Why We Fight...
Disclaimer: Sincere post
I'm troubled by Josh's "Big Trouble" post about the poll suggesting that 19% of Obama supporters and 28% of Clinton supporters would choose McCain over the other candidate. Whether or not these sentiments will survive the general election campaign and impact the Democratic nominees changes, they are nonetheless saddening and a little baffling, so I'm going to try to explore the underlying causes based on my own feelings and my experiences with other posters on this site.
In order to understand what factors might make a Democrat rationally choose McCain over the other candidate, let's first rule out the alternatives.
1. Electability - One's reason for preferring one Dem over the other may be electability, but obviously, that can't be a reason to vote McCain because that vote simply makes the candidate less electable.
2. Policy - Whether one prefers Clinton's policies or Obama's, their policy differences cannot rationally lead someone to choose McCain over the Democratic opponent. McCain's voting history and campaign plans make the respective voting histories and campaign plans of Clinton and Obama look almost identical by comparison. On taxes, on economic stimulus, on Iraq, and on health care, McCain is simply on the opposite end of the spectrum. If you cite policy differences with one but not both of the candidates as a reason for choosing McCain, I can only assume that there's some other reason that you're not articulating. (Ask yourself, if Hillary were to swap plans with Obama, who would you vote for?)
3. Legislative Effectiveness - You could agree with many of a candidate's positions but feel that the candidate will not be able to implement these positions. Obama supporters tend to think that Clinton is too divisive to get her policies through Congress. Clinton supporters tend to think that Obama will water down his policies in the interest of unity. But even if one candidate would be less effective than the other, they'd still be more effective at implementing Democratic priorities than McCain. The weakest plans that Clinton or Obama would be able to pass and the most moderate appointments they would be able to make would still be preferable to McCain's policies and appointments.
4. Second Chances - I see some posts from people speculating that a McCain win in 2008 would open the door to another run by their candidate in 2012, but this just begs the question. Why do you love your candidate so much or hate the other one so much that you would elect a Republican for 4 years on the chance that your candidate could win the nomination and beat him in 2012?
5. Supporters - I often see people comment on TPM that they hate Obama's supporters, not that they hate Obama. Leaving aside the perennial question of whose supporters are meaner, voting for McCain out of spite for the other candidate's supporters hardly seems rational.
So what are the rational reasons for preferring McCain over the other candidate?
1. Executive Effectiveness - Simply put, is the candidate capable of running the government? People who buy into Clinton's "3am phone call" argument may believe that McCain is better suited to protect our national security than Obama. Obama supporters point to Clinton's poll-driven policy and campaign mistakes as evidence that she won't be able to govern effectively. Personally, I don't believe that either position is correct, but they at least offer rational reasons for voting for McCain. But is it your primary reason? Obama haters, if Obama had Clinton's experience, would you have voted for him? Clinton haters: if Clinton had dumped Mark Penn and run a strategically flawless campaign, would you have voted for her?
2. Character - My gut tells me that perceived character difference is the biggest factor. When TPM posters complain about Democratic candidates, it's most often about dirty tricks, self-serving tactics, mendacity, race exploitation, integrity, duplicity, etc. I will not get into the question of who's character is worse, and I encourage commenters to avoid this subject as well.
The question I would like to address is why do we have such different perceptions of the candidates' characters? We don't tend to disagree about the facts, but our interpretations of them are radically different. Some see Bill Clinton's, "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina," as an attempt to exploit race divisions within the party. Others see it as a simple statement of fact. Some see Obama's description of his grandmother as a "typical white person" as a disloyal and even racist criticism. Others see it a personal attempt to grapple with racial divisions in our society. Some see negative media stories on Clinton as biased media attempts to smear her. Others see respectable and honest journalism. Some see media criticism of Obama's relationship with Wright as a double standard. Other see an issue of profound concern.
You get the picture. These are all examples of projection. We rely on limited evidence and context to draw conclusions about the intentions of the candidates, their supporters, and journalists. In all these cases, proof is impossible. You can't prove that an implication is intentional, you can't prove what someone is thinking, and you can't prove media bias. In the face of such ambiguity, we show remarkable abilities to project favorably on candidates with which we identify and unfavorably on their opponents. It may seem perfectly clear to you in your own mind, but you're not a logic machine. Biases and wishful thinking affect everyone's perception.
Over time, the animosity you feel grows. The more perceived instances of bad behavior by the other side, the more strongly you identify with your candidate, which then makes you even more likely to interpret the other side as behaving badly. The longer this goes on, the more anger you feel, and the more skewed your perception. Yes, both candidates have gone more negative as the race approaches the end game. But we've changed too. I can honestly say that I am far more likely to perceive an event unfavorably towards Clinton than at the start of the race. You could probably even track the level of my animosity through my TPM posts.
It's striking to talk to people who have no stake in the race. I've tried to represent the reasons for my outrage to neutral friends. Often, they just don't get it. They shrug their shoulders and say that politics is politics and that they'll happily support either candidate. Partly, they've just paid less attention. But to a greater extent, their ambivalence allows them to have a less emotional and more reasonable response to information.
I will try myself to maintain that levelheadedness, to keep an open mind to alternative interpretations, and I encourage the TPM community to do the same. I think that will make this remainder of this race much easier to bear.
(Though I retain the right to be snarky when appropriate.)
I'm troubled by Josh's "Big Trouble" post about the poll suggesting that 19% of Obama supporters and 28% of Clinton supporters would choose McCain over the other candidate. Whether or not these sentiments will survive the general election campaign and impact the Democratic nominees changes, they are nonetheless saddening and a little baffling, so I'm going to try to explore the underlying causes based on my own feelings and my experiences with other posters on this site.
In order to understand what factors might make a Democrat rationally choose McCain over the other candidate, let's first rule out the alternatives.
1. Electability - One's reason for preferring one Dem over the other may be electability, but obviously, that can't be a reason to vote McCain because that vote simply makes the candidate less electable.
