There are days (few) when I know optimism, and days (many more) when I see no hope. After reading this, I can't avoid pessimism. Take a look at the Quinnipiac poll's head to head match-ups, R-vs-D, in the three big purple states:
Pennsylvania: Giuliani beats Clinton, 47-43; Giuliani beats Obama, 45-41; McCain beats Clinton 45-43.
Ohio: Giuliani beats Clinton, 46-41; Giuliani beats Obama, 45-37; Giuliani beats Gore, 47-39; McCain beats Clinton, 44-42; McCain beats Obama, 42-36; McCain beats Gore, 46-39.
Florida: Giuliani beats Clinton, 49-41; Giuliani beats Obama, 49-38; Giuliani beats Gore, 47-43; McCain ties Clinton and Obama.
Giuliani and McCain can rack up those kinds of numbers in the midst of an unpopular war, an insecure economy, the looming prospect of $4.00 a gallon gasoline, a daily barrage of scandals, and a growing sense of national disgust with the current administration. What the hell does the Republican Party have to do to discredit itself?
I'm not saying that a win in 2008 is impossible. But...good lord. Why the hell are we still in the underdog position? 2008 should be the easiest Democratic win since 1964.
9 comments:
This is sad and pathetic. It is not, however, related to substance. I was just listening yesterday to an interview with the Marxist sociologist(?), Stanley Aronowitz, and he concluded that the Republicans had cornered certain irrational, emotional issues and symbols. On the more mainstream part of the political spectrum, the author of What's the Matter with Ohio concluded basically the same thing.
I know one rabid Republican and have probed her about her love of W, and basically all I can find in her thinking is a kind of irrational hatred of Democrats as wimps, poverty pimps, corrupt traitors -- regardless of the truth. Oddly, in her personal life, choices and policy preferences, she is quite liberal. I sometimes think that the repugs have so branded the "Democrat" party that our only hope is to dissolve and create a new party with a different name -- maybe "American National Party," or some such. The repugs have simply irrevocably branded the Democrats, and for something like half of Americans, the Dems can never pierce that branding. Reality alone cannot brand the repugs (especially not with a bribed, intimidated and lazy media -- see Bill Moyers). And the Democrats refuse to "brand" the repugs as mass murderers, traitors, terrorists, and looters, which in fact they are. When some Democrat stands up and starts throwing insults at the pugs they way repugs have for the last 15 years, then we may have some hope.
As for Giuliani, even the idiots who support him will stop doing so when they get to know him. As a New Yorker, I can tell you that toward the end of his mayoralty, he became an unhinged lunatic. Living in NYC was like living in Jonestown toward the last days of the People's Temple, but the person ranting over the microphone was Rudy "Mousolini" Giuliani, a person the great columnist, Jimmy Breslin, called "a little man in search of a balcony," in the wake of Giuliani's post 9/11 attempt to crown himself "mayor for life."
If the Democrats want to permanently put Giuliani out of politics, however, they don't have to focus on his divorces, his racism, or his attempt to abolish New York City's constitution in the wake of 9/11.
Giuliani will be destroyed by his policy on ferrets.
I know this sounds odd, but Giuliani is an odd person, and one of his obsessions toward the end of his mayoralty was banning the keeping of ferrets as pets within the borders of New York City. His radio broadcast rants on ferrets and ferret owners, which were recorded, revealed him to be completely and totally unhinged -- as unhinged as Hitler in the bunker, Jim Jones in the last days in Guyana, or Pol Pot in the jungle. I realize ferret ownership is a trivial matter, but if anyone can simply post audio of Giuliani's stupefying ferret rants, I suspect his career will be over. The very fact that he was obsessed with something as trivial as ferret ownership adds to the creepy sensation one gets hearing/reading his rants, that Giuliani is actually completely insane, but able at times to "compensate" for the voices (perhaps cartoon ferrets?) he must be hearing in his head.
On second thought, let's let him get the repug nomination and THEN release the ferret tapes!
HamdenRice from DU
Why? Maybe a sympathy vote for the balder of two evils?
(Twenty years ago, kids couldn't point out their own state on a map. Today's kids can't point out the map on the wall.)
-- AitchD
sofla said...
These are not informed opinions by those polled. They are opinions based on cartoon caricactures of the candidates, at most.
For, in the general public, nobody knows much about the Democratic candidates, other than Hillary. You might think they'd know Edwards, but as the Veep candidate last time, he was rather under-utilized and not the key focus of the campaign in any way (which was instead savaging Kerry). The candidate they do know of, Hillary, was the co-target of 8 years of propaganda and vitriol and multi-million dollar smear campaigns. Naturally, they have a biased opinion of her, perhaps similar to the state of NY when she first ran for senator there, and her polling was mediocre to poor to begin with, so much so that Dick Morris claimed these bad numbers meant she wouldn't even run for the office, and certainly could not win if she did. What happened in that case? She won going away.
At the same time, the country barely knows the Republican front-runners. They may THINK they know them, but what they have is a cartoon sketch with minimal detail. America's mayor, indeed. Rudy actually makes Bill Clinton's extra-marital conduct look good by comparison. Clinton never gave his paramour a top salaried job ($85k at the time) in a very important position (head of tourism and hospitality business for the city), or got scathing industry editorials FROM FRIENDS and supporters denouncing that action. Or, apparently proud of himself, flaunted his mistress IN PUBLIC.
McCain's polling with the general public, winning in heads up matches with likely Democratic candidates, shows the disconnect of this poll and those polled with reality. McCain is sinking badly with REPUBLICANS, and has no shot at the nomination with the party regulars who know these things most intimately. Why? Among other things, of course, is his position on Iraq, which is toxic to his chances, IMO.
jesus you make fun of conspiracy theorists but believe the pollsters
whats up with that?
Joe, maybe they count polling votes in those states the same way they count election votes.
Bush's "base" and the Southern conservatives would never ever vote for a woman especially not Hilary, who they consider the devil incarnate from the 90's: how dare she be intelligent, well spoken, have a graduate degree in law and have been a working professional as an attorney, etc. ? they hate her worse than Bush or Cheney.
Regarding Obama, these same folks would never ever vote for a candidate who is half black, no way jose, they wouldn't vote for a colored even if they were swimming in pig's slop while indefinitely detained as a "military combatant" without the right to seek legal counsel. Especially with a foreign middle name "hussein".
I think Nancy Pelosi is more qualified and offers more than either Hilary or Obama but she's not running.
I have supported Kerry back in 2004 but after that devastating loss I have lost faith in our "democratic system". If the HOLT bill passes, this country is done for. Just forget about voting, our votes won't get counted, Bush's Election Assistance Commission, the EAC, will be in charge of federal standards for voting machines, etc. See http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_nancy_to_070427_rebuttal_to_dill_s_s.htm for more info on why the HOLT bill is just enabling the current administration to rig the next election in 2008. Why the RNC's motto for 2008 should be: "why use martial law to run this country when it is so much easier to simply steal the elections since nothing is done about it? Go RNC, etc., stealing does pay off after all!"
In other words, our current Democratic elected officials except for a few brave souls like Kucinich, are wusses who find it easier to go along than to stand up and do much to stop Bush's agenda. It's great that both the Congress and Senate have passed bills requiring a troop reduction starting Oct 1st, but it is meaningless since Bush will just veto both of these bills.
Are you saying that if Kucinich were the front runner or the only candidate, the R-v-D polls would heavily favor the Ds?
Wake up.
joe, you left out the most interesting piece of that poll. namely, that GORE held the strongest line against all the GOP candidates. i personally think he'll end up running.
and by the way, whomever here just said that kerry lost big last time was NOT paying attention. it was razor thin 'officially', and i - personally - think he won the popular vote, and that he won in ohio. so don't be ticked off. recognize that the repugs are so afraid of the power of the people and the democratic party that they have to cheat. and even when they cheat they sometimes don't win. and - and this is the cool part - THEY HAVE NOT REALLY WON A GENERAL ELECTION SINCE 1988!! that's 20 years.
that's not trivial. reason for optimism, i should think, especially in light of fact that the wheels keep coming off the doj and the wh on a daily basis.
take heart.
sofla said...
Joe, we need to remember our polling 101 course and buck up!
First, these GOP 'leads' appear to be within the margin of error, which is to say, they may not be leads at all. (I say appear because I couldn't quite tell, the way Q shows the sample sizes and margins of error apart from the polling result paragraphs.)
Secondly, those polled appear to be 'registered voters,' not 'likely voters.' (That's normally the way all polling on presidential preferences is done until roughly Labor Day of the election year, when the screen is changed to 'likely voters.')
The GOP frontrunners are not GW Bush, nor necessarily joined to him at the hip on the war in the minds of voters as yet. (They will be.)
And finally, which of the polls indicated NO Republican gains at the polls at all last election cycle (as was the case)?
Polling is far from an exact science, and NO poll, from whatever source, is probative, in isolation from other polls verifying the results. Every so often, we get what the pros call 'outliers,' meaning no other poll shows that number or something close, and there is presumptive error of some kind in that unique and uncorroborated result.
Post a Comment