Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 19, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

A TIME FOR CHOOSING....Anybody feel like predicting results in today's primary contests? It's a mug's game, for sure, but I'll go with Huckabee in South Carolina and Clinton (barely) in Nevada. Considering my track record, this is probably a death knell for both of them, but whatever. Go ahead and show off your predictive powers in comments, with extra points for getting close to the final numbers.

UPDATE: I'm one for two so far! Clinton wins Nevada 51%-45%, a little bit bigger margin than I would have guessed. On to South Carolina.....

UPDATE 2: With 65% of the precincts reporting, McCain is leading Huckabee in South Carolina. Damn. But I won't give up until every last vote has been counted.

However, Fred Thompson is dragging in the cat with 16% of the vote in a state he should have done well in. I predict an early exit for ol Freddy.

FINAL UPDATE: Looks like McCain eked out a win in SC, 33%-30%. Thompson managed a few thousand votes more than Romney, which means he officially gets third place. Will that be enough to fool him into thinking he should soldier on?

Kevin Drum 1:24 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (107)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

1. Obama 2. Clinton

1. Romney 2. Thompson

Posted by: AMW on January 19, 2008 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

I predict ties for both S.C. and Nev. It isn't decision time yet.

Posted by: MattF on January 19, 2008 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

McCain will clean up in SC in vengeance for Bush's campaign sins of 2000.

Posted by: Counterfly on January 19, 2008 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

SC: Huckabee 30%

NV: Clinton 33%

Posted by: Goof Beyou on January 19, 2008 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

I give SC to McCain and Nevada to Romney

Obama squeaks out a win in Nevada....(after 2 months of recounts) over Clinton.

Freyd may have a strong shoiwin in South Cackalacky.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on January 19, 2008 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I'll guess it will be Huckabee in SC, Romney in Nevada for Republicans and for the Democrats, Obama in Nevada, Clinton as a very close second.

Posted by: Noname Noneatall on January 19, 2008 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Nevada: Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Undecided, Sigfried and Roy (write in), Clinton

SC: Ron Paul, Thompson, Huckabee, Hunter, McCain, Giuliani


Pure wishful thinking.

Posted by: bob on January 19, 2008 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

I second Noname Noneatall in every particular.

Posted by: also nameless on January 19, 2008 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Nevada it is Obama.

S.C. it is McCain and Obama

Posted by: Chief on January 19, 2008 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

South Carolina:

Huckabee -- 30%
McCain -- 27%
Thompson -- 18%
Romney -- 14%
Paul -- 6%
Giuliani -- 5%

Nevada:

Clinton -- 38%
Obama -- 31%
Edwards -- 26%

Posted by: junebug on January 19, 2008 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Obama overperforms in Nevada (based on the caucus correlary to the Bradley effect),

McCain underperforms in SC (based on another correlary to the Bradley effect, which I haven't named but which will see racists breaking away from 'wasn't there something scandalous about his children or somethin''McCain)

Posted by: Barry on January 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Easier call: Obama in S.C.; Romney in Nevada

More difficult: Hillary squeaks by in Nevada

Really hard call: McCain barely wins S.C. (and I really hope I'm wrong because that means he will be a strong favorite then to get the nomination, and he is probably the only Republican that has a chance of beating Obama or Clinton - though I doubt even he could do it)

Posted by: TK on January 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

McCain by a nose over Huckabee in the 5th at Carolina Downs
Morning line favorite Clinton by two lengths in the Nevada Stakes

Posted by: tout le meme on January 19, 2008 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

I like Barry's caucus corollary to the Bradley effect. Maybe we should have everyone stand up and be counted.

Posted by: Manfred on January 19, 2008 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

President John McCain and Vice President Mike Huckabee will be sworn in a year from now, following the third stolen presidential election in a row.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 19, 2008 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

South Carolina
Huckabee wins !!
You can't be too racist or homophobic for a South Carolina Republican

Nevada, Democratic
HRC wins!!!
Nevada is a mine field of local feuds. One of these is the feud between local unions for influence in the party. The Culinary Workers Union has been throwing their weight around a lot lately.
Add in the fact that Nevada politics plays out like small town politics. Locals vrs outsiders is a major split in such a place. You don't get more "they ain't from here" then the Vegas strip.
So Obama gets the half of Vegas and the strip and HRC gets the rest of Nevada.

Posted by: whskyjack on January 19, 2008 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

So Carolina: Obama wins but its closer than what the polls say. Obama 46%, Clinton 44%, Edwards 10%. McCain edges Huckabee by 1% point.

Nevada: Obama 15 delegates, Clinton 14, Edwards 5. Clinton wins the first headcount but in some precincts Edwards not viable, his people split 2:1 to Obama. Romney edges McCain.

Posted by: Eliott on January 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

I was in Vegas last weekend for Edwards and it was sad. I know the polls show him doing reasonably well there but I have my doubts whether he'll be in the double digits. I think it will be Obama first by a nose, then Clinton.

Posted by: G Jones on January 19, 2008 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Huck wins @ 33% in S.C.
Obama by 3% over Clinton in Nev.

Posted by: jay boilswater on January 19, 2008 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton 44%
Obama 41%
Edwards Who cares now?

Posted by: gregor on January 19, 2008 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

CNN Entrance polls in Nevada:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NVDEM

Posted by: emmarose on January 19, 2008 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary by a furlong.

Posted by: lampwick on January 19, 2008 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

We hear a lot in the media about evangelical and African-American and Hispanic voters. But one of the largest and most active constituencies of voters among the Democrats are women over 40; and they may make the difference in giving Hillary a national victory.

If that happens, don't expect the media to notice.

Posted by: lampwick on January 19, 2008 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Older women voting for the older woman. Blacks voting for the black. Christians voting for the ex-Pastor.

Does anyone still have a brain?

Posted by: Elliott on January 19, 2008 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Why does Wolf Blitzer preject winners? Why not just project one?

Posted by: junebug on January 19, 2008 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Off-topic:

Roger Federer is losing in the Australian Open against Tipsarevic!

