I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
Nov. 6th, 2007 @ 07:34 am
It's hard to believe that I said this over a year ago
... but I still believe it to be true: The Dem's are going to lose.
Like I said... I'm happy to be wrong... but I keep talking to people about Hilary vs. Obama... and now I'm hearing a strangely different response: "If my fave doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting Giuliani."
I admit it... I'm a Hillary fan... 8 more years of Clinton sounds GREAT to me... but if Obama gets the nomination, fine... I'll vote Obama. I would rather have the less-perfect democrat than the less-less perfect republican.
The important thing here is to realize that right now, it's more important to be united than to be right.
If we spend our one-vote-every-4-years voting for idealism, NONE
of us wins.
Agreed... we can all vote for who we want in the primary... that's great and that's what it's for... but after that, we need to align ourselves solidly behind one candidate, and push with everything we have.
Republicans do this expertly... and it's why we keep losing. If we can't do it, we're screwed.
The Republicans are hardly pushing for one candidate. In fact, the wingnuts are claiming they'll support a third-party candidate if Giuliani or Romney win the primary. They could end up with a Nader situation on their hands.
While I'm a strong Obama supporter, I will gladly line up behind Clinton should she win the primary. I agree that the country could do far worse than another 4-8 years of Clinton. I would worry that the right would go for her blood with the same vitrol as they did with Bill, but she seems even more able to deflect it than her husband was.
Kerry was different... his poll numbers actually went up whenever he didn't talk. We held our noses and voted for him in the primary because we thought he would have crossover appeal. Ironically, Clinton holds more Republican-esque views than Kerry did, but Republicans hate her. With any of the three frontrunners, the Democrats will be bringing in a candidate that WE want to vote for. The Republicans are the ones holding their noses when they vote this time, seeming to have a distaste for all of their candidates.
Evangelical churches aren't going to use the pulpit to support a pro-life cross-dresser from New York or a Mormon from Massachusetts. And that's where the Republicans have a problem.
mostly agreed... but it mostly doesn't matter. The republicans have proven an amazing ability to get their base to go along with their nominated candidate... so even if they get someone that 50% of their people vote for, and we end up with hillary or obama, we end up with our vote split likely even more than theirs, as 30% of our votes go to Giuliani... we end up diluted more than they are, and they win.
I get that we only need 1 more vote than the next guy to win... but A) that's hard to do, and B) we're talking about electoral votes, which can align with the party even better than the populous can.
We're seriously at risk here unless we get people on board with the "together or nothing" concept.
I totally agree. I think that's partly why the media is blowing the whole "Democrats attacking Hillary" thing way out of proportion. They know it splits the Democratic base. Edwards didn't help much, of course. He's got little to lose and he's got his claws out.
I think that despite the rhetoric, most of the Obama and Edwards voters will line up behind Hillary in the general election.
And if anybody talks about voting for Giuliani (or not voting) in the general election, you should tell them about Rudy's advisors. They're even stronger neocons than the ones that got us into our current situation.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/us/politics/25giuliani.html?ex=1350964800&en=2b1aa6ff05a1a9df&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
From Salon.com today:
"A vote for Romney is a vote for Satan," Keller declared in his daily e-mail devotional last May. His reasoning went like this: Romney's election would serve as a giant advertisement for a competing religion, Mormonism, which Keller and others believe has falsely portrayed itself as another form of Christianity in an effort to find converts. "He would influence people to seek out the Mormon faith," Keller predicted of a Romney presidency. "They would get sucked into those lies and they would eventually die and go to hell."Read more...
Though Keller's rhetoric is extreme and his predictions are controversial, his biblical reasoning is mainstream for many of the nation's Christian evangelicals, who make up about 40 percent of the Republican Party. Large denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention have long considered Mormonism to be a cult, not a true path to salvation. National polling paints a stark picture of the problem. According to a recent Pew Center poll, 25 percent of Republicans say they are reluctant to vote for a candidate who is Mormon. Among white evangelicals who attend church weekly, 41 percent are reluctant to vote for a Mormon.
I agree with this post. I have friends who are convinced that Giuliani is going to be our next president, if only because the Hillary/Obama thing has reached ridiculous proportions and won't leave anyone happy... and that doesn't even include the fringe non-voters who will go out to the booths just to vote *against* a white woman or a black man (yes I believe people like this exist)."it's more important to be united than to be right"
- As you already said, the Republicans have mastered this art. It doesn't matter how belligerent and irrational their opinions are.. they are able to get complete 100% compliance for all of their memes and "talking points" accross all outlets.. be it by seat holders or by media pundits. Its a hydra with 2,500 heads, and its very effective. They've lost their steam w/ this tactic in the last year, if only because (some) incumbent Reps discovered its in their career's best interest to distance themselves from anything sourced from the White House.
I think Obama is a great candidate but I think there are still too mant racists in the American community for him to win. There is no way in hell however that I would vote for Giuliani. If either Obama or Hilary wins the primary I will vote for them cause I like them both equally.
|Date:||November 7th, 2007 12:12 am (UTC)|| |
Just In Case...
...I'm preparing my immigration paperwork for Canada, The Republic of Vanatu, and The Principality of Sealand. Or I'll just lease a small island off the coast of Vietnam. Disillusioned friends welcome.
|Date:||December 26th, 2007 08:28 pm (UTC)|| |
I don't think I've seen a presidential candidate I really liked from either party since Ike, and I wasn't born for those elections. I think we're too focused on the Presidential elections. The real differences are in Congress, both House and Senate. Sure, the White House is a bully pulpit, but the work gets done in Congress.
I'm pretty conservativel/libertarian (like legalize drugs, trust the citizens to make their own choices, etc, get the government out of the bedroom, ....) and have been watching the alleged debates. I didn't really see any debating, did you? Niether side has any candidates I really like. Had a fondness for McCain, but he's soured me some on his tack to the right to solicit the Religious Conservatives. Hilary scares the heck out of me, but I can't argue she's not smart and capable. Obama talks a good story, but I am leery of his 'pull out now, no matter what' and Huckabee seems a bit behind the times, but at least less stiff than the rest. I think this goes back to the points others have made about the divisions in each party. Democrats have to sound like they're to the left of Marx and Republicans more severe than Attila the Hun. Problem comes with the general election....
I live in the 9th Congressional District, Originally home of Ronald Dellums and now Babs Lee. Having met Rep Stark and Sen Kennedy in DC years ago, I feel little hope for real progress in the service of our challenges. What can we agree on? Perhaps education as a priority (not just in spending!)? Putting order in our health care house (no, not 'national healthcare', look at the details of Canada, England and Scandinavia, especially for older citizens)? Pragamatism might be the fight theme of a new party?