Looking for the Bounce? Here's it is!

[HAL 9000 96]

Robin... I want names.

and lots of you obama supporters claimed you would not support HRC before the primaries if she was the nominee, so let's not get too excited if someone else wants to exercise the same right, eh?

I don't really feel it's my job to point them out but since you ask:

Steve said he would vote for Guiliani - Gary even had it in his signature for a time

Big Dog said he would probably not vote for HRC

and some others who are not active participants in this kind of back and forth so I don't want to call them out

the bottom line is that people should be able to say they will vote for whoever they believe in, whether it be a third party or Republican without that choice being portrayed as something it's not. Dev has said she doesn't "believe in Obama" so I don't she needs to be "bitter" to find a reason to vote for someone else or out of some sense of party fealty. Just like, if the shoe was on the other foot, Big Dog and Steve should be allowed to vote for whoever they believe in. No one has taken an oath to be faithful to the Democrats on either side.

Thanks Robin.

I think I also read Steve change his mind posterior to that. Reinhart also posted somewhere he would have voted if need be for Hillary, although I do remember him stating he would not do so lightly.

As for Dev its her choice... bitter is more a label for the behavior in front and behind everything else. You just need to be clear about what you believe in and if you are 'undecided' then perhaps that implies that you are considering the very candidate you spend a good while chiding with bitterness (not refering to you, btw).

I think we can assess behavior by reading what is written. Honestly I could care less what people want... its just that I don't believe in calling beef chicken and then saying that it also tastes like it.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

The thing is people are free to say what they want.

But...

You have to be "bitter" or "angry" to some degree or other to side with people you otherwise have little or nothing in common with - certainly if the sole purpose of such "alliances" is to make or cheerlead petty, insulting and personal remarks about a candidate that you don't like.

I mean count the number of people who have derogatory political messages and cartoons in their profiles and signatures - and then look at the posting style in some of these threads. If that's not bitterness at work - what is...?

Yep - both McCain, Obama and Clinton supporters have/had the derogatory cartoons. Steve once had one with a male dwarf dressed up as Clinton. It was kind of funny if you don't like Clinton, but pretty sexist. No one pointed in out. Dev had the kool aid cartoon. Again, kind of funny if you subscribe to that view, but a bit offensive. A number of people attacked it. Do you see why some people here might think there was a double standard?

Actually, although I don't speak for her, Dev is on "their" side for many issues - illegal immigration, for example. There are a lot of Democrats who are on the conservative side of many social issues, it doesn't make them bitter if they find a Republican they can and want to support.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Big Dog said he would probably not vote for HRC

I did not make that statement. Not like that. I did say that I would not support HRC if she was to hi-jack the nomination - i.e. become the nominee based on having the party machine change the rules in the middle of the game or after the game has been played. I was quite concerned about that possibility and would have had difficulties supporting an installed nominee.

I also stated repeatedly that I did not like the idea of having two families run this country for over a quarter century. IMHO, it was important that the Bush / Clinton cycle comes to an end.

However, since it became clear that McCame had undeniably morphed into McSame in the course of the Republican nomination process and moved ever closer to Bush on just about any issue, I stated that I would very likely support HRC even in the most undesirable scenario (where she would have been an installed nominee) - not because I think it would be the best choice but because on the issues she'd be representing my values and priorities much better than McCain would.

[HAL 9000 96]

The thing is people are free to say what they want.

But...

You have to be "bitter" or "angry" to some degree or other to side with people you otherwise have little or nothing in common with - certainly if the sole purpose of such "alliances" is to make or cheerlead petty, insulting and personal remarks about a candidate that you don't like.

I mean count the number of people who have derogatory political messages and cartoons in their profiles and signatures - and then look at the posting style in some of these threads. If that's not bitterness at work - what is...?

Yep - both McCain, Obama and Clinton supporters have/had the derogatory cartoons. Steve once had one with a male dwarf dressed up as Clinton. It was kind of funny if you don't like Clinton, but pretty sexist. No one pointed in out. Dev had the kool aid cartoon. Again, kind of funny if you subscribe to that view, but a bit offensive. A number of people attacked it. Do you see why some people here might think there was a double standard?

Actually, although I don't speak for her, Dev is on "their" side for many issues - illegal immigration, for example. There are a lot of Democrats who are on the conservative side of many social issues, it doesn't make them bitter if they find a Republican they can and want to support.

Its nothing really new there. Politics does make strange bedfellows.

With certain exceptions, that is to be expected. The difference is attacking with substance and reacting in a certain style.

[HAL 9000 96]

I did not make that statement. Not like that. I did say that I would not support HRC if she was to hi-jack the nomination - i.e. become the nominee based on having the party machine change the rules in the middle of the game or after the game has been played. I was quite concerned about that possibility and would have had difficulties supporting an installed nominee.

Yes I do remember you putting it that way.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Its nothing really new there. Politics does make strange bedfellows.

With certain exceptions, that is to be expected. The difference is attacking with substance and reacting in a certain style.

I think every single person here is guilty of "attacking without substance" and even "reacting badly."

I think a lot of people consider themselves independents with a complicated view of politics and politicians. I have voted for Democrats and Republicans. My vote has, until very recently been completely up for grabs. The idea that one "has" to vote for the Democrats because they generally side with them on certain issues is silly.

[HAL 9000 96]

Its nothing really new there. Politics does make strange bedfellows.

With certain exceptions, that is to be expected. The difference is attacking with substance and reacting in a certain style.

I think every single person here is guilty of "attacking without substance" and even "reacting badly."

I think a lot of people consider themselves independents with a complicated view of politics and politicians. I have voted for Democrats and Republicans. My vote has, until very recently been completely up for grabs. The idea that one "has" to vote for the Democrats because they generally side with them on certain issues is silly.

Totally agree with you there.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I did not make that statement. Not like that. I did say that I would not support HRC if she was to hi-jack the nomination - i.e. become the nominee based on having the party machine change the rules in the middle of the game or after the game has been played. I was quite concerned about that possibility and would have had difficulties supporting an installed nominee.

Yes I do remember you putting it that way.

I also remember this:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1344328

It's funny that the person who took the most offense to some of the sexist language in that thread was Lisa, a pretty conservative Republican. Politics make strange bedfellows indeed.

[HAL 9000 96]

Good grief. Reinhart's response?

So, there's hope after all? Nice. I could be somewhat enthusiastic voting for Obama. If Hillary runs, I hope there's a good Republican candidate out there to consider or a decent third party or independent contender. Hillary won't get my vote. Well, if Tancredo or Thompson or somesuch no-good would happen to be the only alternative, I might reconsider that last statement.

That is the post the link points to. As for the sexism... it is what it is.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The thing is people are free to say what they want.

But...

You have to be "bitter" or "angry" to some degree or other to side with people you otherwise have little or nothing in common with - certainly if the sole purpose of such "alliances" is to make or cheerlead petty, insulting and personal remarks about a candidate that you don't like.

I mean count the number of people who have derogatory political messages and cartoons in their profiles and signatures - and then look at the posting style in some of these threads. If that's not bitterness at work - what is...?

Yep - both McCain, Obama and Clinton supporters have/had the derogatory cartoons. Steve once had one with a male dwarf dressed up as Clinton. It was kind of funny if you don't like Clinton, but pretty sexist. No one pointed in out. Dev had the kool aid cartoon. Again, kind of funny if you subscribe to that view, but a bit offensive. A number of people attacked it. Do you see why some people here might think there was a double standard?

Actually, although I don't speak for her, Dev is on "their" side for many issues - illegal immigration, for example. There are a lot of Democrats who are on the conservative side of many social issues, it doesn't make them bitter if they find a Republican they can and want to support.

I guess it depends on whether there is some sort of obligation to post in every single election thread and point out every objectionable single post. If you support a particular candidate you're naturally going to be drawn to threads where baseless aspersions are being thrown around - either in the replies or the OP topic itself (which is why I don't really agree with Gary's "kicking the anthill" - he might be doing it purely for the "benefit" of Rheinhart or Steven - but it alienates a lot of other people as well.

As I said - I don't and haven't participated in the personal mudslinging against McCain - and I've noticed that some of the criticism has started to besmirch his war record - which is rather below the belt IMO, as it was in '04 with Kerry. It stands to reason that these sorts of personal comments aren't really legitimate criticism at the end of the day and should be avoided. But its also obvious to me that certain people are dealing largely, if not exclusively in those terms...

This is obviously also true of criticisms against Bush too as has been rightly pointed out (and of which quite a few of us are guilty) - the personal aspect of it tends to overshadow the substantial complaints against him (of which there are a few).

I agree that the "sides" are that well delineated that a person shouldn't have to subscribe to some stereotypical notion of how a Democrat or Republican should be. I generally take it as a given that people's views are more nuanced than that. That's all well and good of course - but when the political arguments are purely personal - you're not exactly firing "live" ammunition as it were.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Number 6

[GaryC 7]

Back to the OP, just so I don't get accused of spamming by starting a new thread.

Obama could win vote, lose election

Harry Siegel

Wed Jun 18, 9:35 PM ET

Until 2000, it hadn’t happened in more than 100 years, but plugged-in observers from both parties see a distinct possibility of Barack Obama winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College — and with it the presidency — to John McCain.

Here’s the scenario: Obama racks up huge margins among the increasingly affluent, highly educated and liberal coastal states, while a significant increase in turnout among black voters allows him to compete — but not to win — in the South. Meanwhile, McCain wins solidly Republican states such as Texas and Georgia by significantly smaller margins than Bush’s in 2004 and ekes out narrow victories in places such as North Carolina, which Bush won by 12 points but Rasmussen presently shows as a tossup, and Indiana, which Bush won by 21 points but McCain presently leads by just 11.

One possible result: Even as the national mood moves left, the 2004 map largely holds. Obama’s 32 new electoral votes from Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Virginia are offset by 21 new electoral votes for McCain in Michigan and New Hampshire — and despite a 2- or 3-point popular vote victory for Obama, America wakes up on Jan. 20 to a President McCain.

According to Tad Devine, who served as the chief political consultant for Al Gore in 2000 and as a senior adviser to John F. Kerry in 2004, “it certainly is a possibility. Not a likelihood, but it is a real possibility.”

Some observers, such as Joseph Mercurio, a political consultant and pollster who worked on Sen. Joe Biden’s Democratic primary bid, see this as unlikely given the dramatic increase in Democratic Party enrollment and President Bush’s near record-low approval rating. Also skeptical is Nate Silver, a political cult-favorite blogger whose statistical model — which factors in population change since electoral votes were last allocated in the 2000 census — shows McCain as more likely than Obama to lose the Electoral College while winning the popular vote.

But others, pointing to the competitiveness of the past two elections, predict that this will be another such tight race. If they’re proven correct, this would be the fourth in the past five elections, making for the most closely contested run of presidential contests since those spanning the popular vote-Electoral College splits of 1876 and 1888.

Hank Sheinkopf, president of Sheinkopf Communications and an adviser to Bill Clinton in 1996, warns that such a split “is anything but impossible.” While he gives Obama a slight edge in the general election “because he doesn’t have George Bush riding with him,” he predicts that “Obama’s going to get big votes for a Democrat in the Southern states but not enough to win any new electoral votes. So it’s a distinct possibility that he could lose the entire South, split the Midwest” and end up not as president but rather as the second coming of Al Gore. When asked the odds of this playing out, he offers “50-50.”

Devine points out that Bush’s strategy in 2004 “was predicated on massive base turnout” that pushed up margins in safe states. He doesn’t “expect the McCain campaign to be directed the same way — using issues like gay marriage on the ballot to get the base to the polls — so McCain won’t have the same forces at play to drive out the popular vote.”

Recalling the impact of Ralph Nader’s third-party run in 2000, Devine also wonders if Bob Barr’s Libertarian run might play out differently, costing McCain popular — but not electoral — votes, while producing another popular-electoral split.

Lloyd M. Green, who served as research counsel to George Bush in 1988, also rates Obama a slight favorite and predicts that, if the Democrat does win, he’ll do so with “even larger margins in New York and California than in the last several elections [in 2004, Kerry won the two states by a combined margin of a little more than 2.5 million votes], and yet with all that margin run-up in safe states, this will end up a tight general election.”

In a sentiment also expressed by Sheinkopf and Green, Devine sees little chance of this happening if Obama wins the popular vote by more than 4 points. “But if he gets it by 2 or 3 points, it is plausible," he said. "Absolutely.”

Green, who sees “about a 20 percent chance” of Obama winning the popular vote while losing the Electoral College, doesn’t expect anything resembling a blowout: “Given that the only clear and clean majorities [since 1992] were in 1996 and 2004, ... this election will have the ferocity of all recent elections.” It’s a tough trend to buck, he argued, noting that “Americans traditionally change their religious affiliations more often than their party affiliations.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080619/...q4H3MNJbONsnwcF

[GaryC 7]

Now here’s the bounce: A few recent national polls -- which have shown Obama leading McCain by single digits after he essentially wrapped up the Democratic nomination -- have led some in the media to ask: Where’s the bounce? Well, here it is… Obama is now leading in three of the biggest battleground states, according to a new Quinnipiac survey. In Florida, it’s Obama 47%, McCain 43%. In Ohio, it’s Obama 48%, McCain 42%. And in Pennsylvania, it’s Obama 52%, McCain 40%. For the McCain camp, those PA numbers have to be particularly frustrating. And if Obama's getting a bounce like this in Florida now, imagine what happens after a few days of bad off-shore oil drilling press in the state for McCain.

Todays polls are out.

Florida McCain 47% Obama 39%

Ohio McCain 44% Obama 43%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...olls/index.html

Sorry Dog. The bounce didn't last long. Florida wants off shore drilling. It gave McCain a real boost.

Edited June 19, 2008 by GaryC

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's been my view for a while now - that McCain would probably win but not by a very wide margin.

I think Barack could still do it though - assuming he's able to unite the party...

Of course I think it really depends how disillusioned people are with the current administration - as that is going to have some effect on McCains numbers.

[GaryC 7]

That's been my view for a while now - that McCain would probably win but not by a very wide margin.

I think Barack could still do it though - assuming he's able to unite the party...

Of course I think it really depends how disillusioned people are with the current administration - as that is going to have some effect on McCains numbers.

If it were any other republican running he would be getting his azz kicked right now. But McCain has the reputation of going his own way rather than bowing to the party. Big Dog's assursion that McCain is just Bush's poodle just isn't working with the voters. The view that Obama is Carter 2.0 on the other hand is sticking.

Add to that the positions the candidates have on energy and taxes and Obama has a very hard road ahead of him.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's been my view for a while now - that McCain would probably win but not by a very wide margin.

I think Barack could still do it though - assuming he's able to unite the party...

Of course I think it really depends how disillusioned people are with the current administration - as that is going to have some effect on McCains numbers.

If it were any other republican running he would be getting his azz kicked right now. But McCain has the reputation of going his own way rather than bowing to the party. Big Dog's assursion that McCain is just Bush's poodle just isn't working with the voters. The view that Obama is Carter 2.0 on the other hand is sticking.

Add to that the positions the candidates have on energy and taxes and Obama has a very hard road ahead of him.

I'm not sure about that - perceptually at least McCain has allied himself very firmly with Bush. Policy issues aside - it presents a perception of business as usual. He needs to establish his policies to distinguish himself from the status quo - as he's inevitably going to take a hit just for being the candidate for the incumbent party.

I think Obama's problem is in establishing exactly what he stands for - a national policy platform in other words.

But I do agree that the Democrats are doing their best to throw away what should have been a shoe-in.