Posted by: M on January 19, 2008 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

The conservatives win.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on January 19, 2008 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton , Federer each by a nose, to use the American media's simplified b/s.

Posted by: Mike on January 19, 2008 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Older women voting for the older woman. Blacks voting for the black. Christians voting for the ex-Pastor. Does anyone still have a brain?

Hillary won both the male (slight margin) and Hispanic (huge margin) vote in Nevada. She's neither. So I guess some voters aren't automatons.

Posted by: Jasper on January 19, 2008 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Federer did win by a nose. It surely was a close call for him. Great match.

Posted by: Mazurka on January 19, 2008 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

The republicans have a LOT to think about this campaign. For more info, I found an awesome article called "Reagan Babies" at www.SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. Here is an excerpt:
""A baby is an alimentary canal with a laud voice at one end and no responsibility at the other" Ronald Reagan
Last Tuesday was a big day for Republican Candidate Mitt Romney for he came out ahead of all others in Michigan's Primary election. To many this was not a surprise since his father was elected thrice Governor of Michigan in the 60's and, by many citizens' standards, was good for the State. This of course creates a very interesting power struggle within the Grand Old Party since Huckabee and McCain had already won their own primaries, making this race, as of Today, a three-way race. Of course, we have Thompson looking to catch South Carolina's ticket and Rudy Giuliani aiming to do the same in Florida. This last candidate has basically bet all his chips on winning Florida, if he does not win said State, he might as well never had run for the nomination. For many conservatives, this situation within the Republican pool of candidates is both embarrassing and aggravating. Here we have a process which basically tends to eliminate their most ideologically consonant candidates right from the beginning, since they depend on primaries and caucuses in predominantly "blue" states which, to make matters even worse, usually allow independents to participate. In this year's election though, it seems that all this does not matter since none of the participants seems to fulfill their base's expectations. Can any of these candidates face off against Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards in a general election?
Since the birth of the Reagan Coalition, the era which brought to the Republican Party the juncture of both Social Conservatism and Economic Conservatism, the Grand Old Party has been unable to keep track of their own ideology, usually loosing itself to divergent group interests and in the process becoming a massive political tent that caters to both corporate and institutional fluctuations. Instead of assuming the responsibility of admitting to itself that Economic Conservatism, a belief..."
Find the rest of the article at www.SAVAGEPOLITICS.com

Posted by: Elsy on January 19, 2008 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

CNN prediction market:
politicalmarket.cnn.com

Posted by: Sandy on January 19, 2008 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Obama needs to demonstrate Iowa wasn't a fluke and he can win somewhere outside of the South, fast, or the Dem primary will be over in a few weeks.

Posted by: Martin Gale on January 19, 2008 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

I have to say that I'm really disappointed that Edwards seems to be doing so poorly.

I hate even to think of what the leading candidates would be signing onto for policy proposals if Edwards had not been in the race.

If we do indeed get something resembling true universal health care, it seems to me we can give as much credit to John Edwards as we would to anybody who might win the Presidency in 2008.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 19, 2008 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

I hope others are happy about today's NV result. I wish I could be. But this looks like the usual Democratic self destruction to me. Nominating yet another WEAK general election candidate, one with absolutely zero appeal to Independents or across party lines.

One can only hope that the GOP doesn't nominate its strongest candidate. Even Hillary can probably beat Romney.

Posted by: Fran on January 19, 2008 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

If you look at where he was eight months ago compared to his current stature, Barack Obama has confounded the experts and has exceeded everyone's expectations. Only three small states have been polled thus far; he's most certainly not out of the campaign.

Now, I never thought I'd be saying this, but if Obama supporters amongst the punditry keep carping publicly on the "Bradley Effect" ad nauseum as a rationale for why Obama narrowly lost Nevada and New Hampshire -- thus implying that race is still the primary issue here -- and further mischaracterizing Mrs. Clinton's remarks about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., even though the Obama campaign itself has clearly said that it wants to move on, those pundits / supporters only provide an excuse for the media to remain focused on that particular issue.

If that happens, those clowns will run a serious risk of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy with regard to that "Bradley Effect", thus marginalizing their own candidate for the duration.

"It ain't over 'til it's over." -- Yogi Berra

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 19, 2008 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK
I have to say that I'm really disappointed that Edwards seems to be doing so poorly.


Posted by: frankly0 on January 19, 2008 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

So am I, as he was the only one of the Dems I thought was all but guaranteed to win in the general. But he's running against three forces of nature: the Clinton legacy (and Hillary herself is no slouch), Obamamania, and the hatred of the press corps. Just a little too much.

Posted by: Martin Gale on January 19, 2008 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

>"But this looks like the usual Democratic self destruction to me. "

I share that opinion. It looks like the weight of the established Democratic party apparatus is being brought to bear and Hillary is a card-carrying member of that club.

Hillary is the only chance for another republican president. (Sigh) business as usual.

Posted by: Buford on January 19, 2008 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

Now, I never thought I'd be saying this, but if Obama supporters amongst the punditry keep carping publicly on the "Bradley Effect" ad nauseum as a rationale for why Obama narrowly lost Nevada and New Hampshire...

Who said anything about the Bradley effect having anything to do with Nevada? It refers to what people do in the privacy of the voting booth, as opposed to what they say they'll do before they go in. It doesn't apply to the very public format of a caucus.

Posted by: junebug on January 19, 2008 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

This is shaping up to be a very predictable political race - and disappointing. The best we can hope for is an acceptable president, not a great one. America has lost it's ability to think big.

"This is the end of the innocence".

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on January 19, 2008 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Well at least its clear now, Kevin supports Rove-like tactics, as long as it comes from Democrats and not Republicans. Good job Kevin, show your true colors.

Posted by: Jor on January 19, 2008 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

Somebody should go back through your archives, extract the predictions from the prediction threads and compare the various commenters' (and bloggers' and pundits') success rates.

