Both major political parties have a flair for the self-destructive. But it seems as if Democrats are poised to out do the Republicans again on that score in 2008. They simply may not have a good choice left. Obama is increasingly damaged goods and I doubt the bleeding has stopped.
See Rasmussen Or, Clinton up in PA by 16? What a mess - and Obama, unlike Hillary, is tanking against McCain in other important states, as well. But if the Super Delegates give it to Hillary, the Democrat Party, Denver, and many city streets in America could explode. It might actually be better, if not absolutely necessary, for the Democrat Party to embrace defeat, as the preferred option over complete self-destruction, in 2008. Heading into this year's presidential election, the Republicans may be in bad shape, but clearly things for the Democrats are now even worse. And the dynamics involved here may also be the only thing that stops the Dems from winning overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress, as well.
No matter what, politically speaking, it has been and will continue to be a fascinating, if also a frustrating, year.
In the week before the media frenzy over Wright, Obama and McCain were essentially tied in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Less than a week later, and two days after Obama’s speech, McCain had opened a seven-point lead over Obama. Significantly, by Thursday’s polling, McCain had pulled slightly ahead of Obama among unaffiliated voters. McCain also enjoys unified support from Republican voters while Obama only attracts 65% of Democratic votes at this time.
Obama’s favorable ratings have also fallen below the 50% mark since the world learned of his former Pastor. This can be seen as part of a larger trend that began shortly after Obama’s victories in the Wisconsin Primaries. At that time, just before Hillary Clinton began raising questions about her competitor, Obama was viewed favorably by 56% of voters nationwide. That had slipped to 52% just before Pastor Wright’s views became big news and to 47% just before Obama’s speech. Two days after the speech, Obama’s favorables remain at 48%.
Ah, beauty in motion: the cat-herding that is the Democrat-ic Party.
Posted by: seekeronos | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Have I not been saying for months McCain will win in a walk, and that he was the only Republican positioned to do so?
I also predicted the Johnstown Flood and the Bills winning the Superbowl 4 times in a row, but no one would listen.
Posted by: dw | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Keep on hoping, Dan.
You fail to note the obvious. The democrats are struggling to decide between two good candidates. That's it. We like them both.
The republicans have mucked things up so bad that it isn't going to matter who runs against McCain.
Most Americans want to end the occupation of Iraq, McCain has promised not to.
Most do not want to start another unnecessary war, McCain is threatening to bomb and invade Iran.
Most have tired of tax relief to the rich, McCain has promised to continue to burden the middle class.
Most are against torture, McCain was but flip flopped on that one.
Face it. You've got GWB the 2nd running.
If you think the 20% ers that still support the policies of GWB are going to carry the White House for the GOP you are in for a big surprise.
Though I know you don't believe this but keep on stumping on the disagreements within the Dems.
I don't blame you for ignoring the issues as you've got a sure loser if you don't.
Posted by: jharp | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 12:46 PM
"---
Have I not been saying for months McCain will win in a walk, and that he was the only Republican positioned to do so?
I also predicted the Johnstown Flood and the Bills winning the Superbowl 4 times in a row, but no one would listen. ---"
Ah, it must be rough being a prophet unheeded.
FWIW, I much rather have had Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson as the nominee-in-waiting. We get stuck with a liberal no matter how it pans out -- a liberal Republican or a ultra-liberal socialist wannabe.
Posted by: seekeronos | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 01:25 PM
*raises hand*
I'm not one to question poll numbers, but didn't Democratic primary voters out-vote Republicans three or four or five to one in states like Virginia, South Carolina, and Indiana? How do you account for the fact that there are just physically more Democrats and more left-leaning Independents today than their were back in 2004?
Not that I would ever question "The Math", of course.
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 01:30 PM
"You fail to note the obvious. The democrats are struggling to decide between two good candidates. That's it. We like them both."-jharp
Yeah, you like them both, but mutually exclusive of one another. I've been reading about the increasing bitterness between the supporters of each candidate, which seem to hate each other with more rancor than they have for John McCain.
