Let's Get Real About The Warning Signs

...instead of continuing the show of irrational exuberance here in our echo chamber.  Let me say, it's completely understandable why we would be excited about our chances in an election season whose fundamentals are so overwhelmingly in our favor.

But more than a few recommended diaries here make it overwhelmingly clear to me that we are deluding ourselves.

Read on for the simple explanation why.
   

In late July of 1988, one hundred days prior to the election, Mike Dukakis was 25 points ahead of George Bush.  25 points.  And he still lost.

Today, one hundred days prior to the election, Barack Obama is only 4-6 points ahead of John McCain in national polls.  His lead in several crucial swing state polls has narrowed.

We've heard time and time again that our country hasn't been in worse shape in years--and this is the worst electoral environment for Republicans, perhaps ever.  Certainly worse than 1988.  If so, then I ask that someone give me an honest explanation for Obama's narrow lead--compared to Dukakis' at this time in 1988.  Obama, thank the Lord, is no Mike Dukakis.  Yet his narrow poll lead indicates he remains vulnerable, sadly, in different ways.  If we are honest with ourselves for once, then we would admit that one of his vulnerabilities is the color of his skin.

The current top diary on this site is titled "Even the racists will vote for him."  This sentiment is tragically mistaken, and practically untenable.  Sure, we can tell stories of people we know that involve cute conversions to the light.  But most of this country's racists will never vote for a black man.  

Do we continue our fight to get Barack Obama elected?  Absolutely, and that is the point.  Given our unprecedented situation of trying to elect a black man, we should be fighting extra hard--to rally level-headed independents, as well as Hillary PUMAs (who may not be so level-headed)--to vote Democrat this fall.

It's too easy to fall back on false comforts such as "Even the racists will vote for him" or "He's going to be elected, anyway".  Getting elected, truth be told, is hard.  As Hillary Clinton surely knows by now, nothing is inevitable.



Display:


rec'd. (2.00 / 4)

for opening the door to honest conversation.  i think some of your diary is accurate and also a result of 2 additional factors.

1) the most closely contested primary in history between two historical candidates

2) the republican nominee is a moderate with a history of bipartisanship and 'blockbuster' bills.

does that mean i share you pessimism?  im not sure.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:07:03 PM EST

Re: rec'd. (2.00 / 4)

McCain is a "moderate"?  Educate yoself.


by username on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 09:03:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rec'd. (2.00 / 2)

Top result to that search:
"Clinton Praises "Moderate" McCain"

Clearly more work needs to be done to dispense with that mindset, but it's going to be tough to do before November.


by TCQuad on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 09:20:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rec'd. (2.00 / 2)

I hope you mean to say that McCain is PERCEIVED as a moderate.  


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:41:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yep. exactly. (2.00 / 1)


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:05:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yep. exactly. (2.00 / 1)

I figured as much.


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's Get Real About The Warning Signs (2.00 / 3)

Well, at the VERY least....Obama needs to stay out of tanks.
;)
by Kysen on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:11:20 PM EST

Let's see if Obama's bounce (2.00 / 1)

is sustanaible.  He had a healthy six-seven point lead immediatel post-primary until that got cut in half.  The lead appears to have returned to a six-seven point lead.

Obama has performed well enough this trip to where I think there's a seventy percent chance that McCain announces his VP next week in order to prevent the bounce from going into double digits.


by Blazers Edge on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:17:54 PM EST

im pretty sure we have discussed this before... (none / 0)

but who do you think its going to be?  im convinced he'll pick a woman.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:31:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't think so (none / 0)

Palin is involved in a "scandal" at the moment and I cannot see him putting a political novice such as Fiorona on the ticket.  I suppose Whitman and Hutchinson are still options.

I think McCain plays it safe by going with either Romney or Pawlenty.  If he wants money, Romney is the way to go but if he wants camraderie, he'll go with Pawlenty.

The X-factor is Thune; he's sort of the white Bobby Jindal and is someone who McCain can be pushed into choosing by the power elements in his party.


by Blazers Edge on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:51:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't think so (none / 0)

Pawlenty


by mztower on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:26:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't think so (none / 0)

Thune's a sleazy bastard and the conservatives like him.

I think McCain will pick him.


by Bush Bites on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:43:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

25 Points... (2.00 / 2)

This is one of those things that has been repeated so many times people just believe it without thought.  It's not true though.  There was a single poll that showed that, it was a complete outliers both in terms of the same companies other polls, and the polls coming out of the other pollsters.  


by Whash on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:24:03 PM EST

Re: Let's Get Real About The Warning Signs (2.00 / 4)

I am sure there are racists in this country who would never vote for black candidate.  On the other hand, I think the charge of racism is too easily assigned as Obama's biggest obstacle.  I have a feeling if Colin Powell was running we wouldn't see so much over-focus on that one aspect of the candidate.

I am not a racist, and I just don't like Obama.  Yeah, I guess I'm a little Puma-ish (and hence "irrational"), but you have to look at why independent voters are resistant about supporting Obama.  (Hint: it isn't because they're all racists.)  Or not... but as you say there are warning signs that Nov. will be a very close election.  

Why?  Because basically this is a very conservative country (unfortunately) and Obama has some significant drawbacks, mostly his lack of experience, I think, but also an over-the-top showiness that is putting people off.  I see it in the independents around me.  That's what they don't like.  They always had some reservations, but felt so betrayed by Bush and the Republican party they were willing to try something else.  As time goes on, however, they are getting more comfortable with McCain.  Not enthusiastic, but at least comfortable.  And the reservations about Obama actually become more solid, not less.


by Susan in Oregon on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:31:00 PM EST

Aren't independents the ones keeping (none / 0)

Obama in the lead?  Where Obama does not do as well, and the reason why his lead is only around four points (or six-seven given the current bounce), is among moderate to conservative dems.


by Blazers Edge on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:55:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't understand... (1.85 / 7)

how you can get comfortable with Sen. McCain.  It is, as I have said previously, more personal with me, Silverado Savings and Loan collapsing plunged my Grandmother into poverty.  So as far as someone voting Sen. McCain for president, I fart in your general direction.  


by tonedevil on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 08:11:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't understand... (2.00 / 2)

It's personal to me too, given that McCain wants to take away my social security and eliminate employer-provided health insurance.

But, listen, this country's full of idiots who will cut off their noses to spite their faces. After 2004, nothing surprises me.


by Bush Bites on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:46:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's Get Real About The Warning Signs (2.00 / 8)

I am sure there are racists in this country who would never vote for black candidate.

To be honest, most people who would not vote for a black candidate on the basis of skin color are in the Republican party. I'm not saying Republicans are racist, it's simple self-selection. Democrats are for workplace equality, trying to assist low-income families (often times portrayed as inner-city minorities), etc. People who make decisions on the basis of race are against those things and, by definition, would not migrate Democratic. As such, those aren't lost votes, they're votes that weren't attainable in the first place in the right wing.

Because basically this is a very conservative country (unfortunately) and Obama has some significant drawbacks, mostly his lack of experience, I think, but also an over-the-top showiness that is putting people off.

The showiness is one thing, but I think there is pity coverage for McCain right now. I mean, CBS edits an interview to cover two separate major gaffes while traveling with Obama in the hope he commits a single minor one they can jump on. That's beyond routine, it's downright ridiculous. However, those things can't be edited during live debates, so it's entirely possible that McCain could repeat them and start falling off the maps.

As time goes on, however, they are getting more comfortable with McCain.  Not enthusiastic, but at least comfortable.

Wait until you hear what McCain really wants to do. It's not pleasant.

And "not enthusiastic" is an understatement of the largest degree. 14% enthusiasm for McCain voters, in the 40s for Obama's was the last poll I heard.

Remember: enthusiastic voters are 100% voters. They don't no-show elections, they bring friends to the polls with them. And the last few elections have shown the importance of get-out-the-vote efforts.

And the reservations about Obama actually become more solid, not less.

To be honest, it sounds like the biggest problem you have with Obama is that he's popular. It's hard not to be showy when you have thousands showing up for your normal events and hundreds of thousands showing up for special events like the Germany speech.

Again, as time goes on, though, I think it'll become more and more obvious that Obama's lack of experience is less troublesome than McCain's lack of being accurate, both in the past and present.


by TCQuad on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 09:35:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's Get Real About The Warning Signs (2.00 / 1)

If by "showiness," you mean "nuance," then yes, I agree.  


