Worrying about Unity? Numbers don't lie

Well, what we've heard from the concern trolls locally is that the Obama campaign is essentially doomed because of the steadfast blowback from groups like PUMA, Just Say No Deal, Citizens for McCain. For some bizarre reason, the media seems to be carrying this as a narrative, however, the numbers and the math don't lie: I don't think we have much to be concerned about, and actually, the level of unity at this part of the campaign is pretty much on par, if not a touch better than otheR years at the same point in time. Let's look at some polling after the flap.

First, from LA Times/Bloomberg:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la- na-poll25-2008jun25,0,5763707.story

In a two-man race between the major-party candidates, registered voters chose Obama over McCain by 49% to 37% in the national poll, conducted Thursday through Monday.

But the great majority of Clinton voters have transferred their allegiance to Obama, the poll found, with 11% of Clinton voters defecting to McCain.

Interesting--11% of Dems defecting to a Republican. Not very high at all, considering that 11% defection rate is the exact same defection rate that existed in November 2004, per CNN exit polling:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/r esults/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Now, you might get up in arms and say this "ZOMG WELL WE LOST 04 WE ARE DOOOOOOOOOOMED". But the fact that we have a 5 month head start on the 2004 number, and with all the warring within the party, and we're still not that bad off? This is destined to only improve--especally with the Obama and Clinton teams working together, and Hillary out on the stump and trail for Barack this summer. Now, do you want to see more numbers? It seems, that, for the most part except for one outlier poll released today, that the above numbers are true:

http://edisk.fandm.edu/FLI/keystone/pdf/ keynjn08_1.pdf

This poll's findings is that only 14% will support McCain, a number that can go down and is awfully close to the 11% in the previous poll.

What strikes me even more however, is even with the naysaying and doom speaking from groups like Just Say No Deal and PUMA, Barack Obama is still a +6.7 in polling averages over John McCain, even with the wounds of a hard fought primary contest still fresh in many people's minds.

So let's fight the media narrative that these groups are legitimate--because they aren't. They aren't affecting polling numbers; they aren't making a difference. They're openly worshipping idiots like Larry Sinclair, or Republicans that trash Obama; or thinking that Carly Fiorina is actually being serious when she praises Hillary. We're starting with a good lead that will continue to grow over time because Americans know that George W. McSame is just as bad for America as Shrubya was, and we're on our way to a 60 seat super majority in the Senate. Don't fall for the snake oil--there's still plenty of work to do in terms of unity, but we've got a much better start than could be expected.



Display:


Recced (2.00 / 5)

Nice one, ZC.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:48:26 PM EST

Whoops (2.00 / 17)

Whoops! Forgot le tip jar.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:49:50 PM EST

Do you think it's possible (none / 0)

Fiorina could get the Veep nod?  Repubs tend to go gaga over corporate types.  Fiorina doesn't seem to have the baggage of such horrible public servants as Condoleeza Rice and even Kay Bailey Hutchison.  If Republicans are serious about siphoning off the female vote, she or Sarah Palin seem to be the best choices.


by corph on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:42:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you think it's possible (2.00 / 1)

Perhaps. However, I think it may be seen as pandering of the worst order--and furthermore, many of the strident Hill supporters that McCain is shooting for might be offended by Fiorina herself taking a spot on a ticket which is pro life instead of pro choice, because many of those hardcore Hillary supporters like myself are strongly pro-choice. He might go for it, but I think it will be wasted effort.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:26:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Chainsaw Carly has no baggage? (none / 0)

You've got to be kidding? She directly screwed up one great American tech company (HP) and indirectly compaq & what was left of DEC too. She represents everything rotten about corporate America - firms founded by engineers and built on world beating technology over decades, reduced to shells by talentless MBAs.


by prem28885 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:29:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chainsaw Carly has no baggage? (none / 0)

Don't forget her $26 Million severance package and the fact that she didn't need a FISA law passed to have her own Board member's phones tapped.  Trust me, she would wilt under any serious scrutiny.


by GobBluth on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:04:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoops (none / 0)

It's even less than 11% of democrats, it would be like 5.5% of democrats if it was 11% of Hillary supporters.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:00:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great news, (2.00 / 6)

awesome diary! Highly recommended.

We're going to kick some serious GOP ass in November.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:52:41 PM EST

I do think though (2.00 / 2)

that Obama has to watch out for the gender gap that is appearing in some state polls (mainly SurveyUSA); the only thing that appears to be keeping McCain in the game is his dominance over Obama among white males, which is approaching forty points in some state polls (e.g. SurveyUSA's Missouri poll).

Obama could be doing better but he's in good shape right now; I see little chance for McCain to win the popular vote but it all comes down to the electoral college.  I'm still skeptical of Obama's electoral strategy but I'm still predicting a 311-227 victory as of right now, with Obama picking up nine million more votes than McCain.


by Blazers Edge on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:54:00 PM EST

Re: I do think though (2.00 / 3)

Nine million?


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:58:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I do think though (2.00 / 1)

I'm just extrapolating Bush's 3 million vote victory over John Kerry, which was over two percent to a six percentage point Obama victory over McCain (52-46).


by Blazers Edge on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:01:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I do think though (2.00 / 2)

It's not completley out of thought--right now, with his numbers where they are at (at around +7 in polls), he'd probably win by about 6 million, depending on how undecideds and indys break, I could see it hitting 9 million or maybe 8, similar to Bill Clinton's win in 96.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:02:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Worrying about Unity? Numbers don't lie (2.00 / 3)

Excellent diary!
Great idea!

Tipped & rec'd.

(But I gotta say that always found it hard to imagine any lasting rift in the party.  I'm glad reality so quickly caught up to my idealistic dreams.)


by candidate D on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:00:15 AM EST

But people mess up using numbers (2.00 / 1)

LAT/Bloomberg's 11% is an outlier among all contemporary polls ... and we don't even know exactly what that "11" means, since it's not described further of reflected in the published data tables.

LAT/B's 11 and F7M's 14 are clearly NOT comparable, however.

The 14 is a percentage of ALL Dem's, not Clinton supporters. F&M report only 68% of D's would vote Obama. That's low, but understandable as leaners were not pushed. (Overall, Obama beats McCain 42-36. Low total - a race to the bottom - but again must be adjusted since leaners are not pushed -- BUT "Other" are a surprisingly strong 7% with no others named and no push.)

If all F&M's Dem McCain votes are coming from Clinton supporters, it's 28-35% of Clinton supporters. (That's consistent, but high, among other current polling. Mix in a few undecideds remaining undecided, and it's right in the 23-24% norm.)


¡Si, soy PUMA!
by RonK Seattle on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:12:07 AM EST

Re: But people mess up using numbers (2.00 / 1)

Of course, in several late states, 10-16% of Clinton voters in the Dem primary said that they would vote for McCain over Clinton, so while it is true that Clinton did get the primary votes of voters who vote Democratic at the state level and Republican at the Federal level, it is not clear that that ever meant anything positive for her.

If Obama is failing to get some Clinton supporters who wouldn't have defected in 2000 to come to him, it must be the case that he is succeeding in getting the support of an equivalent number of Dems who would have voted for Bush in 2000, since his Dem loyalty percent is close to the Dem loyalty percentage in 2000.


by letterc on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:17:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Independents and Enthusiasm (2.00 / 2)

These count as well.  fivethirtyeight has a great piece up today about each candidate's position with regard to base.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/w hich-candidate-has-base-problem.html

Here's the most relevant bit:

Obama would be thrilled, of course, if he could actually get his defection rate down to 8 percent: John Kerry lost 11 percent of Democrats to George W. Bush; Al Gore lost 11 percent to Bush and 2 to Nader; Bill Clinton lost 10 percent to Bob Dole and 5 percent to Ross Perot. In reality, Obama will probably lose almost all of the "very unfavorables" and perhaps half of the "somewhat unfavorables", which would produce a defection rate of 12-13 percent (not all of those necessarily to McCain). McCain's defection rate, by that calculus, would be 9-10 percent (not all of those necessarily to Obama).

But look, by contrast, at the enthusiasm gap between the two candidates. 56 percent of Democrats have a very favorable view of Barack Obama, while just 34 percent of Republicans have a very favorable view of John McCain. The thing that's a little bit scary for McCain is that this is after a likely voter screen has been applied, and so even after you get done filtering out those Republicans around the margins who weren't planning to vote in the first place, many of the remaining ones are still doing so for McCain somewhat grudgingly.


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:16:49 AM EST

number of switchers is much higher (2.00 / 1)

see details in my diary here:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/26/1631 38/335
it is actually 23% direct switchers and
16 percent were undecided, 5 percent were for independent candidate Ralph Nader and 3 percent said someone else.
Only 53% of Hillary supporters will do what you want them to do.
Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties
by engels on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:24:20 AM EST

That's per AP/Yahoo survey, not discussed ... (none / 0)

... in this diary.


¡Si, soy PUMA!
by RonK Seattle on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:30:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: number of switchers is much higher (2.00 / 3)

Great Diary telling us what we already knew. We will devastate the Republican party. Wait until the first debate then we will see the differences between the candidates. Obama by 10,000,000


by Politicalslave on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:30:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL Good Luck with that signature tag (2.00 / 1)

that Latinos and women won't
be voting for Obama...stats show that he is doing great with both those groups and he is at the same percentage of white working class that Gore had when he ran. Seniors? Hell they have their very own senior to vote for so what did you expect?
by Grissom1001 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:37:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And the late deciders always break against (2.00 / 1)

Obama. The more they get to know him, the more they break for his opponent, usually by a margin of 3-2. This would explain the overall pattern this year, where he more or less backed into the nomination, losing all the late contests.

btw...loved his defense of the Second Ammendment today following the Supreme Court decision. At variance with the views he expressed as recently as four years ago.


by BJJ Fighter on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:35:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the late deciders always break against (2.00 / 1)

It's really amazing.  Hillary Clinton was running an average of 30 points behind through all of 2007 and the beginning of 2008, and right before the first contest she made up ground, took the lead, and never relinquished it.

Wait, did I meant Barack Obama, sorry.  Yeah, voters totally hate him.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:10:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the late deciders always break against (2.00 / 4)

Don't bother with this guy.  Last night he tried to use California as an example of how "the more voters see Obama, the less they like him."  When I pointed out that Clinton had a 25% lead and he closed it to 9% he suddenly forgot to reply.  Somehow I think he'll forget to reply to you, too.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:13:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the late deciders always break against (2.00 / 2)

Because it's absurd on its face.  Every national tracking poll covering 2007 through 2008 looks like a giant 'X'.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:27:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If you really feel you need a reply, here it is (none / 0)

The poll I quoted you was Reuters Zogby....and it had Obama winning the state by 13% points on Election Eve. You may have another poll showing him behind by 25 points closing to 9...whatever. The polls are all over the place this year, and if you haven't noticed that, you must be living under a rock or something.

NH is yet another case in point; CNN poll had him up by 12 points, Hillary won the next day by 2. It's what we call the "Wilder-Bradley" effect, and if you do some research about it, maybe you'll learn something, God forbid.


by BJJ Fighter on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:35:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Learn something here: (none / 0)

The Wilder/Bradley effect is when people say they plan on voting for a black person and then in the privacy of the voting booth they vote against them.  There are pretty good statistical studies that show that it's been extinct for a few years, but that's now what you were talking about anyway - you were taking a single poll and extrapolating it to say that the more voters learn of Obama the less they like them.

Even though the national trends say the opposite.  Even though for every Reuters-Zogby California poll there are a like 10 polls where the opposite happened - Obama was supposed to win Virginia by 14 points - he won it by 19.  He was supposed to win Wisconsin by 9, he won it by 17.  He was supposed to lose Indiana by 4, he lost by a quarter of a percent.  

He was supposed to LOSE Iowa.

etc.

What DID happen was that voters who decided in the day consistently favored Clinton.  But that's different.  Late deciders tend to break for incumbents, and they tend to be older people, and particularly older women.  Put those two together and you have people breaking for Clinton in every state favoring Clinton more strongly in the final day than in any other time frame.  This was true in Georgia AND Kentucky - in Hawaii AND West Virginia.   And it'll be true in November - McCain will get more of his share of late deciders.  As did Bush.  As did Gore.  As did Clinton - but only the second time; the first time Bush I got most of the late deciders.

And on and on.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:19:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe they broke FOR Hillary (none / 0)

But Obama is definitely not a good closer. Something about judgement day he doesn't like, it shows in the various opponents he booted off the ballot. One was an immigrant who posed no electoral threat to Obama when Obama was incumbant.

But right now, looks like McCain isn't even campaigning. So who knows what will happen.


by catfish2 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:12:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe they broke FOR Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Who knows indeed.

The primary was the first competitive election either one of them had ever had.  Hillary's virgin Senate run is remarkably like Obama's - a serious competitor who implodes due to marital troubles and is replaced at the last second by a nobody.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:29:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The demos favored him (none / 0)

in the February states.  They favored her in the later ones.  All this talk about who closed better is irrelevant.

Obama won the nomination on the margins.  He won big where he was favored (IL, VA, MD, the south), lost small where he wasn't (TX, NM even NY and CA netted fewer Clinton delegates than IL netted Obama) and won the original tossups like WI and MO.

Obama didn't hold off a late surge.  He won by enough where he had to.


by corph on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:14:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He wheezed accross finish line, lost TX, SD (none / 0)

and tried to get her to drop out instead of just defeating her. He asked her to do the most unAmerican thing there is - he asked her to quit when she still had a chance.


by catfish2 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:11:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

False (none / 0)

Obama never asked Hillary to quit.


by Angry White Democrat on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:17:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He wheezed accross finish line, lost TX, SD (none / 0)

Actually, Obama won Texas...he got more delegates than Clinton.

You can keep reliving the primary, in your own reality if you want, but don't expect us to play along.

It's amazing that weeks after the primary ended, there are some people who still don't realize that it was a delegate contest.


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:23:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Haha right! (none / 0)

Sure he won the Texas caucuses. But when the people got to choose without coercion, in the privacy of a voting booth, Hillary won by 5 points.

She won the popular vote in Texas.


by catfish2 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:35:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha right! (none / 0)

So?

He still won more delegates.  That's how you win the nomination.  The popular vote has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with who wins the nomination.

We will probably change the system for 2012, but for 2008, that was the system, and those were the rules.

I don't know about coercion at the caucuses.  I certainly didn't see any.  Did you?  Where?


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:43:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha WRONG (none / 0)

He still won more delegates.  That's how you win the nomination.  The popular vote has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with who wins the nomination.

You do not win the nomination simply by winning more delegates. You win it by winning a certain number of delegates. Neither one of them won enough pledged delegates. The difference is made up by Super Delegates. Those are the rules. The rules do not state the criteria by which Super Delegates are to go with a particular candidate. Many went with the one ahead in pledged delegates (because Nancy Pelosi seemed to suggest that this was the right thing to do). However, it would have been equally valid to endorse Hillary based on the fact that more actual people voted for her than for Obama.

The rules do not, repeat, do not, forbid SDs from using the popular vote as an endorsement metric.

I will continue to repeat history to those who continue to rewrite it.


by SophieL on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:37:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha WRONG (none / 0)

That "certain number" of delegates is 50% + 1.

Another way of putting is "more delegates".  There's no magic number that Democrats set to decide if your victory is decisive enough - all you need is a majority of a single delegate and that's enough.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:21:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha WRONG (none / 0)

Really wrong. Do your homework. The SDs giveth and the SDs can taketh away.


by SophieL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:13:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha WRONG (none / 0)

Oh, and more people did NOT vote for Hillary Clinton - the only way you get that is to give her votes from Michigan and give Obama none AND you also have to exclude four caucus states.

It's a contest for delegates, not total votes.  Otherwise candidates would just camp out in open primaries where anybody can vote and turnout is the highest and run up the score.  They wouldn't touch caucuses.  

And yet they do.  Hillary Clinton tried to win Iowa.  She tried to win Nevada.  She tried to win closed primaries even though they aren't as voter rich as open primaries.  Why?  Because she understands that it's a contest for delegates.  If you set out trying to win the popular vote you'd run an entirely different kind of race.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:25:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha WRONG (none / 0)

Wrong again. Hillary took the popular vote by 300,000.

(Unless you're counting 91 people in Wyoming as a million.)


by SophieL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha WRONG (none / 0)

"The rules do not, repeat, do not, forbid SDs from using the popular vote as an endorsement metric."

Never said it did, and I never made that point.  I'm not exactly sure why you're bringing it up, since it has nothing to do with my post.

They are all delegates.  Some have more latitude in their voting choices, but that's the only difference really.  They, and only they, get to pick our nominee.  We just get to vote for the delegates.  That's how it works.  It's not a direct democracy, ergo, the cumulative popular vote tally has no meaning in the primary.

I never knew that all the SDs were hypotized by Nancy "Evil Eye" Pelosi, and subsequently voted for Obama, (I'd like to learn that trick BTW).  This is concerning.  Do you have a link?


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:10:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha WRONG (none / 0)

www.pumapac.com/cthulhu/thepelosiconnect ion.html


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:25:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha WRONG (1.33 / 3)

The link didn't work.  

Is this one of those really freaky snapshots of the crazies over at POOOOma?


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:35:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha WRONG (none / 0)

are you snarkily pretending not to get my original snarkiness?


by MeganLocke on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:09:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha WRONG (none / 0)

It's called a double loop back snark.  I only use this with advanced snarkers, like yourself.


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:13:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, it was 3.5 points (none / 0)

I realize that you want to change the narrative to your own liking, but at least on actual, simple, confirmable facts, you could bother to get those right.

The final percentages were 50.88% for Hillary and 47.39% for Barack, or 3.49%.

If you can't get the most basic facts right, why should we trust you on your opinions?


by synchronicity on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:03:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, it was 3.5 points (none / 0)

She said Obama won more delegates from Texas.  Because he won more delegates.

What are YOU talking about?  Those percentages look weird anyway - for them to be right Texas would have to award at least 10,000 delegates.


by MeganLocke on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:12:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, it was 3.5 points (none / 0)

I'm replying to catfish's assertion that "in the privacy of the voting booth, without coercion ['cause we all know that the ONLY reason Obama won caucuses in Iowa, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washigton, Maine, Hawaii and Wyoming was thru an intense campaign of intimidation, which you can do when you're the 'inevitable' nominee and have the party connections to shut down all diss....er, wait, that doesn't work, well, it must be because he's black, because you know how intimidating and scary black guys can be.  Well, that and the fact that Hillary's demographic was disadvantaged by caucuses, because older white women never have ANY free time.  But I digress...], Hillary won by 5 points".

She didn't.  She won by 3.5.  On a simple, straightforward, easily verifiable fact, catfish is getting it wrong and inflating the margin to make Obama look worse.  

I still wonder how folks like catfish handle the cognitive dissonance by using polls that say X% of "Hillary supporters" won't vote for Obama as proving that Obama can't win, when the EXACT SAME POLLS show that OVERALL, Obama is LEADING McCain.


by synchronicity on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:28:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, it was 3.5 points (none / 0)

I see - sometimes I can't tell who's responding to whom.  And yeah, I agree.


by MeganLocke on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:03:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

From that AP-Yahoo poll article (2.00 / 1)

Here are some of the Clinton supporters now refusing to back Obama:

The poll responses also show Obama has more work to do to quell fears among voters like Kirstie Hartle of Rome, N.Y., a registered Democrat who has never supported a Republican presidential candidate. With Clinton out of the race, Hartle said, "I'm Republican all the way now."

She said she doesn't like Obama's name and thinks he has a questionable background. She also said she thought Obama was deceitful when he broke from his church after it hurt his campaign, and she doesn't trust him to handle the Iraq war.

"It sounds to me like a Middle Eastern type of name and whether or not he's born here in the United States, he doesn't seem like, to me, somebody who is trustworthy," Hartle said in a telephone interview. "You can't trust anybody these days, so who's to say he's not a terrorist and we just don't realize it yet?"

"I refuse to vote for an Arab to be in my White House," said retired salesman Dean Johnson of Lanett, Ala. "That is the only factor. Otherwise, you couldn't break both my legs and make me vote for a Republican."

Are these really the kinds of people you want to be associating with?


by Angry White Democrat on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:16:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 53% ???? (2.00 / 2)

 Now that concerns me. I fully expect that 100% would do my bidding. Oh, fudge!


by xdem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:33:04 AM EST

Re: Worrying about Unity? Numbers don't lie (2.00 / 6)

Wow, this is the really amazing PUMA on Larry King live...

Cynthia Ruccia....A PUMA for McCain!

She's pro choice, against the war, and she needs to PUNISH the Democratic party for what they did to Hillary?

What a pity party she wants to host.

Dispicable, the epitome of narcissim, going to punish everyone for not agreeing with her.


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:43:19 AM EST

Against the invasion, sure (none / 0)

but maybe her idea of the guy who can take it from here is not the guy who opposed the invasion.

Bush was inexperienced, and after the humiliation of 9/11 wanted to recover some dignity. That's why 'inexperience' is a concern of a lot of Hillary supporters.


by catfish2 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:13:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Against the invasion, sure (2.00 / 4)

Excellent point, because nothing says good foreign policy credentials like a candidate that turns a Beach Boys song into a song about bombing Iran and someone who repeatedly can't remember who are allies and enemies are in Iraq.

But I do appreciate your not-so-subtle attempts to equate Obama with Bush.  Thanks for that.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:21:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Against the invasion, sure (none / 0)

Wait, they're training Al Qaeda in Iran!  

Oh wait...I meant that I can't find my teeth...damn...where did I put them?


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Against the invasion, sure (2.00 / 2)

I don't think experience is Bush's problem.  If it was he would have gotten better over time.

Let's be honest, right now he's the most qualified person on earth to be commander in chief, at least in the sense that you use the word.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:23:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well actually that would be (2.00 / 1)

Bill Clinton.  He's been president a bit longer than Bush has.

I believe experience is relevant mostly in that it develops one's ability to read people and discern good advice from bad.  A person can spend a whole career in high-profile tricky jobs, even be perceived as competent at them, and still not learn a thing (see Rumsfeld, Donald and Cheney, Dick).  I believe the most important character traits are openmindedness, ability to be self-critical and self-confidence.  They allow a candidate to absorb past experience, challenge their own perceptions and act when they see their way clear.

That's why I was most interested in the thought process of the candidates during the primary season.  How they organize, how they pick their team and how they handle questions I find more important than any policy proposal (as long as they can demonstrate that they actually have principles).  Which is mainly why I switched early from Edwards to Obama.


by corph on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:28:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

or Jimmy Carter (2.00 / 2)

but I agree with all else you said.

I've never believed anyone is actually qualified to be the President, because there is no other experience remotely like it. Obviously VP is closest, without the "it's my responsibility" part (which is crucial).

Governor might be next from an administrative and economic stand point, but what Governor goes to war (besides the Terminator)?

Senators and Congresspersons are rather low on the list, IMO.


by Neef on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:28:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well actually that would be (none / 0)

The reason I chose Bush instead of Clinton is because of the whole "post-9/11" thing.  But really, either one of them will do and if anything it underscores the point more - in both Clinton and Bush you have Presidents who were pretty consistent in their job performance, outside of a couple of rookie blips.  One was good, one was awful.

But I agree with you completely and that's why I chose Obama too - his thought process and method of decision making are very appealing.  Also he's ridiculously smart and a quick study.

Experience is important, but it's a threshold value.  It's not who has more, it's whether they have enough.  If they do, then you move onto other things. But either way, no amount of experience is a cure for bad ideas - we all know the type of President McCain is going to be - bad one - and experience has got nothing to do with it.  Just ask Dubya.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:32:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well actually that would be (none / 0)

wtf - My keboard is eating my letters.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:33:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Worrying about Unity? Numbers don't lie (2.00 / 3)

What's really pathetic about these people is the Democratic party isn't really going to be punished or suffer if Obama loses.

Ultimately the people paying the price will be the soldiers in Iraq and their families, the people trying to pay the mortgage, the people trying to get an education, the people trying to get a job, and people trying to get health care for themselves and their families... you know, the people Hillary and Barack were fighting for?  Those are the ones who are going to suffer. You really think you're going to crush Obama if he loses the general?  Boohoo he goes home to a great family that loves him, a great state that loves him, and a gigantic pile of money from his book deals.  You sure showed him PUMAs!  


by Homebrewer on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:27:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Worrying about Unity? Numbers don't lie (2.00 / 2)

If you want to punish the people who voted for Obama, voting for McCain is an incredibly effective surgical strike.  Members of the military, the youth, the poor (as opposed to the working class) and the activist base were his constituencies.

So you punish the military by continuing the war.  That's a death penalty - you can't do better than that.

You punish the poor by further wrecking the economy. Most PUMA members are collecting their pensions or are in positions where economic fluctuations don't affect them.

You punish young women by stripping them of reproductive rights.

A lot of them are quite explicit about it.  I can't tell you how many conversations I've seen where a McCain voter says that she wants to see young women lose the right to choose because they took women's rights for granted (presumably by not voting for a woman).

It's twisted, but it's actually pretty logical.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:35:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

More military officers endorsed Hillary (none / 0)

than endorsed Obama. As for people in the military, more prefer McCain than Obama.


by catfish2 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:37:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More military officers endorsed Hillary (none / 0)

The #1 recipient of donations from military personnel was Ron Paul, #2 was Obama.


by hankg on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:41:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More military officers endorsed Hillary (none / 0)

Look at a Clinton/Obama district primary map sometime - everywhere there's a military base it's Obama colored.  He won Cumberland County - that's Fort Bragg - by 2-1.

He won Quantico, Virginia.  There's nothing in Quantico but a Marine base.

And on and on.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:44:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More military officers endorsed Hillary (none / 0)

Yeah, I'm not talking about the officers.  Officers are to enlisted soldiers like CEOs are to workers.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:34:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More military officers endorsed Hillary (none / 0)

"Officers are to enlisted soldiers like CEOs are to workers."

Not really.  

Maybe O-6 and above, but most "O's" are between O-1 and O-5, making them very accessible "Middle Manager" equivalents.


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More military officers endorsed Hillary (none / 0)

BTW, I agree with your basic point...but the analogy lumps all "O's" together as CEOs, which isn't the reality.


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:30:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The trends on those numbers are positive. (2.00 / 1)

It has improved by about 10 points since the concession.  I'm optimistic.  Also, has anyone done studies on the state by state distribution of unreconciled Clinton supporters?  

If it is still a problem, he can always pull the trigger on Sen. Clinton for VP.


Visiting the hopium dens proudly since 2007.
by AZphilosopher on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:01:02 AM EST

Polls suggest that's a wash (none / 0)

in terms of net votes, with something like 23% being more likely to vote Democratic if she's on the ticket and 23% being less likely.

She would bring more than her poll numbers in terms of money and organization, but could also easily distract from important issues during the campaign.

I believe the most solid choice would be a not-too-flashy newcomer with executive experience and proven cross-party appeal.  Being from a red state and female would be icing on the cake.  Which is why my money is literally on Sebelius (online gambling still legal in Canada).


by corph on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:35:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Funny thing is (2.00 / 2)

her loudest and most obnoxious supporters wont vote for him anyway.  And most of the reasonable ones have come already, leaving most of the crazys, dixeicrats and republicans in hiding holding their bitterness alone, good riddance.  


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:04:09 AM EST

Again, I'm waiting... (2.00 / 1)

...for more opinion research to say what percentage is NOvemberist and what percentage is actually reachable/trying to leverage their votes.

I'm not using blogs as an indicator one way or the other on how many NOvemberists there are.


Visiting the hopium dens proudly since 2007.
by AZphilosopher on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:12:55 AM EST

Re: Again, I'm waiting... (2.00 / 3)

They don't seem to exist in large numbers outside of blogs.  At least not in numbers that anyone can detect.  When you look at Obama's approval rating among Democrats and among Americans as a whole when compared with other candidates, it's right in there with historical norms.  The PUMAs don't have an influence that anyone can detect.

Let's be honest: nominating a black male or a white woman was always going to have its cost - we were going to lose part of the party no matter which one of them won.  Well all knew it, and it was a risk mainstream democrats were willing to take when they settled on Hillary and Barack.  Judging by the number of refuseniks, our faith has been rewarded.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:20:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Worrying about Unity? Numbers don't lie (2.00 / 5)

I'm fully convinced that it was the performance outside the RBC committee that ended Hillary Clinton's options regarding a convention fight.  The nation got a look at who would be protesting on her behalf.  Any more of that and she'd never live it down.

Ever since then they've been a whip at her back.  They discredit everything they get involved in.  

They also make it impossible to discuss real issues wherever they appear - I'd love to be lobbying Barack Obama right now but I can't because standing next to me is going to be some baboon rambling on about his birth certificate.  Like Hillary Clinton, I don't want to be caught standing in the same time zone as these people.

Fox News loves them.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:15:12 AM EST

Guess where Sister Christian is hanging out? (none / 0)

No Quarter.  No link but if you go there she's their latest and greatest addition.  Her "inadequate black male" comment must have really resonated with Flowbee and Susan Hu.


by JJE on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:25:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Guess where Sister Christian is hanging out? (none / 0)

Get out!

They made her a columnist for that?  


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep (none / 0)

I would give you a link but I hate going there.

But in honor of inadequate black males everywhere, enjoy this video, with a young Rick Dees for extra spice:


by JJE on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep (none / 0)

Thanks!

If you had linked it I'd have clicked on it and I hate going there.  I mean the physical appearance of the site makes me ill - the psychological connection is THAT strong.

Besides, you read one diary there, you've read them all you know what I mean?


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:28:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How are the Clinton hardliners going to feel? (2.00 / 3)

When Barack Obama wins the Presidency. HUGE celebration all across the country and in particular in the Democratic party. In fact, huge celebrations all across the world. History in the making, the day America proved it was ready for the first black President... much sooner than anyone ever expected.

Now just suppose he lives up to even half of his hype.

What are these people going to feel like knowing they did nothing but bash him in blogs for months. What are they going to feel like when their children are honoring and admiring him in school... knowing they did EVERYTHING they could to stop it.


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:12:00 AM EST

Re: How are the Clinton hardliners going to feel? (2.00 / 1)

First they are not 'Clinton' hardliners. That is a smear on Hillary who is busting her ass to get Obama elected. They are not fighting for Hillary. They are abusing her good name to advance their own agenda. An agenda which is opposed to everything Hillary believes in. So lets stop insulting Hillary who is on our team and one of Obama's strongest surrogates by associating her name with these bottom feeders.

When Obama wins they will be feeling the same way as the creeps at Stormfront and Free Republic. They will continue to foam at the mouth and invent conspiracy theories of how America is now doomed. And how young women and minorities should now all die for being ingrates to them after 'all they have done for them'.

It's a sick side show that will have zero impact on anything.


by hankg on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:24:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How are the Clinton hardliners going to feel? (2.00 / 1)

I hadn't thought of it that way. That calling them "Clinton hardliners" implies loyalty to her when, in fact, they're not.

Thank you for a different perspective.


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:23:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The PUMA that is run by a woman (2.00 / 4)

whose name escapes me (not the PUMA run by a man that stands for Party Unity My Ass) but the other one.  

Anyway, that woman was interviewed on Fox recently.  She claimed she had always been a Democrat and was crossing over for the first time to vote for McCain.  Funny thing is she donated $500 to McCain in the primary in 2000. When called out (not on Fox but by a blogger) she said she donated and voted for McCain in the 2000 primary because she didn't want Bush to win the primary, ostensibly to help Kerry.  But her state doesn't have open primaries so she couldn't have been a Democrat when she voted for McCain in 2000.
Funny the things bloggers turn up.

Gawd, I wish I could find the bloody link where I read this.  It was just last night (really late though).  


No Way, No How, No McCain!
by GFORD on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:49:01 AM EST

Re: The PUMA that is run by a woman (2.00 / 1)

I saw that too I forget which post. But the person had contributed to McCain in the past election. But we know most of the dead enders were either repubs for clinton (with no intention of ever voting for Obama)of hard nosed so-called feminists having hissy fits. They are a smaller number than they think and mostly "talk" to themselves over at their bigot-infested web sites.


by Mae Scott on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:41:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rumproast (2.00 / 1)

by Kevin K., formerly of catch.

Here is the post in question.

http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/ comments/puma_pacs_founder_darragh_murph y_proudly_presents_party_unity_my_ass_re dux/


by JJE on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:23:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for that. (none / 0)

I thought it was rumproast but when I went back to get a link I couldn't find the blasted thing.  I think it's important to expose the people behind these anti-Obama and anti-Democratic Party sites who are really Republicans stirring up trouble.

Or worse, they are con-men like Larry Sinclair who collect money online from unsuspecting people to ostensibly provide absolute proof that Barack Obama is [insert smear here].


No Way, No How, No McCain!
by GFORD on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:13:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you knew your Party history better ... (2.00 / 1)

... you'd know that many smart Democratic activists threw support to McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries, when he stood a legitimate chance of derailing W.


¡Si, soy PUMA!
by RonK Seattle on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:38:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you knew your Party history better ... (none / 0)

She didn't donate any money to Gore.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:53:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

IIRC, I didn't either (2.00 / 1)

Wouldn't have made much diff, would it?

Instead, I maxxed early to a Senate candidate whose narrow victory gave D's control of the Senate (at least for a while).

Smart money doesn't necessarily go where most money goes.


¡Si, soy PUMA!
by RonK Seattle on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:39:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wouldn't have made much difference?!?!? (none / 0)

Yeah, because Bush beat Gore by such a HUGE margin...

"PUMA's.  Racists, Republicans, or Both?"


by synchronicity on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:10:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IIRC, I didn't either (2.00 / 1)

Look - she claimed to be a "lifelong Democrat".  Yet it turns out that she was a registered Republican and the only political campaign she donated to that year was John McCain's, and it was 500 dollars.

That's kind of "end of discussion".  Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?  That's the principle that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Like for example, if you see something that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.  It's not, for example, a wizard who has changed his shape.  Because then you have to explain wizards and how it managed to turn himself into a duck and what is it doing anyway?

So sure the fact that she donated to a Republican, voted for a Republican and - it turns out - was registered as a Republican could have just been trying to help Al Gore in an incredibly convoluted way that included withholding her help from him at a crucial time and in the closest election in history (200 votes!), yet backing the primary challenger of his eventual rival, who was blown out and never really had much of a chance.

Or she could just be a Republican.


by MeganLocke on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:54:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Be careful with that Razor (none / 0)

You think you have a close-out argument, but you don't know what you think you know ... and if what you think you knew were true, it wouldn't make your case.

Incidentally, you have misunderstood Occam's Razor ("Don't multiply entities except by necessity"), and mis-applied it. In fact, you have violated it.

Nearly 35,000 self-identified Democrats voted for McCain in the 2000 MA Republican primary (as did over 200,000 self-identified Indies), accounting for 73% of McCain's winning (and winner-take-all) total.

Similar results were recorded all over the map. Republicans comprised 37% of voters in the MA GOP primary, 48% in MI, and so on. (I caucused for Gore in 2000, but I voted for McCain in WA's open primary.)

The deadline for change of party registration
Murphy's contribution was perfectly timed. A primary contribution to Gore would have been wasted (as he won going away), a general election contribution would have been returned (as he accepted public financing), and a party contribution would have been diluted in the $200M-to-$200M standoff (where essentially all available ad minutes were bought out).

Today, as it was in 2000, MA voters can change or drop party designations as late as 20 calendar days before any primary or general election.

Again, these are plain facts that would ring bells with Democratic activists who weren't born yesterday. Your effort is just an exercise in multiplying entities beyond necessity ... unless you find the conclusion ("Murphy is a Republican!") has achieved the status of necessity in your tortured ontology.


¡Si, soy PUMA!
by RonK Seattle on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:21:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rumproast (none / 0)

So, I followed Rumproast to Just say no deal, and this is their featured letter.  The one that sums it all up for them.

After the obligatory "I've been a Democrat since the Crimean War" intro:

As a former MSM guy, I'd like to share some
insights you don't see on many blogs. Since the
1970s, the media have been rabid about
affirmative action. So every newsroom in
America -- print, broadcast, and web -- is
heavily populated with people of color. On the
surface, there's nothing wrong with that. The
problem is, a lot of these newbies aren't
professional journalists. They're professional
blacks (or whatever), and they're extremely
militant about promoting the interests of their
race. They scare the shit out of their
white colleagues, male and female.

You may now delouse.  I think the Democratic Party is doing some delousing itself.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:59:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In many ways, this primary was Different (2.00 / 1)

1/  Turnout was enormously more than any past primary, so the numbers skew themselves when taken in historical context.  More than twice the number of the 2004 primary.  Factoring out the number of folks who voted atypically in the Democratic primary, it is possible to consider that the numbers are even more favorable than teh cold math suggest.

2/  As a first female candidate, Sen. Clinton naturally attracted some female voters who either/both wanted very much to see a the first female President for the reason of setting that president or felt she would be unusually srong on issues important to women - but who would normally default to voting Republican by inclination.  The "suburban security soccer mom" demographic oft referenced in the media, for example, would not have factored at all in the Democratic primay if there had been two male candidates.

3/  The relatively early end to the Republican primary and the efforts by some on the Far Right allowed an unusual opportunity for measurable cross-party anti-voting, and all indications are that this vote favored Sen. Clinton.  My personal "polling sample" was a ten-minute drive on the night of Texas/Ohio while I listened to Hannity and three of three callers were bragging about their Operation Chaos votes.  While honestly statistically pathetic in any scientific context, for me that micro-sample nonetheless begs me to ask for extrapolation using sampling theory:

- "of all such voters, how many call into Hannity?" - very few, 1% to be generously conservative.
 - "If three called in ten minutes, that's 18 in one hour, and if the period for such people calling into a single Right Wing Radio channel was, say six hours that evening, that would be 108.  Multiply that times the number of such radio channels, say 10, and you have 1,080."
 - if those numbers are at all extrapolatable, then it indicates 108,000 anti-voters, which surprisingly is in the range of more scientific estimates.

If numbers somewhere in the range of that logic follow for other primaries, you end up with a not-insignificant number of Dem Primary voters who never had any intention whatsoever of being part of the GE Democratic vote count.

If in fact it is reasonable to subtract these groups from the total number of voters in the Dem Primary, then the percentage of primary voters who are supporting Sen. Obama today is even higher than it appears to be.

-chris


Donate!
by chrisblask on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:36:06 AM EST

Re: In many ways, this primary was Different (none / 0)

very much to see a the first female President for the reason of setting that precedent

Freudian slip... ;-)


Donate!
by chrisblask on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:38:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Unity from Obama (none / 0)

Obama donates the legal maximum to Clinton's debt relief. I wonder how the PUMAs (otherwise known as traitors to everything Hillary Clinton stands for) will spin this one.


Stop the racism. Fight the smears.
by CrazyDrumGuy on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:20:40 AM EST

It's an unacceptable SLAP IN THE FACE!!1! (2.00 / 1)

As is everything he does.

See here:

http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDi ary.do?diaryId=99


by JJE on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:22:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks for that link! (none / 0)

My favorite reply from your link:

Most people are shocked by this. Do I care? Hell no.

I start to name all the reasons I can't stand him and why they need to be VERY WORRIED if he wins...

1. who the hell is he? and where did he come from?

2. is he a muslim or isn't he? his two fathers certainly WERE. and his brother thinks he was one. I don't care - just stop lying about it.

3. what has he accomplished? what has he ever been the 'leader' of? he hasn't even lead his own committee in the senate he's in charge of.

4. he has no experience or qualifications

5. where the hell is all his money really coming from? wouldn't you want to know that before he gets elected?

6. he's an arrogant ass

Then I go on to tell people - you have to understand - I have been fighting HIM (not mccain) - OBAMA for 18 months in this primary - he was the enemy and so were his nasty supporters.  

And I'm suppose to just 'get in line'? Hell no.

I just crapped my pants.....


by xdem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:13:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's what drives me crazy about (1.66 / 3)

that group.

They hate Barack Obama personally.

They claim that they have valid reasons for this hate.

Initially their valid reasons centered around how he can't possibly beat McCain in November so nominating him will mean defeat for the Democrats.

When it became apparent that Obama will win in November, their valid reason became centered around why he will be so bad for this country when he gets elected.

The reasons why Obama will be so bad for this country are specific yet ever-changing.  Sometimes he is going to institute Sharia Law because he is a Muslim, sometimes he is a Marxist, sometimes he is a criminal who will bring his criminal 'Chicago Politics' friends into the WH, sometimes he defines himself by his 'blackness' and will fill all the cabinet positions with other well-known black people like Oprah and Rev. Al Sharpton.

The reasons why Obama 'shouldn't' even be allowed to run for President keep changing too.  There are those determined to prove he is a drug addict, also those who are trying to prove Michelle is a drug addict.  There are those determined to prove his birth certificate is a fake and he wasn't born in the U.S.  There are those determined to prove that he was involved in the murder of one or more gay people in Chicago to cover up the fact that he is really bi-sexual.  There are those who read every word of the Rezko trial transcripts trying to find something that would show that Obama was part of Rezko's crimes.  And of course there were the non-existent Michelle 'whitey' tapes.

These people have left reason at the doorstep.  Their hate for Obama blinds them to the fact that they are latching on to each scurrilous rumor as true, even though the last one they believed was proven false.  And it doesn't seem to occur to them that these rumors often contradict each other.


No Way, No How, No McCain!
by GFORD on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:40:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's an unacceptable SLAP IN THE FACE!!1! (2.00 / 1)

I love how donating the legal maximum after she endorses him is somehow "too little, too late." On the contrary, it's the most, at exactly the right size.


Stop the racism. Fight the smears.
by CrazyDrumGuy on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:39:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's an unacceptable SLAP IN THE FACE!!1! (1.50 / 4)

Alegre is NO Democrat


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:35:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's an unacceptable SLAP IN THE FACE!!1! (1.00 / 1)

I'm uprating this because of the abuse (campskunk of course), but if you read the thread she's actually leading them along a bit.

She's not my favorite person in the world, but she's not in the same category as SoCal, LoJo and that ilk


by MeganLocke on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:06:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unity from Obama (1.57 / 7)


   Go to Alegre's blog. They're spinning it as an insult.

   What else can he do? He's helping her retire her debt, he's considering her for V.P, what else can he possibly do?

   These PUMA dipshits are so angry that Obama BEAT her. He didn't steal it from her, he didn't con her out of it, he BEAT her in a fair fight. PUMA is the biggest group of dipshits I've ever seen.


by southernman on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:35:34 PM EST