2. Policy - Whether one prefers Clinton's policies or Obama's, their policy differences cannot rationally lead someone to choose McCain over the Democratic opponent. McCain's voting history and campaign plans make the respective voting histories and campaign plans of Clinton and Obama look almost identical by comparison. On taxes, on economic stimulus, on Iraq, and on health care, McCain is simply on the opposite end of the spectrum. If you cite policy differences with one but not both of the candidates as a reason for choosing McCain, I can only assume that there's some other reason that you're not articulating. (Ask yourself, if Hillary were to swap plans with Obama, who would you vote for?)
3. Legislative Effectiveness - You could agree with many of a candidate's positions but feel that the candidate will not be able to implement these positions. Obama supporters tend to think that Clinton is too divisive to get her policies through Congress. Clinton supporters tend to think that Obama will water down his policies in the interest of unity. But even if one candidate would be less effective than the other, they'd still be more effective at implementing Democratic priorities than McCain. The weakest plans that Clinton or Obama would be able to pass and the most moderate appointments they would be able to make would still be preferable to McCain's policies and appointments.
4. Second Chances - I see some posts from people speculating that a McCain win in 2008 would open the door to another run by their candidate in 2012, but this just begs the question. Why do you love your candidate so much or hate the other one so much that you would elect a Republican for 4 years on the chance that your candidate could win the nomination and beat him in 2012?
5. Supporters - I often see people comment on TPM that they hate Obama's supporters, not that they hate Obama. Leaving aside the perennial question of whose supporters are meaner, voting for McCain out of spite for the other candidate's supporters hardly seems rational.
So what are the rational reasons for preferring McCain over the other candidate?
1. Executive Effectiveness - Simply put, is the candidate capable of running the government? People who buy into Clinton's "3am phone call" argument may believe that McCain is better suited to protect our national security than Obama. Obama supporters point to Clinton's poll-driven policy and campaign mistakes as evidence that she won't be able to govern effectively. Personally, I don't believe that either position is correct, but they at least offer rational reasons for voting for McCain. But is it your primary reason? Obama haters, if Obama had Clinton's experience, would you have voted for him? Clinton haters: if Clinton had dumped Mark Penn and run a strategically flawless campaign, would you have voted for her?
2. Character - My gut tells me that perceived character difference is the biggest factor. When TPM posters complain about Democratic candidates, it's most often about dirty tricks, self-serving tactics, mendacity, race exploitation, integrity, duplicity, etc. I will not get into the question of who's character is worse, and I encourage commenters to avoid this subject as well.
The question I would like to address is why do we have such different perceptions of the candidates' characters? We don't tend to disagree about the facts, but our interpretations of them are radically different. Some see Bill Clinton's, "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina," as an attempt to exploit race divisions within the party. Others see it as a simple statement of fact. Some see Obama's description of his grandmother as a "typical white person" as a disloyal and even racist criticism. Others see it a personal attempt to grapple with racial divisions in our society. Some see negative media stories on Clinton as biased media attempts to smear her. Others see respectable and honest journalism. Some see media criticism of Obama's relationship with Wright as a double standard. Other see an issue of profound concern.
You get the picture. These are all examples of projection. We rely on limited evidence and context to draw conclusions about the intentions of the candidates, their supporters, and journalists. In all these cases, proof is impossible. You can't prove that an implication is intentional, you can't prove what someone is thinking, and you can't prove media bias. In the face of such ambiguity, we show remarkable abilities to project favorably on candidates with which we identify and unfavorably on their opponents. It may seem perfectly clear to you in your own mind, but you're not a logic machine. Biases and wishful thinking affect everyone's perception.
Over time, the animosity you feel grows. The more perceived instances of bad behavior by the other side, the more strongly you identify with your candidate, which then makes you even more likely to interpret the other side as behaving badly. The longer this goes on, the more anger you feel, and the more skewed your perception. Yes, both candidates have gone more negative as the race approaches the end game. But we've changed too. I can honestly say that I am far more likely to perceive an event unfavorably towards Clinton than at the start of the race. You could probably even track the level of my animosity through my TPM posts.
It's striking to talk to people who have no stake in the race. I've tried to represent the reasons for my outrage to neutral friends. Often, they just don't get it. They shrug their shoulders and say that politics is politics and that they'll happily support either candidate. Partly, they've just paid less attention. But to a greater extent, their ambivalence allows them to have a less emotional and more reasonable response to information.
I will try myself to maintain that levelheadedness, to keep an open mind to alternative interpretations, and I encourage the TPM community to do the same. I think that will make this remainder of this race much easier to bear.
(Though I retain the right to be snarky when appropriate.)
Advertisement
I have to agree. I see no rational reason to support McCain over either Democrat.
The McCain voters, or the ones that can't bare to vote for a Dem nominee that isn't their aren't helping, nor is their mutual hate society. They have more in common with each other then they do with either candidate.
It's beyond ridiculous. I'm glad to see some of the more vociferous 'supporters' coming around to reason.
That gives me hope.
March 26, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that they have more in common with those of us who would never vote for McCain than is pleasant to acknowledge. They share the antipathies that we feel for the opposition and often for the same reasons; they just take it a little further.
In some ways, this post was also directed at passionate Democrats who would never vote for McCain.
March 26, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah heck, I'd vote for McCain if it was between him and say...SATAN. Or Dick Cheney.
Same thing, actually.
March 26, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
March 26, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
No way Satan gets the vote, hands down! He brings so much more dignity to evil.
March 26, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sympathy for the devil?
March 26, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol
March 27, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it. How is this funny? I thought you were full time snarky now on TPM.
Seriously, I'm facinated by this as well. But I have to admit that I've left the ballot blank in the past because I found the Democrat so conservative that I could not vote for them. Particularly in some parts of the country like the South, sometimes there are Democrats who are as conservative as their GOP opponent on key issues like immigration, healthcare, death penalty, and the war.
In this race and in this year, the benefits of an Obama or Clinton presidency versus a McCain are huge because of the issues at stake (foreign policy and health care top the list).
I think that once the nominee is decided, the other candidate will strongly endorse the nominee. I hope. If they don't and if they stoke the anger by saying that the nominee is in any way illegitimate, then we're in trouble.
March 26, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goes in phases I guess. Serious times call for serious posts. Also, I think my last couple of snarks were not up to snuff--need to regenerate the batteries. Also also, there are so many fake Sinbads and fake Rambos and fake Mark Penns running around these days that there's no shortage of parody.
