McCain's campaign looks ragged and silly, to the extent that it is visible at all. Obama, by contrast, received scads of fawning coverage during his victory tour. He is almost running unopposed.
Yet the poll numbers indicate that the ancient bumbler is overtaking the Lightbringer. A recent Gallup poll puts McCain ahead, 49%-45% among likely voters. The ARG poll also has McCain ahead, 47% to 45%, essentially reversing their positions of a month ago. Obama still has a lead among registered voters, but the "likely voter" numbers traditionally give a better indication of how a candidate is doing.
That's especially true this year. Quite a few Democrats are registered but disaffected, thanks to the continuing hate campaign directed at Hillary Clinton's supporters. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If giving up their Clinton-hate is the price Obama supporters have to pay to avoid a McCain presidency, most Obots would prefer a McCain presidency. This election was all about destroying the Clintons; it is not about victory in November.
Let's put the poll numbers above into some perspective. At roughly this same time period in 2004, W had an approval rating of 46% and a disapproval rating of 50 percent. Yet he won. Some (including yours truly) would say that cheating played a part in that victory, but even those who grant that possibility must confess that cheating would have been impossible if he had not attained a near-victory.
Today, Bush's approval rating is a dismal 30%. A generic Democrat has a massive advantage (some say 20%) over a generic Republican. Americans are sick of the war, and have been for years. The economy terrifies everyone. Gas prices are monstrous. People have noticed that we are living on borrowed money. People have also noticed that amazing new skyscrapers are rising up in Asian and Arab countries -- not in the United States.
Under these circumstances, Obama should be trouncing his Republican opponent. Why isn't that happening?
It isn't a matter of personality; both candidates are reasonably well-liked by the public. According to most polls, McCain has a favorability rating in the high 50s and unfavorables in the low 30s. Obama's numbers are similar.
So in terms of personal factors, the race is a wash. In terms of the overall political environment, everything strongly favors the Democrats.
Yet Obama struggles to stay run neck and neck. His world-wide jaunt may actually have hurt him.
I would argue that the PUMA movement plays a role here. At a time when the Democrats should scramble for every vote, we read messages like this, from an Obama delegate to a Hispanic voter who wants Hillary to receive fair treatment at the convention:
“How dare you try to disrupt our political system with your disfunctional family. F*ck off and vote republican for all we care. People who vote against their interests are sheep. Be prepared to be sheared.Another delegate, Garry S. Shay (from California, sorry to say) sneered at the "racist bullshit" he hears from Hillary supporters. I doubt that he has received a single truly racist message. Shay follows the new definition of the word "racist": Anyone who doesn't want to vote for Barack Obama must be a bigot.
Loser.”
When will these fools learn? Pretending that all non-Obots are Klansman wannabes will only help McCain in November.
"GOD WILL GUIDE THE HAND OF JUDGMENT THAT WILL STRIKE YOU DOWN!That insane pronouncement came from Arizona SuperDelegate Carolyn Warner, who sounds like one of the religious wackos who routinely write into this blog.
When will these fools learn? Treating Obama in Messianic terms will only alienate the electorate.
"Get over it, loser"This came from Obot delegate Amy Everhart, proving herself to be as unoriginal as she is vituperative.
When will these fools learn? The phrase "get over it" has always -- ALWAYS -- had the opposite of the desired effect, in the political realm and in every other realm.
Meanwhile, over on DU, we see the following language applied to a PUMA blogger:
...these pieces of shit are trying to destroy our nominee
And it's time we fought back, and eliminated them.
It's good to know the people that were kicked out of DU are truly Republican operatives.Yeah. Right. Keep on telling that to yourself, if it makes you feel better.
They pretend to be Democrats and they are obviously not.Dig it: Progressives brag about kicking people out of the Democratic Party. They screamed their hate-filled message for months: Hillary is not a real Democrat. If you support her, get out out OUT! They said "Good riddance to bad trash," and "We can win without them" and "Those fat old poor white women can go pound salt."
And then they act surprised and outraged because the people they kicked out of the party won't support the presumptive Democratic nominee. The PUMA factor has put McCain ahead among likely voters. Yet the progs sneeringly insist that the PUMAs are numerically insignificant.
"We can win without them."
Can you? Can you really?
The Obots refuse to acknowledge that the rift is not small. It is not inconsequential. It is not a GOP plot. It was not created by Karl Rove or Hillary Clinton. It was created by the progressives themselves.
They spent months indulging in the most brutal intra-party rhetoric in the history of this nation. They inundated the blogosphere with hatred, zealotry and paranoid conspiracy theories.
The progressives want a divided party. They want to lose.
If they cared about unity, if they cared about victory, they would show humility. Their message to the PUMAs would be "We're sorry," not "Fuck you, loser."
I recently saw a YouTube video of a lecture given by a police detective, who described the techniques he uses when interviewing suspects. He emphasized one important point: Never insult the suspect -- not if you want him to talk to you. Even if you consider the suspect a thug, a low-life, a criminal, a murderer -- never insult him. Hide your contempt and treat him as an equal. Otherwise, you will never gain cooperation.
That principle applies in all areas of life. In the home. At work. In the political realm. Even if you are angry at someone, do not insult if you need cooperation.
Yet the Obots continue to spew insults. They continue to treat us like toxic refuse.
So why should we talk to them? Why should we have anything to do with the contemptuous, contemptible monsters who have commandeered what was once our party? Why should we do anything but applaud when we see the polls turning in McCain's favor?
Why should we vote for Barack Obama?
15 comments:
There is no reason to vote for Obama except that he's of a brand you (universal you) prefer. In the end, consumers, for that's really what Obama supporters are, are getting manipulated into buying their brand, which, with the new formula, is no different at all than the other leading brand.
It's funny how the ones paying attention are the ones getting called "sheep." And I don't mean funny-ha-ha, either.
I can't believe these superdelegates are treating people this way either, in public no less. It makes no sense, except in light of the fact that they have been corrupted by their proximity to the likes of Delay, Frist, and other corrupt Republican leaders these last few years. So they're all corrupt now. Is it time for the anti-Incumbent Party yet? That's about where I am right now.
You have to be naive or an ostrich to give the post-Nixon Republicans any benefit of a doubt, particularly when it comes to lawbreaking. You must not know any far-right extremists personally or intimately; you must not know any fundamentalist, evangelical Christians personally or intimately. You probably cannot fathom their depth of fear - which makes for anger and hatred in an eyeblink. As a voting bloc, they are statistically insignificant. But when some of them are in the highest positions of government, including the military, they are in positions to give loudspeakers to the likes of Richard Viguerie, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and their fearsome ilk. They all already had their motto from Goldwater about "Extremism" being no "vice" in pursuit of "liberty". They certainly had high-profile visibility and significant support owing to the Pat Buchanan "culture wars" campaigns he ran, including his primary victories.
It is foolish to soft-pedal their willingness to win at all costs. Stop your foolish Nader-hating, and you'll be able to see that Gore's winning the popular vote suggests that his votes had been flipped for Bush in many more places than Florida.
Their willingness to win at all costs culminated and was demonstrated when Bill Clinton was specially prosecuted. Maybe you can't be shocked or scared witless, but a lot of people will never get over what they learned, were forced to know even against their will, that the president was having his penis sucked in the White House by a rather young intern, his sperm undoing his need to lie.
People like Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, Monica Goodling, and before them, Pat Buchanan, Edwin Meese, and always Dick Cheney, are different from you and me, and very likely believe more in the devil and hell than you believe in anything.
Those evil bastards stole Jimmy Carter's debating notes; they traded with the Iranian Revolutionaries so that Carter would lose; they pushed crack into the cities to fund their Contra counter-revolutionary wars; they flipped ballots in the 1988 primary elections (and either did or would have in the 1988 general election); and they found their best schmuckhole in Newt Gingrich.
You know very well they blame 'liberals', a term they use instead of 'Jews', sometimes calling them 'Hollywood liberals', for pornography, for over-the-top TV programming with sexual content that scandalizes them from red to purple; and that they believe they have a Christian mission to save the American society from what they viscerally believe to be utterly evil.
I can't begin to address your main questions without challenging some of your major premises, particularly your notions that the last two generations of Republicans are essentially harmless but energetic politicians. We're in a world of shit, and nothing you (or I) write can do anything about it.
By the way, I just watched "Charlie Wilson's War" and loved it (being a long-time admirer of Mike Nichols); and my take, above, was elaborated in McCarthy's rhapsodic elements of "No Country for Old Men", which were omitted from the movie, especially the religious parts and the fears of loss of faith, as it were.
Padraig
I learned at Democratic Underground that no one hates Democrats more than progressives.
First of all, thanks for the post Joseph. I think you have taken a stab at answering the question you posed me - why is Obama showing well in the betting indices, particularly when he isnt showing well in key polls. Interestingly, his performance in the betting indices has been slipping of late. Ive just been skinned trading oil futures, and every year I lose money betting on my local soccer team, so Im no genius. But McCain peaked at odds of about 3:1 and has been coming back since, slow and steady. Now about 2.5:1 I would guess this will continue to narrow, as I think these "anti-Obama" arguments are starting to become more widely discussed. I dont know if it is PUMA or Obama's own behaviour.
I do sometimes wonder if Anna Belle is right. This is just a battle of brands and methods. The old politics is being tested against a new form. Karl Rove's methods are getting wider play. Or maybe this is the old old politics coming back. Tammany Hall and all that.
As for whether Karl and co have a hand, who can say? They may have helped seed some ideas or provide some resources. Who knows? But it does seem as if there was a coup attempt in the Dem party, and the progressives attempted to take it over. Well they got their candidate in, didnt they?
"The light-bringer" may well have been the only chance the Republicans had in this election given the state of the economy. A political "hail mary". In fact, its striking that Wall Street money moved heavily towards Obama. Maybe they know that Obama is more likely to bail them out than McCain? Maybe this is a time when necessity trumps ideology.
I think one of your key points is that Obama is a slime ball, and his methods must not be endorsed. I think I agree although its not my election. Over here Im gonna vote tory for the first time in my life cos I want corrupt Labour career political activists out. Over the pond I worry that this is probably a time when the most important thing is the deteriorating economy and you dont want a politician to make a mistake on it.
From my perspective things look like they will get very very bad for common people.
Forgive me for blathering.
Harry
"I can't begin to address your main questions without challenging some of your major premises, particularly your notions that the last two generations of Republicans are essentially harmless but energetic politicians."
padraig, you're obviously a kid and a newcomer to this site. Don't you dare think you can lecture me on -- well, anything. I never made any such claim about Republicans. You obviously know nothing about me.
In response to all of these inconclusive polls, I think most people are just fed up with the entire thing. DEMS should be ahead, but everyone recognizes that they are full of it too. People are are tired of the system period.
This election was all about destroying the Clintons; it is not about victory in November.
Good post, Joseph. I agree with much of it, since, like you, I've lived it the past few months.
The quote above, though, is the part I still haven't come to terms with. It is so obvious that the Obot strategy is going to lose the election for dems. And yet it persists. And yet the Clinton hate continues. There is nothing rational about what is going on, unless all is not as it seems.
Every time I've encountered the Clinton hate and asked why, all I've ever heard is right wing memes from the '90's that have been proven wrong. And yet it seems as though a wide swath of progressives now believes them - often the very people who fought them 10 years ago. Does that make any sense? Does it make any sense that these people - supposed progressives - are quite happy to lose in order to continue their hate?
It only makes sense to me if we assume that the people really pulling the strings aren't who we thought they were. This whole thing still stinks of Rovian ratf*cking to me.
Is there any reason to think that those "betting indices" mean anything other than what a bunch of people who like to bet on things (some of them not even located in the US) think is going to happen? I don't see how they can be given comparable weight to actual polls.
OMG. I know Carolyn Warner. She was the head of the AZ education dept when I was a teacher there many moons ago.
She used to be a great lady. Geez, she sounds like a whack-job now.
JC:If they cared about unity, if they cared about victory, they would show humility. Their message to the PUMAs would be "We're sorry," not "Fuck you, loser."
BUT - even if they became, or pretended to become, humble and sorry, it wouldn't change the fact that Obama is not right for POTUS - not competent, not of the right calibre, not trustworthy, not known.....not everything and anything.
So why worry what the O people say, JC?
Personally I am coming to think that Obama should pick Clinton for VP. Doubt that will happen though.
so true - the oborg want to take over the democratic party apparatus. that's the real goal, to be followed by a purge of anything they view as a threat (ie, not them).
i've been absolutely amazed at their weird behaviour patterns: abusiveness then astinishmet that whoever they abused doesn't just fall in line behind them. it might work in the thuggish chicago machine that barack's a part of, but most people won't tolerate it.
at the end of the day, i really think the oborg's prima donna attitude is going to be their downfall. already the obama/pop diva meme is going around and it has tremendous currency because it fits the facts so very well.
when he implodes this fall it may very well be that there is a revolt in the party. and if there isn't, then we need to start a new one on the ashes of the old.
He isn't even very good at the "new" or the "drama". If Obama wanted to ACT like what he proclaims to BE - new unity politics - he would have used Hillary's speech in June as a format to walk dramtically on to the stage and ask her to be VP.
yeah, that DU war about me was pretty psychotic... they have some serious problems with anger management.
You should have seen some of the comments I did not approve to be published... friggin crazy. Threats, curses, accusations, you name it.
The ones I did approve were interesting enough I thought...
And it was over such a throw away post that was honestly half serious.... disappoints me actually. If it were over a better post, I would have been much more proud.
I guess it was a rather provoking post tho...
oh, and here is the link to my post they freaked about...
http://texashillblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/27/maybe-this-is-why-the-terrorists-endorse-obama/
Have fun.
"No professional in their right mind would ever think it was appropriate to respond to concerns from the field in this manner. If the DNC were a company, either public or private, each of these people would be out of job as soon as those e-mails came to light"
So said Annabelle at http://annabellep.wordpress.com/ in referencing your post.
What on earth is going on? I have received the most dreadful replies from Donna Brazile in response to simple, enquiring e-mails. This precinct chairing, envelope stuffing, civil rights marching, hard earned cash donating, life-long democrat gets hate mail from her own party on the same day they ask for $5.00 for Obama so she can go "into a back room" with him - Oh my, I don't think so.
Post a Comment