MyDD :: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker

Obama Electoral Myth Debunker

by Josh Orton, Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:39:46 PM EST

The following is a public service announcement brought to you by MyDD...

Is there a movement of prominent Democrats and Independents fleeing to McCain? Nope.
Are Florida and Ohio out of the picture for Obama, and does he only face one narrow alternative path to victory? Nope.
Is there a huge post-primary rift in the Democratic party? Nope.
Does Obama have a big problem with women, particularly "suburban women?" Double nope.
Does Barack Obama have a big problem with Latino voters? Nope.
What about Jewish voters...they hate Obama, right? Nope.

It is advised that all citizens print these materials and keep them on their person at all times in case of any unexpected hostile interactions with cable news pundits...

Tags: Barack Obama, Election 08 (all tags)

Permalink :: 117 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (2.00 / 1)

Other myths to be added?

by Josh Orton on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:41:10 PM EST

Hmmm (none / 0)

Maybe it would be easier to list the myths that have foundation in reality?

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:46:33 PM EST

I beg to differ (2.00 / 4)

There is a huge post-primary riff in the Democratic Party.

It sounds a lot like Led Zeppelin's "The Ocean".

by JJE on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:46:44 PM EST

Re: I beg to differ (2.00 / 11)

It's funny you mention The Ocean. In that song, the guitar is playing a riff in 7/8 time, while the drum time signature is a 4/4. This polyrhythmic tune actually serves as a decent metaphor for the unity efforts going on right now in the party. The long-time Obama supporters are grooving along with the standard 4/4 beat, just as we have been. The Clinton supporters are proceeding in 7/8 time, an time signature that typically expresses tension. However, the two actually work rather harmoniously as a polyrhythm, and in the Zeppelin case, make for a classic musical accomplishment. Hopefully, we pull off the same feat politically in November.

by DPW on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:07:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beg to differ (2.00 / 1)

Dude!
Wow.

"If you don't care about everybody, you don't care about anybody." --Ethan Mordden

by prodigal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:23:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beg to differ (2.00 / 1)

There's also the Beatles v. Stones analysis. Basically, Obama is the Beatles (i.e., concept albums tinged with angst, love, and togetherness), and Hillary is the Stones ("Streetfightin' [Wo]man"). However, The Stones showed up to sing along to "All You Need Is Love" during the famous worldwide broadcast, which represents Hillary's unity plea and endorsement of Obama. It's not the cleanest analogy, but I'm just making some shit up to entertain my self.

Stay tuned for my Blue Oyster Cult and Steely Dan theses. They will blow you mind (especially if you read them with the Wizard of Oz on in the background, but don't begin reading until the third lion's roar.)

by DPW on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:54:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is the Bay City Rollers and his supporters (1.00 / 0)

think he's better than the Beatles or anyone else. Then thay turn 16 and discover Led Zepplin and the Sex Pistols.

But for now they still love the BCR's.

by mmorang on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:04:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is the Bay City Rollers and his supporte (2.00 / 2)

Mmmm...no. I think you're thinking of Ron Paul.

by Captain Bathrobe on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:23:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is the Bay City Rollers and his supporte (2.00 / 1)

You were 16 before you discovered Led Zeppelin or the Sex Pistols? Fucking reg.

by GenaMeana on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:35:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is the Bay City Rollers and his supporte (none / 0)

No, I'm referring to Obama supporters. They are the ones who still(?) believe Obama brings a "new" kind of politics.

Obama: "I will not be running for president in 2008, I just got in the senate"

Obama: "I will not opt out of public financing"

Obama supporters: "He's not like other politicians, he rejects the old style politics"

Me: "Whatever"

by mmorang on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:17:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beg to differ (none / 0)

Just to bolster the Hillary=Stones claim recall the primary. When Obama won Iowa, she said "Hey You, Get off of my Cloud," going on the win New Hampshire and reassert herself. After a string of tough losses, she decided to Paint it Black with the 3am ad, reminding voters of these scary times. Then, she became a Honky Tonk Woman in Pennsylvania, shots and all; Of course, She Can't Get No Satisfaction from MSNBC; And, after a narrow loss in the primaries, she had to concede that You Don't Always Get What You Want, but if you try sometime, you get what you need (i.e., republicans out of office.) But, in the meantimes, she's just Waiting on a Friend (i.e., Obama to add her to the ticket).