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:06:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's Get Real About The Warning Signs (none / 0)

He still has not convinced the older women, the blue collar workers and I do not think he will get those votes period.


by mztower on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:28:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

BINGO! I have to say I was surprised to see him (none / 0)

read from cue cards to answer questions from the journalists with Sarkozy. Brought back images of Bush doing the same thing. He has to read cue cards on foreigh policy questions? Not too reassuring!


by suzieg on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:26:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BINGO! I have to say I was surprised to see hi (2.00 / 2)

Let's face it, suzieg. You despise him and will twist anything he does to fit your negative narrative. If he hadn't read from cue cards you would be complaining that he was free-wheeling such a serious moment. You complain if he uses a teleprompter and complain when he makes a gaffe when he doesn't use one. You complain that he is inexperienced and unprepared and then complain that he is this polished Chicago politician with a powerful machine behind him. You complain about his rhetoric and then complain that he doesn't write all of his own speeches.

You're inconsistency has made you into a laughingstock on this site.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:54:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's Get Real About The Warning Signs (2.00 / 1)

Wrong - http://www.gallup.com/video/108691/Obama -Makes-Gains-Among-Less-Educated.aspx

July 9, 2008
Obama Makes Gains Among Less Educated

As of June, Barack Obama has closed the seven percentage point gap that existed in March between himself and John McCain among registered voters who have a high school education or less.

He's also made gains with older women and will make more as they learn more about the 2008 version of McCain.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:49:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's Get Real About The Warning Signs (2.00 / 2)

Almost all polls I have seen concerning the race show that Obama is leading amongst Independents.

Most people that I talk to (this is ancedotal) aren't put off by the "showiness", they seem to be kind of impressed by it. The thing that struck me as I talked to people about Obama's trip to Europe was that they were not talking about the crowds or the speeches, but the fact that there was an American politician who didn't get protested and belittled overseas.


by JENKINS on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:47:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The people I speak to are not impressed but (none / 0)

extremely fed up of the Obama oversell by the press. Wondering how this trip is helping them, here at home...and that all he's looking for is fawning and adulation and basically an empty suit too aloof to interact one on one with the little people preferring big crowds where he cannot be held accountable for his views - comes off as a prima donna! Then again, I live in Texas.....


by suzieg on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:32:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The people I speak to are not impressed but (2.00 / 2)

well, that sure helps to explain alot.  Thanks.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:36:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The people I speak to are not impressed but (2.00 / 1)

Pretty typical of the lower half of this country, though.

If he's wearing a business suit, he's a phony. But if he's wearing a cowboy hat and boots, he's "authentic."

(This country's so fucked.)


by Bush Bites on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:00:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The people I speak to are not impressed but (2.00 / 2)

And if he campaigns in a grocery store he cares about the "little people".  Even if he's fighting for continued tax breaks for the rich.  


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:28:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's Get Real About The Warning Signs (2.00 / 2)

Never read this argument before.  ::sighs::

Implying racsim plays a part in who a person votes for is a bannable offense.

At least it was during the primary.


We want to see Ivana [Trump] because we are so desperate in Alaska for any semblance of glamour and culture. - Sarah Palin
by spacemanspiff on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 08:06:19 PM EST

Re: Let's Get Real About The Warning Signs (none / 0)

I was actually banned for that.

I believe the full statement was "West Virginia and Kentucky won't be competitive: they're not going to vote for a black person anytime soon."  Next day I see I can't post, and Jerome has a diary announcing his new rule.

It was so pathetic.  The following week when exit polls showed that 20% of WV voters said that race was a major factor in who they voted for, AND they voted for Clinton, people were too scared to bring it up.  Exit polls.


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:07:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

warning signs of yesteryear (2.00 / 2)

The warning signs started last year. Obama has an ultra liberal record, more so than Dukakis.  The DNC should have concluded that since Clinton is a long-time moderate that she woudn't have to deal with the problem of an extreme liberal past and so it would not be a good idea to publicly try to push her out of the nomination process.  There's still time to nominate her though.


by QuestionMark on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 08:07:01 PM EST

Re: warning signs of yesteryear (2.00 / 5)

Ultra Liberal??

I looked a little deeper into the gallup poll today.

July 14-20 Regional Breakdown

East - Obama 52%- McCain 36%
Midwest - Obama 46%- McCain 42%
South - Obama 40% - McCain 49%
West- Obama 47% - McCain 42%

Real Clear Politics Electoral Map - "No toss up states" Obama 322 - McCain 216.
Obama's 8 point national lead in the latest Gallup poll represents how well he is doing in spite of the south.  If the election were held today it would be a landslide.  We still have months to go but I don't think we need to nominate Hillary to save the day.


"They are ever so much nicer at Tiffany's!"
by epiphany on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 08:52:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: warning signs of yesteryear (1.00 / 6)

When a candidate is described as liberal that means how they vote and live not who votes for them. The National Journal concluded that Mr. Obama had the Senate's most liberal voting record in 2007. He belonged to a radical left wing church for decades. He associated with radical left wing co-workers and friends for decades, for example, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. Ayers liked Obama's politics so much he hosted a party to toot Obama.


by QuestionMark on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 11:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: warning signs of yesteryear (2.00 / 2)

why are you on this site and not on hannity's?  You managed to list off Hannity's list of supposedly evil obama moments just like he does everyday on his propaganda skit for 3 hours.

3 hours, its all he asks:P


by Xris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:13:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: warning signs of yesteryear (none / 0)

I obviously want HRC to be president so I would vote Democrat. This is a Democratic blog as far as I know. As to the information about Obama, I wrote it to prove that Obama was ultra liberal as a response to the previous post.


by QuestionMark on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:41:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

These accusations are nothing... wait until the (1.00 / 2)

republican convention when the full bombardment will commence in full force, the term "shock and awe" won't do it justice or were you too young to remember what they did to Kerry in 2004?

They'll prop up Lieberman, our VP nomination in 2000, therefore for the people, who are not political animals, will be influenced by what he has to say and let's not forget to whom Obama took as a mentor and gave him $14,000 to defeat Lamont. He'll crush him and destroy Obama's credibility on foreign policy just enough to give doubt and that is all it takes to win the election!

Republicans have no shame and will do a hatchet job on him like you've never before - he's an easy prey and all the bounce he would have enjoyed from the previous week's democratic convention will be lost.

The republicans are waiting until September, when people will start paying attention, to do the worse damage. If you want to have a taste of what is to come, have a look at the conservative blogs. I get a real kick, out of them, because they are so far fetched but all they have to do is sow some doubts just enough to sway the election to McCain!

The american people will not vote for a community organizer, a state senator who sat less than a year in the legislature, if you total the days the Illinois senate convened, and was present in the US senate for about 150 days when we are at war on two fronts and the economy is tanking - they tried that with Bush in a time of peace and prosperity, and look where we are today! You are dreaming in color if you think otherwise.

Clinton had a better chance because she is tied at the hip with Bill who was president for 8 yrs.


by suzieg on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:00:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These accusations are nothing (2.00 / 1)

Nobody takes Lieberman seriously, except for people who watch Fox News.


by Bush Bites on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:52:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm going to get a 96.3% tatoo by the end of this. (2.00 / 6)

Nominate Hillary because Obama's record is more liberal than hers?

Wrong wrong wrong wrong... Wrong wrong wrong wrong.

They have almost identical records. Up and down.


by TCQuad on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 09:39:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

liberalism is a lifestyle (1.00 / 4)

By liberal record I mean life choices as well as political votes. When you compare HRC to Obama it is obvious that HRC is more to the center of the political spectrum. HRC was raised in a hard-core Republican family and her father was a WWII veteran. Those qualities make her more acceptable to conservative voters. Whereas conservative voters would be less happy about Obama being raised by an ultra-liberal mother and grandparents. I read that Obama's grandparents went to a pro-communist church.

HRC merged her life with a man who had lived most of his life in the conservative south and who understood, from long-term relationships with conservatives, the beliefs of conservatives and implemented presidential policies that were moderate so as to make as many people happy as possible instead of just the Democratic left. HRC was not only loved by Arkansas politician Bill Clinton, but as First Lady of Arkansas for 8 years she slowly gained the admiration of the mostly conservative Arkansas population. In the primaries Hillary won 70% of the Arkansas vote. Thus, she understands conservative America having lived in the conservative south and merged her life with the lives of many conservative Americans. Obama does not have a history of living in a conservative region. And as far as I know he has not developed a reputation of merging his life in a long-term and significant way with people who have conservative beliefs.

HRC belonged to the Methodist Church then later the Fellowship which has many members from Congress (mostly Republican). Obama belonged to a radical left church for decades.

And as to political votes The National Journal reported that Obama had the most liberal voting Senate record in 2007, whereas HRC was 16th on the scale. I'm not passing judgement on whether it is best to be conservative or liberal. I'm merely stating that HRC has a long history of being a moderate Democrat and Obama has a long history of being an extreme left Democrat. Very recently Obama has made some conservative political decisions. However, in my opinion, his lifestyle and politics of the past several decades are more relevant in deciding whether he is a moderate or far left Democrat.


by QuestionMark on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:40:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: liberalism is a lifestyle (1.83 / 6)

His grandparents lived in Kansas, I had no idea there were communist communes in my westward neighbor:P  

But I did hear that McCain was caught on tape saying that he was growing to respect and admire the tenacity of Al Qaeda.  

See how it easy it is to just make crap up?


by Xris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:49:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't feed it (2.00 / 3)


by JJE on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:47:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't feed it (2.00 / 2)

Yeah I was an idiot and did.  I am normally pretty good about ignoring them, but I guess I got bored this Saturday night.


by Xris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:54:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Can be hard to resist (2.00 / 2)

Studying the ways and habits of the common American internet troll.  Here we see it using the classic "some say" ("I read") technique.  


by JJE on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:55:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: liberalism is a lifestyle (2.00 / 1)

I really wonder how they came to that conclusion, considering the votes by Obama and Clinton only differed by 4 votes (where Clinton was scored as "more conservative" because of her votes), and in two of those cases (50%) Obama did not even vote.
The votes used were rated on a 1-3 score, one being the lowest and three being the highest. Votes rated highest (given more weight in scoring) include a vote which was an amendment to an amendment for a  House bill called the College Cost Reduction Act. The amendment itself had to do with providing limited immunity to people reporting suspicious behavior and response (which had nothing to do with the original bill, obviously). Obama missed this bill, Hillary voted for it (the conservative position).
Another vote was the Kyl-Lieberman bill about Iran. Obama missed this vote (but co-sponsored a similar bill earlier which was never brought to the floor), and so was weighted on the "liberal" side.

Nat'l Journal: Key Votes Used to Calculate Ratings


by skohayes on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:45:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: warning signs of yesteryear (2.00 / 5)

I don't like the way "liberal" has been categorized as a bad thing.  Liberals believe in fairness, equality, and charity.  Conservatives believe in status quo, total self-reliance, and a naive belief that every person will voluntarily help others.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:09:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: warning signs of yesteryear (2.00 / 1)

Nonononono... Conservatives (the strong ones) don't believe in self-reliance. That would imply a belief in personal liberty. No, they believe in selfishness. The idea that everyone else in the world should behave the way that they believe they should, but that they don't owe anything to the world.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:26:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: warning signs of yesteryear (none / 0)

Yes, but they espouse the belief that everyone, no matter their background, out to be able to "Pull themselves up by their bootstraps."  They totally rejected the notion that education, environment, and socialization play a role in one's chances for success.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:52:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: warning signs of yesteryear (none / 0)

You're totally right. It is one of the defining differences. And most practicing libertarians go even further. They'd like to not pay for government functions and yet use any/all of them.

BUT... if you talk to them outside the confines of political conversation, they'll freely admit people who helped get them where they are today. They only resort to the bootstraps argument when asked to sacrifice for anyone who isn't a close, personal friend.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:21:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: warning signs of yesteryear (none / 0)

I agree, everyone has had help by someone in order to get where they are.  The difference is that many wealthy people had the "help" of their parents' money and the access to great prep schools and legacy admissions to university.  That kind of "help" is easy to ignore and dismiss because it does not have a face to it.  

Essentially, Clarence Thomas is the symbol of conservatism: a man who was helped along the way by both institutions and people, who then kicked the ladder out from behind him once he reached the walls.  I don't respect anything that comes out of Thomas' mouth (which is always garbled anyway, seeing as how it has to emanate around Scalia's ass cheeks).


