• Yes, I found it incredibly well timed of Nate to write that essay the day after I had posted here that I just didn't get what was going on with Battleground!

    Among the comments in the 538 post it was also noted that they may be off in terms of white/nonwhite as well, as they are weighting to equal the 2004 white/nonwhite turnover.  This may a bit unrealistic, given that the white vote drops by about 1% a year recently, and that there just might be a reason for minority voters to turn out in higher numbers this year.  

  • I'd love to see the innards of that Battleground poll.  It's just hard to figure out how it could be so different, even with the more spread out polling nights and the focus on tighter states.  Jerome seems to think it's the only one that matters, though, so I guess we need to work harder!

  • on a comment on Dean To Stay As DNC Chair over 5 years ago

    Yes, this is true, very very little.  If you were from a red area, you rarely, if ever, got training or even useful technical assistance.  The change was really obvious in 2006 - we even got a paid party organizer in our little red town, and it made a huge difference in building the party.  Still not enough Democrats, but a lot more than there used to be!

  • on a comment on Reflections on the RBC outcome over 5 years ago

    Yes, actually, I do think this will be the end of it.  Most of the electorate doesn't give a flying crap about this stuff, but political insiders do, and Hillary is a smart person - she can't afford to alienate masses of political types, her colleagues, and the future president of the United States by continuing what 99% of rational observers see as a lost cause.

    If you mean that this will spur some serious soul searching and discussion regarding future primary seasons, I certainly hope you're right.  The system is definitely flawed.

  • comment on a post Live Thread IV at the RBC over 5 years ago

    I suspect this classless episode, along with Ickes performance, may put paid to the notion of having Hillary as VP.  I just don't think people would respect Obama selecting her after seeing this display.

  • comment on a post Live Thread IV at the RBC over 5 years ago

    The good news:  In their calls this week Pelosi and Reid won't have any trouble convincing SD's that they need to announce for the good of the party.

    The bad news:  Democrats look like incompetent, petty, classless jerks who can't run a lemonade stand effectively, let alone a whole country.

    Thanks a lot, Howard and Hillary.  Way to work to build a better America.

  • comment on a post Live thread at the RBC over 5 years ago

    I regretfully wish that one of the other front-pagers were liveblogging this event.  Jerome, I'm really looking forward to you taking a week off with no internet access, then coming back with a slightly less biased approach.

  • I'm begging you all, PLEASE stop responding to Glitterannebegay.  She is a troll, and she's obviously a successful one, as people keep falling for her inflammatory crap over and over again, even in the same damned thread.

    Ignore her, for the love of God!  You CANNOT argue with someone who is not sincere, and it just stirs up greater animosity among us all.  She is NOT a typical HRC supporter, she is a TROLL, who has clearly said she will not vote for the nominee in November.  

  • comment on a post Shame over 5 years ago

    Must we tolerate this Catfish person/troll?  It's a good thing you're so damned obvious, or I might be thinking less of Hillary supporters in general.  Since I know you're only a fake Hillary supporter here to cause trouble, that's not a problem.

    I recommend you go back to your cave and practice more subtle trolling maneuvers, so you can be more successful in sowing dissension among Democrats.  Maybe get some tips off the McCain website! I mean really, these comments would not be at all out of place at RedState.

  • comment on a post Heart of a Champion over 5 years ago

    I appreciate that this is a positive diary.  

    I do think, however, that reposting a very good diary from February is setting people off because it reinforces what many folks are thinking - that hard core Hillary supporters are unable to face the reality of the delegate situation for their candidate.  And moreover, why does a rehashed diary from February make the rec list?  That's what makes people crazy.

    Hillary has been a great Senator (apart from her war votes), and I think she'll be a really great leader again.  Back in February was a great time to post a diary like this - people were still deciding, most of the primaries and caucuses were yet to occur, etc.  Makes logical sense.

    At this point, I have to believe that even the most enthusiastic of Hillary supporters know deep in their hearts that she has lost, not because she is a bad candidate or a bad leader, but because she ran an inferior campaign.  

    So why repeat the same arguments ad nauseum?  It's not like we're not familiar with her history at this point, and what does it accomplish?  Will any voters be shifted?  Will a day ever go by when I do not see this diarist on the rec list at least once?

    I am grateful that this is a pro-hillary diary, and not one of the endless electability concern diaries I've grown accustomed to recently.  And posting it certainly doesn't hurt anything.  I look forward to the time when we can have a diary like this that is positive, yet doesn't spur endless pointless sniping.  Oh, and doesn't make the rec list, because there's absolutely nothing that warrants that here.

  • Huh.  Funny how I'm a woman, and I'm not seeing the overwhelming evidence.

    In fact, what I'm seeing is that she came in as a highly favored frontrunner and still managed to botch up her first election effort this season.

    Outside of the swirling echochamber that is MyDD and the offices of Emily's List and a few other places, I think you'll find you can't stereotype the reaction of women voters quite as easily as you imply.  Some women look at Hillary, see her comparing Florida to the 2000 recount/slavery/civil rights/ and freaking ZIMBABWE, and we wonder what happened to the competent, funny, powerful Hillary we thought we knew, back when we were thinking of voting for her.

  • Huh. Funny how I'm a woman, and I'm not seeing the overwhelming evidence. In fact, what I'm seeing is that she came in as a highly favored frontrunner and still managed to botch up her first election effort this season. Outside of the swirling echochamber that is MyDD and the offices of Emily's List and a few other places, I think you'll find you can't stereotype the reaction of women voters quite as easily as you imply. Some women look at Hillary, see her comparing Florida to the 2000 recount/slavery/civil rights/ and freaking ZIMBABWE, and we wonder what happened to the competent, funny, powerful Hillary we thought we knew, back when we were thinking of voting for her.
  • This is a very good point, though I do think we need a combination of clear-eyed pragmatism about the electorate and leadership from the nominee, the party, and the other elected officials.

    It could be noted that the fact that the electorate is (purportedly) afraid of 'liberals' did not happen in a vacuum.  The GOP made a concerted effort, over many years, to instill that feeling into the average American voter.

    Fortunately, they've pissed away their credibility over the last 8 years, so I have very high hopes for a successful Obama campaign.

  • comment on a post Hillary Clinton's General Election Strength over 5 years ago
    This place makes me tired. Lordy, I can't wait until next week. Or are we going to be treated to 6 solid months of Obama is Unelectable And The Democrats Made A Terrible Mistake diaries? Yes, these polls look great for Clinton, but these particular polls are even more hypothetical than usual, because even though not everyone is a high-info poll responder, I would guess that the majority of Americans are aware that Hillary isn't going to be winning the primary. Not to mention that she's been ignored from all sides for the last month, giving her a bit of an advantage. So sure, I'll say I'd vote for Hillary. What do I have to lose? She's not in the race anyway. No need to say 'undecided', which is common during these transition times, if I know it's a fake question anyway.
  • comment on a post Won't vote for our nominee? Get over it! over 5 years ago

    Ah yes, a 'lifelong Democrat' who apparently doesn't have a problem with 4 to 8 more years of a Republican president blocking health care and environmental reforms, installing another right-wing Supreme Justice or two, and keeping taxes nice and low for the rich.

    If you're a single-issue voter, that's fine - vote according to your particular interpretation of how Obama will end the war.  

    But don't give me this 'lifelong Democrat' crap if you care that little about all the other issues important to Democrats.  

Diaries

Advertise Blogads