Okay, I'm taking this too far. Back to work.

by DPW on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:10:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is too important to pass up (none / 0)

The Beatles pushed the envelope and the Stones copied.

Hillary came out with her economic plan and Obama copied it. A political Science professor said that if Obama had turned in his plan he would have failed him for plagerism.

But I wouldn't even want to compare Obama to the Stones either. He's more like the Bay City Rollers.

by mmorang on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:22:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

DPW... (none / 0)

You just blew my mind.

by TCQuad on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:48:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beg to differ (none / 0)

Ahhhh, a user after my own heart. Nice comment.

Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.

by fogiv on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:52:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

duuuude (2.00 / 2)

is it 4:20 yet?

Often wrong; seldom in doubt.

by Goober Pea on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:10:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Awesome Analogy (none / 0)

Great analogy . . . although "The Ocean" is actually in 15/8, and it's not really possible to have one instrument written in one time signature and another instrument in another. You're right that the backbeat played by Bonham is pretty straight up, though. And again, great analogy.

by wavery2001 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:45:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Awesome Analogy (none / 0)

You're actually right about the 15/8 (I misremembered, but I just counted it in my head, and you're right). But, I'm not sure I get your second point, exactly. As long as the 1/4 note (or whatever beat) is defined the same for both instruments, two instrument can play different numbers of beats per measure. In some occasions we wouldn't describe this as a different time signature and would, instead, just use a term like triplets to describe a different division of beats. But, on some occasions, musicians clearly describe the instrumentation as overlapping but different time signatures.

by DPW on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:09:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Awesome Analogy (none / 0)

I now know why I remembered 7/8, since 15/8 would be expressed as alternating measures in 7/8 and 4/4 respectively.

by DPW on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Awesome Analogy (none / 0)

Right - - the riff is almost always written as either 15/8 or as a 7/8 and two 4/4s, which as you no doubt know is no different than two "4/8" bars.

You're right about the other point in terms of what musicians actually say - - I've been playing since I was a kid, and jazz musicians, especially, refer to the drums (seems like it's usually the percussion and maybe the bass or rhythm section pieces) keeping up a "straight" 4/4 rhythm while the other instruments do whatever. In rereading my comment, I was being unnecessarily pedantic, talking about how the music would be written, not how it would be thought of by the people playing it. I do a lot of close examinations of transcription work, which is why I probably thought of it that way.

Always good to find someone who really gets music - - and a Democrat too, no less! Please, keep the great comments coming.

by wavery2001 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:43:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Awesome Analogy (none / 0)

Thanks for the reply (I know this thread is dead, now). I was actually driving to a friend's house after making that comment and realized you were probably talking about notation/transcription rather than the larger language of music that musicians sometimes use. And you're right, a composer wouldn't hand out music with different time signatures for different instruments. Instead, he would just figure out the best way to notate the music using a universal time signature--for instance, subdividing beats in unorthodox ways.

But, I actually went back and listend to The Ocean today, and I was slightly wrong about the polyrhythm during the intro. Bonham doesn't actually play a regular 4 beat over and over while Page plays the 15/8 riff. Rather, it's more as if he plays two 4 four counts and a three count (adding up to 15). So, this kinda destroys my analogy, but who cares.

I remembered all this incorrectly because a friend of mine who used to cover the song once complained about the difficulty of syncing the drums and the guitar on account of the fact that the drums follow a four-count bar while the guitar follows a 15-count bar (and the two together would have a common cycle of 60 beats, I guess). But, I either misunderstood him or he misunderstood the song.

by DPW on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:22:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Awesome Analogy (none / 0)

I meant 3 four counts and a three count, adding up to 15.

And, Bonham actually counts in the song with a four-count, as well.

by DPW on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:25:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good post (2.00 / 2)

Reading some of the commentary around here it can be hard to remember sometimes, but the Democratic party is pretty unified right now.

I kind of feel like two forces are at work, on one hand we still have the "anybody but bush" type energy at work. Nearly the whole country is with us on that now, Bush was a complete irredeemable disaster and McCain is more of the same.

...but with Obama (or with Clinton if we had her) we have more than that. We have a positive force that we can get behind. We are fighting for something instead of just fighting against something. That counts for a lot.

(And yeah, I was a strong supporter of Kerry way beyond ABB levels but he just did not get that same energy going)

by libertyleft on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:52:48 PM EST

Re: Good post (none / 0)

The more we see of McSame/Bushbag the easier it is to forget.

by eddieb on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:01:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (2.00 / 2)

How is Obama doing with the "holding on sweeties"?

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 Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:53:45 PM EST

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (2.00 / 1)

Thanks Josh!!

A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin

by hootie4170 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:54:42 PM EST

Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (2.00 / 1)

I hear he has a VERY Big problem with "FIST BUMPERS"

by eddieb on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:00:02 PM EST

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (none / 0)

Actually, now I really wanna see the next Al Queda propaganda video end with the terrorists fist-bumping each other.

"DEATH TO AMERICA!...pound it?"

The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain

by really not a troll on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:23:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (2.00 / 1)

Nice one!

Thanks for confirming and publishing reality on this site, some diaries and comments would have us believe otherwise, though I must say, those have gone down in volume considerably, likely because they are baseless and aren't finding traction with the reasonable people on this site.

Democrat for the democratic nominee

by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:05:00 PM EST

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (none / 0)

I think the peace and quiet reflects the reality that the primary is actually coming to an end. There will aways be die hards. Although they will be making lots of noise that no one hears.

by eddieb on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:10:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (2.00 / 2)

true true...

"Although they will be making lots of noise that no one hears."

if a troll, all alone, screams under a bridge, did it make a sound?

Democrat for the democratic nominee

by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:44:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no, but with the state of U.S. bridges (none / 0)

after so much ignored maintenance, the trolls might want to be careful hanging out under them.

Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.

by edparrot on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:04:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (2.00 / 2)

What about Obama's problem with blood-thirsty neocons. Are we just supposed to ignore that? Where is the CONCERN?! Wake up, people!!

by DPW on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:09:49 PM EST

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (none / 0)

"What about Obama's problem with blood-thirsty neocons."

This group will require some serious deprogramming sessions. Unfortunately, we don't have enough resources to rewire them for reality based observational ability, in time for the 2008 election.

My recommendation is to contain them to a single occupation, where they can do as little damage as possible: Handling medical waste would be my recommendation.

Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:39:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Welcome Back MyDD (2.00 / 3)

I would like to welcome MyDD back to the reality-based community once again. Good work.

by ImpeachBushCheney on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:10:46 PM EST

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (2.00 / 1)

Josh, you could not have been a Hillary supporter. There is a movement out there and it is not dying off. I wish to hell it would. I also think if Ob ama does not attend to it personally, it could spell difficulty--particularly in Fla.

by linfar on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:17:23 PM EST

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (none / 0)

really, the rosy color glasses are starting to go on really fast in the name of "unity"

by Lakrosse on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:18:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Poll numbers? (none / 0)

Surely any "movement" should be detectable in polling data.

I attended PUMACon '08!!!

by iohs2008 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:28:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll numbers? (none / 0)

Maybe part of the movement is a unified effort to lie to pollsters in an attempt to lull Obama into a false sense of security.

Did you ever think of that? Huh? Didja?

;-)

ENOUGH!

by JDF on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:50:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll numbers? (none / 0)

I know you are being snarky, but this "movement" isn't going to lie to pollsters... if they really want revenge, they will be honest about it.

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:10:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (none / 0)

Agreed. They should not be taken lightly.

by NewOaklandDem on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:56:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (2.00 / 1)

Disagree, linfar.

I think the numbers in that "movement" are far fewer than those who are actually McTrolls who never supported Hillary, but who merely wanted to destroy the Democratic Party. These are distressing times for them.

by JoeW on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:57:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (none / 0)

Just 'cos the Hillary44 crowd is loud, it doesn't mean they are numerous...

Just what will Harriet Christian do when that "inadequate bladk male" turns out to be a winner... I guess she can still hang out in McCain's senate office wondering how a computer works...

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (none / 0)

Hmm ... offshore drilling should be a winner for the GOP in Florida, NOT!

by ces on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is a movement out there (none / 0)

Two dozen disgruntled bloggers does not a movement make.

by Beren on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:05:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is a movement out there (none / 0)

Oh, it's a movement alright. A bowel movement. (I know--gross!)

by DPW on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:17:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clap louder! Clap harder! (none / 0)

And obama will win in November!

by usedmeat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:32:23 PM EST

Re: Clap louder! Clap harder! (2.00 / 2)

One of my biggest pleasures will be imagining the gnashing of teeth among some Hillary "supporters" when the Democrats sweep to victory in November.

by JoeW on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:56:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clap louder! Clap harder! (none / 0)

I think Tinkelbell was a drama queen who really wasn't "dead" but wanted attention.

by stefystef on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:25:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (2.00 / 1)

Love the riffage. I'm actually reminded of Sabbath's "Supernaut," given recent polling data.

Oh, and regarding Jews, this may be of some anecdotal interest:

"Jews Are Obama's Base, Not His Problem."

by Alvin K on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:32:52 PM EST

You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

But if you think the party is united you are in dreamland.

Let's wait until Obama makes it official that Hillary has been kicked to the curb before we assume that all is well in the Democratic party.

The electoral map is hardly a slam-dunk for Obama. The latest poll out today shows him losing FL and OH. I can't see him picking up any southern state unless he puts Hillary on the ticket then he wins Arkansas. Without her he won't pick up one in the south.

The Republicans (or 527's) will be airing ads showing race-bating in the Dem primary in an attempt to win McCain some Hillary supporters.

The oil drilling issue is hurting Obama bigtime. They now favor it in FL. That is a huge surprize.

Obama could win the popular vote by 3-4 points and still lose the election.

by mmorang on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:57:41 PM EST

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (2.00 / 1)

So how do you plan to help Obama win?

by NewOaklandDem on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:59:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

I'm in a holding pattern until he announces his VP selection. If it's not Hillary then I have serious problems with the Democratic party.

by mmorang on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary = Biggest Democrat loss Ever (none / 0)

If you are so foolish to think that Hillary will help in Any state in the South, you are in a dreamland.

Obama will get at least 44-45% of the vote in GA, he has a good chance of winning with a strong run by Barr. If he were to put Hillary on the ticket, he would be lucky to get 30% of the vote here.

She will also kill any chances he has in North Carolina and Virgina.

by monkeyga on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong!!! (none / 0)

Hillary easily beats McCain in Arkansas. Every poll showed that. She also helps Obama there. Obama loses easily to McCain in Arkansas.

by mmorang on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:25:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or not (none / 0)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/arkansas/arkansas_mcca in_leads_clinton_overwhelms_obama

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:44:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or not (none / 0)

You're showing me a poll from March 18th. Do you read dates?

by mmorang on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:48:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

And how would you feel if that happened, mmorang?

by JoeW on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:59:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

I would feel terrible if Obama doesn't put Hillary on the ticket. Normally, I couldn't care less, but this is different. I believe that the contest lacked integrity this time and I believe that Obama crossed a line when he went after both Clinton's personally (race-bating).

So, I'm in an uncomfortable position. I can't vote for the Republican (others don't suffer from this affliction and will) and I can't join the Obama movement if Hillary isn't on the ticket.

It's not all Obama's fault but some of it is. He did stop the revote effort despite private funding being obtained.

Bottom line: If Hillary isn't on the ticket I may leave the party just as many Obama supporters would have done if he wasn't on the ticket.

I personally feel that the only way for real party unity is to put Hillary on the ticket. It would make up for some serious political sins this primary.

by mmorang on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:13:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This keeps getting forgotten... (none / 0)

"He did stop the revote effort despite private funding being obtained."

Note that Clinton was the first to oppose a revote in Michigan -- she shot down the caucus idea that was being floated in early March.

by jere7my on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:04:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are 100% wrong (none / 0)

Clinton's side obtained private funding for a revote in FL and MI. Obama's supporters in the state legislators voted against the revote.

Caucuses are not Democratic as very few people can participate. A primary where everyone can vote is Democratic.

by mmorang on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:16:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, I am 100% right (none / 0)

Clinton was the first candidate in Michigan to block a revote. From March 7:

'Some party officials are suggesting caucuses as an option to get the delegates qualified -- but that doesn't pass muster with Clinton. "I would not accept a caucus," she told us. "I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted."'

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/camp aign-2008/2008/03/07/clinton-says-no-to- a-caucus-do-over.html

You can argue that caucuses are undemocratic, and I can argue that the Clinton solution (permitting only those who'd voted the first time to re-vote) would have been undemocratic. The fact remains that a re-vote, in the form of a caucus, might've happened if Clinton hadn't opposed them from the get-go.