March 26, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too am disappointed. I read every Genghis MD post, but this one isn't funny. I should have taken the disclaimer seriously!
March 26, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alas, where were you when Part II of my epic three part Dance Dance Nomination post received a mere 3 recommendations.
March 26, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was the first to recommend DDN2!
March 26, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much appreciated. My heart is warmed. Maybe I'll still complete the final installment.
I have to say, in all seriousness, that while I don't expect to reach the heights of, say, flyonthewall, it is awfully sad to watch a much belabored post fall off the recent post list in half an hour.
March 26, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know what you mean. Put a post out yesterday that was pushed off the list in about 15 minutes.
March 26, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was it about nanobots?
There just seem to be a lot more posters (not to mention recommenders) than there used to be, which is a good thing. In theory, there's more competition, so posts have to be better to make the recommended list, which is fine. But there are two problems. First, timing seems to be a bigger factor. If the recommended list is full up with recent posts, you're never going to get on there. And if a lot of new posts come in at the same time, you'll get pushed off too quickly. The other thing--and this bugs me more--is that recommenders seem to be a lot more political. Crap posts that express outrage over Clinton's latest press release are very popular. Makes me feel bad for the pro-Clinton posters.
That said, I should avoid the example of a certain candidate in blaming unfair TPM rules and recommender politics for my failed posts and just to try make my next one better. Ooh, that gives me an idea...
March 26, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 26, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone with real power reads this. The recent reader post list (maybe the recommend list too) should be longer so that Genghis's posts have more time to get up to the recommended list.
March 26, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would consider myself more center left. I was more right until the mid 90's and thought that the repub over reached wit hthe endless investigation of the Clintons. I have pretty muched voted Dems since that time.
However for the first time ever, I have contributed and invested time into one a candidate. I do feel strongly that my choice is someone that can bring the nation together and can solve the issues that need to be solved. Will that means a compromise needs to occur, while that depends on the amount of down ticket folks that get elected. Regardless of who is elected President nothing is going to matter if we do not get a 60+ in the senate and retain control of the house.
While I agree that hte policies are close to being hte same, hence I believe that I will be able to vote for the other person.
March 26, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're effectively right, although I detect a slight flaw in your logic regarding policy differences. In the spirit of fence-mending, I won't discuss whose policies I think are further to the center, and so will refer to the current Democratic candidates as X and Y. Now, consider the following diagram (assuming this doesn't get FUBAR):
(R)(L)
In this diagram, M represents McCain, V represents a potential voter, and X and Y represent our 2 Democratic candidates. I'm also collapsing a 102,389 dimensional space onto a straight line, but let's ignore that oversimplification. :) Clearly you can see that it is possible for a voter to be closer to X than to M, but yet still be closer to M than to Y, even though X and Y are much closer to each other than to M. However, I go back to my initial statement that you're effectively right because I think very few people fall into this small region of state space.
So, I'll second workerbee's sentiments while simultaneously confessing that I have my moments of irrationality where I will briefly swear that there's no way I'm voting for Clinton. Eventually I cool down, and logic is able to rule my emotions once again.
March 26, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second Ben's seconding of workerbee's sentiments. I get frustrated and angry at times, and cannot imagine myself voting for HRC. But Genghis, when I read a post like yours, it calms me down and I see the wisdom and virtue of swallowing my pride and behaving like a rational person.
March 26, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trying the diagram again (this time with a little HTML-fu):
(R)<--M-----V----X--Y-->(L)
March 26, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes possible, but that would mean that V was almost a McCain supporter already. I was assuming substantial policy agreement between V, X, and Y.
March 26, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, on some issues I'm a V. On other issues I'm beyond both X and Y. (Unfortunately, on my diagram R was on the left and L was on the right. Um, from your perspective. I read right-to-left so it's absolutely correct on my screen. Trust me. Would I lie to you?)
I really need to do a primary components analysis (PCA) and then plot the M, X, Y, and V in a 3-dimensional space (any four points in an n-dimensional space define a 3-dimensional space) to get the idea properly across. Unfortunately most of you don't have a cool 3-dimensional holo-monitor like mine. Um, that reads right-to-left. Trust me, it's cool.
March 26, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis, I hate you and everything you stand for. I have ever since you ridiculed my proposal to use nanobots to cure the health care crisis. I would rather vote a Hitler/Satan ticket than vote for any nominee that you support. In fact, I'd rather have the world suffer a nuclear holocaust than give you the satisfaction of seeing your candidate victorious in November. I stand ready to sacrifice all that I love and believe in, just to spite you. But you should know, when you are drafted into McCain's army to go fight in Iran, that you have brought it all on yourself. I hope you are satisfied.
March 26, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Allsburg, I try to write a serious post for once, and you blow it all with your idiotic nanobots. I hope that they turn on you and eat you from the inside out until you're just a shell. My buddy McCain (age 538) and I will laugh and laugh and laugh and then blow what remains of you to smithereens with our handheld anti-missile defense, which will finally be perfected in 2148.
Jeez, some people can really hold a grudge.
March 26, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on man, get hip to the transformation in military affairs. We've got plenty of microwave weapons on the way as we speak!
March 26, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ashlie Ben Hussein Genghis For President 2012 Hocking's Dad (I prefer your full title), if you've read my prior posts, you know that I don't believe in math. And your diagram is in fact FUBAR.
March 26, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There should be a policy of no blogging during the primary. It divides the party.
March 26, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. See you in August!
March 26, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second!
March 26, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
March 26, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to admit that you made that too easy. I'm all to willing to hold that football, Charlie Brown. :)
March 26, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis, I have to say that I was a bit disappointed at your disclaimer because I've thoroughly enjoyed your humor as of late, but you prove that you are still capable of providing some thought-provoking reading.
I'd like to offer a little perspective of my own and I'll do my best to avoid being particularly derisive in the process.
