grumbled about their team not winning in the regular season, once the Superbowl starts they’ll root for whoever is against the team they hate. Politics is exactly like sports fandom to a lot of people.
Also dont forget some of the hard hard right would rather put McCain in the white house if it would stop BILL Clinton not necessarily Hillary from winning.
Actually, that quote I used came from a fairly conservative site. As I’ve also said, most on that site tend to think that you put Clinton vs McCain, and McCain wins, even if they don’t like McCain.
I wasn’t referring to your quote but to the idea expressed by some that there’s such an enthusiastic cadre of conservative anti-Hillary voters out there that McCain is a shoo-in. Of course, I may not be getting any better of a sense of what the electorate thinks than anyone else. I know that several of the regulars at the National Review site hold a big grudge against McCain and Limbaugh’s antipathy is well known. I’m seeing some others saying that he’s the one most likely to beat Hillary or Obama. What I don’t see very much of is enthusiasm for him, more of a “he’s the best we can do” kind of thing.
A lot of the anti-McCain stuff is crazy, and this is from the people who are members of his party. Personally I can’t quite wrap my head around Ann Coulture’s logic; she doesn’t like that McCain helps Democrats against Republicans so she is threatening…to help Hillary…nope, just can’t make any sense of it.
McCain is not beloved by many rank and file republicans–the kind of folks you need for a real get out the vote effort.
So what?
See, my perception is that the rank and file may not love McCain…but they despise Clinton. And I think they will turn out in sizable numbers to thwart her return to the White House. That’s why I’ve repeatedly said I think she’s unelectable.
This reminds me of what Democrats were saying in the last election–many were unenthusiastic about Kerry but they thought it would be ok because so many people hated Bush that they would come out in droves. But it didn’t happen. You may well be right–if anyone can unite Republicans it would take a Clinton. But I think that recent history shows that it isn’t easy to beat someone you hate with someone you don’t like. Maybe in our little circle most of us end up voting against the other candidate more than we vote for someone but I think that isn’t the case nationwide.
And while I disagree with the anti-McCain fanatics I can see a small bit of logic in some of their arguments. The people who regard illegal immigration as the biggest problem we face are unlikely to be happy with any candidate now, but it will probably be easier for McCain to get through a pro-amnesty package than it would be for Hillary. In fact, one aspect of McCain that I rather admire could end up hurting him big time in the election–he’s probably a lot more willing than Hillary to expend political capital to fight for something that may not be popular. With someone like Hillary you can always justify supporting her even when you disagree with her position by rationalizing that she won’t actually do what she says once she gets into office. With McCain that seems less likely. If you don’t like his position on something you’d better be prepared to not like his actions either.
Now if Hillary wins over Obama by pulling a fast one (using the Florida and Michigan delegates for example) all bets are off. She has to make sure victory doesn’t require pìššìņg øff all of his voters. McCain could, theoretically, siphon off some Latino votes and if Blacks stay home in protest, she’s toast.
One interesting factor comes up now–from what I can see a lot of the upcoming states look pretty Obama friendly. It could be a while before Hillary gets the chance to win a big state and the constant drip drip of smaller states falling to Obama could create a bad situation for her–already the money is shifting to him. The plan all along was to wrap this thing up on super Tuesday. With that plan down in flames and Bill sidelined what does she do to recapture the Big Mo? A staff shakeup? Are there any endorsements left that don’t seem more likely to go to Obama (Edwards, Gore)?
“This reminds me of what Democrats were saying in the last election–many were unenthusiastic about Kerry but they thought it would be ok because so many people hated Bush that they would come out in droves.”
The thing is, they weren’t wrong.
In 2004 the Democrats actually did get out a massive number of votes. All the hatred for Bush you’re referring to did exactly what they said it would, it got tons of Democrats to the polls. As unappealing at Kerry was, he still got a lot of votes from people who didn’t want Bush.
The reason Bush won is that tons of Republicans came out to vote, also. His approval rating was still way higher than we’d like to admit and he still inspired the Republicans.
So will hatred of Hillary get Republicans out to vote? The 2004 election says yes. Would she also inspire the Democrats to go to the polls? I think so, but I think Barack would do so just as much. And I think he’d do it without inspiring so much hate from the Republicans.
I’m still not sure it’s enough, though.
”See, my perception is that the rank and file may not love McCain…but they despise Clinton. And I think they will turn out in sizable numbers to thwart her return to the White House. That’s why I’ve repeatedly said I think she’s unelectable.”
”It doesn’t matter if they grumbled about their team not winning in the regular season, once the Superbowl starts they’ll root for whoever is against the team they hate. Politics is exactly like sports fandom to a lot of people.”
”Also dont forget some of the hard hard right would rather put McCain in the white house if it would stop BILL Clinton not necessarily Hillary from winning.”
The hardcore football fans out there will do that. The more casual fans will simply not watch the game.
Right now, there are far, far more people on the right who are, and have been for the last eight years, expressing absolute loathing for McCain. McCain is the traitor, the RINO, the ultra lib, etc. McCain was the Republican that conservatives were swearing on their very lives was going to be ultra-lib Kerry’s VP pick to run against his own party. He’s been portrayed politically as just the same or no better than Teddy, Hillary and Kerry for the last six years easy with the only exceptions being a few short blips caused by his statements on Iraq. He’s been the subject of more insulting parodies by Rush, Hannity, Coulter and others in the last eight years then Bill & Hill combined have been in that same time period. That’s not going to be forgotten just because Rush and crew don’t mention it for a couple of months.
Besides, the pundit’s egos may get in their way here. Rush relished his early success in the early 90’s. He was “the majority maker” and an honorary member of the Republican Congress. He was a power player. Other pundits rose up and took that mantle to some degree as well. In this election, a number of them have taken early sides in the primaries for Rudy and Mitt and banged those drums as loud and as hard as they could. And even guys like Rush who claim that they won’t endorse or support anyone in primaries have made clear who they support and who they don’t by the comments they make and the attacks they launch. In Rush’s world, Mitt is a real conservative candidate and has been played up heavily on his show as one. McCain is all that stuff I mentioned above. McCain absolutely stomping these other candidates isn’t simply McCain winning the primaries. Oh no, it’s McCain beating them. When you’ve started to believe your own hype, it can be an awful blow when someone comes along and blows it up entirely. I can easily see some of those pathetic, petty bášŧárdš relishing the idea of McCain running and failing just so the can be “right” and tell their audience that they told ‘em so all those months back and all those years before. Remember, most of these guys don’t have any real principles or stands. God knows enough of them sold out their “deeply held beliefs and principles” whenever they needed to support some of the Bush plays in the last six years.
On the left side of the playing field, there’s nowhere near that level of hate being focused at Hillary by the Democratic and liberal voices in the media and blogosphere. There’s some, but for the most part there’s just less enthusiasm for Hillary then there is for Obama. Hëll, 90% of the negative comments about Hillary not being the ideal candidate isn’t so much about her as much as it’s about how the hypothetical rightwing hatred that she would foment would turn into an unstoppable wave of Republican voters that would crush her under its mass. It’s not anything like the venom being spit by the Right on anything like the level that it’s being spit.
Now throw in the Bush factor. You have the occasional idiots that like to inject themselves into debates just to declare that it doesn’t matter in the least who gets in because they’ll all do the exact same thing. Well, only a blind, deaf and dumb fool would still be singing that song after Bush. Hillary is far, far, far less likely to keep the country running along on the Bush prescribed path then McCain. A lot of the Left wants us off of that course as much as possible. A lot of the Right would like to change course. I think that there’s a stronger incentive for the Left to vote for Hillary and a greater possible shift from that course then there is for the Right to vote for a guy who’s suddenly trying to tell the world that he’s Bush Lite and would supposedly keep all the bad ideas going.
I think we’re even seeing some of that effect now. Look at the primary voter turnouts. Even in “Republican” states, there are more people voting in the Democratic primaries than there are in the Republican primaries. The passion for their candidates and what those candidates stand for isn’t there this go-round. There is a passion for a change of course on the Left if not one for Hillary herself. That will likely bring about a good voter turnout amongst the Left. The mythical beast that is the Anti-Clinton Voting Monster has never been proven to be true and will likely be proven to be as real as your average Jenny Hanover.
”Personally I can’t quite wrap my head around Ann Coulture’s logic; she doesn’t like that McCain helps Democrats against Republicans so she is threatening…to help Hillary…nope, just can’t make any sense of it.”
I think rush and a couple of others kinda told a close-to-almost truth in the last week. Their spin has been that they would rather the Liberal Hillary be in office then the Liberal McCain so that when the Liberal Ideas cause all sorts of damage it hurts the Democrats rather then the Republicans.
For the minority of them that have been drinking their own Kool-Aid, they might actually believe that. There’s also the group that might be thinking that Bush has destroyed so much so badly that the country is going to crash badly in the next two years no matter who is in office and they know (hope) that the blame will go to the party in charge. Why set your own team up for a fall? And then there’s the ego thing. Like I said, McCain winning not only the nomination but the Presidency itself after years them painting him as basically just shy of being the male Hillary… Well, that just can’t happen. It’s not only ”wrong”, it’s a personal defeat.
”One interesting factor comes up now–from what I can see a lot of the upcoming states look pretty Obama friendly.”
Yeah, but we’ve all seen how reliable “early indications” have been with this election process. Who knows what’s actually going to happen.
“Right now, there are far, far more people on the right who are, and have been for the last eight years, expressing absolute loathing for McCain.”
Are there really far, far more people who loath him? Or are there a few people who are just very loud?
If you take the entire staff of Fox News and add them up, that’s not enough votes to win a Primary in Rhode fricken’ Island. But they *sound* like a gigantic army. Among actual people, I haven’t heard anywhere near the dislike for McCain that I’ve heard for Hillary. Nowhere close.
We can be easily led astray if we only listen to the idealogues and pundits, whose stock in trade is hyperbole and sensationalism. Will Limbaugh and Coulter really vote for Clinton over McCain? That’s about as likely as those who claimed they would move to Canada if Bush won in ’04. They’re more likely not to vote than to vote for Hillary.
What looks to be happening, at least from my POV, is that the neo-cons are losing power, and making as much noise as possible to sabotage a moderate’s chances so that they can try and retain power a little longer.
The mythical beast that is the Anti-Clinton Voting Monster has never been proven to be true and will likely be proven to be as real as your average Jenny Hanover
Oh, that’s nice. I had the chance to pick up an absolutely great Jenny Hanover a few years back and passed on it. D’oh! Would look great on the wall.
Are there really far, far more people who loath him? Or are there a few people who are just very loud?
Well, although McCain won on Tuesday, he did it with only 41% of the vote. More Republican voters are voting against him than for him. Ok, it’s still a 3 man race, what’s worse is that the Democrats had 70+% greater turnout.
I think we may know how things will turn out tomorrow when McCain addresses the conservative convention. If it goes badly, I think he will have a very hard time uniting the party behind him. If he goes too far he will lose support from independents and those Democrats who would consider him. Usually this is when a Republican candidate would tack toward the middle for the general election. If McCain is still trying to reassure his base at this late date it doesn’t bode well.
“Right now, there are far, far more people on the right who are, and have been for the last eight years, expressing absolute loathing for McCain.”
”Are there really far, far more people who loath him? Or are there a few people who are just very loud?”
”If you take the entire staff of Fox News and add them up, that’s not enough votes to win a Primary in Rhode fricken’ Island. But they *sound* like a gigantic army. Among actual people, I haven’t heard anywhere near the dislike for McCain that I’ve heard for Hillary. Nowhere close.”
There are far more people on the Right who hate McCain than there are people on the Left who hate Hillary. And I’m not just counting the pundits and the Rightwing media figures. I’m counting their callers, their letter writers and their bloggers. I’m also looking at the literally hundreds of people I come into contact with on any given day and hear discussing the previous nights news and events. Many Conservatives, rightly or wrongly, rationally or not, dislike McCain greatly.
”Will Limbaugh and Coulter really vote for Clinton over McCain?”
No, but they and others may just decide to not vote at all come November. And I think they odds of people on the Right not coming out to for McCain is a more likely scenario than people on the left not coming out to vote for Hillary. That throws a lot of the outcome to moderates and independents and I think they’ll go with they candidate most likely to not act like a continuation of Bush or, again, not vote at all.
”I think we may know how things will turn out tomorrow when McCain addresses the conservative convention. If it goes badly, I think he will have a very hard time uniting the party behind him.”
McCain: ”My friends, I come before you tonight to…”
The Assembled Crowd (Mob) of Convention Goers: ”Burn the witch!!! Kill the witch!!!”
Well, PAD, I think the opposite is true. I think that Sen. Clinton is electable, just barely, but I think Sen. Obama has no chance in a general election. Why? Because of his race. Sorry, but that’s what I think.
Okay. WHat’s a “Jenny Hanover”?
Googling suggests it may be a fake mermaid or somesuch, but i’d like a specific reference.
What’s a Jenny Hanover?!? You poor, poor undereducated man you.
Mostly Jenny Hanovers are skates or rays that have been artfully sliced and trimmed, dried and the dipped in some sort of shellac or something and passed off as some sort of unknown sea creature. The mouth and eyes, when framed by the right “plastic surgery” end up looking almost humanlike. They’ve also been known as Sea Devils. It’s been decades since anyone really successfully passed one off as a “new scientific discovery” for more then twenty seconds.
There used to be a ton of good pictures of them on Google’s image search results, but I’ll be dámņëd if I can find any usable ones now.
Oops. Spoke too soon. Found one.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=15&pos=221
Should have thought to check these guys first.
And this is a better one. The link above looks like a fish version. This one is the more common or classic one. They have other photos under this image.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=15&pos=220
And this is a better one. The link above looks like a fish version. This one is the more common or classic one. They have other photos under this image.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=15&pos=220
Yeah, what happened to all the good pictures?
Wait, try spelling it Jenny Haniver. Oh yeah, there we go. Lots of photos.
I’ve also seen some other fish–sea robins?–surgically altered into good gaffs. And the Fiji mermaids, of course.
There’s a small market for custom made chupucabras and such. Look at w*w.customcreaturetaxidermy.com/fantasy/fantasy.html
But give me a break. $450 for a “freak hairless squirrel”??? Give me A- a squirrel and B- an electric razor and I’ll give you a freak hairless squirrel for half that price.
Back to politics for a moment–you know one problem Obama has? When your base is young voters you are depending on a group that often ends up being undependable. Witness “Obama Girl”. She didn’t even bother to vote. Slacker.
Jenny Hanover, Jenny Haniver and Jenny Hanniver all work. I tend to forget that the one in my book of unknown creatures is the oddman out spelling of the three.
As for the Obama base…
The other problem with a youth vote that’s based on “inspirational leadership” is that they tend to drop off like leaves in the fall. If you’re voting for a guy because he speaks of “hope” and “change” and know nothing about the guys platforms, then you’re pretty likely to bail out when the shine gets rubbed off. As a number of Obama supporters being interviewed live back during the Iowa and NH caucuses showed that a lot of them (at least there) knew zilch about what he actually stood for beyond the pretty words; the Democrats better pray like mad that if he ends up with the nomination his shine doesn’t get too damaged by his opponent before election day.
Bill Mulligan: A lot of the anti-McCain stuff is crazy, and this is from the people who are members of his party. Personally I can’t quite wrap my head around Ann Coulture’s logic; she doesn’t like that McCain helps Democrats against Republicans..
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the questionable concept of “Ann Coulter’s logic” (wasn’t that one of the creature’s profiled on the Discovery channel’s Monster Quest?), she actually stated on Hannity & Colmes that she made this pledge because McCain led the fight against torture.
Leave to someone like Coulter to argue openly in favor of torture.
Posted by: Luigi Novi
Leave to someone like Coulter to argue openly in favor of torture.
Has to. If torture is ever banned, she won’t be allowed on teevee or radio any more.
Really? A lot of the pundits on the right do that, quite without a trace of irony.
I wish they would ban exit polling, and not be allowed to predict winners until ALL polls are closed. My mother, who’s logic is worthy of Archie Bunker, waits until she knows who the leader is, and then votes for that person, because, after all, the other person won’t win and who wants to vote for a loser? That would be throwing your vote away.
What scares me most is how many of the older voters have this mentality.
It’s not just the older voters, Susan. I overheard some of my younger coworkers following the polls as well. They wanted to be able say, “I supported him/her since the beginning!”
Yeah, since the beginning of the poll results…
Posted by: Susan O
I wish they would ban exit polling, and not be allowed to predict winners until ALL polls are closed.
I just like the 24-hour voting day policy – polls open at 8AM Eastern Standard Time Tuesday in all fifty states and the territories, and close at 8AM EST on Wednesday.
That way, it’s impossible to report a winner anywhere much more quickly than anywhere else, thus avoiding the “New York win prediction causes California voters to stay home” thing.
I don’t know that it’s possible to ban polling–free speech, after all–but I wonder how the mail-in early votes are factored in.
Hillary was way ahead in CA up to a few days ago. Early exit polls had Obama ahead. She won handily.
Is it possible that the mail in votes reflected her earlier lead and the exit polls reflected his new momentum?
Now, can any of you political types explain to me precisely WHY people like Rush and Ann Coulter and other are always being referenced and why anyone would give a flying fart what they say? It’s always seemed to me they’ve made a career out of being really obnoxious more than anything else. Hëll, I’m really obnoxious but I’ve never been referenced for anything and it hasn’t made me one red cent.
Now, can any of you political types explain to me precisely WHY people like Rush and Ann Coulter and other are always being referenced and why anyone would give a flying fart what they say? It’s always seemed to me they’ve made a career out of being really obnoxious more than anything else. Hëll, I’m really obnoxious but I’ve never been referenced for anything and it hasn’t made me one red cent.
Posted by: Sean
Now, can any of you political types explain to me precisely WHY people like Rush and Ann Coulter and other are always being referenced and why anyone would give a flying fart what they say? It’s always seemed to me they’ve made a career out of being really obnoxious more than anything else.
Because, regrettable as it may seem, they have influence (not so much as they or their hordes of dittoheads would like to think, but influence) on the process.
Yeah, they have influence. But again, why? I’m not trying to poke you with a pointed stick, Mike, I just really have never understood why certain people who aren’t, in fact, politicians can be so loud on the political process and those with airwaves put these people ON said airwaves.
My, that was a really long run-on sentence.
Look at another loudmouth, Sean Hannity. He’s an ex-contractor and an ex-bartender, neither of which occupation is likely to land you on either the radio or a news network. Yet, there he is. I’ve been trying to get on radio for years, but do I get on? No. Maybe I’m just not self-promoting enough.
I just really have never understood why certain people who aren’t, in fact, politicians can be so loud on the political process and those with airwaves put these people ON said airwaves.
Sean–basically it’s the fact that they have the proven ability to reach an audience. This allows them to charge advertisers money for access to that audience.
Simple as that. Now why have these particular individuals been able to do it when other, doubtlessly better educated people have failed is another question entirely. Radio looks easy. It isn’t, as the legion of failed Stern and Limbaugh imitators have learned.
(probably they would do better to NOT try to be the next Stern or Limbaugh but to be themselves–assuming that there’s an audience for it.).
Looks like Romney is out of the race…
Looks like Romney is out of the race…
Yep, looks like. What a terrific birthday present!
Sorry for Romney supporters, but after the psycho that is Rudy Giuliani he’s always been my least favorite of the GOP candidates. The President-as-chameleonic-CEO model has been more than amply played out and demonstrated as a Bad Idea, methinks…
Regardless of which Democrat gets the nomination (though I hope it’s Obama), I think this promises to be a far more interesting and potentially issue-driven fall campaign than we’ve seen in a long while.
TWL
Well, that happened sooner then I thought it would. Romney just quit talking (and spinning the hëll out of the fact that he was getting hi butt kicked into doing the right and noble thing for the party and the country) and he is now officially gone from the race. Looks like we get to see whether or not the rabid voices on the Right go McCain or not well before the convention gets here as it’s now him or Ron Paul.
And yeah, I know Huck is out there too. But I think he and McCain have a deal and the extreme Right have been making him out to be as nutty as a loon. Not that they’re totally off base there…
Posted by: Tim Lynch
Sorry for Romney supporters, but after the psycho that is Rudy Giuliani he’s always been my least favorite of the GOP candidates.
A New Yorker who is a friend-of-a-friend once looked at his watch, observed thjat it was one second past midnight and then spoke “the three most beautiful words in the English Language”: “Ex-Mayor Giuliani”…
AS to Rush and Sean and their ilk, demagogues have always made their living by appealing to the dissatisfied who feel that they have been done out of what should be rightfully theirs in favour of inferiors who only manage to succeed by chicanery and venality.
I refuse to Godwinise this discussion directly, but consider the attitude of the German people after World War One and what that led to.
Sean: Now, can any of you political types explain to me precisely WHY people like Rush and Ann Coulter and other are always being referenced and why anyone would give a flying fart what they say?
Luigi Novi: I’ve never been able to figure that out myself. The only thing I can think of is that there are two schools of thought on how commentary should be: One is that it be thoughtful, intelligent, objective, serious, and measured. But there is an aspect of the public, or its psyche, that revels in the Jerry Springer-like abandonment of all decency, that people like Hannity, Rush and Coulter appeal to that. They capitalize on the worst aspects of the human mind’s tendency towards bigotry, demagoguery and hatred.
Sean: Look at another loudmouth, Sean Hannity. He’s an ex-contractor and an ex-bartender, neither of which occupation is likely to land you on either the radio or a news network. Yet, there he is.
Luigi Novi: I don’t think one has to have had formal education or have been a professional politician to articulate an intelligent political viewpoint. That sounds like the ad hominem crap people give Peter when they complain about his expressing his political viewpoints on his blog by arguing that he should “stick to writing comics”. Me, I figure Peter could do as good if not a better job than a lot of the Talking Heads out there. My feeling is, if in a representative democracy/republic/whatever like the U.S., citizens are given the power to choose their leaders, directly or indirectly, with the power of the vote, what sense does it make to argue that they need to be professionals to express their political opinions? If part of Americanism is the assumption that we’re able to affect our politics by way of vote, what sense does it make to argue that we can’t talk about it? It’s one more reason why that particular ad hominem argument never made sense to me, which is why I made that point a couple of years back with one paralogist here who tried to compare politics to neurosurgery, as if expressing political opinions required technical expertise like being a surgeon.
Hannity isn’t a bad commentator because he was a contractor and a bartender. He’s a bad commentator because he’s a obnoxious bigot who never met a logical fallacy that he didn’t like.
Bill Mulligan: Looks like Romney is out of the race…
Luigi Novi: Ahhhh. Thank you. That means no matter who wins, we’ll have someone with a sensible view on religion in the White House.
Clinton did well in states that I could win as a Democrat in the general election. The fact that Obama thomped her in several swing states speaks volume.
I think the comparison of Kerry to McCain is apt — you should never count on hatred of the opponent to carry you into the White House. Hatred isn’t enough to get people to go out and vote.
However, I think Clinton’s failing is that she only speaks to Democrats who have been voting and will always vote in elections (women of a certain age, seniors, and so on). The way the red/blue state divide works out is that if only the party faithfuls vote, the Republicans generally win.
Democrats win elections when they get young people and independents (the latter is especially critical) to vote for them. That’s how Clinton won — with independents and the “Reagan Democrats.” There is one Democratic candidate who appeals to those two groups and it’s not Sen. Clinton. The biggest mistake Democrats can make is that thinking that Sen. Clinton’s appeal, which is considerable, is the same as Bill Clinton’s.
“Yeah, they have influence. But again, why?”
Because they’ve got a skill and a certain level of charisma that has given them a large group of followers and many of those followers will act on their suggestions. That makes them appear valuable to the power players and the wanna-be power players who’ll then prop them up partly to inflate their egos to better curry favors with them and partly to make them appear more important then they are to create the appearance of having power players, movers and shakers on their side. Everybody wants to say that they’ve got huge support amongst the common man and what better way to show that then by pointing to popular “representatives” of the everyday common man? It’s not enough to point to other politicians as being for you and it’s a better prop to have to point to than just saying that you’ve got large crowds of people showing up to support you. So what if you’ve got fifty to a hundred people showing up for your little events? I’ve got that and I’ve got Rush and his twenty million plus listeners on my side. Power is sometimes based on illusion and Rush, Hannity, Fox News and crew do still create a powerful illusion for some.
They’re also useful for, to quote Bush, repeating things over and over and over again for the “truth” to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. Rush has three hours a day, five days a week and “Best Of” shows on the weekends that a lot of his listeners tune into from start to finish. In many markets you then go straight to (former Rush fill in host) Sean Hannity who then repeats the same talking points (with only a few differences) for another three hours to most of the same audience. Six hours a day of talking points to fire up a base. Then it’s over to Fox News for more fun.
However, while Rush may have had some strong influence before, I think that their actual power is crumbling somewhat. They’re still good for creating a talking points echo chamber and for getting, spin, smear and distortion out into the public discourse, but I think that the present style of conservative talk radio is in decline and that when Rush finally slinks off into the sunset that it will be the end of that era. Hannity doesn’t have Rush’s style and the various Rush clones other then Hannity have never really amounted to much. The big attractions outside of them are guys like Savage and no one really gives him the illusion of clout and respectability or the TV time that they’ve given Rush and Hannity. And rightly so. Coulter is almost as loony as Savage and, while she’s propped up by Rush, Sean and Fox News, her sell by date is fast passing her by and she’s seeing less influence herself these days.
I don’t think that this means that people are learning to think for themselves or not follow clowns like these more then past generations though. I just think that it’s beginning to become apparent that this group of clowns‘ time as power players is winding down. Whether that means we get something better or worse for the next wave of clowns is anybody’s guess.
Hillary will win the NY primary.
Why?
Because with Edwards out of the race, I voted for Obama.
Right. Because everything is about you.
Ah… To live life without a sense of humor or the first clue about one.
~8?P
Of course it is. Whose blog is it, anyway?
Posted by: Jerry Chandler
I don’t think that this means that people are learning to think for themselves or not follow clowns like these more then past generations though. I just think that it’s beginning to become apparent that this group of clowns’ time as power players is winding down. Whether that means we get something better or worse for the next wave of clowns is anybody’s guess.
Oh, it’ll be worse, both because the current crew have lowered the bar for the next generation and because new technology will make it more pervasive.
BTW – Ann COulter is a Deadhead. Yup – by her own count, she’s seen them about 67 times.
For a pic and some remarks by her that will forever sear the retinas of your imagination (Purple Crisco? Eewwww…), go to http://www.theamericanmind.com/mt-test/archives/2006_06.html (Scroll way down, til you come to the picture of the scrawny blonde standing in front of a Grateful Dead poster…)
Luigi–I never meant to say that Hannity’s past was in some way indicative of his intelligence. Hey, the fact that anybody responds to anything I write proves that. All I was trying to say was it just seems that there’re a lot of talking heads out there whose only qualification is that they can talk. And they have a head.
A New Yorker who is a friend-of-a-friend once looked at his watch, observed thjat it was one second past midnight and then spoke “the three most beautiful words in the English Language”: “Ex-Mayor Giuliani”…
Maybe, but I certainly always thought that “Ex-Senator Santorum” was in the running for that honor as well. “Ex-President Bush” won’t be nearly as nice, given how much damage was done. “Convicted Felon Cheney,” on the other hand, would be really nice should it ever come to pass … not that it’s likely, mind you.
TWL
It’s now (basically) official, McCain will be the Republican nominee. My decision come November can already be foretold…
If Clinton wins, I’ll be voting for McCain.
If Obama wins, I’ll be voting for Obama.
I’m definitely one of those people that PAD was talking about when it comes to Clinton’s eligibility.
Posted by: Mickey
Right. Because everything is about you.
PAD was utilizing the same joke that goes along the lines of “It’s going to rain because I just washed my car.” Or, you might have actually pointed out a here-to-fore unknown truth.
“Eligibility” = “Electability”
Oops.
“Maybe, but I certainly always thought that “Ex-Senator Santorum” was in the running for that honor as well.”
Amen, brother, amen. And happy birthday.
Ann COulter is a Deadhead. Yup – by her own count, she’s seen them about 67 times.
Heh. I wonder if that means she came out to support Obama on Monday.