I don't necessarily accept that Obama was obstructionist here, but, even if I concede that, his camp was neither the only one nor the first one to block a re-vote in Michigan.

by jere7my on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh -- she opposed a FL revote as well, at the time (none / 0)

Another quote, from later in the same article: "And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated."

by jere7my on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:17:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh no she didn't (none / 0)

No, she didn't oppose any revote. The opposite is true. The Clinton campaign obtained private money for a revote in FL and MI. Obama supporters in the state legislators voted against the revote.

The reason Obama didn't want a revote are obvious based on how he did in all the other big states. He lost big.

by mmorang on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:48:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

Hillary hasn't been "kicked to the curb"... she lost the primary fair and square...

There are more Democratic unity in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

Not everyone feels it's fair and square. Truth is, there are many people out there who think that the moving up of SC and taking out FL and MI from originally counting changed the whole election.

If Hillary isn't on the ticket you will permanently lose many people from the party and it will have an impact.

I don't think the Republicans will have any trouble whipping up hard feelings because they are already there.

by mmorang on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

The actual truth is that MI and FL were originally slated to not count and few people outside of either of those states cared because few people thought it would matter.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:53:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

Fl and MI were supposed to count half of the delegates. Again, even if you just counted that it would have changed everything.

Its no different than leaving out CA and NY.

There were other serious problems as well. All I'm saying is that a joint ticket is not an unreasonable expectation in this election given the things that went on and given the fact that Hillary won half the votes.

I will be seriously pissed if Obama doesn't put her on the ticket. I'm just one person, but if someone like me, who has only voted Dem and generally hates Republicans, is considering jumping ship I know there is a bigger problem then people are admitting.

by mmorang on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:08:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

Actually, counting FL and MI as half was not the original idea. Neither state was supposed to have delegates slated at the convention.

As for veep... I don't see it being Clinton... nor do I think she would want it to be...

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:40:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

According to the rules half of the delegates could be taken away if the states moved up the primary. That was already in the rules. By not following the rules and taking away ALL of the delegates that made FL and MI seem less legitimate and of course then you would also discount the popular vote there.

They eventually did follow the ORIGINAL rules and counted half.

The point is that if they counted half of the delegates originally then FL and MI would have had an impact in the race and helped Hillary who won all the biggest states and was a heavy favorite to win FL and MI.

Take away all the delegates and you take away the popular vote, you take away the momemtum, you take away the fundraising that goes with a win.

Hillary was screwed anyway you look at it if you are intellectually honest.

by mmorang on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:22:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

Hillary was far and away the front runner when this was being decided while we are being intellectually honest... No one, repeat, no one thought that ANY penalty levied against MI or FL would matter. Clinton was polling in double digits nationwide.

She did not get screwed. She did not run a good campaign. That she succeeded as well as she did is testament to Hillary Clinton herself... not a testament to her campaign... she did well in spite of her campaign, not because of it.

When I look at the primary race in reflection, I place the blame for Hillary's loss where it rightly belongs... on the shoulders of Mark Penn.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:29:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

How does someone who got outspent by 3-1 and 4-1 in the big states and still received more votes than her opponent or anyone in history run a bad campaign.

She had the media against her. I listened to talk show host after talk show host on Air America totally trash her and spin for Obama. I do not listen to them any more. The same is true of CSNBC.

Hillary's campaign was much more impressive to me than Obama's. He's the new flavor of the month but lost decisively since the end of February (by half a million votes).

He was the front runner since Feb but has lost all the big contests. He out spent Hillary 4-1 in TX and OH and PA and got his head handed to him. Indiana is 15 minutes from his house, they recieve TV signals from IL there and Obama still couldn't win it. He was supposed to win SD and lost easily. He was not impressive after February.

The only reason the SD's gave it to Obama is they were afraid that AA's would be furious and bolt the party. Hillary looked much better on paper against McCain than Obama.

If the situation had been reversed and Hillary won, everyone would be demanding he be put on the ticket...and he would have been.

by mmorang on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:36:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

Hillary's campaign was much more impressive to me than Obama's. He's the new flavor of the month but lost decisively since the end of February (by half a million votes).

So? If you're up in a football game by 3 touchdowns at the end of the third quarter, you're going to put your scrubs in... just 'cos the losing team's quarterback rakes up a lot of yardage in "garbage time" against scrubs in the fourth quarter means very little.

The "flavor of the month" beat that supposedly unstoppable Clinton machine, and he's going to beat the "unstoppable" GOP with or without your support. It will be a lot more fun for you if you get onboard the Democratic express... so, join the fun!

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:51:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

Obama didn't put his scrubs in, he was the scrub after February. He didn't just start doing bad. He's been getting beat pretty easily and he's been spending money like there is no tomorrow.

Why can't people be a little intellectually honest? Since February, Obama has been less then impressive. Fact, end of story. He's lost by a significant margin.

He'll probably win the popular vote against McCain. But he is in trouble in the electoral college. His only chance to win a southern state is to put Hillary on the ticket then he could win Arkansas and Florida. Absent that he will be shut out.

He's losing on the oil drilling issue. He will lose on Iraq as he is perceived to be too inexperienced. He has his work cut out for him.

by mmorang on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:01:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

Actually, today's polling shows him tied in GA... he was also tied in NC and leading VA, so your southern state idea is way off...

He didn't lose badly after February. He had a 150 pledged delegate lead after Feb, and ended with a 150 pledged delegate lead in June. He maintained his lead throughout the process. And even if you buy your hypothesis, 75% of the contests were over at the end of February. He had a "bad" fourth quarter... at the end of the game, he just let Hillary score unopposed in places like KY and WV.. big deal... he never lost his lead. He ran down the clock. I've seen so many ballgames where the losing team rakes up a ton of yards and points int eh final quarter, but still falls way short... does that make the winner any less valid or weaker? No...

I know that in Clinton-world, delegates don't matter... but, delegates are the ones that count, and Obama is going to use the exact same strategy with electors.

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:18:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

He received over half a million votes less than Hillary since Feb. He lost ALL the big states despite out spending her 4-1. He was the presumed nominee and he still lost more contests to her and more votes.

He maintained his lead because of super delegates. Yes, Obama had an extremely unimpressive second half. He prooved that he couldn't close the deal.

by mmorang on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:56:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You gotta like the happy talk (none / 0)

How does anyone that had the majority of support far and away, before the race even started mind you, lose the primary if they ran a good campaign...?

Had Hillary run as the front-runner throughout, she would have won this thing handily. Had Bill just been a supporter of Hillary and not an attacker of the other contenders, she would have won handily... had she not listened to Terry McCauliffe, Mark Penn, and the other morons she listened to, she would have won handily....

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:00:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll tell you how (none / 0)

She had a huge money disadvantage. She and her husband were falsely accused of race-bating. That will come back to haunt Obama. The media (particually the so-called "progressive media") put there collective thumbs on the scale for Obama. And she still received more votes. Obama received more pledged delegates because of the Caucuses in February.

Hillary still should have won the SD's but they were afraid of making the AA's angry. It's as simple as that. In any other year and against any other candidate the super delegates would have voted for Hillary as she was in the best position to beat McCain. Sad, but true.

In a straight up contest with no media bias and counting ALL the states, Hillary would have cleaned the floor with Obama.

by mmorang on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:08:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll tell you how (2.00 / 1)

How about the bias of saying that she won more votes...? That is not intellectually honest as it discounts caucus states.

She should never have had a huge fiscal disadvantage... she should have run a better campaign.

It's funny, but people keep bringing up the later contests... that was after they demoted Penn to a lower role. She also remained largely positive in her campaigning. Maybe THAT was what she should have done all along...

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:20:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll tell you how (2.00 / 1)

She did not receive more votes... that's bogus math that disenfranchises four states and all the obama voters in MI. It is beyond intellectually dishonest.

So, the money and the media were all for Obama in your mind... you are saying that the party would be better off with a candidate that had no money and the media hated?

By your own arguments, you have just supported Obama as the stronger GE candidate.

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:20:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll tell you how (none / 0)

Hillary had it EASY compared to Obama. All the whining about how unfair the media was is getting real old--real fast. Hillary didn't have to face anything close to what Obama did. A few sexist quips by pundits and a Hillary Clinton nutcracker gag gift don't comapare to two months of the media trying to scare white voters into thinking Obama is secretely a black millitant.

Hillary had it tougher in Bill Clintons '92 campaign than she did this time, and she wasn't even the candidate then! This time around they were gentle with her by comparison to the way they treated Obama, Edwards, Kerry, Gore, or Bill Clinton himself.

In a straight up contest without media bias Obama would have won it by super-tuesday.

by Mystylplx on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:48:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll tell you how (none / 0)

Howard kurtz of the Washington Post and CNN did a study and found overwhelming media bias against Hillary.

I listened to Air America and they did one hit job after another on Hillary. It was total bias. I will never listen to them again and I won't watch Keith Olbermann or MSNBC.

If Hillary had changed her mind and said that she was going to opt out of public financing everyone would say she was a liar.

Obama said he wouldn't run for president this time because he wasn't ready yet and he said he would accept public funding. He is a pol like the rest of them. There is nothing new about his politics. He just conned a lot of people into believing nonsense.

by mmorang on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:03:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll tell you how (none / 0)

And Hillary said on MTP that she wouldn't run either....

Actually, on MTP, Obama left the door open for a run.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:21:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll tell you how (none / 0)

Obama: "I will not be running for president in 2008, I just got in the senate"

Obama: "I will not opt out of public financing"

Obama supporters: "He's not like other politicians, he rejects the old style politics"

Me: "Whatever"

Unfortunately, Hillary isn't the Democratic nominee, Obama is. So, it doesn't matter what she's said. Obama is the one who is supposed to bring a new kind of politics...or some such BS.

by mmorang on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:40:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll tell you how (2.00 / 1)

OK....

Whatever.

I knew he was going to run... just like I knew she was going to run.

The "new style" of politics is bringing new people into the party... which has some people disgruntled.

I think he does represent change... a shift in the way of doing things.

I am happy to support him for President.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:44:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll tell you how (none / 0)

Howard Kurtz is a right wing blogger disguised as a journalist. The problem with any of these so-called "studies" is that no-one has yet figured out a good way to conduct them that is more accurate than a fancy form of adjective counting.

The MSM spent almost two months trying to scare white Americans into thinking Obama is a black millitant who hates America (Wright, Ayers). During that same time frame Hillary Clinton told a blatent lie based on a fantasy story which had zero relationship with the truth (Tuzla). The MSM tgave that one about two weeks.

You do the math.

by Mystylplx on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:20:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

if you think the party is united you are in dreaml (none / 0)

If you think it's not you're on fantasy island -- or in Bushlandia.

by Beren on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:10:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you think the party is united you are in dr (none / 0)

Idaho and Wyoming should be pink... we're going to win some seats in those states...

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:52:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FISA (none / 0)

With the Rockefeller/Hoyer crowd shouting "capitulation," Obama will have trouble with civil libertarians if he doesn't reiterate his opposition to telco amnesty and use whatever influence to stop this travesty from going through.

by wanderindiana on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:07:11 PM EST

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (2.00 / 1)

"It is advised that all citizens print these materials and keep them on their person at all times in case of any unexpected hostile interactions with cable news pundits..."

Or, Jerome.

Very useful list.

by RussTC3 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:10:41 PM EST

I would have to disagree (none / 0)

There is a growing underground movement against the DNC and their choice, Barack Obama. The polls are oversampling certain groups and the MSM is still pushing their own choice for President.

This is more dissent out there than many of the pro-Obama blogs (like this one and Daily Kos) are willing to admit.

But why take away folks' "dreams"... the reality will come clear soon enough.

by stefystef on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:14:17 PM EST

Re: I would have to disagree (2.00 / 1)

Guess that means we both have to work that much harder for Obama. What did you do today?

by NewOaklandDem on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:16:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would have to disagree (2.00 / 6)

Online: Vocal MINORITY
Real Life: Silent MAJORITY

by RussTC3 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:22:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would have to disagree (none / 0)

Way not worthy of a hide rating! Uprated big time.

Some new people need to learn the site guidelines.

Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would have to disagree (none / 0)

Agreed and I uprated as well...

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:54:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would have to disagree (none / 0)

Sorry. That was a complete MISTAKE. I wanted to uprate this!!

"No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown

by auboy2006 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would have to disagree (none / 0)

Eleven percent of registered Democrats voted for George Bush in 2004.
Now, why would anyone, let alone a Democrat, vote for George Bush's second term?
And what have we seen as a result of George Bush being barely reelected in 2004?
4 more years in Iraq.
Katrina.
The politicization of the Department of Justice (remember Alberto Gonzales?) and politcally motivated firing of US attorneys.
Illegal wiretapping of US citizens.
Torture and Gitmo.
The housing crisis.
Gas prices.

And disaffected Dems (because you aren't a Hillary supporter) want to vote for McCain and support 4 more years of the same because their chosen candidate didn't win?

Pardon me, but are you out of your minds?

by skohayes on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:45:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your disagreement (none / 0)

not only lacks substantiation, but flies in the face of objective evidence to the contrary. It's not worrisome, it's not credible, and as such is more amusing than annoying. "oversampling certain groups", indeed. Which groups, pray tell, and what weights should they have?

Why troll if you're not going to put even a modicum of effort into it?

by Neef on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:06:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your disagreement (none / 0)

I don't know if there is "oversampling". But there has already been proven to be a Bradly Effect. That's where people lie to the polster and tell them they are voting for the black candidate because they don't want to appear to be racist.

That is easily worth a 9 point pad in Obama's numbers. It's already happened in many primaries, CA for one.

by mmorang on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:18:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

more guessing? (none / 0)

Where DO you get 9 points from?

There is also a Reverse Bradley Effect. Both effects are constrained to states with specific demographics:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/755/tracking -the-race-factor

Both effects have been measured only in a primary where the difference in platform is relatively minor. This GE showcases an incredibly stark contrast in positions.

All the current evidence points to Obama doing outstandingly well. I'd agree much of the facts-from-hole-in-ground wishful thinking indicates otherwise.

by Neef on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:38:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: more guessing? (none / 0)

The latest polls as of TODAY show Obama losing FL and OH. With the Republicans less popular than cancer and running a corpse for president, Obama should be winning by 20 points right now. He's not!

Rose colored glasses off.

by mmorang on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:40:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: more guessing? (none / 0)

1.) McCain is a lot stronger a candidate than we'd like to admit

2.) Clinton never had that much more of a lead over him than Obama, if she even led him by more at all. What was her problem?

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:47:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: more guessing? (none / 0)

It doesn't live or die with Obama either.

by mmorang on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would have to disagree (2.00 / 1)

"There is a growing underground movement against the DNC and their choice, Barack Obama."

Actually, it's a groaning underground movement and it's diminishing on a daily basis as its pet "concerns" are debunked.

by Beren on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:14:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton supporters are Obama supporters (2.00 / 6)

This Obama supporter has unlimited admiration for
Clinton supporters such as Linfar, Canadian Gal and several others, who accepted the reality of Obama's nomination and became Obama supporters without ceasing to be Hillary supporters.

I am convinced that they represent the huge majority of Clinton supporters.

I think we should avoid referring to PUMAs and suchlike wild cats as Clinton supporters, or even "supporters", as they no longer care about what Hillary Clinton's candidacy was about, nor what she is about. Associating Hillary Clinton's name with these groups is an insult to her. Linfar's recent diary 'Dishonoring Hillary' made me realize that these guys are dishonoring nobody but themselves.

by french imp on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:22:48 PM EST

Plenty of "riffs" in the party (none / 0)

...very small "rift".

Often wrong; seldom in doubt.

by Goober Pea on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:07:17 PM EST

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (1.00 / 1)

Keep dreamin' the impossible dream pal.

Reality is gonna be a bummer for ya.

by Pericles on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:16:55 PM EST

Thanks for the talking points (none / 0)

But I do think that this is the place to make the arguments he needs to help attract some of the voters he has trouble with. Not to pretend that this is going to be the smoothest election since the beginning of time.

What is The October Protocol?

by Koan on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:04:19 PM EST

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (none / 0)

It's not all Obama's fault but some of it is. He did stop the revote effort despite private funding being obtained,He maintained his lead because of super delegates. Yes, Obama had an extremely unimpressive second half. He prooved that he couldn't close the deal.

Flashlights rc heli videogame

by blueskyadf on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:41:44 AM EST

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (none / 0)

Actually, I think We're all Democrats.......I haven't had a single discussion on this issue from anyone .....I'd be pleasantly suport the man who is really democratics.

Flashlights helicopter video game

by analyfjks on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:19:36 PM EST

Re: Obama Electoral Myth Debunker (none / 0)

Let's wait until Obama makes it official.

Flashlights rc helicopter video game

by anasky123 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:21:10 AM EST

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.