I'm not a Democrat, but I'm certainly no Republican. I suppose that you could call me an independent, but I typically find that independents are a bit more libertarian than I am. However, I do find myself in closer agreement and more often with the Democrats than I do the Republicans. That being said, the main reason that I won't register as a Democrat or participate in the party beyond voting at times for Democratic candidates is that I find the Democratic leadership to be, on the whole, lacking. This is a view that I have developed over time and one that I held long before this election cycle. It's a view that has grown more solid as I've watched the Bush administration unfold. I've pretty much been absolutely disappointed with the Democrats the entire time. In my estimation, they have absolutely failed as an opposition party. For a while, the excuse was that they did not hold a majority (although this condition was arguably the fault of Democratic leadership as well), but even as that has changed they do not seem to have used this as an opportunity to lead. Everything they have done in the last year has been impotent.
When this primary cycle began, my favorite candidate was Dennis Kucinich. Despite the fact that he stood little chance of winning, the reality was that he was someone that I'd come to admire for his principled stands and his forthrightness, not to mention that I largely agreed with his issue platform. He was one of the few members of Congress that never wasted an opportunity to oppose the Bush administration and their ill-begotten war of choice, but even as the Iowa caucuses began his advised his supporters to support Barack Obama if his viability was not immediately apparent. Like many Americans, I knew little about Barack Obama and had only even learned of his existence as a result of his 2004 DNC speech.
Now, I respect Kucinich so I took his endorsement seriously, but I don't take marching orders from anyone so I decided that I needed to learn about Obama. I did so and I was pleasantly surprised.
But I think more important here is that I came to support Obama by a process of elimination. None of the GOP candidates were an option in my view with the exception of perhaps Ron Paul, but his chances were not much better than that of Kucinich. However, I did not consider most of the Democratic field to be much better. Why? I consider myself a moderate extremist and to me the Democratic Party represents a possible means to an end, but I have never considered it an end unto itself. I believe that this is where I part ways with many of the Dems here and at large. I have no interest in getting Democrats elected just because they are Democrats any more than I'm interested in electing Republicans. I don't buy into the team mentality. I have my own agenda and I take opportunities to pursue it as I see them. I say this to illustrate that to me it is not at all about candidates and it never was.
Okay, here's the sticky part because I'm going to describe why I never considered Hillary Clinton or much of the rest of the field of Democrats to be an option: My interest is radical change. I was excited to see Howard Dean and MoveOn have such an impact in 2004. It made me realize that times were changing and that new technology, among other things, was making some of the changes that I seek plausible. It was also a manifestation of radical democratic values that are not often seen in this country. As much as I was disappointed by his run ending so abruptly and the subsequently dismal campaign of John Kerry, I was heartened by his assumption of leadership at the DNC.
On the other hand, I've never been a big fan of Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton or the DLC. To me they are exactly the failed leadership that I refer to. I know that this is is an unpopular view among loyal Democrats who have fond memories of the Clinton administration, but to me it was a mixed bag at best. Arguably better than the preceding administrations, but let's remember that they key accomplishments of the Clinton years were basically conservative economic policies: Welfare reform, NAFTA and Alan Greenspan at the monetary helm.
I say this not to try and incite the typical arguments, but to present a point of view that in my estimation is under-represented here and elsewhere. Usually, players in this game are on the Red Team or the Blue Team. I am in agreement with fellow blogger clearthinker that the microscopic bickering about minor policy differences between the remaining candidates (like healthcare) are largely irrelevant and basically amount to all to the same sort of talk one would hear sitting in a high school cafeteria during a student body election assembly. It's a lot of extended recess and pizza fridays for small minds and a small picture point of view. (Apologies to clearthinker if I've butchered the point of view here.)
I say all of this because the very thing that Obama's detractors deride him for is what I believe is most important about him. He has a way with words and a way with people. Some call this charisma. Why do I think this is so important? Because the "issues" don't really matter at this point. What matters is the ripple effect of irresponsible finance in our debt-money, fractional reserve banking system and the real reason for the war in Iraq: Energy. I believe that clearthinker is correct in saying that the new paradigm will be crisis management. What we will need is someone like Barack Obama who can convince people to rally around him, who can speak in complete thoughts and not lose the attention of our soundbite driven media and the public that is so easily swayed by it. If I and others that share this view prove to be correct it will be paramount that we have leaders that will be able to speak honestly and convincingly about sacrifices that we will soon have no choice in making.
On the other hand, what we do not need is a continuation of the DLC perspective on political power. It has already been damaging to the nation in its failure to provide any real opposition to the wrong-headed policies of the far-right and also in its failure to provide any movement on altering doomed policies with respect for energy and economics. The Iraq war was a canard and Democrats, especially in the Senate, absolutely failed to prove their worth in calling it what it was and opposing it. Remember John Kerry?
If this sounds like I'm trying to incite old arguments, let me assure you I am not. I say this because although I realize that many independents do not share my precise views, they come from a similar place in that they really have no taste for the team mentality either. I see this mentality on the Clinton side and I have seen it for years. Take BevD for example. I'm not trying to single her out here for any kind of abuse. She is fully entitled to her own perspective and opinions, but I think that she is a prime example because she has been very consistent in saying that she will support either candidate. She has even in recent comments described her participation at Democratic conventions. I think she is sincere in that she is loyal to her team and she very much wants them to win. It seems to be a frequent point of contention for her that I and others are frequent critics of Hillary Clinton and she was one of the earliest bloggers here, to my recollection, when it came to urging people to stop attacking one candidate or the other (although I will say that she defends Clinton most adamantly and frequently).
Again, I don't say this to single her out, but rather to draw contrast. You see, I don't care about the success of the Democratic Party any more than I care about the success of a hammer. It's a tool to me and at this point I think it needs an overhaul. I want to see it radicalized either from within or from without. I think that it will be more beneficial for this to happen from within and I think Barack Obama may represent an opportunity to make some inroads to this end. But let me be clear: Either way, I want to see the Democratic party as it exists die. If it it can be killed from within and morphed into something new so much the better, but if through some reversal of fortune Obama does not become the nominee I will still hold this view and still do whatever I can to pursue my agenda. This does not include supporting Hillary Clinton just because she's the one with the big D next to her name. It never did and it never will as long as she represents interests that are antithetical to my own.
