Response to David

Email Print posted by hazmat 03/25/2008 03:09:33 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit

David posted in response to the Hillary math a counter-argument posed as rhetorical question:

Why isn't it the case that if Obama wins, it will destroy the party?

You make some interesting points. I could argue each of them, but that would serve no purpose since neither of us knows the answer. But your premise, that one candidate's loss equals the other's win fails to recognize the effect Hillary is having on the coalition that was responsible for throwing out the bums in 2006. She will split that coalition.

What makes Hillary's campaign unlike others who competed, saw the writing on the wall, and subsequently dropped out in a timely fashion (Bill Richardson, John Edwards et al.,) is that Hillary is running an overwhelming negative campaign that is divisive and damaging to the party, not merely to Barack. In fact, as Cenk himself has pointed out, her surrogates are (inexplicably in my view) campaigning against Barack's supporters! These are the very people she is ostensibly asking to VOTE FOR HER in the fall. Is she braindead? Do lunchpail democrats really make choices at the ballot box in hopes of pissing off "latte-sipping" "volvo-driving" liberals? Have you ever heard Obama or his surrogates pedal similar stereotypes against Hillary supporters?

Are the highly-educated really "prey" to vacuous new-age platitudes? Are they "zombies" (this is the most common Clintonite construction of late)?

In stark contrast, Obama has run a thoroughly positive campaign, laying out a vision for America, engaging the populace including a wide swath of people in the center to center-right in a conversation about WHO WE ARE.

Because that is what one has to do to be "electable". If Hillary wins in the way that she is planning too, right or wrong, many will perceive her as having stolen the election, mainly because she has run a bad campaign and put her own interests above party and country.

She should have been a shoe-in, but due to her own lack of judgement and foresight and her embracing the advice and tactics of loathsome pollsters, she gave it away to younger, savvier, and frankly better candidate. Democrats have watched establishment figures actively lose two presidential elections in a row that were very winnable for the same reasons. Let's avoid the hat-trick shall we?

< Hillary's new argument - Electoral votes | Cenk's five per cent solution >
 Display:
Response to David | 35 comments (35 topical, 0 hidden)
The splitting of the party... (none / 0)
Thank you for your response, hazmat.


I believe we are really seeing the destruction of the Democratic Party as we know it...


Regardless of who wins this particular primary, I believe that the fissures between the Liberal wing and the DLC/Moderate wing of the party are too expansive to reconcile... The Democrats have always had a loose structure anyway (at least since the 70s), but I can see a split happening with this much attention and so many people disagreeing on 2 candidates that are essentially the same in 90% of their ways...


Race and Identity politics will kill the party, or at least fracture it to where it is almost unrecognizable...


Assuming that the Liberal half of the party will assume the name "Democrat" My question to you is - Where do the Moderate DLC types go? To the Republicans...Third Way... ???


Thanks for your posting, again...

by bobo1 on 03/25/2008 03:37:45 PM EST

I really believe (none / 0)

that as bad as it looks now, Obama has taken care not to alienate anyone, and maintain a positive message. That will pay dividends when it comes time to heal the fissures.

Hillary could potentially do some damage control, but her task will be more difficult. 

by hazmat on 03/25/2008 03:48:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Agreed, but... (none / 0)
Do you Obama supporters want to heal the fissure? I am not convinced that the Liberals really want the Hillary DLC types in their party..

Any thoughts?

Thanks..

by bobo1 on 03/25/2008 03:52:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
we don't want the DLC (none / 0)

the DLC doesn't represent anybody, its just a cadre of politicians who got together in the late 80's and pieced together a strategy for winning elections in a post-Reagan world. Don't confuse them for the "blue-dog" democrats (although there is much overlap), which does in fact represent the conservative faction. I don't like the DLC because they are responsible for what Cenk refers to as the maoist apology-then-cave strategy that has resulted in historically low approval ratings for the democratic congress. I could write a book on that topic but I won't do it here. Point being, they are a power-sharing consortium, not a point-of-view. And they include Joe Lieberman for better or worse.

I still consider myself a fence-sitter if Hillary wins, but in the end, I will probably get over my misgivings and vote for her over McCain. I just can't endorse his point of view any more. But many independants who don't mind voting republican probably won't follow this pattern--and by the way there's little evidence that Hillary enjoys support among independants.The point of my post was that Hillary is damaging the party in her quest to tear down Barack, but the reverse isn't true. The real question isn't whether I and people like me will come back to Hillary, but whether she has what it takes to win us back, and will it be enough to win?

Generally, the strategy of asking people not to vote for the other guy, instead of explaining proactively why they should vote for you is a loser in presidential campaigns. Ask John Kerry. And ask yourself if you want another candidate who endorses that strategy (Hillary).

p.s. thanks for your thoughtful comments 

by hazmat on 03/25/2008 04:10:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You are welcome... (none / 0)
I lump in the DLC/Moderates and Blue Dogs in the same group due to that overlap you describe - I'll try to clarify for future postings...

The Republican Party underwent this sort of change back in 76, when the Conservatives and moderates were somewhat merged to form the Reagan Coalition, but as you can see, that hasnt held together well...


Im afraid that Moderates, people who dont prescribe to either the Liberal "Kool Aid" or the "Satanic Verses" of Conservatism are in a representational pickle - Nobody stands for us in many ways, and we are getting sick and tired of having smoke blown up our ass by BOTH sides...

I think the Blue Dogs and the Liberal Republicans should unite and form a seperate party to establish some clear definitions of what we believe in... I know this is a total pipe dream, but I am sick of both parties not representing us here in the real world... a Lou Dobbsian type of party if you will that is strong on the economy and on Foreign issues...

Thanks again...

:)

by bobo1 on 03/25/2008 04:40:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A third party would be great (none / 0)
but its very unlikely. It would need to be accompanied by some much needed reforms to be sustainable, like the ability to identify a second choice candidate. It will never happen though.

by hazmat on 03/25/2008 04:47:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
i'll go one further (none / 0)
I don't want them in my country.

by ynp7 on 03/27/2008 10:57:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Spin, spin, spin (none / 0)
You have convinced yourself that she can't win therefore she should drop out. Negative campaign? Who has labeled her a racist, a thief and a saboture? Let's say it together, Obama Supporters. She has had the audacity to say that he is inexperienced (whether running against her or JM) Wow the Pubs never would have thought about that. In answer yes I have heard a lot of bashing of Hillary supporters.

Why is Hillary held accountable for anything any of her surrogates say. and Obama is not, or shouldn't be.

I have actually sat and watched peopel here defend Wright's comments, in fact stating that HE IS RIGHT.

Really, this is why we lose elections. Yes he's right we nuked Japan (people of color) Ignoring that those people of color attacked us. Convienently ignoring the fact that those people of color committed atrocities against other people of color (China,Korea the Philipines just to name a few) but Obama supporters are very experienced at letting little important facts like that slip right by.

Obama has run a positive campaign? Letting his surrogates throw the dirt for him, I don't call that a positive campaign.

Cenk bragged and boasted he won Texas despite her popular vote victory. Proving 2 things 1) once again that caucuses are not representative of regular Democratic voters. and 2) Cenk doesn't really care about the will of the people.

If cenk had integrity he would have been screaming how unfair the texas result was and how Hillary shoud have won the delegates.But if he did that then he would also have to admit that the "caucus" system itself is flawed. Meaning that Obama has taken advantage of an unfair system (a smart move for a savy politician). That sure would make it harder to attack clinton for taking advantage of the same unfair system now that it benefits her, wouldn't it.

If Hillary wins the nomination it won't be due to theft it will be due to a screwed up system and due to the momentum she will have at winning a string of primaries at the end.

We must support the nominee no matter who it is


by LORD FOUL on 03/25/2008 05:58:08 PM EST

I said it, I'll defend it (5.00 / 2)

I have actually sat and watched peopel here defend Wright's comments, in fact stating that HE IS RIGHT.

Really, this is why we lose elections. Yes he's right we nuked Japan (people of color) Ignoring that those people of color attacked us. Convienently ignoring the fact that those people of color committed atrocities against other people of color (China,Korea the Philipines just to name a few) but Obama supporters are very experienced at letting little important facts like that slip right by.

Yes, Wright was right. If you have only heard the twenty seconds soundbites, you are not hearing what he said and you are not being presented the overall point. Or, maybe you have a different belief system.

We did not have to drop the A-bombs on Japan. They were losing. Yes, it undoubtedly saved a large number of Americans from being casualties. Not the point. The point is that we made a policy decision to use a weapon of mass destruction. That act had repercussions, good and bad.

In 1990, Saudi Arabia allowed the U.S. to have air bases within their country in order to fight the Gulf War. A rich and influential Saudi Wahabi fundamentalist by the name of Osama Bin Laden took great umbrage at this, seeing it as a desecration of his holy land. He began recruiting like minded zealots and together they mounted attacks against the "infidels" - not just America but anyone, including other Muslims, who were seen as intruders. In the case of the U.S., Osama Bin Laden and his followers had (and have) a disagreement with foreign policy issues.

Since Bin Laden knew that America was all in favor of violent incursions into other countries' politics and had used tactics of terror in the past, he took it for granted that this was an acceptable form of expression. Timothy McVeigh had a similar point of view about American domestic policy in regards to Ruby Ridge and Waco. He also took it for granted that mass murder was an acceptable form of expression. Since the U.S. had used such actions in the past, it only stood to reason that the same actions would be taken against her at some point.

This is called "chickens coming home to roost."

Wright did not condone the actions. He explained them. He understood them. He understood that 9/11 was not something which occurred in a vacuum with no precipitating factor. Rather than tell his congregation that it happened because Gay people were getting married or Muslims hate America for it's freedoms, he laid bare the underlying cancer which leads to atrocities.

There is a reason that every culture which has ever existed has come up with a form of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The shameful thing for every one of those cultures is, we have never learned how to live up to that simple credo.

by MedfordTim on 03/26/2008 12:57:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Five star rating for that post. (none / 0)

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 03/26/2008 08:11:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I basically agree (none / 0)
but you gotta admit the thing about the government inventing AIDS was crazy like a fox.

by hazmat on 03/26/2008 12:49:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
but not alone... (none / 0)
Let me be clear: I don't care nor do I have any theories about how AIDS started. Yes, I think Rev. Wrights views on it are far fetched. However, in HIS community, it ain't such a peculiar notion...

Rev. Wright and PEPFAR, AIDS Complicity

Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments about the government lying about AIDS are not isolated to black America, not even isolated to America at all, but are shared globally. They are not confined to conspiracy theorists or wackos, as difficult as that may be for some people hearing the concept for the first time to understand. Rev. Wright has said,

The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.


The first African woman to ever win a Nobel Peace Prize, Wangari Maathai, shares these views,

In fact it (the HIV virus) is created by a scientist for biological warfare. Why has there been so much secrecy about AIDS? When you ask where did the virus come from, it raises a lot of flags. That makes me suspicious.



In 2005, a survey by the Rand Corporation found that half, that's right, one in every two black Americans think AIDS is man-made, more than half believe the government has a cure they are withholding from the poor, and a quarter believe it was created in a government laboratory. As Phil Wilson, founder and Executive Director of the Black AIDS Institute, said in the Washington Post when the study was released,

It's a huge barrier to HIV prevention in black communities. There's an issue around conspiracy theory and urban myths. Thus we have an epidemic raging out of control, and African Americans are being disproportionately impacted in every single sense.



Legitimate scientists and public health experts counter every argument at AIDS Truth.org. If you have doubts, please visit that site.

by MedfordTim on 03/26/2008 02:09:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why of course it's always the evil WHITE MAN (none / 0)
Of course AIDS was invented by the White Man.
After all as the followers of the Reverend Alijah Mohammad and his successor the Reverend Louis Farrakhan, (the man Reverend Wright and the church of "he who must not be named" gave an award to) will tell you WHITE MEN are the result of an experiment by an ancient evil black scientist Yakub. White men are "a race of devils". An experiment gone horribly horribly wrong.

Now I know that "he who must not be named" has denounced Reverend Farrakhan, and I know that he has denounced the comments by Reverend Wright, and I know he doesn't believe any of the things his friend, mentor, and uncle like figure of twenty years believes. So I suppose it's time for all of us "WHITE DEVILS" to step up to the plate and take responsibility for all the crazy things Reverend Wright has said. We must admit that all evil in the world stems for our existence. THE WHITE MAN MADE HIM DO IT! IT'S ALL WHITEY'S FAULT!

So please don't judge a man by the company he keeps or the people his church admires and awards, judge him by what he says, like "I'm a compassionate conservative." .. .....NO WAIT! That might not be the best example but you get what I'm trying to say.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 03/26/2008 09:07:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hubble? (none / 0)

That doesn't sound like you. Feel the need to vent? I know how it is.

by MedfordTim on 03/26/2008 09:32:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hubble is frustrated (none / 0)
He sees his party being hijacked by a bunch of naïve zealots, with a modern religion, and he's just venting his frustration.

He is certain that Democrats are running off the cliff, when they should have been guaranteed an easy victory in 2008.

He knows several lifelong Democrats who are talking about voting McCain if Obama is the nominee. (I know a few myself.)

He feels the same way I would have felt if Mike Huckabee had won the GOP nomination. 

by KenTX on 03/26/2008 09:40:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tim (none / 0)
I know how it is to be a true believer. I was almost one myself a long long time ago, but I could never bring myself to take that final leap of faith.

The Art of War tells us
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

The young zealots may or may not know themselves, but I'm afraid that for all the clamoring of knowledge they really don't know the enemy.

"A superior leader who calculates the distance or proximity of dangers and obstructions and moves with confidence anywhere in his environment, is on the path to victory."

Unfortunately the headstrong disciples don't believe or choose not to understand that the theatre of the absurd I just preformed is only a slight exaggeration of the type of campaign the opposition is going to unleash, and I have seen absolutely nothing that convinces me that Obama's campaign is up to the challenge. You can only play the race card so many times before people get tuned out and start listening to the other side. Obama is maybe 2 cards away from using his race card hand up.

Bill and Hillary once beloved of the Black community are now racist. Geraldine Ferraro, one of the strongest records on civil rights in the history of Congress is now a racist. Any one who question the statements of Rev. Wright and his support of Louis Farrakhan don't understand the Black culture and are racist. That may work among the crowd of liberals who suffer from "White Guilt", but it's not going to work in Middle America, and I don't care how fucked up Bush is, the Republicans have almost 9 months to convince the great uninformed masses who get their news in 30 second sound bits that genuine war hero and regular guy"Uncle John" isn't Shrub, and he isn't really going to keep the troops in Iraq for 100 years. Even if those Right Wing Religious Wack Jobs did endorse Uncle John, he didn't spend twenty years in the pews listening to them, and they certainly weren't his mentors. Oh yeah the Dems control Congress and you know how bad it is for one Party to controll everything, so come on how bad could four more years be.

I want to win, but what I've seen so for doesn't inspire me. I wish I could drink the KoolAid but I think I might be allergic or immune.

I still respect your opinion and comments, we just happen to not agree on this one thing. I pray you're right and I'm wrong on this one, BUT........

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 03/26/2008 10:22:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No problem (none / 0)

Just seemed that the response didn't quite fit the post. You know how easily I get confused.

Well, hell, what can I do? Gravel (except for that tax thing) was closest to me in social responsibility mindset, but the more conservative types dominated again. Of the three left, Obama is the closest to Liberal.

And, yeah, I am impressed by his speechifyin'. I'm a rank sentimentalist under this gruff exterior and he hits a few of my buttons.

As far as awards from his church to anyone, Cheney put it best: so? Who cares and why would they? WTF does it have to do with Obama's job performance? Should we find out who his grocery store's Employee of the Month has been for the last 10 years? Awards are cheap - Kissinger and Arafat both got Nobels! Is it just some backhanded attempt to convey the idea that Obama is a Farrakhan puppet who will turn the country over to the Brotherhood on Jan. 23rd? Do you believe that? I don't.

'Dourse, I'm one of them what thinks it's all moot, anyhow, and that the numbers are all in Obama's column, and the big thing to me is to get oit a "vote straight D" campaign for November. Wish there was time for a "boot out the incumbent" campaign and get fresh blood in some of those Dem seats too. Except Ron Wyden's, of course...

by MedfordTim on 03/26/2008 11:14:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Abomba (none / 0)
Yes estimates were into the millions dead, not to mention wounded in an allied landing of Japan. Last time I checked Japan was one of our closest allies. and the bad repercussions were? Americans coming home alive and in one piece?

Are you afraid to live in the real world. Actions have results that can be good or bad. Are we supposed to be afraid because some religious nut case might be offended.

I guess we should not have liberated Kuwait right?

We should have stayed out of Kosovo too right?

Abortion for example. I guess bombing abortion clinics are chickens coming home to roost for legalizing abortion right?


I guess saying foolish things and getting called on the carpet for them, is also chickens coming home to roost.

I guess associating yourself with an obvious bigot and facing questions about it, is also chickens coming home to roost.

Oh but the outrage over Farwell or Robertson or Hagee or Parsley eh!

Every American should be appalled by not only what he said but how he said it.

Yup, Clinton screwed the black man just like Lewinski, How appropriate with children in the audience no less. 

I wonder, who would he be supporting if Obama wasn't in the race?

Clinton, now that's Chickens coming home to roost indeed.


by LORD FOUL on 03/27/2008 08:47:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Probably shouldn't, but I gotta ask (none / 1)

Every American should be appalled by not only what he said but how he said it.

Really. Why "should" I?

by MedfordTim on 03/27/2008 04:55:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If you have to ask (none / 0)
Then I cannot help you.

How you say something is almost as important as what you say

His references were also way off and obviously "politically" motivated instead of morally motivated.

As I said. If Obama wasn't in the race would he have been lecturing about how Bill fucked the black man ( I seriously doubt it) Just like his implication that Hillary was never called a nigger (she has been called nigger lover on more than one occassion). I guess the fact that Obama has been called a nigger makes him more qualified to be president. Being called a bitch and a niggerlover doesn't. I guess it does if you are talking to a black audience right?

Nagasaki? Hiroshima? (While ignoring the fact that Japan started the war, ignoring the countless atrocities committed by the japanese against civilians). Obviously in Rev. Wright's world it is perfectly ok to committ atrocities just as long as there is a lil color to your skin.


Now the AP is reporting that Obama would have left the church if Wright would have stayed. Speaks for itself doesn't it.

by LORD FOUL on 03/28/2008 01:22:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Doesn't answer the question (none / 0)

All that blah blah is fine and dandy, but it doesn't supply any reason why "Every American should be appalled by not only what he said but how he said it. "

Or, are you more interested in the drive-by aspect than explaining your stance?

by MedfordTim on 03/28/2008 01:47:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Like I said (none / 0)
If you don't "get it" then I can't help you.

White america created AIDs and it is his responsibility to let every black person know it. So that they will love this country and love the white man even more right

He only Damns white america so that black america will better understand the plight of the white man.

he only mentions the bad things the white man has done so the black man can better empathize with his white brothers and sisters.

because lets face it Hillary doesn't know what it is like to be called a nigger.

I only teach love for the evil, twisted white people, who hold us down at every opportunity.

The liberation of SE Asia in WWII was a racist act

The Liberation of Kolsovo was a racist act

The Liberation of kuwait was a racist act

and all those acts led to 911 because our racist chickens came home to roost.

The fact that Obama is appalled by Wrights statements and you are not speaks volumes. Or is your hero lying for political reasons?

by LORD FOUL on 03/28/2008 03:58:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh, I see. You're insane. (none / 0)

If that is what you got from his words, YOU'RE the twisted individual here. Making Wright out to be a mirror image of David Duke might make you feel better in some odd way, but you missed the point of what he was saying altogether.

by MedfordTim on 03/28/2008 04:54:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
yup (none / 0)
I am insane

What was that Obama said on the view?

Guilty as charged

by LORD FOUL on 03/28/2008 06:07:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tim, we got Wright's point. (none / 0)
We're trying to sweep it under the rug and forget about it (for now). We plan to analyze these issues in greater detail, after Obama wins the nomination.

August is always a slow news month. Remember August 2004? John Kerry sure remembers.

by KenTX on 03/28/2008 10:59:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Lord Foul (none / 0)
This post exhibits brilliant reasoning, but please stop for now.

Let us resume this discussion on the day after Obama wins the nomination.

by KenTX on 03/28/2008 11:03:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"you have convinced yourself" (none / 0)

Please don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say she can't win, just that she probably won't. I also said I would probably end up voting for her in the comments.

Also, read my post carefully, I worked hard on it. I didn't say that nobody attacks Hillary's supporters, just that Obama and his campaign have not done this. I am right. If you can find concrete evidence to the contrary I'm all ears.

Do you expect Obama not to defend himself? If he passively took the "kitchen sink" the way Kerry laid out for the swiftboat attack, I wouldn't vote for him either. Does that make his campaign negative? no.

As a friendly concession, I'll agree with your final point that the system is screwed up and we shouldn't hold it against Hillary. I believe in my heart of hearts that if the shoe were on the other foot, Barack would drop out of the race at this point. But yes its true, we can't know that for sure.

by hazmat on 03/25/2008 06:29:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
retread (none / 0)
I am not trying to put words in your mouth.

Who labeled her a racist over LBJ, who mad fairy tale a racist remark. Who have been insisting that she is trying to steal the election. Who is implying that She is trying to sabotage Obama's campaign?

Funny she used to be the left wing niggerloving bitch. Now she is Bush in drag and she hates black people and she is still a bitch. Who is responsible?

What has Hillary called him? Inexperienced

It seems Obama needs to say nothing, the slime just oozes out on it's own right?

I do expect Obama to defend himself and I  want him to go negative. He will need to do that if he is the nominee.

I wouldn't follow your heart, remember this, Obama has won 1 significant election and that was against a last minute replacement who had no shot at winning. 2 years later he deems himself more qualified than everyother Dem contender? This election is to close for either to drop out .

by LORD FOUL on 03/25/2008 08:04:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Alright you sucked me in. (none / 0)

I don't have time to bicker about every point you raise, but none of them does anything to address or diminish my thesis in this post, which is well supported by the facts:

Hillary Clinton is dividing the party.

Its not spin to make a statement and argue for it using reason and logic. I may be wrong, but I'm not spinning.

Here's spin:

   Barack is more qualified for the presidency now, because he has an insurmountable lead in the delegate count.

get it?
 

by hazmat on 03/25/2008 10:37:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
delegate count (none / 0)
A lead is only a lead until you reach 2025 (in our screwed up system) hence the superdelegates.

Get it

But then again if our system was like the Pubs (winner take all) she would be leading but I digress.






by LORD FOUL on 03/26/2008 07:54:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
let's try another example (none / 0)

of Spin.

 "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." -- Dick Cheney on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005

I wasn't trying to start a debate on delegates--are you joking? Try reading, its good for you, and it get's easier with practice. 

 I'm not learning anything from this exchange so you're work is done here. We're on the same side ultimately so unless you can come up with something better I'm not going to respond anymore.

by hazmat on 03/26/2008 12:47:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
More fun with NUMBERS (none / 0)
I know I should just shut the fuck up saddle up to the punch bowl and swallow a big ole swig of the tasty Kool-Aid that seems to make everyone feel oh so confident that because people are voting in the primaries that it is an indication of how the General Election will turn out. Here is a breakdown of how a few States turned out in 2000 the last time we had a contest with both parties. I seem to remember how everyone made fun of Shrub and how it was a forgone conclusion he was to stupid to win. Although this applies to both parties, mostly it’s the Dem’s who lose at this game. Thank God in one way it’s true because if not Shrub would have taken both California and New York. My point is please calm down about how many people are voting it really doesn’t matter until November.






2000 primary vs. general

Alabama Primary
Democrats  278,527
Republican 203,077

Alabama General Election
Gore 692,611
Bush 941,173

Arkansas Primary
Democrats 246,900 
Republican  44,573

Arkansas General Election
Gore  422,768
Bush 472,940

California Primary
Democrats   2,654,114
Republican 2,847,921 

California General
Gore 5,861,203
Bush 4,567,429

Kentucky Primary
Democrats 220,279 
Republicans 91,323 

Kentucky General
Gore 638,898
Bush 872,492

Louisiana Primary
Democrats 157,551
Republican 102,912 

Kentucky General
Gore 792,344
Bush 927,871

Maine Primary
Democrats 64,279
Republican 96,624 

Maine General
Gore 319,951
Bush 286,616

New York Primary
Democrats 974,463 
Republican 2,161,518 

New York General
Gore 4,107,697
Bush 2,403,374

North Carolina Primary
Democrats 544,922
Republican 322,517

North Carolina General
Gore 1,257,692
Bush 1,631,163

Oklahoma Primary
Democrats 134,850
Republican 124,809

Oklahoma General
Gore 474,276
Bush 744,337

Washington Primary
Democrats 297,001
Republican 491,148

Washington General
Gore 1,247,652
Bush 1,108,864

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 03/25/2008 06:39:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
those are very interesting numbers (none / 0)
but remember that the primaries were essentially over after New Hampshire in 2000, so they may not help to interpret the current trends.

by hazmat on 03/25/2008 07:34:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Amen (none / 1)
"My point is please calm down about how many people are voting it really doesn’t matter until November."

Why is it that the only reasonable liberals in this forum are also Hillary supporters?

There are a couple of easy explanations for why Democrats are enjoying huge turnouts in the primaries:

1. Neck-and-neck horse race.
2. Huge participation of GOP cross-over voters (like me) who are having fun screwing with the Democrat Party.

by KenTX on 03/25/2008 11:30:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Times have changed Hubble (none / 0)
In 2000 Bush had not yet fucked the country like a $30 whore.  I suppose in 2004 they did not yet understand what that burning sensation was, but now that the country has the clap I'm guessing that the love affair is over.

by bfaul on 03/26/2008 10:09:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Response to David | 35 comments (35 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: