Duke it out here. Those participating in the US election threads are advised that they do so at their own risk.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Presidential election minus 21 weeks
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
1,623 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 … 33 » Show All
#44 – [Finns - I think you are mostly right] and
Diogenes, you will be richly rewarded for being so kind to the Amigos.
and Yes, world peace will come.
[Bertrand Delanoë, the mayor of Paris, declared: “His candidacy carries an enormous hope for his country and for peace in the world.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/world/05react.html?fta=y&pagewanted=print
SL
this year we have the scenario you described in 2004.
the repugs have more retiring senators and more senate seats up for grabs.
i think it is 25 Repug seats to 12 Dem seats that are up for grabs in the senate this year.
i think it’s safe to say it looks like major losses in the House and Senate for the Repugs plus a loss of the Presidency.
Just Me,
Finns argument holds.
Ron has shown that the mighty Obama is more a dissembler on the Iraq situation than a sage with special insight. Basically, he has used the fact that he was not in the Senate to vote on the Iraq War as evidence that he never supported that war and pilloried his opponents. An uncritical media has let him get away with this nonsense to date. Also, his many supporters have jumped to the conclusion that he is a better anti conflict candidate. Big jump indeed.
The reality is that he is unproven. Given his utterances whenever he ventures in to Foreign Affairs, he is naive and down right dangerous. When the crunch comes, will the US electors go for the experiened pro or the prevaricator.
I suspect that many of the Obama luvvies here at PB will be sorely disappointed should their champion prevail in November.
No wonder poor old Bill went loco during the campaign. Barry is usurping him in more ways than one.
Now all the Hollywood Hotties are lusting after Barry. Bill must finally be feeling his age.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=7381F248-3048-5C12-005F78C017A32C17
HarryH @ 52,
Yep, I agree with you there.
The election that this seems to be more closely correlated to is 1980, where the Republicans picked up 12 seats in the Senate to take control of it. Whilst the Democrats aren’t going to pick up 12 seats this year, they are on track for a minimum of 4-5 and have decent shots in another 4 more.
Of course, it also seems unlikely that Obama will win a Reaganesque landslide this year. McCain seems to be a much stronger opponent than Carter (or Mondale, for that matter).
Got to read a New Yorker article last night from a couple of issues ago that analyses how the puff has gone from the Republicans. The proud right-wing tradition of divide and conquer is over (much as it failed in our election, and the US Republican Party is where JWH got it from):
“The Fall of Conservatism
Have the Republicans run out of ideas?”
by George Packer
… The fact that the least conservative, least divisive Republican in the 2008 race is the last one standing—despite being despised by significant voices on the right—shows how little life is left in the movement that Goldwater began, Nixon brought into power, Ronald Reagan gave mass appeal, Newt Gingrich radicalized, Tom DeLay criminalized, and Bush allowed to break into pieces. “The fact that there was no conventional, establishment, old-style conservative candidate was not an accident,” Brooks said. “Mitt Romney pretended to be one for a while, but he wasn’t. Rudy Giuliani sort of pretended, but he wasn’t. McCain is certainly not. It’s not only a lack of political talent—there’s just no driving force, and it will soften up normal Republicans for change.”…
The key terms and triggers used to attack the Democrats by the Right since Nixon aren’t going to work this time. The landscape has changed, but the Repugs don’t realise it yet. Also couldn’t help noticing that most of the right-wing attack flags listed here have been used by the PB “right-wing” to attack Barry and his supporters, time and time again:
… Because we can’t anticipate what ideas and language will dominate the next cycle of American politics, the previous era’s key words—“élite,” “mainstream,” “real,” “values,” “patriotic,” “snob,” “liberal”—seem as potent as ever. Indeed, they have shown up in the current campaign: North Carolina and Mississippi Republicans have produced ads linking local Democrats to Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s controversial former pastor. The right-wing group Citizens United has said that it will run ads portraying Obama as yet another “limousine liberal.” But these are the spasms of nerve endings in an organism that’s brain-dead.
Among Republicans, there is no energy, no fresh thinking, no ability to capture the concerns and feelings of millions of people.In the past two months, Democratic targets of polarization attacks have won three special congressional elections, in solidly Republican districts in Illinois, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Political tactics have a way of outliving their ability to respond to the felt needs and aspirations of the electorate. …
The wedge has lost its splintering power! It’s long but a good and relevant article for the battle now beginning:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_packer
GG,
Obama’s words are evidence of the fact that he opposed the war! He spoke in Chicago on October 2002 saying….
“I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”
He went on to say…..
know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”
That was a week before the resolution authourising the war passed congress.
He is proven …..proven right. His opposition to the war is on record and as much as you would like to Hannitise that fact, it ain’t goin away!
GG
Obama will be better than McCain. It’s really as simple as that.
Will America still be America?…sure it will. But will America be better than it was in 2000-2008…i’d say so.
Ronnie & GG, Its ON.
Bush III Vs Carter II – It makes Clinton II looks better and better each day.
well, everyone is entitled to make mistake.
GG #53,
That is wrong.
As an Illinois State Senator, Obama spoke out long and loud agaisnt the war before it started and in its earliest days.
Agree or disagree with this policy as you please, but its not an invention on Obama’s part to say that he always opposed the Iraq War.
Mathew,
thank you.
Harry #54,
Yeah, well – just remember that Bill Clinton was one of the most photogenic Presidents in recent US history.
And, yeah, it’s showing that he’s 15 years older than Barry…..he’s looked a lot older in various photos during this campaign.
jv
I read that article, and others like it. And it seems to be people from the Conservative camp itself that most realise that it is all over. I have read quite a few introspective articles from staunch Conservatives.
The political and cultural cycle is tilting again.
The self interested are trying valiantly to hold back the tide and only the blind cannot see it coming.
GG #53,
I forgot – PolitiFact article backing me up.
http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/95/
HarryH,
I agree that the tide has turned, but remain concerned about Republican “tactics” – voter fraud, voter disenfranchisment, Katherine Harrismant, swiftboating and other forms of cheating.
Eternal vigilence is the price of liberty.
Optimist #65
The cycle is eternal, and anyone with a sense of history can predict what will happen….
1. The Democrats will win big, and dominate politics for about 10 years.
2. The Democrats will drift away from their principles, while the Republicans renew theirs.
3. The Republicans will make small gains, like snakes in the long grass, while Democrat after Democrat is embroiled in high-profile scandals.
4. The Republicans will seize marginal control of both Houses, and possibly the Presidency.
5. The Democrats will alienate more of their support base flailing against it.
6. Revert to position #1, but switch Party names.
It happened during the 1920s, it happened during the ’60s, the ’80s, the 90’s and now.
Mathew,
how does the 2000 result fit into the framework you’ve layed out above?
I’m not arguing with you, just curious.
HarryH – Yes, the Repug insiders are peering deeply into the lint. Even Gingrich is predicting disaster for his party.
Optimist @ 65 [Eternal vigilence is the price of liberty.]
Dead right, and who better to keep an eye on the states with Repug Governors than Obama’s Army of internet recruited local volunteers. After the last Florida fiasco and similar cheating in recent elections there will be literally millions of them scrutinising every electoral move, and screaming from the rooftops (ie internet) every time a rort is attempted.
voter fraud and disenfranchisement are real and need to be addressed but they won’t affect the result of this election. They need to be highlighted and kept in check as thoroughly as possible and then addressed i the next 4 years.
As for Republican “tactics”? they work when conditions are optimal and fail when conditions aren’t optimal.
When the population’s mood is susceptible to swiftboating and cheap mud, then it will work.
But the population are mad as hell. And they are mad as hell on substantive issues.
Don’t worry about the Repug smear tactics. They are gonna get swiftboated on the Issues.
For anyone interested in attempts to disenfranchise voters……
http://www.gregpalast.com/
HarryH,
I generally agree and hope you are right. Remember though, we’re not just talking about the Presidential election. There are a number of tight senate races which, if unfairly tipped to Republicans could mean the difference between a significant Democratic majority and an unstoppable one (ie: fillibuster-proof).
M Cole @ 66 – On that timetable, by the end of the next Republican cycle Hillary will be only 82, and will be well set to be Ready On Day One, again, for the Dems.
Optimist @ 67,
2000 would probably fall into Category 4 – Republicans win narrowly across the board.
Of course, 1992 would probably be a mix of Category 1 and 2 – the Democrats won the Presidency by drifting to the right, but the Republicans regrouped and took Congress in 1994.
JV,
I hope you’re right too – I worry that despite the millions of internet eyes watching proceedings that ultimately these matters are for courts to decide – courts that are stacked with Bush appointees and buddies like the loathsome Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Swing Lowe – I see the pattern, I just think it’s a tad oversimplified.
As you correctly stated, Dems won the White House in 92 only to lose congress to Gingrich and co in ‘94 – that hardly constitutes dominating politics for 10 years now does it?
Matthew Cole @ 60 & 64
It’s okk..GG has stated often that he admits to and corrects his mistakes, so i’m sure he’ll get around to Post#53 soon.
HarryH – yeah riiiiggghttt.
You kidder, you.
Optimist #67
I’d be likely to say that the 2000 result was Step 3, in reverse – the Democrats gained in each House, and almost won the Presidency.
HarryH #76,
That may not be fair. I haven’t seen GG around since the initial disagreement – he probably had to go. It happens to everyone…
MC 78
Oh i agree. Nowhere in my post did i suggest GG might be laying a little low until a more opportune time to continue his line of UnBarryness…oh no…never.
I’m sure you’re right. He probably got called away.
30 Mathew Cole That’s interesting coming from a Murdoch paper. It used to be owned by Rev Moon of the Moonies.
50 HarryH At last some polling evidence showing what will happen in the next election. It will be interesting to see what happens on the next votemaster update. (Usually about 9pm.)
http://www.electoral-vote.com
66 Mathew Cole One thing you left out. The Democrats are introduing one vote one value. (That means a persons vote will have more value than cows or desert in some cases). This will heavily favour the Democrats. This will either force the Repugs to change or stay in oblivion.
55 Swing Lowe The evidence I am seeing shows otherwise. Just keep an eye on votemaster over the next month or two. The poll just taken in Wisconsen will make one change. Oregon, Michigan and Maine will change (normally blue states). Maine changed in 2006 despite a very good/moderate candidate.
Reassuring point about Ohio: it now has a Democratic Governor and a Democratic Secretary Of State, they will ensure there’s a free and fair vote this time. In 2004 it was obvious the previous Republican Governor was doing a little underhand electoral fraud for Bush.
Progressive #84,
It is, is it?
How so?
84 Progressive When Ohio changes to one vote one value it will no longer be a swing state as such. Instead of winner take all it will be proportional to the number of votes.
Swing Lowe at 55:
“Of course, it also seems unlikely that Obama will win a Reaganesque landslide this year. McCain seems to be a much stronger opponent than Carter (or Mondale, for that matter).”
This well written article may give you pause for concern, SL.
“The Obama campaign’s voter registration drive could radically alter the electoral map this fall …….these numbers, coupled with Silver’s(538) track record, should strike fear into the McCain camp, whose ground game is already suffering from a resource gap with Democrats and a lack of enthusiasm among the GOP’s evangelical base.”
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3741/expand_the_vote/
While it is true that Obama offerred the “fluffy” words that underpinned his “principled” opposition to the Iraq conflict, the fact is he wasn’t a member of The Senate at the time of the vote. Therefore, much of the debate revolves around the “If your grandma had a moustache, she’d be your prandpa”.
If some of you took the time to read Ron’s eloquent 14, it is clear that his actual position, should it have come to the crunch was somewhat more ambivalent than his “dyed in the wool” supporters here and elsewhere would have us all believe.
That Obama used this ambivalence through the nomination period to gather support from the young and idealistic internet generation is very clever politics. However, in the heat of the POTUS campaign, real questions can be asked and Obama falling back to the contrived blandness spouted to date will not cut the mustard.
So in the spirit of forgiveness, I await all your apologies for getting this aspect of the campaign so wrong.
Cheers.
GG,
give it a rest will ya – you were wrong – you know it, we all know it.
First you say at # 53
“Basically, he (Obama) has used the fact that he was not in the Senate to vote on the Iraq War as evidence that he never supported that war and pilloried his opponents.”
You have been repeatedly proven wrong on that and you don’t have the courage or integrity to simply admit it.
Instead you shift the goalposts again and claim that whtever he said was irrelavant because he wasn’t a member of the Senate.
Back to school with a slap for you.
Beep, beep, beep, here comes the busman again.
Obama handling of the Johnsongate once again demonstrates of his oiliness. Just as in the Pastorgate case.
First, just deny that he is on the bus,
Second, there he is, he is on the bus. Alright then, he is just a passenger.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/11/obama_defense_of_johnson_raise.html?hpid=topnews
Third, but he was driving. Ok then, he’s just a hitch hiker. We throw him under the bus just as the Pastor, the Church, the Priest, the Grandma and the Grand Uncle.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/politics/12veep.html?adxnnl=1&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1213262017-cgx7iKne70k0q76KYgZGYA
If I were Michelle, I will make sure that I have his birth certificate safely tucked away, as Michelle slammin’ is a comin’.
Optimist #89,
Not so fast.
It is true that Obama has, at times, expressed support for the Bush Administration’s Iraq policies once on the ground – but not for the decision to go there. (Note the “half-True” ratings on the following statements – it’s complicated. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/284/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/378/ )
Still, it is easy to mix the two up.
Also, GG is partially right: literally speaking, Obama’s 2002 opinion is irrelevant to the Iraq War – he didn’t get a say. However, it does provide insight into his mindset.
Optimist,
Thank you for your apology.
You are forgiven.
Still taking your medication? Being so many different people must be a burden around tax time.
Google On!
GG, please be gentle with the second eleven.
gg give it to them good and hard
Matthew,
Thanks for the balanced outlook. I suppose I am yet to be convinced of Obama’s sincerity regarding Iraq. There has already been too much convenient jettisoning of people and personal positions whenever their utility to his chances to win have expired.
Finns #90,
That rather lengthy diatribe goes too far.
As someone who has read MANY PolitiFact judgements (and gotten a sense of how they’re issued), I’m going to award my own to that one (per this schedule: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/about/ ): Barely True.
Your attack distorts critical facts: Obama has not thrown anyone but Rev. Wright “under the bus”, and only did that after Wright gave a particularly odious public statement.
However, it is a matter of concern that Obama did say “We don’t vet the vetters”. Has he never heard this? “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes” (Latin). English translation: “Who shall watch the watchers?”
Mathew,
puh-lease. It is not “literaly” irrelevant – his position as a State Sen. and candidate for the U.S Senate was crystal clear. That was the subject under discussion -precisely that.
If you want to defend the desperately circular logic GG employs, that is your choice.
I am addressing GGs statements here – the fact is that GG stated : “Basically, he (Obama) has used the fact that he was not in the Senate to vote on the Iraq War as evidence that he never supported that war and pilloried his opponents. ”
You yourself agree that that was flat wrong. Rather than admit that, GG consulted the Fox news playbook and tried reframe the issue suggesting that Obama’s stance was irrelevant because (with GG’s breath-taking hypocrisy) he wasn’t a Senator at the time.
I am making a point about the integrity of the specific argument in the context of the posts referred to- it is a matter of logic and language – not a policy issue. If you want to broaden the scope and change the context, feel free.
If you want to “not-so-fast” me, look at precisely what I said and the context in which I said it.
Your post failed to do that.
So yes – SO FAST.
Matthew,
What about Pfleger and the Trinity Church?
GG,
what happened to admitting when you were wrong?
Optimist,
Five GG’s in one post. You must be rattled.
Google over there please.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 … 33 » Show All