Posted by: anandine on January 19, 2008 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK
I share that opinion. It looks like the weight of the established Democratic party apparatus is being brought to bear and Hillary is a card-carrying member of that club.

Posted by: Buford on January 19, 2008 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

We're seeing this kind of nonsense yet again. Hillary is winning because she is drawing the votes of normal voters, not because of some conspiracy from "The Democratic establishment." If anything, "The Democratic establishment" has been throwing its weight behind Obama lately, as demonstrated by all the endorsements he's been racking up, while the establishment media have savaged Clinton to the point where they've actually had to apologize for it, while largely giving Obama a pass.

Enough of the bitter whining from "the netroots" when things aren't going your way. It's always a conspiracy, with the stupid, but nevertheless, somehow all-powerful "establishment" forcing some terrible candidate down the throats of sheeplike primary voters, while the wise, all-knowing, but nevertheless, somehow completely powerless "netroots" looks on in dismay at the stupidity of everyone except themselves. Enough.

Posted by: Martin Gale on January 19, 2008 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

Martin Gale @ 6:27 PM, well said!

Posted by: Ak Liberal on January 19, 2008 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

Has anybody really looked at Clinton's support. I hear she gets a lot of support from "beer drinking" Democrats while Obama attracts the "wine drinkers." Why?

Posted by: corpus juris on January 19, 2008 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

It's too bad Obama didn't win Nevada. At this point, he's going to have to fight harder, and bring Bill up again and again. This is not over to be sure, because everywhere Hillary wins, Obama is not far behind. They gotta close that gap, because she is getting her momentum.

I would also hope that Edwards gain some sense and drop out of the race, it's obvious he isn't going to be a winner, just another VP.

Additionally, I am disappointed by the Latino support for Hillary Clinton. Not so much for them choosing her policies, but I would sincerely hope that it wasn't some racial characteristic that caused the problem. In any case, the fight goes on, and I am getting pumped up. There is still a chance for Obama to win it, but he is going to have to go to the limit to win it. I really, really don't want to go through another eight years of Clinton crap, but I will have to support the nominee.

Posted by: Boorring on January 19, 2008 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

It appears that most of Edwards' votes went to Clinton instead of Obama. I think the older white voters switching to Clinton that were previously supporting Edwards is the prime mover here. I bet the same thing happens in SC.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 19, 2008 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

a little bit bigger margin than I would have guessed. On to South Carolina.....

"would have guessed'? You did guess.

geo.

Posted by: Geomaier on January 19, 2008 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

Ah yes, because we all know that Latinos wouldn't vote for a black man. Of course, we also knew that they wouldn't vote for a woman, except that they went ahead and did so.

I'm going to have a hard time swallowing the racial angle.

Posted by: Sean on January 19, 2008 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

Has anybody really looked at Clinton's support. I hear she gets a lot of support from "beer drinking" Democrats while Obama attracts the "wine drinkers." Why? corpus juris

I believe Obama comes across as a more sophisticated and intellectual candidate. Some have compared him to Adlai Stevenson, i.e. Other than that, one could argue that many of the white Clinton voters think Obama is unelectable, and there may be a good chunk of the "beer drinking Democratic crowd" that would be perfectly happy if they were getting Bill Clinton's 3rd term. Just sayin'...

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 19, 2008 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

@Martin Gale

So what will you say when Obama wins SC?

Anyway,

After three primaries we know the factions:


Over 45 versus under 30.

Older white women versus african americans.


These seem to be pretty damn good predictors of a person's vote.

Posted by: Adam on January 19, 2008 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

Alright, Sean, I can take your point if it was meant for me. But the reason I brought it up was because I heard a voter describe that Latinos wouldn't vote for Obama, and when pressed as to why, he couldn't (or wouldn't) say. I just hope that's not the general case.

Posted by: Boorring on January 19, 2008 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

I hope that the dreamy eyed Obama supporters do not pull a Nader 2000 on us.

Posted by: gregor on January 19, 2008 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

There are some reports saying that Obama may have won more delegates than Clinton in the Nevada primary.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=272881

Posted by: DCB on January 19, 2008 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

>"Hillary is winning because she is drawing the votes of normal voters, not because of some conspiracy from "The Democratic establishment."

Let's start by removing the word 'conspiracy'. It is incorrect and is 'extending' the argument. (a common HS debate technique).

There is a massive political machine in place in this country... it exists in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

On either side of the aisle the political apparatus is dedicated to preserving itself... and continuing 'business as usual' inside the beltway.

Right now the apparatus is working very hard for HRC... money and organizational resources are being brought to bear on her behalf. On the Republican side the apparatus is working very hard against Huckabee. He is 'disruptive' to them.

Posted by: Buford on January 19, 2008 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

AP confirms that Obama has won 13 delegates, while Clinton won 12. As far as I can tell, this isn't because of the Culinary Workers Union flap. What happened is that Obama won more of the rural areas and I guess each district got a delegate no matter the turnout or something like that.

Posted by: PE on January 19, 2008 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary is winning because she is drawing the votes of normal voters, not because of some conspiracy from "The Democratic establishment."

Basically agreed. We tend to forget that average Democratic voters don't read political blogs. Most of them couldn't find the blogosphere with a searchlight.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on January 19, 2008 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

What really surprised me was the lack of support for Edwards in my precinct and also the three others that were caucusing in the same gym [far west Las Vegas]. The original vote was 40 Clinton, 38 Obama, 3 Edwards [I was one of them] and 3 undecided, Kucinich & Gravel. Those last three left without voting for either of the viable candidates and the Edwards voters went 2:1 for Clinton. In the other precincts caucuses in the gym the situation was close to equal strengths for O & C - two going to Obama and one to Clinton while Edwards remained non-viable in any precinct. I know that in one other precinct, 4 Edwards votes went to Clinton and one to Obama.

Edwards should have remained viable in many areas, according to the polls, but it looks like his supporters have decided to pack it up and pick either Obama or Clinton, with more going to Clinton than Obama. So much for the supporters of one "change" candidate gaing to the other. More went to the "establishment" candidate.