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:29:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong as far as charity - it's been proven that (none / 0)

religious conservatives/republicans are more giving to charities than liberal/democrats!


by suzieg on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:13:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong (2.00 / 3)

That's because of several factors- more Republican (evangelicals) belong to churches that advocate tithing 10% of their salary, which counts as a charitable donation (even though at least half of those monies go to church administration and upkeep).
Democrats on the whole usually believe that the taxes they pay to government should go to helping people rather than tax breaks for wealthy corporations. According to research, Democrats are also more likely to volunteer their services, rather than donate money.
Research also show that moderates donate less than both Democrats and Republicans, so it would seem that political moderates are the stingy ones, not the Democrats.

Here's a link that discusses the book by Arthur Brooks, "Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide"

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_ 11_19-2006_11_25.shtml#1164012942


by skohayes on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:52:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong as far as charity - (2.00 / 1)

Well, they give to their megachurches or televangelists to make their preachers rich.

As far as helping the poor, don't kid yourself.


by Bush Bites on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:04:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

your ride is here (2.00 / 2)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:44:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's Get Real About The Warning Signs (2.00 / 3)

I see these diaries from time to time and always end up shaking my head in wonder. Who are these complacent people the diary is aimed at? I sure don't know any and I haven't seen any on this site. Everyone realizes this is going to be a grind. The hope is that we will end up with a landslide, but that is only a dream at the moment.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 08:44:00 PM EST

Re: Let's Get Real About The Warning Signs (2.00 / 4)

Thing is, for presidential elections in this country you have to win the electoral college, not a nationwide opinion poll. Show me some polls that point to dicey electoral math for Obama, and I'll get more worried. right now, things are looking pretty nice. Doesn't mean I'll get complacent, but still reject the doom and gloom premise of the diary.


by Cincinnatus on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 09:14:26 PM EST

I will work but I'm not worried (2.00 / 7)

So far, Obama is running the smartest campaign I've seen in 10 election cycles.  I know everyone needs  to work, but one big difference this year is I think an unprecedented number of Democrats will.  

1.  He's where he is in the polls right now because he's an unknown quantity compared to McCain.  As we proceed through the convention and the debates, that can only change for the better.  

2.  Yes, he will encounter racism, but he will also enjoy a historic AA and youth turnout.  

3. Right now he is assembling the strongest ground operation in memory.  His people on the ground are well trained and well coordinated, something the party has sucked at for decades.  

4. It seems his campaign is focused right now on that ground operation and on shoring him up where he might have been vulnerable to McCain in the fall.  In other words, the real campaign hasn't even really started yet.

5. He's wearing McCain down by forcing him to dilute his resources and shadow box an opponent who isn't taking him on directly.  It is very telling that Obama is not reacting to McCain but McCain is now constantly reacting to Obama.

6.  The GOP is in one ugly position coming into their convention -- they can't attack the sitting president who 78'% of us despise, and they can't well ignore him without looking that much worse.  The press will make a ton of hay if Bush isn't prominently featured at the GOP convention.  But when he is?  We all get a big fat reminder of what Republicans really stand for.  If anything, the GOP convention is going to be another snoozer, which means little bounce for McCain.

7. One the other hand, the Democratic convention is shaping up to be one for the record books in terms of flash, drama, energy and excitement.  Done right (and it will be) Obama is going to get a big bounce of it.  

8.  McCain is screwing up, pretty much on a daily basis.  That will only get worse, not better.  

Obama is no Dukakis or Mondale or Kerry or Gore.  Television is his friend.  He's not a boneheaded campaigner.  Greater exposure tends to draw people to him, not repel them.

We're all getting ants in our pants because we are stuck in the campaign dog days.  The Obama trip was unprecedented in injecting that much energy this early.  Of course we all need to work our fannies off, but I for one am going to bed every night lately with a smile on my face.  


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 09:24:18 PM EST

Re: I will work but I'm not worried (2.00 / 3)

You are 100% correct on all points, but #8 is the most specific reason why things are not the same. Obama gives speeches to thousands and gets them cheering. Obama exudes coolness (the only reason he gets accused of being arrogant, which is kinda like saying Matthew McConaughy is arrogant) and wouldn't put himself in a tank, though he looked pretty badass wearing sunglasses in a helicopter. He's fit and active in a sport that most people can relate to. And not in a flashy, showy way, in a solid but smooth way.

And he's facing the oldest Presidential candidate since Reagan's second term. One who keeps saying really stupid things that are really and truly starting to catch up to him in spite of the media adoring him.

This ain't 1988. It ain't 1972. We are the rock stars. Americans vote style over substance EVERY SINGLE TIME. Sad but true. I'd say we own both those things, but regardless... Americans respect strength.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 11:59:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I will work but I'm not worried (2.00 / 1)

"Americans vote style over substance EVERY SINGLE TIME."

I totally agree, and it's one of my top 5 gripes about this country.  It's still a great country, but we suck at a lot of things.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:11:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain is anything but (none / 0)

a candidate of substance.  You could make the argument that he was the "stylistic" candidate among the Pubs in their primary.  McCain was the "Obama" of the Republican primary; so much of his success stemmed from his biography and his position on the Iraq War (e.g. Obama's initial opposition to the war vs. McCain's support for the surge).


by Blazers Edge on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:22:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain is anything but (none / 0)

But he's running as the candidate of substance, and he will ultimately discover that it's a bad idea.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:28:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain is anything but (none / 0)

I mean, his latest moves just make him seem like nothing but a crotchety, hateful old man!


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:29:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain is anything but (none / 0)

He is a crotchety, hateful old man.

But Bush is a deeply disturbed man too, and took the White House.


by Bush Bites on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:08:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain is anything but (none / 0)

Bush was better at hiding it.  :-)


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:31:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain is anything but (none / 0)

I keep hearing people talk about this magical McRusty substance so I went to his website and I have to say he has the most vague policy plans there I have ever seen.  I study economics because I want to teach business classes, and I have to say I cannot follow his economic plan.

Bush is a piece of crap, but I understand what he wanted to do economically, which is why I was terrified of him becoming our president.  With McRusty, I am really sure what he is going to do beyond renewing Bush's tax cuts.


by Xris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:31:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain is anything but (2.00 / 1)

He would try to open up every coast to oil driling.  He would continue to lower taxes, but only those on the wealthy.  He would try to cut back on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  He would definitely continue the fight to keep birth control from being covered on any governmental program.  He wants a gas tax holiday.  He doesn't want any help for people who are being foreclosed upon, because obviously all those people are speculators and deserve what they get.  

Basically, think of every correct economic policy, find its opposite, and that's McCain/Bush's position.  Good thing for McCain his wife is rich.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:56:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain is anything but (none / 0)

If thats is what the media keeps describing as his substance, then we should all be very afraid.


by Xris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:59:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain is anything but (none / 0)

McCain's numbers don't add up. They never did.

However, neither did Bush's, and he got into the White House.


by Bush Bites on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:55:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LA Times electoral map and article (none / 0)

Obama's path to presidency is far from clear (Los Angeles Times)
WASHINGTON -- Even as his turn on the global stage hit an emotional peak Thursday with a speech before a cheering crowd of more than 200,000 in Germany, Barack Obama faced new evidence of stubborn election challenges back home. Fresh polls show that he has been unable to convert weeks of extensive media coverage into a widened lead. And some prominent Democrats whose support could boost his campaign are still not enthusiastic about his candidacy... Republicans are moving to exploit this vulnerability, trying to encourage unease among voters by building the impression that Obama's overseas trip and other actions show he has a sense of entitlement that suggests he believes the White House is already his.

read more at: www.latimes.com/news/la-na-challenges25- 2008jul25,0,230990.story
and
www.latimes.com/news/la-votermap,0,44329 52.htmlstory


by suzieg on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:50:15 AM EST

Re: LA Times electoral map and article (2.00 / 2)

Polls that include third party candidates show McCain's support plunging, not Obama's:

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-p res-ge-mvoand3s.php


by skohayes on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:59:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LA Times electoral map and article (2.00 / 2)

As usual, the print media is days behind.  Obama is in the midst of a bounce following his trip.  All the articles (this one included) in the MSM talking about how he failed to get a bump were written during his trip and used polls that were days old.  

In short, that article is stupid, slow, and contrary to pretty much all the current polling.


by Whash on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:10:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What warning signs? (none / 0)

You don't mention any.  

Obama is currently ahead by about five points.  IMO, that is just where he wants to be.  A bigger lead will force McCain to go much more negative.  The Press wants a horse race and they are doing everything they can to get one, including give McCain attack ads free airtime.  

Also, if Obama sustains this lead then he will win by a landslide.  As Nate over at fivethirtyeight.com explains:

For example, an Obama win by 5 percentage points could easily be associated with any number from about 290 electoral votes up to as many as 390, depending on how the individual states shake out.

The diarist is either easily frightened or doesn't know what he is talking about, or both.  All the political junkies I know can't wait for the race to begin in earnest.  That won't happen until after the conventions.  No one is getting complacent or over-confident.  The diarist's concern is premature and isn't backed up by any facts.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:11:48 AM EST

Re: What warning signs? (none / 0)

Don't go ad-hominem on me.  The facts are that in a time of unprecedented challenge for the Republican Party, our Democratic nominee (who happens to be the first black candidate ever on top of the ticket) is only 4-6 points ahead.  

The facts are that a majority (55-38 pct in a recent poll) believe that Obama is a "riskier" choice than John McCain.  You can disagree with the polling, but this is still a more or less 'conservative' country in many ways, and people are less comfortable with Obama than they should be at this point.

I'm not accusing you of being complacent or over-confident, but some (if not many) certainly are.  You can't say no one is getting that way.

Again, you can reasonably disagree with facts of your own; but my concerns are most certainly backed up by facts.


by MMR2 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:44:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What warning signs? (none / 0)

If you read the link I provided you wouldn't be concerned at all.  A 5 point win will translate into a HUGE electoral college win for Obama.  

Currently 10 to 12 percent of those polled are undecided.  In order to make up a five point lead McCain would have to win over 75% of the undecided voters.  That is a tall order.  Obama can still lose this thing but he is in a good position right now.  

What would you consider a proper lead at this point?  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:13:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dukakis numbers (none / 0)

1. that 25 point spread you are referring to in late July 1988 was immediately post-Democratic convention.  Eleven points of that was Dukakis's convention bounce.  Also, Bush at this point had not yet emerged from out of the shadow of Reagan, inarguably the most popular lame duck Republican in history.

2.  By the start of August, Dukakis's numbers took their first nosedive as Bush got one of the biggest bounces in memory from the GOP Convention, where the much trusted and beloved Reagan spoke and made the case for George Bush.

3. Dukakis then went on to commit two of the biggest blunders in campaign history -- the tank ride and his robotic debate response to a question about his wife being raped and murdered.

4. The GOP nailed Dukakis with Willie Horton and mismanagement blunders while governor.  

5. The more the public was exposed to "the smartest clerk in history" the more they disliked Dukakis.  In contrast to Obama, the guy had a personality that actually repelled flies, so much so he made GHWB seem "likable" in comparison.  wow.

6. Ultimately, however, the GOP and Bush rode Ronald Reagan like a circus pony.  Remember now, the country ADORED Ronald Reagan and all Bush had to do was go out and promise more of the same. The election was more of an affirmation of Reagan policies than anything else.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:15:14 AM EST

No offense, but (none / 0)

you probably won't be winning many people over with statements like this:"we should be fighting extra hard--to rally level-headed independents, as well as Hillary PUMAs (who may not be so level-headed)--to vote Democrat this fall."
Implying that the only reason that anybody wouldn't support Obama is because of the color of his skin isn't likely to be a convincing argument, either.
by georgiapeach on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:35:31 AM EST

Re: No offense, but (none / 0)

If you are a PUMA, I sincerely apologize; I didn't think I had many in the audience here at myDD.  

Also, I never said the only reason people won't support Obama is because of the color of his skin.


by MMR2 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sincere apology respectfully accepted. (none / 0)

I'm not a full fledged PUMA. At least not yet. After John Edwards dropped out, I figured I would end up moving to Obama, because he was originally my second choice. To my surprise, it was Hillary Clinton who won me over. I have never voted for a Republican for President, but I still have serious misgivings about Barack Obama.


by georgiapeach on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:07:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.