Do you really mean to say that one side or the other won't be highly pissed off after a brokered convention? Especially now that Obama is fatally tanking due to his black supremacist roots showing and the fact that his supporters, especially the black community, will go bat shit insane if he is denied the nomination? Or that Hillary and Co. won't work to undermine Obama if he gets the nod?
No, the fact is you have 2 fatally flawed candidates tailor made for the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES, but unable to win the general. Pretty much the common trope for the Democrat party, with the exception of Clinton, and only then with 3rd party help and the worst Republican candidates in history.
Posted by: dw | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 01:34 PM
Islamo,
Indiana has not yet held their primary.
And sorry to tell you but the democrats have no chance.
White trash, knuckledragging, live poor vote rich, republicans dominate my state. In other words, the GOP base.
Our mayor was a friggin Klansman in the 1920's and lynching was very popular. The neighboring towns to me are Knightstown and Whiteland.
Posted by: jharp | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 01:36 PM
"Yeah, you like them both, but mutually exclusive of one another. I've been reading about the increasing bitterness between the supporters of each candidate, which seem to hate each other with more rancor than they have for John McCain."
Do you similar to the bitterness in the GOP after McCain was deemed the nominee?
Yeah, that really lasted long. Didn't it?
"Do you really mean to say that one side or the other won't be highly pissed off after a brokered convention?
Pissed off a little, possibly. Disappointed, more likely."
It'll last about as long as the disappoinment of the GOP over getting stuck with McCain.
Posted by: jharp | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 01:42 PM
"I'm not one to question poll numbers, but didn't Democratic primary voters out-vote Republicans three or four or five to one in states like Virginia, South Carolina, and Indiana? How do you account for the fact that there are just physically more Democrats and more left-leaning Independents today than their were back in 2004?"
- Answer: Traditionally, many more people vote in dem primaries as rep primaries. In 1984 and 1988, twice the number voted in dem as rep primaries, yet in both cases, in the general election, the rep candidate won in a landslide.
Posted by: Think_b4_speaking | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 02:55 PM
"You fail to note the obvious. The democrats are struggling to decide between two good candidates. That's it. We like them both."
Gee, I've got a sawbuck that says even if one of the above wins in November you find plenty to hate about them once they nonchalantly announce, "You know all that stuff we promised you during the campaign? Forget about it."
"The republicans have mucked things up so bad that it isn't going to matter who runs against McCain."
Republicans "mucked things up so bad?" Compared to WHO? Jimmy Carter? Bubba Clinton? Lyndon Johnson?
"Most Americans want to end the occupation of Iraq, McCain has promised not to."
Who's "most Americans?" Everybody in your drum circle and Friday Night Affinity Group? And, to keep you up on current events, we're not really "occupying" Iraq in the classic sense anymore: that country has a duly constituted, legally elected, and internationally-recognized goverment in place. Don't take my word for it: start with the Iraq Foreign Ministry website.
http://www.mofa.gov.iq/english/home.aspx
"Most do not want to start another unnecessary war, McCain is threatening to bomb and invade Iran."
Yeah, kind of like Obama's recent pronouncement that he wanted to invade Pakistan, huh?
"Most have tired of tax relief to the rich, McCain has promised to continue to burden the middle class."
Who's "most?" Not me, pal. You must not be very smart, because a quick look at all the Donk tax proposals in the works indicate they're tanned, rested, and ready to impose the largest tax increases in history if they get their way. And, cupcake, that means Charlie Rangel will coming after YOUR paycheck too. Take a look at both Hillary's and Obama's spending proposals if they get into office: they both amount to upwards of $300 BILLION. The money will have to come from someplace and you can only tap "the rich" so much before...they aren't rich anymore. Indeed, both Hillary and Obama are (wrongly) counting on some kind of "Iraq Dividend" if we cut and run from there. Unfortunately, they can't guarantee that we'll later get involved in yet another international crisis involving deployment of troops and even outright war. Don't believe me? Hell, if you'd told the average American in 1990 what the next fifteen years would bring, they would have laughed you out of the room. That's the dilemma for both of your wonderful candidates: if they show themselves either unable, or unwilling, to respond militarily during a crisis, then their political careers are friggin' toast.
"Most are against torture, McCain was but flip flopped on that one."
Ummm, what constitutes "torture" in your part of the galaxy? We've waterboarded three--count'em--three Al Qaeda terrorists, which, in turn, provided important information without permanently harming them. Dare I mention that you're totally willing to give head-chopping Islamic fascists a free pass on this issue. Well?
"Face it. You've got GWB the 2nd running."
No, there's nothing to "face." GWB is GWB. John McCain is John McCain. They're both their own men and there is no conflating the two.
"If you think the 20% ers that still support the policies of GWB are going to carry the White House for the GOP you are in for a big surprise."
Nope, I think the big surprise of this campaign is that your party is already in pre-civil war mode. Hillary, so "inevitable" six months ago, has morphed from Queen-in-Waiting into "I coulda been a contender."
"Though I know you don't believe this but keep on stumping on the disagreements within the Dems."
You're absolutely right....I don't believe it.
"I don't blame you for ignoring the issues as you've got a sure loser if you don't."
Sore loser? Yeoooowwww! The battle between Hillary and Obama has now come to this: SOMEBODY has to lose at Denver this August. And the fallout from that won't be pretty. Indeed, one poll (cited on Rush Limbaugh's show today) indicates that as many as 20% of either Obama or Hillary supporters will throw their support to McCain if their candidate is edged out in Denver. McCain is hardly "Mr. Excitement," but he's a known quantity, he's not going to make any sudden moves, and he's shown a willingness to work across the aisle. Can you say that about your boy and girl?
Posted by: MarkJ | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 02:59 PM
i don't know what they are going to do. they are stuck with obama and he can't win. what a mess.
Posted by: tally | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 03:24 PM
Your from Gary, aren't you, Harpo? Aren't you? Gary or Tipperary, which is it? Who is your Mayor, Senator Byrd?
"You fail to note the obvious. The democrats are struggling to decide between two good candidates. That's it. We like them both."
The sad fact is there isn't two cents difference between them in policies. The happy fact is the Dems are biting each other in the groins over this contest. The affirmative-action white-guilt assuager versus the nepotism, my-husband-taught-me-brain-surgery-over-Sunday Dinner-by-osmosis candidate.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 04:07 PM
"white guilt assuager"
Hahaha....LMAO! An exact description.
Posted by: templar knight | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 04:17 PM
Temp, this Moe gets my goat as only Nowingker could. What a stunada!
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 04:29 PM
"Our mayor was a friggin Klansman in the 1920's and lynching was very popular. The neighboring towns to me are Knightstown and Whiteland."
Why do I have a hard time believing this. Are you saying you have a mayor right now that is either in his at least his 90's? The Klan was popular in the south, not Indiana. And also lynching cases were rare even among the KKK. Don't believe me, go look them up. The only most prominent one is Leo Frank and Michael Donald. And you're also suggesting that Indiana had just as much black demographic as Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and etc?
Man, you're trying hard to bash Republicans as the party of racists.
Posted by: Kaitian | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 05:04 PM
"The Klan was popular in the south, not Indiana."
Sorry to tell you this but the klan is biggest in Ill, Ind and Ohio,
Posted by: WAHOO WILLIE | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 05:17 PM
" KKK controlled Southern legislatures and the governments of Tennessee, Indiana."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kkk
Posted by: WAHOO WILLIE | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 05:31 PM
Here's another Indiana:
http://www.indianamuseum.org/uploads/docs/LP_47_KKK.pdf
Posted by: WAHOO WILLIE | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 05:34 PM
MarkJ,
You, my friend are either dishonest or a fool. Though it's probably both.
"Who's "most Americans?"
I cannot make it any clearer. Most as in the majority. Or as in more want to end the occupation than don't.
"Ummm, what constitutes "torture" in your part of the galaxy?"
The legislation passed by both the Senate and the House banned waterboarding (torture). Bush vetoed it. McCain, or GWB the 2nd, backed him. I agree with our Senators and House members. NOT King George.
You are idiot regarding tax policy. Just how do you propose paying for the $1-$2 trillion dollar war.
Borrow it and pass it on to our kids?
In case you aren't aware Bush and the republican Congress have balloned our debt by 4 trillion. That's 200 billion in interest per year. Forever.
What is your solution. Cut taxes?
Gotta run but noticed you are quoting the limp dicked, drug addict Limabaugh. I wondered where in the heck you were coming from with your clueless remarks. Now I see.
You're a dittohead.
Posted by: jharp | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 05:40 PM
"Why do I have a hard time believing this. Are you saying you have a mayor right now that is either in his at least his 90's?"
I stand corrected. I used a poor choice of words that didn't make my post clear.
In the 1920's we had a mayor who was a Klansman.
Thanks and sorry.
Posted by: jharp | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 05:42 PM
WAHOO WILLIE, I'll concede you that point in that case then. But the claims of massive lynchings and the mayor today being a former klansman in the 20's while ignoring the math of his age being at least in his 90's seems a bit false to me.
Posted by: Kaitian | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 05:45 PM
"In the 1920's we had a mayor who was a Klansman." So you're using past evidence as your argument to current event? Way to reach the bottom of the barrel. The Klan is non-existent these days and I can easily find articles supporting my argument on this case. The closest you will find is Stormfront.org and you're going to find a racist here and there in Indiana. Big deal.
Posted by: Kaitian | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 05:47 PM
Fred,
"The sad fact is there isn't two cents difference between them in policies.'
Mostly true. The difference is Obama is a magnificent orator and Clinton is a tough veteran.
I like them both but favor Clinton.
Posted by: jharp | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 05:48 PM
Kaitian,
You don't know your ass from first base regarding racism in Indiana.
Posted by: jharp | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 05:52 PM
jharp,
Nice of you to assume what I do know and what I don't know. Keep fishing.
Posted by: Kaitian | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 05:58 PM
"Mostly true. The difference is Obama is a magnificent orator and Clinton is a tough veteran."
And Obama has little experience in governing, and the last time we tried that we ended up with Jimmah Carter. Yech! As for Hillary, I would prefer her over a guy who sits down with a pastor that calls white people devils, among other things. She will govern more from the center than Obama, and has less of the nutroot factor as a terrible influence over policy.
And, I hate to break it to the nutroots, but she will not immediately pull troops out of Iraq, as she has enough sense to know that it would be foolish to leave it to al-Queda, or worse, Iran. Either way, she makes more sense to me than Obama.
As a matter of fact, she's not all that much worse than McCain. But we'll see. November is a long ways away, and things have a habit of changing.
Posted by: templar knight | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 06:01 PM
jharp lives in Indiana?
That must be as close to hell as a nutroot can get on Earth. Baring a trip to Kansas, I suppose. LOL!
Posted by: templar knight | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 06:06 PM
Meanwhile, another friend od the trooops and the Lord is 'retiring'.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/20/reynolds.retires/index.html
I see many more victories ahead for you patriots!
Posted by: BobInStamford | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 06:09 PM
Templar,
"As a matter of fact, she's not all that much worse than McCain."
A good point and I agree except a couple of issues.
1) The occupation of Iraq. And I can't understand why McCain continues to support a losing position. It will probably cost him the election.
2) Torture. And again I don't understand him flip flopping on this issue.
3) Taxes. Again a flip flop. I like low taxes as much as anyone but unlike most right wingers, I understand that we cannot simply continue to pile up debt.
I really don't understand why McCain flip flopped on the key issues that would win him some independants and democrats.
Posted by: jharp | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 07:22 PM
keep wishing wingnuts, keep dreaming
Posted by: LOL | Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 11:02 PM
I wouldn't call Obama inevitable either, no more than HIllary was thought to be.
Obama's the likely the Dem nominee, but I suspect he will emerge battered and beat down... and if McCain can keep his ballgame focused on Iraqi successes and hint at his potential picks (solid conservative, youngish veep with prospects for a POTUS run in 2012 ... a smart economic policy wonk ... and a few SCOTUS and circuit court judges holstered and ready to roll out should that need arise, all while playing to the middle as is his strong suit, he will pull in the disaffected Hillarites and independents who have been soured by Obama's flirtations with far left socialist radicals and divisive racists.
And don't sweat the numbers either... I somehow suspect that the inflated Dem numbers may have had something to do (a) the exceptionally heated political polarization going on between HRC and BHO, and (b) the lack of decisive delegate victories given the proportional distribution of delegates as opposed to the winner take all contests that predominate the GOP nomination process. Oh, and (c) the weirdness imposed by the most decidedly undemocratic oligarchical use of "superdelegates".
Compared to the GOP, where by Super Tuesday, McCain's nomination was all but a fait accompli, with Paul, Huckabee and for a short time, Mitt trying to scratch away at McCain's lead. Mini-Tuesday (the 4. March primaries) assured McCain's nomination. Granted, there was some rancor (not least of all from yours truly) over our choice of this stalwart left-leaning centrist, but most of us quickly got over it.
Typically, South Carolina knocks out all the third tier candidates, leaving it a two man race to Super Tuesday, which puts the Mighty Mo' under the frontrunner.
Even Ron Paul is scaling down his campaign, pretty much running it as a token/symbolic campaign to rally people toward supporting more libertarian/paleoconservative Repubbies running in congressional, state, and local contests to reform the party from within.
Unlike you cat-herding Dems... once we pick our guy, we usually pull behind him. McCain was just... a bit harder for us to swallow, but with the hurt pride largely assuaged, I think we will press on to victory, while y'all will likely be bashing each other up in Denver with campaign signs and pouches of burning patchouli.
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, March 21, 2008 at 01:55 AM
"the weirdness imposed by the most decidedly undemocratic oligarchical use of "superdelegates". "
RNC has something just like the superdelegates, it only has a different name. There are RNC member delegates.
"The unpledged RNC member delegates are free to vote for any candidate and are not bound by the electoral votes of their state. The majority of the unpledged delegates (those who are elected or chosen) are technically free to vote for any candidate; however they are likely to be committed to one specifically."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate
And another thing, having lower level politicians select the national candidates is something our democracy has done in America's past. Read the Constitution; Senators were picked by state legislatures. It's really sad when the IQ among wingnuts is so low that they can't even understand what the original meaning of the word Republican was.
Posted by: LOL | Friday, March 21, 2008 at 04:58 AM
People have mentioned this before i'm sure, but here goes...
After the first ballot, all bets are off. Therefore, if things get bad enough, I think the Dems may just pull a "rabbit out of a hat" and nominate a third party. Not sure who it could be, but I think this may just happen. If both candidates are "losers" in the polls, the Supers may decide to put a fresh face in the mix. The MSM will go gaga and wax sooooo eloquent about their wisdom and sweep this whomever into the White House. Or, at least, they'll try.
Watch for it!
Posted by: biggntuff | Friday, March 21, 2008 at 08:51 AM
Harpo, that tough veteran you wrote of (veteran of what, infidelity?) has improved chances as of yesterday. Obama gave me a new name.
Posted by: Yourtypicalwhiteperson | Friday, March 21, 2008 at 09:36 AM
"It's really sad when the IQ among wingnuts is so low that they can't even understand what the original meaning of the word Republican was."
The saddest part of this lack of education is that it is demonrats who are responsible for dumbing down the school system so that students aren't aware of the difference between a "democracy" and a representitive republic. The left's hero Karl Marx says that one of the best ways to control people is to control their education.
Posted by: WAHOO WILLIE | Friday, March 21, 2008 at 09:46 AM
"The Left's hero Karl Marx says that one of the best ways to control people is to control their education."
Great point, Willie. And that is exactly what has happened here in the US. Liberals and Leftists have taken over the public education system and made an absolute mess of it. I don't even have to go into all the details, every honest person is aware of all the problems. That is why I have my daughter in private school.
And apparently LOL is unaware of a little history himself. The election of senators by state legislators was deemed undemocratic, that is why an Amendment to the Constitution was passed that allowed a popular vote. So nutroot LOL, if it was undemocratic then, why is it not so now?
Posted by: templar knight | Friday, March 21, 2008 at 10:40 AM
So it's liberals fault that you guys are so stupid?
Posted by: LOL | Friday, March 21, 2008 at 11:50 AM
"So it's liberals fault that you guys are so stupid?"
Ignorant actually, the stupid ones are those who think even more government means more freedom......
Posted by: WAHOO WILLIE | Friday, March 21, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Oh Lord, the lazy man is talking about 'private school' again. Lot of good it did for your other kids.
Posted by: BobInStamford | Friday, March 21, 2008 at 12:32 PM
"the lazy man"
Ohhh poor Boob, here all times of the day, giving away no personal information. Such a hard working little drone, banging out bumper sticker slogans and insults that aren't insults. Dont be jealous Boob, I used to work really hard, just like you. I just made myself live on less and invested wisely. If your future (and your kids) were as importance as your pretense of "wealth" you could retire at 50 too. Now go back to cheating working folk out of their money and dreaming of a new BMW.
Posted by: WAHOO WILLIE | Friday, March 21, 2008 at 01:15 PM
"--- And another thing, having lower level politicians select the national candidates is something our democracy has done in America's past. Read the Constitution; Senators were picked by state legislatures. It's really sad when the IQ among wingnuts is so low that they can't even understand what the original meaning of the word Republican was. ---"
Hey, I'm not challenging that. In fact, that model originally was a form of insurance against what the Founding Fathers thought might be a potential for "mobocracy"; even you, LOL, should know this.
The two houses of legislature were designed to balance the passions of the (more directly elected) lower house against the stability and more reserved, educated, and elites who were typical of the Senate.
I know fully well the difference between a Representative Republic (which is what we are constituted as) and a Democracy, which is much more typical of most European nations - which are typically Socialist.
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, March 21, 2008 at 01:31 PM
Boob has revealed that he holds two undergrad degrees, at least one of which is from Dartmouth.
Assuming that he is a sockpuppet of "chris" (or vice-a-versa) he may also have a couple of kids.
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, March 21, 2008 at 01:36 PM
"Boob has revealed that he holds two undergrad degrees, at least one of which is from Dartmouth.
Assuming that he is a sockpuppet of "chris" (or vice-a-versa) he may also have a couple of kids."
I must have missed his two degrees! I guess it takes a lot of education to write bumper stickers. I do recall a rare moment when he admitted having two kids.
Posted by: WAHOO WILLIE | Friday, March 21, 2008 at 01:40 PM
I feel sorry for the kids.
Posted by: templar knight | Friday, March 21, 2008 at 05:06 PM
"I know fully well the difference between a Representative Republic (which is what we are constituted as) and a Democracy, which is much more typical of most European nations - which are typically Socialist."
Then why object to the superdelegates? Especially when the Repubs have the same thing going on in their primary. It's cool though, never having to admit you were wrong is the hallmark of wingnut behavior.
Posted by: LOL | Saturday, March 22, 2008 at 02:22 PM
"--- Then why object to the superdelegates? Especially when the Repubs have the same thing going on in their primary. It's cool though, never having to admit you were wrong is the hallmark of wingnut behavior. ---"
I don't object to them in any way whatsoever. In fact, I'd say that going to a popular election for senators (as opposed to letting the state legislatures appoint them) might not have been such a hot idea.
As for what or how you guys go about picking your nominees... it's not my party and I really don't care that much.
I'm just pointing out the silliness and pretense of calling yourselves "democrats" when in practice you've got a most un-democratic practice going on with them supers.
Posted by: seekeronos | Saturday, March 22, 2008 at 07:55 PM