I apologize for this being so longwinded, but here is my point: All of this conversation here takes place in something of a vacuum. People in polls are saying they're going to take their ball and go home. I think you are correct, Genghis, in that by and large they will not, but I think this is a more clear if we are talking about the average member of the electorate. Though I've frequently disagreed with Billy Glad, he has remarked several times that he considers this forum to represent a sort of avant-garde and, though I can't recall his reference, he offered a definition that described such an enclave as ideological, communal and combative (I hope I got that right). I've thought about this remark and I think he's absolutely right. I don't think what takes place here is really all that representative of what is happening among the American electorate in general. To be perfectly honest, I'm here because I like to read, write and, at times, argue. I think this is probably true of most participants in this forum.
So, who will take their ball and go home? The team players will not. They will vote for the big D come November. Will people like me? That depends on the nominee, but my point is that it always did. It's also a huge factor to me that I live in a very blue state and I can likely write in Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D in November without any bearing on the national outcome. Even so, if this were not the case I would still only consider voting for Hillary Clinton in November because of the unprecedented importance of Supreme Court nominations and I think this is probably an area where she would be far, far closer to my ideals than McCain ever would be. This is also true of the majority of larger Democratic field that we started with earlier in the year. The process of elimination with respect for unacceptable outcomes is what brought me to this position and, to me, Hillary Clinton is one of those eliminations.
What of the rest of the reader bloggers here? Who can be entirely sure. Ultimately, we're all individuals and this is central to my point here. I can't really be pigeon-holed as an Obama guy who makes Obama guy choices because I'm not really an Obama guy. I'm myself and Obama works for me right now. I suspect that there are many others here who have similarly independent lines of thinking just as I suspect that there are team players. Destor23, as another example, has discussed a similar path to supporting Hillary Clinton by way of originally supporting John Edwards. However, I think that there are also team players here who, despite what they say right now, will vote for whoever the nominee happens to be.
As for generalities, I don't think these polls have much meaning. From my perspective what is meaningful in discussing possible November outcomes with respect for the growing divisiveness of the campaign is the fact that Barack Obama has had as much success in attracting independent voters as he has had difficulty in capturing the more traditional Democratic base where Hillary Clinton has, not surprisingly, been so strong. Does this mean that despite current polls Obama will have an advantage because the base will ultimately fall in line in November and that he will retain his support among independents? I'd like to think so. The flip-side of this argument is that he will fail to capture the lunch-pail crowd in November and that this will neutralize his advantage among independents. Personally, I don't think that this is borne out by the facts, but this is just one person's opinion.
I apologize for the length of this response, but I felt that there was some context lacking in your original frame. I hope it is as useful for the discussion here as it is long-winded.
March 26, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF, no need to apologize for a thoughtful, intriguing comment. It deserves its own thread. I was certainly generalizing and recognize that there are many people like you who break the mold. I think that "team player", however, is a narrow characterization. I vote reliably Democratic not because I have much sense of loyalty to the party but because the party's priorities cohere with my own much better than Republican priorities. When those priorities do not overlap, I have no problem voting Republican. (For instance, I'm not a fan of the NYC party politics and voted for Bloomberg.)
The fact of the matter is that both Clinton and Obama share my policy priorities fairly well, so while I may think more highly of Obama's character and abilities, and his transparency polices are particularly important to me, Clinton is still a much better match policy-wise than McCain, not to mention those pesky Supreme court justices. I'm assuming that most Clinton-Obama supporters are similar in that regard, and I rejected "policy" as a reason for choosing McCain on the assumption that Clinton-Obama supporters shared the policy priorities of their candidates. As Ben Hocking pointed out in his diagram, you could theoretically support them for other reasons, e.g. ability to create change, in which case McCain might be a more attractive alternative.
But getting to your post. I worry a little bit that Obama will disappoint you. I believe that he will offer a fresh perspective and can push the Dems in a new direction, but I doubt that it will be the radical change that you hope for. He is still a product of the party, and he will still be constrained by the party politics that constrains all Presidents. He may chafe against those constraints more than Clinton, but I doubt that he will be able to radically alter them.
I'm a proponent of incremental change, so that's just fine by me. Radical change makes me nervous because I have too much fear that it will go in the wrong direction, the result perhaps of a fear of fascism instilled in me as a child. But we've discussed that in a previous post.
But we can certainly agree that Obama will effect more change to the party than Clinton, and if that
is your primary objective, I can see how you might be tempted to support McCain over Clinton (except for those Supreme Court justices). I think, however, that you're a special case, which is one of the things that I appreciate about your thoughtful posts and comments.
March 26, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't doubt that there are many, as I know quite a few personally, who will vote a Democratic ticket because it's more or less ideologically congruent, but I when I say "team player" I mean the down-in-the-trenches type that is out for the Party come hell or high water. I know some of those, too.
All Obama really has to do to not disappoint me is be better than Bush and I have no doubts that he'll do that. That's the realist in me. The optimist in me hopes the people like Dean and Obama can use their philosophy for more down-ticket influence and that by doing so they will finally close the door on McAuliffe et al by proving that their brand of power is on the decline.
When I say radical, it's not some detached leftist fantasy that I have. I mean it in much the same way that Saul Alinsky meant it or, if you prefer, C. Wright Mills. Indeed, Obama is running his campaign right out of the Alinsky playbook. It's no coincidence that he learned about grassroots organization in Chicago. Interesting to note that Hillary Clinton had an erstwhile relationship with Alinsky and even wrote her senior thesis on him:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/page/3/
I've found this shared connection between the two candidates entirely fascinating while watching this campaign unfold. I wonder if Hillary Clinton will come to rethink her recent reflections on Alinsky:
I think that Obama's strength here is that he took what I like to think of as the Bruce Lee approach. In the infamous teapot interview, Bruce Lee described that his approach to fighting was to forget about adherence to a given school of thought and to take whatever was useful to you and discard the rest. This is what Obama has done. He saw that it didn't have to be black or white and that perhaps you could use both the outside and the inside. This is pure genius, IMHO, and I don't think most people here or anywhere else really understand this yet. Many people who have known and worked with him have remarked on this quality in him. He's known for listening to all sides and then coming up with his own approach. I really can't overstate how important I think this is. As an aside, there's a great book on the current state of theoretical physics by Lee Smolin called The Trouble With Physics where he describes pretty much every great revolution in the field in terms of people who were able to unify ideas that previously seemed completely disparate. Minkowski spacetime is an example of this.
As for McCain, I have never once threatened to vote for him and I never would. I am not at all kidding when I say that I would write in Captain Picard before doing so. For all of the reasons that I don't feel like Hillary Clinton is an option, John McCain is far, far worse. I really don't know if generally there would be a big McCain/Obama crossover among independents. At the end of the day, I think these poll numbers probably represent a lot of bitterness that will disappear by November, bitterness that I believe is the result of the fact that there really isn't a lot left to debate with respect for the remaining two candidates. Then again, a protracted and divisive nomination process might change this.
There's a professor of sociology at UCSC that has a very interesting social science perspective on this sort of thing. I'm big on science, so anyone who starts out a conversation that way has my ear. More on this can be found here:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/
March 27, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I meant to call Bruce Lee's teapot interview famous not infamous.
March 27, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have recognized it, very simply because I do the same thing. I suspect you do as well. Thing is, I think anyone who constructs anything more sophisticated than the typical shallow worldview is going to do it, simply because the mere act of diving into philosophical issues almost instantly reveals a wealth of contradiction that can't be resolved any other way.
I did not know, however, that there was a name for it :)
Obama becomes an incredibly interesting character when you synthesize the idea that he is using his skills as a community organizer; his knowledge, careful reasoning, and rhetorical skills gained as a lecturer; his life experience, and perhaps insight, gained as a mixed-race individual; etc.
It's often somewhat surreal to see Obama do something, and instantly understand that he did it as a consequence of X experience in his life.
What's interesting is that observing him carry out this approach also made me more aware of how in some ways, he's also pretty naive about dirty politics. It took him and his team months to learn the "instant response" that has become so popular in today's politics. His attacks, if they can be called that, are also not as well crafted as more "experienced" politicians.
Some might call those drawbacks; I consider them to be positive, because they demonstrate how very much Obama is a different sort of politician. It's this that lead him to his March 18th race speech, instead of choosing Hillary's approach - point the finger at the other guy and yell.
March 27, 2008 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fairness, I believe that Bruce Lee came by these ideas through eastern philosophies like Taoism. Indeed, the Tao Te Ching describes what Lee described in the teapot interview in great detail, but I've always really liked his plain English explanation as an a man from the East who was addressing a Western audience that had become fascinated with the martial arts.
This is an interesting point that I hadn't really considered, but I'd agree that it's not necessarily a bad thing especially since it doesn't seem to have cost him too much politically so far. Whether he'll be able to continue in this manner against the GOP is likely another issue entirely, although in that respect it is kind of a good thing that Clinton has so closely aped them as a of late. It's sort of like a practice round. :)
March 27, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. DF, you continually amaze me.
What you just put together is an amalgam of thoughts that have been floating around my head for awhile.
A few days ago, when John Marshall posted his rant about how people who declare "I'm voting for McCain!" are childish because Clinton is still heads and tails better than McCain, I felt uncomfortable, and couldn't quite lay my finger on it.
I realized it's because I had implicitly accepted the assumption that the point is to get a Democrat elected; which is odd for me, considering I haven't ever been a loyal Democrat, in the same sense you haven't - they're a means to an end. If a candidate like Obama were running on the Republican ticket, with Republican ideals, I'd probably be voting that direction.
I think of myself as independent, and my perspective is largely libertarian, less than it is Democrat. Obama pulled me into the Democratic party for this election, but it's by no means my default position.
Frankly, I'd prefer a party that espouses more of the ideas you and clearthinker and I talked about in his energy post several days ago. But there isn't one, so I take what I can get. Before I noticed Obama, I had presumed I would vote for Ron Paul (I didn't know much about Kucinich).
At any rate, I don't think I can add anything to your incredible post, I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents (steel, not copper, but it's still worth SOMETHING.. right? Right?)
March 26, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, thanks. I think that it's important to remember Obama's appeal to independents for precisely this reason. There's a different dynamic going on with voters like you and I than there is with voters who are sort of on the fence, but are comfortable voting for X Democratic nominee. I really wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton outside of Supreme Court considerations, but neither would I vote for John McCain so I really don't fit into the frame of these polls whatsoever. It sounds like you don't either.
Then again, we are clearly a different breed of voter. I don't say this because I consider myself to be part of some kind of elite, but my thinking isn't anywhere near the electorate at large. For example, just before the March 4th primary I was watching some CNN (perhaps I have a bit of a masochistic streak, but I watch for the subtext and not the coverage) and they were interviewing some last minute undecided voters at a factory in Ohio. This was literally the day before the election and these people said that they had no idea who they were going to vote for. This is a completely alien concept to me. I can't even imagine bothering to vote if I still didn't know who I was going to vote for the day before an election. What's the point? How could you possibly educate yourself about the candidates in one day?
Now, some will say that these people are busy working and putting food on the table. Okay, but that really doesn't account for what I regard as an entirely different mentality. Most people will go home after work and watch at least a couple of hours of television. Couldn't at least an hour or two a week of this time be spent on civic life? There are many people who get through college while working full-time and one of the ways they do it is by not watching any television. It's amazing how far this can go when you exchange some of this time on more educational pursuits.
I think I might be veering away from my point a little bit, but what I'm trying to get at is that they didn't even seem to be the slightest bit concerned or bothered by the fact that they hadn't consumed enough information to make a decision. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there's a lot of this sort of thing that goes on with the average voter and, as such, our discussions here about what will or will not happen in the general election are completely off the planet when they're based on, well, our discussions here.
March 27, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I realized this several years ago, in the context of the energy issue we've covered. When I first learned of it, and tried discussing the issue with others, I found that a very large obstacle to such discussions was not only a lack of interest, but also a striking lack of knowledge - and an adamant refusal to gain that knowledge when offered.
I, like you, simply can't contemplate voting without having invested time and thought into whom I'm voting for and why. I can understand THAT other voters are fine with voting that way, but I can't understand WHY they are. I simply don't identify with that frame of mind.
That you and I enjoy science as much as we do, though, I think explains alot of it. That sort of interest is naturally driven by an inherent and almost insatiable curiosity. I've learned that unfortunately, that curiosity is quite rare, and most people are content to be completely indifferent to the vast wealth of information they don't know.
Believe me, I'm under no illusions that ANY political blog in any way reflects the average voter. These blogs represent a very small group of people who are very invested in the campaigns nearly to the point of obsession. Anyone inside this group really has no concept of how people outside the group consume political information and turn it into votes.
March 27, 2008 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is what appeals to me about Obama as well. Both Obama and Clinton have attempted to brand themselves as the agents of change. But when Obama talks of change, he means a radical transformation of the political machinery into something different than it has ever been. When Clinton talks about change, she means, change from Bush back to the way things were in the 1990's.
I think that this crystallizes the reason why supporters have taken their various positions on the two. A lot of Clinton supporters support her because they want the 1990's back. A lot of Obama supporters support him because they don't.
Of course, it's not to say that Obama can deliver on radical transformation. But if you want radical transformation, you need to support the candidate who at least understands what it is.
March 27, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis - nice post.
On the psychology of the issue, I'll repost something I posted on The Field blog....
March 26, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the other term I like to use is cognitive dissonance: the ability to hold two or more contradictory opinions simultaneously through rationalisation and selective information intake. Everyone, almost without exception, suffers from this. Being aware of this tendency of the mind allows one to more carefully examine their internal state.
The most effective means of combating this is to attempt to introduce facts or the correct logic through non-confrontational discussion which allows the other party to begin the self-check process.
I also think that what America needs most is the ability to admit fault and to accept fault. I mean it literally. That is the single most important thing currently lacking in the U.S. culture.
March 26, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually what I find most disturbing about the flap over Rev. Wright. Most of it seemed to be focused on his inflammatory "God damn America" comments. The trouble is that real reason that this is so repulsive to Americans is that you're essentially never allowed to imply that America might not be absolutely perfect and blessed. Ron Paul made similar remarks, though not with the same bombast, during one of the Republican debates. The reaction was telling: You simply don't say such things in the public square. And Rudy "9/11" Giuliani was right there to capitalize on this condition.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cQrwKr_b4Lg
March 26, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right. Not only is non-confrontational discussion necessary to resolve cognitive dissonance, but there's also a necessity to soften the blow of being wrong.
Often we have a much exaggerated view of the consequences of being wrong; of making a mistake; of screwing up. Whole sitcoms are based on this farce. It's one of the common memes in American storytelling, and yet we never quite seem to learn the lesson: it's ok to screw up if you fess up and take steps to correct the mistake (most of the time.. some mistakes can't be taken back, like, say, getting thousands of people killed).
But even then, it's important to admit mistakes, because only then can we address them. So long as we assert no mistake was made, there's logically nothing to correct; and problems fester.
This one issue was probably the most transformational in my own personal growth. I used to be largely paralyzed into inaction for fear of making mistakes; at some point I realized hey, I'm probably going to screw up. What matters is how one moves forward; not how many times one messes up.
And as DF notes, it's not even only about fessing up to mistakes - it's also about the corollary idea that not only can America not admit it made mistakes, it's actually treasonous, apparently, to point out that maybe America isn't perfect. This combination of psychotic behaviors is extremely damaging and right now, America suffers both in spades.
March 26, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this. It's very easy to notice when other people's brains are addled by politics; very difficult to acknowledge in your own brain.
March 26, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stupid reply bug. This was meant to be a reply to Furion. Seems like every week brings a new bug at TPM.
March 26, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am so confused, but you're welcome, I think :)
March 26, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah this scares the hell out of me.
So you think she is a liar. Mcain will tell you the truth...
That he wants to send our brave soldiers into Iran and leave them in Iraq. so Obama supporters you wanna vote Mcain? Have fun washing the blood off your hands for the next four years.
So you think Obama is a fraud? Mcain will show you just who he is.
He is a man that will take away a womans right to choose by replacing the out going justices with pro life republicans. Have fun explaining to your daughter why she has to live with her rapists child, or die on the table giving berth.
I know this is harsh but the reality of a vote for Mcain is harsh. The reality is that a vote for him is support for both of the above items and many other nasty little things.
Crumbling schools,
People dying from lack of proper health care,
A continuance of a policy that will cause the American economy to crumble.
So you all have fun making your protest votes. I may have said this little line in the heat of an argument but I would NEVER NEVER follow through.
March 27, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with DF, in that these polls are pretty much meaningless. What's reflected in them is all the frustration and emotion of the present moment.
Come November, when it comes time to choosing between someone who is running as an extension of Bush's Iraq policy, and someone who will at least start formulating a withdrawal (even if, as I suspect, that takes much longer than any Dem voter will have anticipated, and will end up creating a real frustration/backlash at being let down because we're not out in the campaign speech timeframe), the choice for President is going to be easy and clear.
March 27, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's rather unfortunate that Samantha Power was roasted for being a realist in this respect. It's funny.. we gripe about our politicians being dishonest, but when they tell us the truth we want their heads.
March 27, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to take mild issue with this point. Much has been made over the fact that Clinton is winning among "Catholic" voters. I still deny that there is such a voting bloc as the "Catholic vote," but if the demographers are willing to track it, then we might as well discuss it.
I happen to be a Catholic voter, and a very pious one at that. I am and have always been a loyal democrat, but that is not to say that I am 100% in sync with my party. Specifically, I want to see Roe overturned (unlike the majority of my democratic comrades) and do not want to see other varieties of domestic arrangements set on par with the old-fashioned union of one man and one woman (although I do want to see provision made for other domestic arrangements to be recognized by law for purposes of inheritance rights and emergency visitation/decision making, for whatever that is worth).
In other words, there are some aspects of the democratic platform which appeal to me and some aspects of the republican platform which appeal to me. I am a democrat because those aspects of the democratic platform which appeal to me carry more water (so to speak) than those aspects of the republican platform. But that is not to say that I am immune to the appeals of various aspects of the republican's pitch.
On the assumption that many of those Catholic voters who are backing the Clintons are like myself, I dare say that policy differences between McCain and Clinton are not so stark a deciding factor for these voters as they are for many other democrats. If many of her supporters are supporting her despite her support for Roe then the fact that McCain (theoretically) opposes Roe is not a reason to oppose him. Mutatis mutandis the same might be said of several of the other issues you mentioned above on which Obama and Clinton are substantially in agreement with each other and disagreement with Sen McCain.
In other words, there may be democratic voting blocs for which the policy differences between the democrats and republicans are not stark enough to really justify voting one way or the other. In those cases, I dare say that the slight differences between Obama and Clinton might be enough to make a voter say "Clinton was only barely closer to my views than is McCain, while Obama is farther from my views than is McCain, so McCain is my more rational choice."
March 27, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Greg. I think that this is a specific example of Ben Hocking's (R)(L) scenario, where the voter is midway between McCain and one of the Dems on policy. I acknowledged that it's possible to rationally vote McCain on a policy basis in such a case, but I think that the frequency of this scenario is low.
I'm sure that there are plenty of people in the middle who clearly identify with neither McCain's policies nor the Dems', but it's hard for me to see policy as being a big driver in such cases. What would be the policy disagreement between Obama and Clinton? The voter pro-life and pro-universal health care, so McCain and Clinton are balanced, but Obama is a little weaker of universal health care? It seems a little more likely the other way, say if the voter were a big proponent of government transparency and reform and would therefore choose McCain over Clinton if Obama were to lose.
But it seems to me much more likely that people who are divided between Republican and Democratic priorities would view policy differences as a wash and vote on character or executive effectiveness. I acknowledge the possibility you present, however, and would be happy to hear from someone who would vote for McCain over Clinton or Obama (but not both) on policy reasons.
March 27, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that is my point. I filled in Ben Hocking's abstract "V" with a very particular voter - a Catholic democrat. There are lots of Catholic democratic voters. My point is that many of them might reasonably answer to the description which Mr Hocking gave of someone whose policy predilections actually dispose them to vote for Clinton first but McCain second. In other words, this particular sort of democrat might not be so rare as you had first supposed.
March 27, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right there are plenty of Catholic and other voters who are in the middle, policy-wise, between McCain and both Dems. But is policy their primary reason for preferring Clinton to Obama (or vice-versa)? No matter who wins, these voters will have to compromise on policy, and Obama doesn't seem to be a much bigger compromise than Clinton, which makes me assume that a strong preference for Clinton or Obama would not be policy driven. The case your and Ben are talking about is not someone who is just in the middle between McCain and Clinton, but someone who so close to the middle that the tiny bit of policy sunlight between Clinton and Obama is enough, on its own, to tip them over to McCain if Obama is the nominee. That's what seems unlikely to me.
March 27, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any one who says that they will vote for John McCain is a War Monger enabler. Come to think of it, since she has endorsed McCain over Obama, that makes Hillary a War Monger enabler.
March 27, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, Obama has never been able to bring in a significant block of the Democratic base. You know, that 12.6 million people who made the other choice in all those "big" states. It has always been the same story working class whites & hispanics. It's not about character, race, love of Hillary, or mean things people post at TPM It's about stability. They know what a HRC presidency would look like it all it's wonky, triangulating, mildly corrupt glory. McCain & HRC are known quantities, Obama is not. They don't feel comfortable voting for somebody whose main experience in government boils down to being a state senator from illinois. They just aren't that into "radical change", dude. Can you get out of the echo chamber long enough to see that the party is split? There is no consensus. Obama has no mandate. It's going to go to a floor fight in Denver. You need to start thinking about why that is and what that means, besides that Hillary is an evil bitch & you hate her. We get it, enough already. How can Obama win the GE without the full & undivided support of the base, which he has never had? All of sudden everyone is in a huff because of a poll showing his support within the party is weak? What planet have you all been on? Did you notice him losing in CA, NY, MA, NJ & OH? Did you notice him winning with huge independent & crossover votes in places like VA & Wisc? Obama has split the party, to our peril.
March 27, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only in the same sense that Clinton has split the party. To the extent that a schism has been engendered, both candidates (and their campaigns) share the blame. Your attempt to pin this all on Sen Obama will not survive scrutiny.
March 27, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, and Clinton has not been able to bring in another significant block of the Democratic base: African Americans. Come to that, she did not win over the Teamsters, the SEIU or the Boilermakers, who are also important chunks of the Democratic base. Your focus here is rather myopic.
March 27, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen this fallacy time and again. Look, the party is split between Obama and Clinton, not between Obama and McCain and not between Clinton and McCain. The Republicans could have nominated Howard the Duck, and the Democrats would still be evenly split between Obama and Clinton, but that doesn't mean that the losers would stay home or vote for Howard. (Well, I might vote for Howard.)
Obama losing Ohio to Clinton doesn't mean that he won't have Ohio's support against McCain any more than it means that he won't have MA's support against McCain. Are you suggesting that Obama won't win MA, NY, and CA in the general election?
March 27, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you can make a compelling argument for why you think that CA, NY, MA and NJ will not go blue no matter who the nominee is then perhaps people will begin to take you seriously.
March 27, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll admit that I am not intimate with all states listed, however in CA the largest Unions were endorsing Edwards at the time so the massive voter education and GOTV machine hadn't responded. Additionally look at the LA Times numbers taken DURING the Wright circus. I believe it was yesterdays edition.
March 27, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Suppose if I'm gonna cite something, here it is.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap27mar27,1,55052.column
March 27, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure but the point is that Dem states will still go Dem no matter which Dem is on the ticket. Clinton won CA but the unions won't stay home or vote repub because of that. Completely empty argument.
March 27, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct,CA is solid. There is no insinuation that Labor wouldn't be involved, that would be crazy talk.
March 27, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
i loved the post.
i think you nailed it and i have been saying the same thing, here and elsewhere, for awhile.
i am disappointed by your fears as to the ability of obama, or hillary, for that matter to radically change the direction of this country.
let me share with you my secret logic on this.
both hillary and obama are ambitious enough to want change. their election will be taken as a tremendous mandate to get things done. throw in a democratic congress and you start seeing legislation for better health care.
think how radical that alone is. it runs so counter to everything we've been getting, it will by definition be radical. i think this will encourage either candidate to push harder.
at another post i compared the two to LBJ or JFK, either way it's going to get better.
this conventional wisdom will set in after the nominee is selected and John McCain will get crushed. remember that the DEM turnout is going to be monstrously high and is already double the NEOCON's.
great post.
March 29, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink