Forever associated with political disaster. But what does reputation matter when you’re a Democrat?

Akzed on May 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM

No kidding: See Jimmah Carter, truly the worst president of my lifetime.

Or the Fox News exit polls for same?

Clinton took EVERYTHING except Blacks and College Students who were a tidal wave in IN.

Now, nationally that’s not something that can be repeated or cloned. Blacks make up … 12% of the population. Young people 17-26 make up 14% according to US Census.

Demographics is destiny, and we’re seeing that play out. Hillary’s supporters if they stay at home or switch to McCain are FAR MORE DANGEROUS for Dems because they outnumber Blacks and College Kids (Obama’s base) by huge margins. Dems can’t win without Blacks, BUT …

They’ll get clobbered particularly in Blue Dog conservative bastions without Older Voters, Catholics, Whites, Working Class, etc. all of which went for Hillary by huge margins.

Remember, we’ve not had Bill Ayers stomping on the Flag across viral videos, more of Wright, more Obama hug Ahmadinejad in ads yet. This is with really no negative advertising showing up huge gaps between Obama and the core of Dem Voters (”Reagan Dems”) … call this the NYT strategy.

Pass the popcorn, guys. I’m putting my shades on!

The fact that John McCain had to fly his single seat attack aircraft, negotiate the North Vietnam AAW, and stay on task to bomb whatever target LBJ told him to hit does make for interesting time. Let’s compare McCain’s Vietnam experience with McGovern’s WWII or Kerry’s Vietnam fables.

McGovern recently stated that, unlike McCain, “he would say” he brought his bomber group back intact, and that McCain was in the lowest percentile of his Annapolis graduating class. I had previously never found McGovern to be a despicable man.

mymanpotsandpans on May 7, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Most of our great military leaders and most effective officers in combat have been in the bottom half of West Point, so saying that about his graduating rank isn’t really saying much.

This idea that people do certain things to prolong their careers is insane. — The Race Card

When their careers are race card playing politicians, then yes, they do. If they don’t do it intentionally, then they are thicker than a ton of bricks. Do you really believe Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be relevant at all if they could no longer play the race card because there is not longer racism? See, that’s why they must keep racism alive.

I’m quite confused by your choice of username, and I apologize in advance if I’m being thick myself, and you were being sarcastic.

Sucks to lose 49 states, including your own, doesn’t it?

MadisonConservative

It always sucks to lose your own state, even if the election isn’t a 49 state blowout. Just ask Al Gore, who lost his state in 2000. If he had simply won it, he wouldn’t have needed to win Florida.

There are areas like the 11th district in Ohio and northern Florida. McCain is likely to be the next president.

Die-hard Democrats will likely remain Democrats and stick with the party’s nominee. However, Obama has much less claim to centrists and independents on the basis of his record than either Hillary or John McCain

People don’t vote for Obama because of his record.

And watch……No matter how loud the race-baiters (Sharpton, Jackson, et. al.) yell for Hillary to drop out, they secretly want her to stay in…….it’s for (their) job security.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 7, 2008 at 12:21 PM

This idea that people do certain things to prolong their careers is insane. Do trash men litter more? What about cops, do they commit crimes to stay in business?

Yes, we do find the random firehouse firebug, but it’s very rare. Since it’s so natural for people to do anything to prolong their career, I’m curious about what are you willing to do for yours?

Does this extend to politics? Would you lie to protect or pump up your party? Are you lying now or later?

Also, during the headydays of Fred!mania/Mitt!mania, didn’t Republican voters respond in similar ways as the dems are doing now?

Big S on May 7, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Plenty of bloggers/blogposters said so, but I don’t think it ever reached anything like the numbers we are seeing with BO and Hillary.

Seeing as BO and Hillary agree on pretty much everything, it is amazing to see such a knockdown, dragout fight over basically nothing.

They may have bigger problems, anyway. According to both ABC and the Washington Post, the refuseniks among both factions in the party continue to grow, and the demographics look very problematic for Obama in a general election.

The only question is which party will have more refuseniks? There are plenty who populate the right wing blogosphere who still maintain that they won’t vote for McCain. How representative are they? Also, during the headydays of Fred!mania/Mitt!mania, didn’t Republican voters respond in similar ways as the dems are doing now?

“We must solve Iran’s internal problems as quickly as possible. Time is lacking. A movement has started for us to occupy ourselves with our global responsibilities, which are arriving with great speed.”

Don’t worry Dinnerjacket. Barry is about to knock on your door and offer to help you tackle those global responsibilities.