Comments on: Don’t Count Your Chickens, Etc.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 21 May 2008 13:12:36 +0000

k: I’m still waiting on that plausible scenario.
Oh well, guess I should have known better. If “shut the fuck up” is your idea of witty repartee you really don’t have anything to add to an adult conversation, do you?

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 20 May 2008 22:36:05 +0000

k: sorry for not “shutting the fuck up” (now that’s reasoned political discourse). I’m all ears: explain to me the plausible scenario by which Clinton wins the nomination.
Sorry if my acceptance of reality interferes with your hallucinations, but life is funny that way.

By: k

Tue, 20 May 2008 20:55:00 +0000

I have not heard anywhere that Obama is the obvious nominee. And who the fuck cares? And as always, I’m impressed with your ability to turn anything into an anti-Clinton diatribe.
Hey - we had blue skies! Obama must have done it!
Shut the fuck up.

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 20 May 2008 19:10:44 +0000

The ONLY argument I have ever made about Obama is this: he won. Now, before your grand a-haaaa! reply I know, technically he hasn’t won yet. The point is all sentient beings understand he will gain the requisite number of delegates and thus he gets to run.
What you and so many other Clinton supporters fail to understand is people like me are Democrats first. Were the situation exactly reversed right now you and I would have no disagreements. Why? Because I wouldn’t be grasping at straws trying to ensure my candidate got the nod regardless of the consequences. I’d be 100% behind the obvious nominee of the party, just as I am today.

By: sister of ye

sister of ye — Tue, 20 May 2008 17:08:06 +0000

Or, Bob, we can hear again about how those Obama caucus wins will get him a bunch of western states in the GE.

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 20 May 2008 16:49:19 +0000

So it’s hard to take evidence from the primaries and use it to make meaningful guesses about the general election….hmmm….that’s an interesting point.
How about another post on how Sen. Clinton’s win in W VA proves her the more electable?

By: mbw

mbw — Tue, 20 May 2008 16:44:58 +0000

From snuzy mandrake at 6

but not nearly as much enthusiasm, which is my point.

Really? I was field staff on Kerry-Edwards, and so had hands on experience with the enthusiasm of the volunteer contingent - it was phenomenal. Even the Greens in my state were endorsing KE04, asking their supporters to eschew their own ToT candidates.

The higher decibels of a few do not increase the overall volume if a greater number decide not to remain silent, except, of course, when those few are singing solos. But a successful campaign requires greater enthusiasm of a larger number, not merely spectacular enthusiasm of a few.

By: mbw

mbw — Tue, 20 May 2008 16:35:54 +0000

There’s turnout, and then there turnout.

I’ll turnout for down-ticket candidates, and to vote against any despicable referenda which appear on my ballot, where my vote will actually matter, but my inconsequential ToT vote will be a write in. I’m hearing this quite a lot, not only around the blogosphere, but in other ‘net venues, including the parenting and law school boards I frequent.

It’ll be an interesting campaign cycle.

By: snuzy mandrake

snuzy mandrake — Tue, 20 May 2008 16:22:51 +0000

We had similar turnouts at rallies in 2004, is my point.

but not nearly as much enthusiasm, which is my point.

By: PSoTD

PSoTD — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:10:43 +0000

BTW, Perot snagged 8 million of the vote in 1996, so there was only 12 million possible at play for Dole to bore away.

By: PSoTD

PSoTD — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:08:50 +0000

1972, as an election, is a bad comparison. It was clear as the Presidential election got closer that it was a blowout, which diminished turnout. If there’s a chance that we’re going to see lesser turnout this year, I think it’ll be because McCain is getting blown out.

59 million voters did NOT vote for Clinton in 1992. 39 million of those voters voted for Bush Sr. Total vote: about 104 million. 4 years later, with the Dole Boredom Express, Bob Dole again received about 39 million votes, meaning that he really didn’t pick up any of the conservative vote that had given Perot 20 million votes 4 years later. Clinton gained 3 million votes. The total vote was diminished, because it was perceived by Election Day that it was a done deal.

By: memyself

memyself — Tue, 20 May 2008 14:29:20 +0000

75,000 turned out at an election rally in 2004 and past numbers of Democratic voters in contested primaries in so many states were double (or more) the number of Republican voters?

I don’t remember as well as I used to, but I think I would have noticed that.

By: Susie

Susie — Tue, 20 May 2008 14:13:07 +0000

We had similar turnouts at rallies in 2004, is my point.

By: snuzy mandrake

snuzy mandrake — Tue, 20 May 2008 13:59:23 +0000

it isn’t turnout or rallies per se that are fueling the optimism, it’s the fact that people are enthusiastic to get rid of the bush regime. that’s why they are turning up in rallies, that’s why they are turning out for primaries, and that’s why there is reason for hope in november. it’s just a symptom of the overall mood in the country that is very good for democrats right now.