Surprised me. What I also saw was a sense of fellowship between the Clinton and Obama voters, no rancor at all. I guess everybody knows what the stakes are.

Posted by: natural cynic on January 19, 2008 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

Obama actually got more delegates than Clinton according to TPM. And accusations of voter disenfranchisement and dirty tricks are flying from both camps, but most notably from the Obama camp, with a hotline set up for reports of irregularities.

Posted by: nepeta on January 19, 2008 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

It will be interesting to see how the media treats the "delegate win" versus the "popular vote win". If Obama's delegate advantage isn't discussed and is swept under the rug and ignored it will definitely seem to me that Big Money has all their support with HRC and that will influence my vote in my primary.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 19, 2008 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

"I predict an early exit for ol Freddy."

It's far too late for that, my good fellow. Mr. Thompson has long overstaid.

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on January 19, 2008 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

Good thinking, Doc! (gr)

Posted by: nepeta on January 19, 2008 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

Wake up! Hillary won the pop vote but Obama got one more delegate!

Posted by: hollywood on January 19, 2008 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

Fred Thompson is dragging in the cat with 16% of the vote

Must we bring violence against cats into this?

Mr. Thompson has long overstaid.

Indeed he has. If he were any more staid, he'd be dead.

Posted by: Oregonian on January 19, 2008 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think that Fred can work up the energy that it would take to drop out of the race.

Posted by: gonk on January 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK
I don't think that Fred can work up the energy that it would take to drop out of the race.

Posted by: gonk on January 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

He wants to do it in style, in a video posted on the internet while he smokes a cigar and makes wisecracks.

Posted by: Martin Gale on January 19, 2008 at 10:23 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder how badly Rudy is going to get creamed on Super Tuesday.

I love it.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

Posted by: daCascadian on January 19, 2008 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

Why aren't women voting for Obama? He's such a lovely fellow.

Posted by: Lucy on January 19, 2008 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

"Thompson managed a few thousand votes more than Romney, which means he officially gets third place. Will that be enough to fool him into thinking he should soldier on?"

Thompson? Who cares?!? What about Rudy "2 Percent" Giuliani?

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on January 20, 2008 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINK

Why does everyone keep saying Clinton won Nevada?

Obama won. Obama 13 delegates, Clinton 12.

In a primary delegates are the only thing that matters! Kind of like electoral college vs. popular vote.

Posted by: Elliott on January 20, 2008 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINK

I'll tell you, I'm a little dubious about Hillary's wins. I've heard of questionble results from electronic voting machines that reflect the same kind of very odd results that have marked the past few elections. One gets the feeling that the powers that be want her to be the nominee. They probably figure that she would be easier to beat than the others. All they'd have to do is keep showing those pictures of her in a snit that are floating round the internet. You know those ones that make her look like a royal bitch. Or the crying photo, or what ever they can enhance with Photoshop. With our superficial voters that would probably be all it would take. I'm not at all implying that she has anything to do with machines questionable results though. And in fact, if she became President I think that she'd probably be a much better one than the complete ass who currently occupies that office.

Posted by: Careful on January 20, 2008 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINK

corpus juris: "Has anybody really looked at Clinton's support. I hear she gets a lot of support from "beer drinking" Democrats while Obama attracts the "wine drinkers." Why? "

Working class and poor people are almost always more conservative in their views than those further up the socio-economic scale. They have more at stake and are more risk averse. Don't revolutionaries usually come from the middle class?

Posted by: AK Liberal on January 20, 2008 at 3:07 AM | PERMALINK

"AP confirms that Obama has won 13 delegates, while Clinton won 12. As far as I can tell, this isn't because of the Culinary Workers Union flap. What happened is that Obama won more of the rural areas and I guess each district got a delegate no matter the turnout or something like that."

So in other words the setup was the complete opposite of Iowa. Could those who railed against Iowa's system of apportioning delegates please take a deep bow? Kevin?

Posted by: Adam on January 20, 2008 at 4:24 AM | PERMALINK

The pieces are all in place for a Clinton coronation in November. Very disappointing. I'm not sure I'd want the job - given that we are looking at a nasty recession, if not a depression, mountains of debt left over from irresponsible Republicans, hideous pollution and water deficit problems and a manufacturing base that was outsourced to Asia while we weren't looking.

I hope Hillary has a magic wand....

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on January 20, 2008 at 6:18 AM | PERMALINK


Will that be enough to fool him into thinking he should soldier on?

I'm of the opinion that Thompson is at this point running pretty much solely to draw off white southern evangelical votes from Huckabee to guarantee that an Establishment Republican can win. This would be why Thompson is taking the lead in tearing down Huckabee in the debates -- he drives up Huckabee's negatives and drives down his support, without the risk of Huckabee's supporters becoming angry at the eventual nominee and sitting out the election.

I'm beginning to wonder if there's not a touch of an analogous strategy in Edwards' continued campaign either, especially if he doesn't hang it up even if he doesn't win or at least place very strongly in South Carolina. Edwards is ideologically closer to Obama than Clinton, but the majority of his supporters are culturally and demographically closer to Clinton's base than Obama's. Even if Edwards bowed out and endorsed Obama, his supporters might still go to Clinton.

Posted by: cminus on January 20, 2008 at 8:01 AM | PERMALINK

Did the snow in the hick districts suppress Huckabee's turnout?

Posted by: bob h on January 20, 2008 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

"But this looks like the usual Democratic self destruction to me. Nominating yet another WEAK general election candidate, one with absolutely zero appeal to Independents or across party lines."

FWIW, I'm Independent. I'll happily vote for Hillary in the general election. Well, as happily as I would vote for anyone in this field, since no one viable is willing to actually advocate same sex marriage.

Posted by: Josie on January 20, 2008 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

"Why aren't women voting for Obama? He's such a lovely fellow."

I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination.

I don't choose presidential candidates based on looks. I don't think many other women do either (at least not primarily), and the oft made accusation that women vote based on such shallow criteria is sexist, IMO. Even if it comes from a woman.

Posted by: Josie on January 20, 2008 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

cminus: "Edwards is ideologically closer to Obama than Clinton, but the majority of his supporters are culturally and demographically closer to Clinton's base than Obama's. Even if Edwards bowed out and endorsed Obama, his supporters might still go to Clinton."

I am an Edwards supporter and life-long Democrat who will happily support Obama, but I will vote for McCain rather than Clinton. If the final line-up is Romney v Clinton, I don't know what I will do. If it comes to that, I would probably vote Clinton, but I will be deeply, deeply angry about it. I am feeling the kind of transformational anger that ends long-term commitments.

Nothing will reconcile me to the abuse of power inherent in Clinton Redux. So I am forced to weigh the potential harm that a Republican president will cause against the prospect of four more trianglulated, divisive years.

Posted by: PTate in MN on January 20, 2008 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

Go over to Redstate.com; they're still rooting for Fred.

Ben Domenech wrote a fantasy withdrawal speech where he has Fred say:

"They want an endorsement? I endorse a brokered convention, so we can get a president who believes in the things I believe in: in big guns, red meat, cigar-chomping, manly suits, and hot trophy wife poontang.

That's the America I believe in. It's the America I grew up in. And it's the America we all deserve.

You can all suck it. Now get the hell off my lawn. "

See? They really want Ted Nugent to be president.

Posted by: Speed on January 20, 2008 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

4 years of McCain is a lot better than 4 years of Romney or Huckabee, but why would a "life-long Democrat" vote for McCain over Clinton? I'll admit that I haven't totally forgiven Bill for his role in DADT and DOMA, but there (clearly) have been worse Presidents.

If nothing else, think of the elderly Supreme Court justices desperately hoping to retire when there is a Democrat in the White House. It'd be inhumane (and optimistic) to ask them to wait 4 to 8 more years.

Posted by: Josie on January 20, 2008 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

*groan*

I'm hoping that this is just a complete fabrication, and that Rove isn't advising the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: grape_crush on January 20, 2008 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

I am an Edwards supporter and life-long Democrat who will happily support Obama, but I will vote for McCain rather than Clinton. PTate in MN

Well, I'm also an Edwards supporter, but I'll vote for Obama OR Clinton with no problem in the general. WHY? This is the most substantive statement about Health Care from John McCain's website:

"Reform the tax code to eliminate the bias toward employer-sponsored health insurance, and provide all individuals with a $2,500 tax credit ($5,000 for families) to increase incentives for insurance coverage. Individuals owning innovative multi-year policies that cost less than the full credit can deposit remainder in expanded health savings accounts."

That's NOT very substantive. At an absolute minimum people should have the opportunity to buy into a federal plan. NONE of the Republicans offer anything like that AFAIK.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 20, 2008 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Honestly, with all the press fluffing of Saint McCain, I really doubt Hillary will be able to pull out a win in the general. McCain crushes her with "independents" which I think is just a euphemism for the low information content voter.

I'll probably have to start hoping that Obama & Edwards can keep Hillary's delegate count low enough for a brokered convention where smarter heads can prevail, although it might be tough for Obama to win that way, as well.

Posted by: spiny on January 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Just to add to my post about McCain's health proposal... McCain.com : "eliminate the bias toward employer-sponsored health insurance". What do you think that means? Businesses want to STOP providing coverage for employees so that YOU will have to go buy it yourself. The government will subsidize your $400+premium every month with about $200. Hmmm. Quite a bit more than the 20% premium you might pay now. Result: Businesses increase their bottom line at your expense AND private health insurance companies are guaranteed business. That's total fucking bullshit.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 20, 2008 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

I predict:

Hillary wins Nevada. Squabbles ensue re delegate count.
Romney Wins Nevada, but nobody cares except the large number of Mormons who 'put him over the top' to beat Ron Paul.

McCain wins SC beating Hiu-kee-bee to take front runner status. Wishing this dog fight to continue, most disagree and pray for a Rudy ambush in Florida. Thompson delivers really odd speech.

Florida Prediction:

Hiu-kee-bee 21%
McCain 21%
Romney 19.5%
Fred 11.3%
Ron Paul 9.2%
Rudi 0.2%

Rudi vows to continue the fight to demonstrate his 'leadership'.

Posted by: bobbyp on January 20, 2008 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK
.... He's such a lovely fellow. Lucy at 10:27 PM
Every time I think the electorate is shallow, someone manages to drain a little more water from the pool.
Did the snow in the hick districts suppress Huckabee's turnout? bob h at 8:02 AM
The combined Thompson/Huckabee vote trounced McCain. If Thompson drops his vanity run, McCain will be in trouble in FL.
I am a....life-long Democrat who ... will vote for McCain rather than Clinton..... PTate in MN at 9:56 AM
Interesting, you will vote for another rightwing Supreme Court justice and continued war because a previous Clinton was too moderate for your liking. Well, I usually vote third party, but if I were forced by a close election, I would vote for dead dog before I would vote for any Republican, especially one who endorses Bush's foreign policy and the Republican corporatist domestic agenda. Posted by: Mike on January 20, 2008 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

I would point out a flaw in the argument that Obama beat Clinton on delegates and therefore is the "real" winner of Nevada. From what I have read these delegates are *not* locked in, that they can change who they support between now and when the State convention selects the delegates for the national convention. Assuming I have this understanding right then it seems to me it is hard to argue that the delegate counts mean more if they are not locked in/committed from this point on than who wins the overall vote percentage. This is especially true when one is trying to argue that a one delegate superiority (which may evaporate or increase depending on the results of the next couple of months in the primary contest) should count more than by winning by a six point margin in the overall vote percentage, regardless of where those votes came from in the State.

As I said the other evening I tend to stay out of suggesting who Americans should vote for because I am not American myself and have no vote/say in the matter. I will though comment on the dynamics and issues involved and how I see the repercussions of a win by a candidate and even on process matters as I have here. So I would appreciate it if anyone wants to take issue with what I said that they do so based on what I said and not by claiming I am for/against any given candidate, I am not. Any of the Dems running are in my books far superior to any of the GOPers, period. This includes btw my understanding that on domestic economic issues a Dem can actually be a bit more of a negative for the interests of my country than a GOPer because there tends to be a stronger economic protectionist strand in the Dems than the GOP. Mind you I do think tht the Dem approach to fixing the domestic economy is also more likely to work than the GOP approach of tax cutting uber alles which in turn would lessen the negative impacts economically to my nation which IMHO more than makes up for/offsets any protectionist issues that may come up in a Dem Presidency. However, when it comes to foreign policy and how that can impact the global society and economy we all live in there is no contest that the Dems are far superior in terms of the interests of my nation, and in many ways it is the international instability that the GWB43 Presidency has created that I most worry about, even more than the clearly serious economic domestic challenges America currently faces (which almost certainly will negatively impact my country so the better the domestic fix by an American politico of that problem the better for us as well thanks to how integrated our economies have become).

I would add one other observation, and this is concerning Obama. While in the Democratic primary he is not going to be hit anywhere near as hard on his message of idealism and hope as he will be by the GOP in the general, anyone that thinks otherwise I would argue is blinding themselves to reality. After all, within the Democratic Party there is real concern for losing one's own supporters if one even appears xenophobic/racist in how they deal with Obama, in no small part because of the tight linkage between that party and the voting record/preference of American black voters. The GOPers have no such problem to worry about, and I think this idea that Obama can stay above the race fray can work for him in the Dem primary, but I really cannot see how it survives the general, so I would argue it is better for the Dems to see how he handles it in the primary even given how clearly divisive it is than to try and stay above it all. Obama has great rhetoric, a great personal story, and is clearly one of the most inspiring political speakers of his generation. However, given the hardball brass knuckles approach to politics that the GOP takes is that going to be enough?

The comparisons to Reagan and Obama in this area have some real validity, but there is one key difference between the two men that I think is being overlooked. Reagan had a very long political activist history within his party, was a prolific writer of his political thinking and by the time he became the GOP nominee had been very well defined by his writings to buttress his rhetoric of hope and idealism. Where is Obama's equivalent? I don't see it so far, what I see is a State politician who has not exactly been terribly inspiring in his votes in the Senate since coming to the federal scene. I see a man that was dubbed the image of the new Democratic party after his awesome speech at the 2004 convention and has been voting ever since with an eye to running as President and avoiding votes that could cause him problems or at least his message problems. Now, he and his supporters could well be right that his message will be enough to carry him to victory because of all the independents coming to him and disaffected GOPers, I do not really know, but that is clearly a high risk high faith/belief position to take, and I would argue it is irresponsible to not point things like that out and that for all his many selling points on the inspiring and hope side he clearly has his own weaknesses same as any other candidate, including Clinton. It bothers/worries me a little that to be critical of Obama for substantive reasons gets a lot of dismissal by many (not all though) of his supporters as being inherently partisans of another candidate or some sort of deep seated "discomfort" with a black candidate winning, because the weaknesses I see in Obama are political weaknesses not uncommon in prior "agents of change" that have been seen in the past, especially during primary seasons.

Obama is still at risk of being negatively defined as an empty suit by the GOPers; whatever else the GOPers will want to try with Clinton they really can't do much more of that. In other words I see little room for Clinton's negatives to rise via GOP framing/messaging but I see a lot of room for Obama's once the GOP machine gets into gear. While yes Clinton may well excite GOPers to come out to defeat her because of how much she is hated by them it is also equally true that many GOPers who are lets face it a bit xenophobic may also be motivated to come out to vote against him because of his race (while this may sound like I am arguing all GOPers are racist I am not, but I do think a valid argument can be made that especially in the South which is the same area Clinton hatred is strongest with GOPers there is a strong undercurrent/element of racism for all that people don't want to acknowledge it), so I don't see the difference between them here to be all that large (slight advantage I think to Obama, but I don't think all that large a one). The one thing I find incredibly worrisome though is any Clinton/Obama/Edwards supporter saying if the choice they dislike the most wins the nomination they won't vote or vote GOP/independent. Given that the next Supreme Court nomination that goes to a conservative, especially if it is replacing another liberal justice will give the clear majority to movement conservatives on that court and what that will do in terms of rolling back many of the judicial victories the progressive movement has had in the past half century I find that a very irresponsible attitude indeed. For no other reason than the USSC the Dems need to rally to their nominee no matter who it is in the end IMHO, otherwise they risk losing all just because they couldn't let go of their factional preferences to face the real enemy, the GOP. I'm sorry, but after what I watched America be turned into the past 7 years now I find that kind of thinking a betrayal of core liberal/progressive values, as no matter what you might think of any of the candidates on the Dem side at least they will nominate judges that deal in reality and not the mythical Constructionalism the Federalist society has represented in the judiciary. That all by itself should be sufficient reason to swallow one's bitterness/distaste/dislike and vote the party choice even if your disagree with it on other gorunds IMHO.

I suspect some here will not think too much of this comment, and that is fine, but I guarantee right now that anyone trying to claim I am supporting one canddidate over another will not get any response from me, as I said before I am not. I do see Clinton as the safest choice for competent government, and I see Obama as the best chance for a generational change, but just because he has that potential does not mean he can bring it to actuality, and that is where I have my concerns with him as I said in this comment just as I do have concerns regarding the intense hatred of Clinton within the GOP driving up GOP turnout higher than it would otherwise be this year and possibly depressing the independent vote also for the Dems. As I said before both candidates have their flaws from what I see but that no matter who wins on either side I see the Dems as the far superior choice this time out both for America and for the rest of the world no matter who the nominees are from each party at the end of this. I will go back to lurking for the most part now, while I am willing to drop in the occasional observation from my detatched perch up here in Nova Scotia I don't feel the same need to be in the trenches as it were this time out unlike 2004.

Posted by: Scotian on January 20, 2008 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

A year from today, our long national nightmare of war, depression, and incompetence will be granted a four-year extension, when either McCain or Clinton comes into office.

Posted by: lampwick on January 20, 2008 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

josie: " why would a "life-long Democrat" vote for McCain over Clinton?"

Why would I vote for McCain over Clinton?

I'll repeat myself (with apologies to those of you who have had to read my screeds on other threads.)

It is on principle, a principle I learned from feminism: For a democracy to survive, people with power--whether wealth, position authority, gender, connections, expertise, insider knowledge, political influence--have to share their power, to respect those with less power. And since we know that systems of power cling to their power, we have put lots of rules in place to prevent abuse of power.

So it is wrong, immoral, for a boss to sexually harass an employee. We have made it illegal for corporate execs to cook the books or make profits through insider trading or price-fixing. Researchers cannot abuse experimental subjects. We regard it as wrong for billionaires to fund swiftboaters. We consider it wrong for an employer to exclude, say, people of color from jobs.We limit the number of terms that the POTUS can serve. We discourage nepotism.

Over the past seven years, Americans have seen abuses of power on a scale we have never witnessed in this country. I would hope that Democrats would have learned this principle by now, but no. Just as the Bush machine groomed and funded GWB for his WH run, the Clinton machine has groomed and funded Hillary. And sensible Democrats--my 84-year old mother among them--are excusing this clear abuse of power. "She's a woman! Think what it will mean!" they rationalize or "The Clinton years were good for America." Or "Think of the Supreme court! Think of Healthcare."

In other words, the first time we are tested, we excuse a violation of the principle because we fancy that this time it works to our advantage.

So why would I vote for John McCain? Because I think, even after his pandering in 2004, that he has integrity. Whereas Hillary Clinton has none. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate for President, then I think the Democrats deserve another four years in the wilderness.

On the other hand, it will depend on the Republican candidate.


Posted by: PTate in MN on January 20, 2008 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Delegates count in the very end, but the win is Clinton's because the popular vote is what's important right now. Voters are waiting for someone to gain enough momentum and the nomination process will rapidly reach the end stage. It's the popular vote that matters here, and right now everyone's reading "Clinton wins Nevada". Obama can only hope it stays close enough that the extra delegates he's picked up actually matter.

Posted by: Quinn on January 20, 2008 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't McCain favor overturning Roe v. Wade? Allowing him to make the next few Supreme Court appointments seems a pretty high price to pay for an abstract principle - especially when all of the candidates are rich and powerful, when you get right down to it. None of them are actually offering to share power with someone like me.

Posted by: Josie on January 20, 2008 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

I don't support Clinton, but I won't vote against her when it comes down to it.

However, I would also feel a certain degree of satisfaction if she lost the election as well.

Posted by: Quinn on January 20, 2008 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Josie: "McCain favor overturning Roe v. Wade? Allowing him to make the next few Supreme Court appointments seems a pretty high price to pay for an abstract principle"

Ah, Roe v Wade. The scaffolding on which the paradigm of modern feminism is built, and, therefore, the scaffolding that upholds modern liberalism: Conservatives might overturn Roe v Wade.

Democrats have been losing elections for decades and have provoked the rise of the religious right because they have been unable to persuade enough Americans that Freedom of Choice is a principle worth defending. In this election, I will have to choose between two principles. It seems illogical to me to excuse a blatant violation of one principle (people should not abuse their powerful positions) because Roe v Wade MIGHT be overturned.

BTW, the principle of power is not abstract to me. And being rich and powerful is one thing, an attempt to regain the WH by grooming and funding the first degree relative of the previous president is another. I assume you can see the difference, if you reflect on it.

Posted by: PTate in MN on January 20, 2008 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Yet more petulant ministrations from the Doyenne of the North Woods!

We get it - you have Hillary issues. So the whole party will just rethink the whole nominating process because some well-heeled self-important housewife doesn't like Hillary! Get over yourself - or at least STFU. You make about as much sense as my four year old when she whines "You have made me upset!" So I'll tell you what I tell her. Take a nap. You'll feel better when you wake up.

Posted by: So vote for McCain, you sanctimonious twit! on January 20, 2008 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

RE: PTate in MN thread

OK, I've got it now.
GWB was (is) a terrible president because GHWB (his dad) is a former president.
Hillary Clinton's husband (Bill) is a former president.
Therefore, Hillary Clinton will be a terrible president.
The logic is inescapable.
This, of course, explains why John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison and FDR were such rotten presidents. And Grover Cleveland -- my god -- Grover Cleveland! He was preceded by HIMSELF! Talk about your scary machine.
Apparently, we dodged a bullet when Robert F. Kennedy failed to do so.

Posted by: tout le meme on January 20, 2008 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

So why would I vote for John McCain? Because I think, even after his pandering in 2004, that he has integrity. Whereas Hillary Clinton has none. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate for President, then I think the Democrats deserve another four years in the wilderness.

Yeah, you might want to ask Charles Keating about McCain's integrity. The man has no integrity whatsoever. And after you're done talking to Keating, you can go talk to McCain's ex-wife and maybe get some perspective there.

Keating repeatedly funded McCain's campaigns in the 1980s and got favors in return. McCain basically abandoned his wife to take up with the younger and richer wife he has now.

The man has abandoned everything he might have once stood for in order to pander to the religious right. First he said Jerry Falwell was "an agent of intolerance," then he went to Liberty University and kissed Falwell's ass in public. Was that courage? Was that honest? Or was it a bald-faced example of pandering to the rabid base of the Republican Party?

That's integrity? On what planet?

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 20, 2008 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

.... He's such a lovely fellow. Lucy at 10:27 PM

Every time I think the electorate is shallow, someone manages to drain a little more water from the pool. Mike at 11:50 AM

Ha! Tone is hard to parse on the internets, but you had to show your ass.

Posted by: Lucy on January 20, 2008 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, I'm being bitchslapped!!!

So vote for McCain, you sanctimonious twit! "So the whole party will just rethink the whole nominating process because some well-heeled self-important housewife doesn't like Hillary!

You imagine I am a self-important housewife and therefore have nothing worthwhile to offer? Heh. That's a bit elitist of you, don't you agree? But thanks for illustrating what gives some of us the heebie-jeebies about Clinton and her supporters.

tout le meme: "This, of course, explains why John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison and FDR were such rotten presidents"

Please review your geneologies, sweetheart. And let me use short words and say this in a way you can follow. I do not think that Hillary will be a bad president BECAUSE her husband was POTUS before her. I don't even think Hillary would be a terrible bad awful President. My objections aren't personal. I just don't want another divisive, triangulating Clinton in the WH. A country with 300 million citizens ought to be able to do better than Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton. I just want meaningful change.

Posted by: PTate in MN on January 21, 2008 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

I'm going to support whoever ends up with the Democratic nomination. I just find your visceral, almost personal, hatred of Hillary psychotic.

And as to your selfish "Democrats will deserve four more years in the wilderness" inanity: You and yours will certainly be just fine. You are plenty comfortable financially. No skin off your ass if nothing is done about healthcare for a few years. And your children aren't going to be suiting up to fight in any of the republican's resource wars. And no need to sweat the difficulties facing education if you are in a position to send your kids to private schools.

And hey - you are well off, and in a border state! Let the Supreme Court overturn Roe and roll back womens rights! It won't affect the Tate's at all! Simple solution, really, should the unthinkable occur - hop on up to Canada, or better yet, fly to Europe for a vacation if anyone is in need of services that aren't available here! But by golly, you said you wouldn't vote for the bitch, and you didn't!

For what it's worth, I've read your comments for ages, and you have always, from the very first syllable, struck me as an effete know-it-all. So proceed, but go forth knowing that at least one of the people reading your screeds thinks you are full of sanctimonious shit, and that someone probably should have told you so a long time before I got around to it; but you occupy a station in life that insulates you from what people really think about you. Hint: Not everyone finds you charming and erudite. Some of us find you quite tiresome.


Posted by: So vote for McCain, you sanctimonious twit! on January 21, 2008 at 2:14 AM | PERMALINK

I am a....life-long Democrat who ... will vote for McCain rather than Clinton.....

PTate, if you really, really can't vote for Hillary, please consider giving your protest vote instead to the Green candidate. At least it wouldn't go in a wholly wrong direction. A sudden surge in Green votes would get noticed in a way votes for Mr. McCain wouldn't... (and here I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in any advocacy in this election!)

P.S. I don't know if you're in MN's 5th district or not but the local Green candidate there (not 100% sure if he's running again in 2008), Jay Pond, is a good guy I can vouch for. I knew him back when he was living in Japan.

Posted by: snicker-snack on January 21, 2008 at 7:15 AM | PERMALINK

snicker-snack: "please consider giving your protest vote instead to the Green candidate"

That's an excellent recommendation and good advice. Thanks.

Posted by: PTate in MN on January 21, 2008 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK
.... he has integrity. Whereas Hillary Clinton has none....PTate in MN at 2:30 PM
Is it integrity to lie to Americans by making blatantly false claims about 'progress' in Iraq. Was it integrity to change positions on the Christian right and tax cuts or merely pandering to extremism? You have strange definitions, but as Humpty Dumpty said , words are malleable. Pragmatism and pandering are now indistinguishable.
.... but you had to show your ass. Lucy at 9:31 PM
Whining about someone calling attention to your priorities only reinforces the demonstrated shallowness. Posted by: Mike on January 21, 2008 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

"So vote for McCain, you sanctimonious twit!":"at least one of the people reading your screeds thinks you are full of sanctimonious shit, and that someone probably should have told you so a long time before I got around to it; but you occupy a station in life that insulates you from what people really think about you. Hint: Not everyone finds you charming and erudite. Some of us find you quite tiresome."

Charming or erudite...or tiresome, sanctimonious, effete shit? I appreciate the feedback, oh, anonymous, self-appointed, personal attack dog.

But just this, and then I have to go back to real life. I can tell you the day I stopped being loyal to the Democrats, when the straw broke this camel's back. It was the day Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), a beneficiary of the 2006 "we-want-change" election, and other Democrats voted to expand FISA. That was the day the Democratic party lost my certain support.

Yes, I'm angry. I am ready for meaningful change. And now the Dems are being sold another establishment celebrity candidate, a blast from the past, a war supporter with all sorts of baggage. The possibility has forced me to ask myself when does loyalty become enabling?

So it irritates you to hear me threaten to defect. You hate it so much that you launch a global personal attack to try to shut me up because obviously, if reason can't persuade me, then insults will. So tell me, if I don't play hardball now, before the nomination is a done deal, when should I raise my objections? The Progressives who show up on these threads are already loyally murmuring the mantra, "She's not my first choice, but I'll support whomever the Democrats nominate." That's just another way of saying, "oh, whatever. Walk all over me." How many times has our loyalty produced meaningful change? How many elections have we won by being loyal? Now I am weighing the possibility that our loyalty has been part of the problem.

Posted by: PTate in MN on January 21, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Whining about someone calling attention to your priorities only reinforces the demonstrated shallowness.

You may be dense and act like a dick, but maybe you're good at other things.

Posted by: Lucy on January 21, 2008 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK
....You may be dense and act like a dick.... Lucy at 2:16 PM
It's clear, your childish taunts are not an intelligent response but probably the best you can do. Your attempts to impress fail. Your substantive contributions to the discourse are non-existent.
....I am ready for meaningful change..... PTate in MN at 1:59 PM
McCain? John McCain? More of the same, McCain? Do you understand why people find that laughable? Posted by: Mike on January 21, 2008 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

My goodness you're on a short fuse if some toss-off infuriated you so.

You have very bad manners, and I'm done with you.

Posted by: Lucy on January 21, 2008 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly