U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

[August1991]

According to the most recent data, it's more like 7 of 10.

But there's a difference between having no respect for people of less-than-average intelligence and having no respect for a president of less-than-average intelligence. I ain't no particularly bright bulb neither, but I ain't running for no fancy job.

And though I don't think this characterizes Obama, I would expect someone in such a position to be in the position to look down on me.

7 of 10 Americans may not approve of Bush's performance now but that doesn't mean that they all think he's stoopid - or as WIP described Bush: an "illiterate boob".

I recall many sophisticated liberals describing Ronald Reagan the same way. He was an old, senile fool, a has-been actor with a degree from a hick college who could only give bromide speeches using cue cards. The Dems keep making the mistake of playing the man, not the ball. They'll make the same mistake against McCain.

The only truly successful Democratic presdidential candidate in the past 40 years was Bill Clinton. In 1992 and 1996, he didn't play the man.

[bush_cheney2004]

Inherent in these elitist stances and characterizations of Americans or their political leadership as "stupid" or "lacking intelligence" is the assumption that policy decisions would be quite different with a higher brainiac quotient. Not only are they playing the man and not the ball, they often don't even know what the ball is. Part of the outward didain (e.g. "Shrub", "Chimp") stems from political impotence caused by the very people they feel superior to, leading to the ultimate elitisms for an "informed electorate" that questions their very right to vote. It must feel terrible to be outsmarted by "dumb" people.

Back in the 80's, I had an engineer who was quite proud of his Mensa membership, and he felt superior to peers who were "mental midgets" in his eyes. One day his wife called the office and reported that her Toyota Tercel was running poorly with thick smoke and was very difficult to shift; he had changed the vehicle's engine oil the prior day. Or so he thought....we knew exactly what he had done wrong, and eventually he realized it too. He never mentioned Mensa again.

[jbg]

Maybe when things were humming along fine, Americans could have a laugh at electing an illiterate boob as President; but in perilous times I would rather have an intelligent leader who can write his own speeches and communicate his thoughts - especially to an international audience! I get the feeling that alot of Americans want to fantasize that they could run the country better than the current leaders. So they elect idiots that they can feel superior to, and just about everyone can feel intellectually superior to G.W. Bush!

I highly doubt illiterates would outscore Kerry at Yale, both of their alma maters. As far as "international audiences" go I could give a rat's @ss what the Sorborne (sp), Concordia College, York University or the Riyadh or Rawalpindi Madrassa thinks of Bush.

But, there is a price to pay for this lack of respect for the power of the presidency (especially the way that power has increased in the last 30 years) Right now, America may be the most hated nation in the world.

When they are so hated that their earthquake and flood aid is rejected, I'll be concerned. Oh yes, Indonesia can always ask India's or Saudi Arabia's help after a tsunami. Ditto Pakistan after an earthquake in frigid December.

And it's not just because of the usual jealousy, or the clumsy foreign policy of bureaucrats who think they are still running an empire that can impose its will anywhere it likes, anyplace in the world! No, part of the problem is the illiterate fool who can't communicate with foreign leaders. That's a minimum requirement this time around and unfortunately John McCain is also an intellectual lightweight who cannot engage in debate about his economic and foreign policies or even explain his thoughts on climate change beyond saying "I'm in favour of the Kyoto Protocol." More of the same from the Republican side and he'll be taken apart in a general election.

And Dion or Layton are intellectual heavyweights who can engage in debate?

I know Republicans are having wet dreams about the faint hope an ugly Democratic primary has given them to maintain their hold on power, but don't forget how quickly messy leadership contests are forgotten as soon as the general election begins; especially when the governing party has the huge negatives of the present administration.

McCain and the Internet won't forget the mud each has flung.

What could be messier than the 68 Democratic Convention? It wasn't just a contentious ugly debate, the convention was rigged for Hubert Humphrey and there was the nightmarish pictures on the T.V. of demonstrators in the park being attacked and beaten by Richard Daley's storm troopers. And yet Humphrey almost beat Nixon in the general election. Same thing in 76, when Gerald Ford had to carry the burden of Nixon's legacy and beating back an aggressive campaign from Ronald Reagan. But since Ford was getting the credit for turning around the economy and making some needed reforms during his two years in office, he almost pulled even with Jimmy Carter on election day.

Your point being? In 1968 Wallace ate into Nixon's numbers. Without Wallace the election would have been a romp for Nixon, though not on the scale of 1972. If Obama's the nominee 1972 is indeed the template that will be followed. Edited April 24, 2008 by jbg

[jbg]

I'm curious to find out how conservative they will remain after losing their jobs and having the bank foreclose on their houses!

Relax. The US has had other recessions. There are always doomday predictions.

If a few people who bought houses beyond their means I don't lose any sleep at night unless they are my clients.

[WIP]

The anti-Bush crowd have always made the mistake of playing the man, not the ball. By laughing at Bush, in effect, they're laughing at many ordinary Americans - precisely the people who the Dems would need to get elected.

WIP, you just sound like a snob which is hardly endearing to anyone. Anyway, it's quite obvious that you don't like Bush. You're entitled to your opinion. I would expect that at least 4 of 10 Americans share your opinion. The Dems will need other people to win in November.

Wow! Put a chimp in charge of minding the store, and everyone who calls him out for his intellectual laziness and lack of interest in policy details, is a snob! I stand by my earlier assessment that many Americans are put off by politicians who appear intelligent. They would rather have the guy they can sit down and have a beer with. The problem is that he has to depend on his advisers to make the right decisions for him: "you're doing a hell of a job, Brownie!"

[WIP]

I'm curious as to the left's theories on how Bush Jr., otherwise known as the village idiot(funny how he got into Harvard) among that group, managed to get re-elected after 4 long years of idiocy. No doubt they are blaming everyone but themselves for being unable to present a viable alternative.

FYI, no president writes his own speeches. Nice thought though.

If the Kennedys could buy the grades needed for some of their under-achieving progeny, I'm sure H.W. was able to make the necessary arrangements for George to get his degrees! If he really earned his MBA, why did he have to depend on the old man to set up his business ventures in oil and his part ownership of the Texas Rangers?

I hope Americans raise the bar a little for whoever their next choice for president is. They should set a rule: never again elect a blackout drinker for president!

[jbg]

Wow! Put a chimp in charge of minding the store, and everyone who calls him out for his intellectual laziness and lack of interest in policy details, is a snob!

And calling the President of the United States a chimp is the height of political argument?

[sharkman]

If the Kennedys could buy the grades needed for some of their under-achieving progeny, I'm sure H.W. was able to make the necessary arrangements for George to get his degrees! If he really earned his MBA, why did he have to depend on the old man to set up his business ventures in oil and his part ownership of the Texas Rangers?

I hope Americans raise the bar a little for whoever their next choice for president is. They should set a rule: never again elect a blackout drinker for president!

I thought not. Liberals just can't comprehend how Bush got re-elected besides using that tired old whopper, "he stole the election". I suppose I should thank you now for not trying that one.

Bush disarms his opponents very effectively and it's something that you'd think they would have figured out by now. Nothing serves a politician better than being under estimated by your enemies.

Edited April 24, 2008 by sharkman

[WIP]

I thought not. Liberals just can't comprehend how Bush got re-elected besides using that tired old whopper, "he stole the election". I suppose I should thank you now for not trying that one.

Who said anything about 'stealing the election?' The U.S. system is rigged in the sense that the Democratic and Republican Parties have collaborated to freeze out third parties and keep re-drawing congressional districts to give some politicians immunity from being voted out of office. If anything, this has probably exacerbated the divisions between people living in large cities and the people out in the suburbs and rural areas.

The conservative propagandists who try to frame all Bush-critics as "liberals" have a fascist sense of loyalty to their leaders; otherwise they would have noticed how George Bush started moving in the opposite direction of his campaign promises once he was in office. Especially on foreign policy; during the campaign, he was advocating a non-interventionist foreign policy and doing his best imitation of Barry Goldwater. Once he was in, plans were underway for the invasion and occupation of Iraq before 9/11. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

Bush disarms his opponents very effectively and it's something that you'd think they would have figured out by now. Nothing serves a politician better than being under estimated by your enemies.

Yes, I know many of his supporters say he's just pretending to be stupid, but many insiders: from Paul O'neill to David Frum to Neocon architect Richard Pearle, show a man with a shocking lack of curiosity about policy details. He just wants his aides and cabinet members to give him the cliff notes versions so he can make quick and easy decisions. And I don't think there is any doubt that his lack of interest in the nuances of complex issues, especially the ones overseas, have led to many of his bad decisions in office. Jacob Weisberg of Slate, is unsure of whether he is dumb or just pretending to be stupid, but the end results are identical anyway! http://slate.msn.com/id/2100064/

Do any conservative Americans ever ask themselves privately if they selected the wrong Bush for nomination in 2000? A strong case could be made that Jeb Bush, the younger brother, should have been tapped to make the run for the Whitehouse if a comparison is made of how they handled the job of getting disaster relief to areas devastated by hurricanes as one basis of comparison.

[August1991]

Yes, I know many of his supporters say he's just pretending to be stupid, but many insiders: from Paul O'neill to David Frum to Neocon architect Richard Pearle, show a man with a shocking lack of curiosity about policy details. He just wants his aides and cabinet members to give him the cliff notes versions so he can make quick and easy decisions.

Understanding all the details of something as complex as the US federal government is beyond anyone person's ability. Successful presidents get the basic lines right and let others worry about details. For proof, just look at how successful that micro-manager Mr. Details Jimmy Carter was.

And BTW, American voters are generally more concerned about a president's domestic agenda than about his foreign policy. (Foreign critics of the US too often only see the US as a world superpower forgetting that the US federal government has domestic responsibilities.)

Do any conservative Americans ever ask themselves privately if they selected the wrong Bush for nomination in 2000? A strong case could be made that Jeb Bush, the younger brother, should have been tapped to make the run for the Whitehouse if a comparison is made of how they handled the job of getting disaster relief to areas devastated by hurricanes as one basis of comparison.

Katrina is hardly a measure of domestic competence.

But you ask a good question. I wonder whether Jeb could have overcome Democrat opposition to pension reform for example. W. did cut taxes and he got the no child left behind reform through. I doubt Jeb would have handled foreign policy any different.

After the September 2001 attacks, almost any president would have had to respond in a similar way.

[jbg]

Who said anything about 'stealing the election?' The U.S. system is rigged in the sense that the Democratic and Republican Parties have collaborated to freeze out third parties and keep re-drawing congressional districts to give some politicians immunity from being voted out of office

And that has what to do with the Presidency? The President is not the majority leader of the House. We do not have a Westminister system.

Yes, I know many of his supporters say he's just pretending to be stupid, but many insiders: from Paul O'neill to David Frum to Neocon architect Richard Pearle, show a man with a shocking lack of curiosity about policy details. He just wants his aides and cabinet members to give him the cliff notes versions so he can make quick and easy decisions. And I don't think there is any doubt that his lack of interest in the nuances of complex issues, especially the ones overseas, have led to many of his bad decisions in office.

Is Jimmy Carter your exemplar?

[WIP]

Understanding all the details of something as complex as the US federal government is beyond anyone person's ability. Successful presidents get the basic lines right and let others worry about details. For proof, just look at how successful that micro-manager Mr. Details Jimmy Carter was.

And BTW, American voters are generally more concerned about a president's domestic agenda than about his foreign policy. (Foreign critics of the US too often only see the US as a world superpower forgetting that the US federal government has domestic responsibilities.)

Yes, some leaders who want to know everything that's going on can get lost in the details! Carter was definitely in over his head. He may have had a good memory for facts and figures, but fair or not, he gave off a vibe of being weak and indecisiveness. No one could accuse Lyndon Johnson of lacking confidence, but his interference in the tactical decision-making during the Vietnam War is widely regarded by many historians as one of the causes of failure. He wouldn't listen to advice from the men on the ground.

But, on the other hand, I think Bill Clinton was successful in large part because he did understand issues beyond a superficial level. His undoing was that he is a man without conscience, with no moral compass. Every decision he made in office was framed by what benefited his needs. Even some of his most ardent supporters were aghast that he would deliberately time a bombing mission in the Sudan to knock the story of his admitted lies about his involvement with Monica Lewinsky off the front page. Previously, Bill was such a convincing liar - looking directly into that camera and wagging his finger, that he could fit the profile of a psychopath/sociopathic personality. And after Hilary's bold faced lies about her dangerous mission in Bosnia, I think this is that this might be that special "bond" between them that their supporters always talk about; personal ambition seems to be the only thing that keeps their dysfunctional marriage intact.

So, you can't make a determination how well someone will fill the leadership role just based on how involved they are in the details. Ronald Reagan used a hands-off approach; but if you read some of his letters and editorials he wrote in the early 70's before his first run for the Whitehouse, it's clear that he did have a good grasp of economic theory and a desire to become president for more than personal reasons. Also,he may have had a style of delegating authority to others, but at least he had the good sense to change personnel who were sub-par. We hear often from friends and foes, how much emphasis George Bush puts on personal loyalty; and he stuck by people like Rumsfeld, who should have been unloaded as soon as word came in that the generals were united in opposition to him. He moved Condoleeza Rice from N.S.A. to Secretary of State, even though she has been a total failure in both jobs.

Katrina is hardly a measure of domestic competence.

But you ask a good question. I wonder whether Jeb could have overcome Democrat opposition to pension reform for example. W. did cut taxes and he got the no child left behind reform through. I doubt Jeb would have handled foreign policy any different.

After the September 2001 attacks, almost any president would have had to respond in a similar way.

If George was a successful president, Jeb might have had a chance; but I doubt he will live long enough to get a shot at the presidency! I don't know a great deal about Jeb Bush, but the way he tried to use the Terry Schaivo case to shore up support among social conservatives, makes me wonder about his character!

[August1991]

Good read. And it also gives a hint of what might happen to Obama:

If ever there were a lesson for Obama, that the fervour of the crowd can vanish as quickly as it erupts, it is what happened next. McGovern chose as his running mate a senator called Thomas Eagleton - a sensible choice until it transpired a few days after the announcement that he had a history of mental illness and had been given electroshock therapy for depression. McGovern at first stood by his putative vice-president, but when his financial backers went into revolt and his money dried up he was forced to sack Eagleton. "It turned almost overnight," he says now. "We had gone for a year and a half without making a single mistake, referred to as the brilliant McGovern operation. After this we were seen as clumsy and naive. It was shattering. You feel like you are out in a sailing boat with a brisk wind blowing you along, then all of a sudden it is becalmed and the sails droop... A great campaign went off the tracks."

To tumble into political oblivion is heart-rending, and McGovern has had to seek solace where he can. One of the main sources of comfort has been the company of fellow presidential losers - even those from the enemy party.

After 1972, McGovern became close to the Republican Barry Goldwater, who had lost to Lyndon Johnson eight years previously. When I hear him talk about their "real bond of friendship" that lasted until Goldwater died in 1998, I skip a beat. McGovern, arguably the most leftwing candidate to run for the White House in 50 years, and Goldwater, who made his name opposing unions, the welfare state and Johnson's civil rights act - friends?

Guardian

[jbg]

Good read. And it also gives a hint of what might happen to Obama:

After 1972, McGovern became close to the Republican Barry Goldwater, who had lost to Lyndon Johnson eight years previously. When I hear him talk about their "real bond of friendship" that lasted until Goldwater died in 1998, I skip a beat. McGovern, arguably the most leftwing candidate to run for the White House in 50 years, and Goldwater, who made his name opposing unions, the welfare state and Johnson's civil rights act - friends?

Guardian

In the US friendships among "odd couples" is rather common. George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton have become rather close. In your country hasn't Kinsella from time to time been friendly with Harper?

[jdobbin]

GOP crossing over to vote Democrat.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24437039/

Until now, Shirley Morgan had always been the kind of voter the Republican Party thought it could count on. She comes from a family of staunch Republicans, has a son in the military and has supported Republican presidential candidates ever since she cast her first ballot, for Richard M. Nixon in 1972.

But this year Mrs. Morgan exemplifies a different breed: the Republican crossing over to vote in the Democratic primary. Not only will she mark her ballot for Senator Barack Obama in the May 6 primary here, but she has also been canvassing for him in the heavily Republican suburbs of Hamilton County, just north of Indianapolis — the first time she has ever actively campaigned for a candidate.

“I used to like John McCain, but he’s aligning himself too closely with what Bush did, and that’s just not what I want for this country,” Mrs. Morgan, who is 56, said when asked to explain her rejection of the presumptive Republican nominee.

Interesting about the crossover. What do you call them Clinton Republicans? Obama Republicans?

Meanwhile, McCain has to continue to clarify what he just clarified.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../02/975609.aspx

“No, I was thinking about- it’s not hard to- we will not,” McCain stumbled. “By eliminating our dependency on foreign oil, we will not have to have our national security threatened by a cut off of that oil. Because we will be dependent, because we won’t be dependent, we will no longer be dependent on foreign oil. That’s what my remarks were.”

Um? What?

Edited May 3, 2008 by jdobbin

[jbg]

Interesting about the crossover. What do you call them Clinton Republicans? Obama Republicans?

As good a title as any. In the US people vote for candidates for any number of reasons, party affiliation not always being the governing factor. I have voted as follows in US Presidential races:

• 1976 - Democrat;
  
• 1980 - Democrat;
  
• 1984 - GOP;
  
• 1988 - GOP;
  
• 1992 - Democrat;
  
• 1996 - Democrat;
  
• 2000 - Democrat;
  
• 2004 - GOP;
  
• 2008 - Likely GOP
  

Counting the upcoming election that's 5 times for the Democrats, 4 times for the Republicans.

[Mad_Michael]

As good a title as any. In the US people vote for candidates for any number of reasons, party affiliation not always being the governing factor. I have voted as follows in US Presidential races:

• 1976 - Democrat;
  
• 1980 - Democrat;
  
• 1984 - GOP;
  
• 1988 - GOP;
  
• 1992 - Democrat;
  
• 1996 - Democrat;
  
• 2000 - Democrat;
  
• 2004 - GOP;
  
• 2008 - Likely GOP
  

Counting the upcoming election that's 5 times for the Democrats, 4 times for the Republicans.

That's a very interesting (and familiar looking) list. The 1980 one surprises me as that was a huge Reagan victory. And I would have reversed your 2000/04 votes, but otherwise I would have followed the same voting pattern in 76,84,88,92 and 96 (if I voted, which I didn't).

On the whole, I would have preferred McCain back in 2000. Now though, it is definitely looking like he'd be just another four years the same Bush Administration policies running on autopilot for another four years and that's ugly - especially on the foreign policy side. I think the US needs a clean sweep from the Bush Admin in order to get some reputation back on the international stage. McCain will not do that. On this basis, I'd be voting Democratic in 2008 no matter what - though with extremely faint enthusiasm for Obama.

Hillary is the one candidate I've liked since day one of this election cycle. I'm an admirer of that combination of polished charm and fiesty fighting spirit that seems so "Presidential" (and similar to many other successful Presidents in the past). And I certainly was an admirer of the Clinton Administration - they did excellent work on a wide variety of policy fronts and did it under the intense fire of a strong Republican opposition (no mean feat that was).

I'm a political centerist and proud of it. Doesn't matter if we are talking about US, Canada or UK elections - I like the middle ground for all of them.

[August1991]

I'm a political centerist and proud of it. Doesn't matter if we are talking about US, Canada or UK elections - I like the middle ground for all of them.

Most North Americans consider themselves to be "political centerists". In addition, the Canadian political centre is to the left of the American political center.

----

With Indiana and NC now in, the delegate numbers are just not there for Hillary unless there's a miracle. (Maybe they'll seat Michigan and Florida.) Nevertheless, she'll soldier on; it works better for her when she's the underdog and not the front runner. Everyone wants to see her brought down a peg and I think she made a serious strategic error at the beginning when she tried to make it seem as if the campaign was over before it began. She doesn't do shock-and-awe well. It's not her style.

As to Obama, the guy keeps losing the states he'll have to win in November (eg. Indiana) and he keeps winning states that he'll never get in November (eg. NC). It's like Toronto and Vancouver choosing the next Tory leader who then has to go out to rural areas to get votes.

I have always thought that Obama was far too left wing and hearing him on the radio this morning, he just reminded me how glib he is. With a wonderful cadence, the guy says nothing. Added to all that, he can only win Democratic voters in red states. In raw political terms, this is a recipe for disaster.

[Mad_Michael]

...It's like Toronto and Vancouver choosing the next Tory leader who then has to go out to rural areas to get votes.

I do believe the current Tory leader was chosen (in part) because of his presumed appeal to 'Southern Ontario' voters. Harper grew up in Toronto's suburban west-end and has credentials with the 'Bay Street' set.

Likewise, Dion was essentially made leader by 'young urban' Liberal party activists from places like Vancouver and Toronto. If I remember the Liberal leadership 'national' polling numbers correctly, Bob Rae was the one candidate that had the strongest appeal across ALL the provinces of the country. He lost to some urban yuppy type that even the Vancouver and Toronto voters don't like.

That is to say, Canadian leadership choosing processes are often no better than the US process and often produce 'unelectable' results - Dion is a classic case of this. Stockwell Day is another.

Edited May 7, 2008 by Mad_Michael

[BubberMiley]

As to Obama, the guy keeps losing the states he'll have to win in November (eg. Indiana) and he keeps winning states that he'll never get in November (eg. NC). It's like Toronto and Vancouver choosing the next Tory leader who then has to go out to rural areas to get votes.

Trying to transfer primary votes to general election votes is an exercise in futility. Obama won 49% of Indiana Democrats, and was never blown out of any state. This demonstrates his broad appeal.

In 2000, Gore won the New Hampshire primary for the Democrats; George W. Bush lost it for the Republicans. By the time of the general election, Bush won New Hampshire over Gore. One can pretend primary results will indicate how people vote in a general election, but they rarely are any indication at all.

[sharkman]

So I wonder what it will take for Hilary to drop it already. Every media outlet I've heard today on the election results of NC and Indiana are all but suggesting it's time. Funny that, I thought they were supposed to be reporting the news, not shaping it.

And how about Fox, eh? They are the only ones who seem to be in Hilary's camp, even having her interviewed on Bill O'reilly. The thing is, it's so close between her and Obama, NEITHER can win enough delegates to declare anything with the primaries. As you all know, it will be up to the Super (de-dooper) delegates to end it all, and they are being courted like no tomorrow.

The Democrat system seems rather undemocratic with Super delegate votes not being made on who actually won the primary, but who's offering them the best deal, or who the delegate thinks might beat McCain, or what colour or sex the candidate should be.

I think the fun is just beginning.

[HisSelf]

The overriding issues in this election will be health care, education, the war, and the economy. These are not issues that necessarily galvanize the left and right sides of the political spectrum. Both sides want affordable, accessible health care, both want their kids to get as good an education as possible, neither want to see soldiers dying needlessly, and everybody wants a healthy economy.

The country will vote for whomever they see can make positive change in these areas, and that's why McCain will lose.

McCain will lose because Americans will soon understand, if they do not already, that the US cannot afford a war AND health care while still having a good economy. If the Republicans were such a shoo-in, you wouldn't see right wing talk show hosts suddenly doing 180 degree pirouettes to stand behind him.

[bush_cheney2004]

McCain will lose because Americans will soon understand, if they do not already, that the US cannot afford a war AND health care while still having a good economy. If the Republicans were such a shoo-in, you wouldn't see right wing talk show hosts suddenly doing 180 degree pirouettes to stand behind him.

If the Democrats were such a "shoo-in", Senator McCain wouldn't poll so evenly with Obama or Clinton. Health care is always overrated come election time....nothing will be done no matter who wins.

I finally found some voter turnout figures for the primaries, and it seems that the Democrats are very excited (or paranoid) about something. But come general election time, the largely absent non-partisans will tip the scales.

http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm

McGovern has endorsed Obama, abandoning Hillary. He wants to make sure that somebody breaks his record for a blowout loss (1972).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

[August1991]

Trying to transfer primary votes to general election votes is an exercise in futility. Obama won 49% of Indiana Democrats, and was never blown out of any state. This demonstrates his broad appeal.

In 2000, Gore won the New Hampshire primary for the Democrats; George W. Bush lost it for the Republicans. By the time of the general election, Bush won New Hampshire over Gore. One can pretend primary results will indicate how people vote in a general election, but they rarely are any indication at all.

Bubbler, you miss my point.

Obama is winning majorities among small pools of (Democratic) voters in essentially Republican states. Take North Carolina where Obama won about 56% of the vote. That's meaningless though because no Democrat will win North Carolina. OTOH, Obama does not win majorities in traditional Democratic states.

Take a look at this map of Democratic primary results. Now compare it with this map of the 2000 Electoral College results. Obama (purple) covers the same geography as Bush.

Now, you might see this as a brilliant Dem/Obama strategy to cross over and sweep the so-called Red states but I'll have none of it. Obama is winning these states because he relies on the small, fanatical core Democratic members in Red states combined with the Black vote. These people will be irrelevant in the Fall campaign.

Despite being a front runner, Obama can't draw the votes in the mainstream, core Blue States. If this were an odd case here or there, then I'd say that it's an aberration. But look at the maps. It's consistent with a few exceptions (eg. Wisconsin). That's why I made the comparison to letting Tory delegates from Quebec choose Belinda Stronach as leader in 2004. (They almost did and it would have been a disaster for the Conservatives.)

In modern politics, a candidate must cross-over in some manner but without losing the base. Well, Obama isn't really crossing-over but he is losing the base. He's like Ned Lamont since it's a small group of unrepresentative Democrats who have chosen him.

If this weren't enough, the guy speaks well and makes a first good impression but there's no there there. He has no track record except for being very left wing and what little people know of him is associated now with a radical black preacher. He flip flops like any politician.

This has all the makings of a political train wreck. True, smart people will now gravitate to Obama and keep him from making serious blunders. He has a natural talent to speak in public. Yet I still see this as a speeding train, a washed out bridge and you just know that when the scene comes, it'll be filmed in slow motion from several angles.

If the Democrats were such a "shoo-in", Senator McCain wouldn't poll so evenly with Obama or Clinton. Health care is always overrated come election time....nothing will be done no matter who wins.

This is remarkable since the names of Obama and Clinton are in the news constantly now. Anyway, the polls now don't mean too much. One has to predict what people will think in October rather than discover what they think now.

So I wonder what it will take for Hilary to drop it already. Every media outlet I've heard today on the election results of NC and Indiana are all but suggesting it's time. Funny that, I thought they were supposed to be reporting the news, not shaping it.

This is her last and only chance of evering being president. She won't quit until it is absolutely obvious that she can't win. As long as there's a chance, she'll stay in. She still has chances with Michigan and Florida and with the superdelegates.

She knows well that politics isn't always an elegant game and once the winner is decided, people often forget what the winner had to do to win.

Edited May 8, 2008 by August1991

[jbg]

I have always thought that Obama was far too left wing and hearing him on the radio this morning, he just reminded me how glib he is. With a wonderful cadence, the guy says nothing. Added to all that, he can only win Democratic voters in red states. In raw political terms, this is a recipe for disaster.

McGovern glib style. As you suggest, he'll do as well as Campbell from Vancouver did.