MyDD :: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

by MKyleM, Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:02:33 PM EST

Obama really seems to think that he can argue his way to the White House. If he calls the McCain camp cynical enough, the voters will be reassured and like him, as if the voters know what the word means.

He's the God-awful, terrible choice I always assumed he would be.

Vain. Smug. So politics as usual. FISA? Flip-flop. New drilling? Flip-flop. I understand the need for compromise, but his flip-flops have the stink of desperation all over them. Its kind of sad.

All I can say, really, is that Hillary Clinton would not have stood around, staring at herself in the mirror and let the McCain camp plot, plan, and execute as they wished.

Is it too late for her, seriously?

Tags: Obama, presidential race (all tags)

Permalink :: 172 Comments :: Post a Comment

Is it too late for her, seriously? (2.00 / 9)

Yes, it is too late for her.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:04:40 PM EST

And apparently, it's too late for the author too (none / 0)

I knew the sock puppets, red staters, and trolls would strike back after voices of reason started appearing on puma sites.

I attended PUMACon '08!!!

by iohs2008 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:55:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And apparently, it's too late for the author t (none / 0)

I'm tempted to write a diary lauding Hillary Clinton and dissing McCain. Compare his stances on the issues to her's. Show just how bad McCain is compared to Hillary. I'd make it extremely complimentary of Hillary. Something along the lines of "If only Hillary had won." I could cross-post it on alegre's corner and flowbee's hate site. I'm curious of how people would react to it and just how long it would stay up.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:21:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 8)

Great diary. You should spin it out and try to land a book deal.

by rfahey22 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:09:35 PM EST

s/he's right about one thing (none / 0)

Obama has this false notion he can use argument and reason to persuade voters.

Emotion is the best voting tool....

McCain is so mockable yet Obama isn't using humor/ridicule in his ads...

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:31:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I envision an ad starring Senator McCain (2.00 / 2)

as Mr. Magoo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Magoo - for folk too young to have watched the cartoons.)

One the phrases I've heard bandied about by conservative talking heads and then by Senator McCain himself over the past 3 or 4 days has to do with Senator Obama and his supporters needing to develop a sense of humor. I think this commercial would be a good step in that direction.

Let's see if they maintain their appreciation of their own brand of "humor."

by Liberal Monk on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:18:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I envision an ad starring Senator McCain (2.00 / 1)

Instead of Mr Magoo, do an ad where he is Hans Moleman, or better yet, Mr Herbert from Family Guy...

Hey Barack, I got somethin in my pocket for ya...

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:19:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Much better suggestions (none / 0)

Much more current and would appeal to the "under 30" crowd. I like it!

by Liberal Monk on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:27:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Give it up aleady (2.00 / 5)

Hillary Clinton had a lot of things going for her. She's smart, shows command of the issues, and is a white woman able to appeal to blue-collar white woman like no other politician. But she had a lot of negatives too. She still has higher negatives than either Obama or McCain in polling. And those negatives are not JUST based on 1990s-era right wing smears.

by elrod on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:10:56 PM EST

Re: Give it up aleady (none / 0)

so true --- there were a lot of smears generated and/or resurrected during the Primary --- by short-sighted DEM supporters that certainly contribute to those 'negative' polling numbers.

by swissffun on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:38:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do Democrats ever (none / 0)

refer to themselves or their fellow Democrats as DEM supporters?

I think you just exposed your private parts.

"But not me personally were those cheers for"

by QTG on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:22:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do Democrats ever (2.00 / 1)

No he referred to them as "short sighted DEM supporters".

by gaf on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:24:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do Democrats ever (none / 0)

BINGO.

by venician on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do Democrats ever (1.75 / 8)

Swissmiss is just your average Clintroll

by venician on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:39:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do Democrats ever (2.00 / 1)

Again with a 0 rating from swillfun. WTF? It seems you have been a ratings abuser for some time:

swissffun troll rated this post. It is not troll rate worthy. How long must we suffer these unnecessary troll ratings (here is another one by swissffun) before the Admins do something? swissffun clearly doesn't know how to properly use his/her mojo abilities.

on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:47:35 PM EST

by venician on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:32:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do Democrats ever (none / 0)

i refer to supporters of Obama in the primary as DEM supporters as well. is that wrong? do you prefer to not be referred to as DEM? the one's that recycled winger memes against HRC during the primary I refer to as short-sighted, and generously also as DEM. short-sighted? why? because using winger smears that were debunked over 8 years of exhaustive winger congress investigations during a DEM primary against one of the DEM leaders is at best, short-sighted.

something still not clear for you?? or did you think that it was oki doki to trot out winger smears against HRC during the primary?

by swissffun on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:53:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do Democrats ever (2.00 / 2)

We all know who uses the terms DEM or DEMs when referring to Democrats or the Democratic Party. Anyone wishing to have any chance at pretending to be a Democrat or a member of the Democratic Party would be well advised to avoid those terms.

You'll be needing to get yet another username or 2 - and next time, please be more careful.

"But not me personally were those cheers for"

by QTG on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:58:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do Democrats ever (1.00 / 6)

do 'we all'???? jeez what a dweeb. i'm taking it that you're calling me some sort of winger sock. idiot, seriously. not everyone that disagrees with you, nor everyone that points out something pro-Clinton is a winger. the party did exist pre-2008 primary, and some of us have been active in the DEM party (Democratic if you don't appreciate my short-hand, excuuuuussseee me) for a good many years. even HRC was around for the DEM party a good many years, and fighting the exact VRWC smears that some in her own party recycled against her in 2008. Oh, never mind, i seem to also remember quite a few people on the blogs calling her DEM credentials into question. guess I have good company.

by swissffun on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:08:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do Democrats ever (2.00 / 2)

That's complete BS and anyone who is parsing the abbreviation of DEM vs. the complete spelling of Democrat is grasping desperately for straws.

I've been a DEM since 1984. If you can't handle abbreviations on a blog, then maybe your not really a progressive blogger.

See how idiotic statements like that are? Give it up. If you can't handle criticism or argue your point, then then only avenue left is to fall back on insinuations and attempts at character assassination. Nice strawman, but we all see through it for what it is. Pathetic

DEM's included.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:31:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, and one more thing.... (1.50 / 2)

Democrats don't sound like that. The posters at Redstate and Free Republic sound like that. So, in addition to losing the Republican slang, you need to lose the whole Republican dialect if you hope to fool anyone on MyDD as to your true leanings.
Democrats also don't feel the need to prop themselves up with resume enhancers like "I've been a DEM" or "I served in the military in Iraq" or "I where a flag pin". Such obvious bullshit is a sure give-away.

I'm just trying to help you. Thinking up new usernames all the time must be a pain in the ass, I'm just giving you some pointers so they won't wear out so fast.

"But not me personally were those cheers for"

by QTG on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:45:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, and one more thing.... (2.00 / 2)

your abuse has been reported

by zerosumgame on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:34:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, and one more thing.... (1.00 / 2)

Truth is 'abuse' to Republicans. Another sure sign you should try to avoid when impersonating a Democrat. Truth has a distinct Liberal bias.

"But not me personally were those cheers for"

by QTG on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Correction (none / 0)

not 'you' - that was a typo. I meant to refer to the impersonators.

"But not me personally were those cheers for"

by QTG on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:27:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is the fallacy in which you are indulging (2.00 / 2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Sco tsman

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 09:46:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is the fallacy in which you are indulging (1.00 / 2)

Whatever. It's a well known fact that Democrats don't refer to their Party as the Democrat Party, They don't call themselves "DEMS", they don't entertain the possibility of voting for John McCain, and they don't trash the Candidate while veiled under the thin disguise of concern about his lack ideological purity.

People who do that aren't Democrats, and aren't fooling anyone when they insist that they are. They may not be Republicans, but I suspect that most are.

I respect their right to choose which Party to belong to or to support while not formally belonging, but I don't respect subterfuge or prevarication, especially when it is so transparent.

"But not me personally were those cheers for"

by QTG on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 10:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is the fallacy in which you are indulging (none / 0)

swissfun troll rating me (or anyone) is ridiculous.

"But not me personally were those cheers for"

by QTG on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:50:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, and one more thing.... (none / 0)

Obviously your wrong, and I think thou might protest just a bit too much. I THINK YOU MIGHT BE A REPUB, trying to stir up crap

Your flailing attacks on what DEM's sound like or verbage they use is pure crap. Just b/c someone doesn't agree with you, *YOU TROT OUT THE BUSH, "with us or against us" line and think you're just gonna lay it down.

Well I'll tell you what, you've got another thing comin'. You can take your "enhancer's" and stick 'em you know where. You've only been here approx. a month, and you don't have any clue as to who I am, what I've done, or what my leaning's are. So, why don't you quit it with the username crap, and try defending your arguments, instead of trying to argue and defame others here on the board. This ain't your echo chamber DK. So get that through your abuse ratings skull.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:58:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, the Sun Queen shall not be rising (2.00 / 7)

from the ashes.

by JJE on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:11:17 PM EST

But she still shines, (2.00 / 8)

like shimmering polished Gold!!!!!!!

Or something.

Hillary 4 life.

by Hill4Life on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:20:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Newsflash...... (2.00 / 7)

Hillary has flip flopped. She now supports Obama as the democratic nominee.

She will be voting Democratic this year and will work her heart out to get Obama elected.

Join the crowd, or go back to NoQuarter where you belong.

overthrow the government~participate

by missliberties on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:11:41 PM EST

Re: Newsflash...... (none / 0)

Nice try, but no. She has not flip-flopped, and your assertions only continue to do you a disservice.

She is supporting Obama in the nomination process. However, while working hard for him, is not compromising her values on FISA, drilling, Healthcare and a host of other issues. She can also question his decisions, w/out being disloyal.

She and a host of others will be voting DEM this year, like they always have. However I doubt she falls into the 'your with us or against us' group either.

Maybe you should quit that crowd, and join the rest of us who support DEM candidates, but want them to adhere to what they ran/run on and keep the promises and pledges they make.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:37:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Have a great life (2.00 / 2)

in purist paradise.

Right now I just want a Democratic President. And I am happy that it will be Obama.

I am absolutely positive that Hillary would have moderated her positions to get elected if she had won the nomination.

Just like she flipped 180 on illegal immigrants getting drivers licenses.

overthrow the government~participate

by missliberties on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:42:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are moderators anything on MyDD? (2.00 / 6)

I come here to discuss politics, not to fight with trolls. This kind of thing is meant to destroy logical discussion.

Without some form of moderation, this site will continue to bleed (real) participants. I hope that doesn't continue to happen.

Hillary 4 life.

by Hill4Life on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:15:59 PM EST

Re: Are moderators anything on MyDD? (2.00 / 3)

Title should read... 'Are moderators doing anything on MyDD?'

I guess a better question would be... 'Are mods allowed to do anything on MyDD?'

Hillary 4 life.

by Hill4Life on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:17:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 8)

I just can't stop myself from typing this...

Is this snark?

Serious question.

Okay, I won't need to that again for several weeks.

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:21:03 PM EST

Is this Snark? (1.90 / 10)

Seriously,

Is this Snark?

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:23:15 PM EST

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 3)

What's that smell?

"But not me personally were those cheers for"

by QTG on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:24:27 PM EST

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 3)

Troll poop.

Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:31:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (none / 0)

The stench of values broken and compromised.

Or the new refineries off our coast lines.

Take your pick.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry (2.00 / 1)

by linfarted on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:51:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry (none / 0)

Good one. ;)

Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:36:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 2)

Concern trolling. Please delete.

by ArtVanDelay1774 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:31:28 PM EST

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 2)

as if the voters know what the word means.

Just as you did, anyone who finds 'cynical' to be too large of a word can Google it.

by Kysen on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:42:52 PM EST

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 4)

And don't you just love the vain and smug line? I mean why not just come out and call Obama an uppity negro? Those are the repugs code words.

by venician on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:47:36 PM EST

seriously: the race card doesn't work (2.00 / 1)

and is not working for Obama. Not everything that doesn't make him a god is calling him an "uppity negro." The race card is backfiring on Obama badly with his little "dollar bill" remark.

by Lakrosse on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:26:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: seriously: the race card doesn't work (none / 0)

You do know that McCain made an ad with Obama's face on the $100 dollar bill, right? Just because reporters didn't bother to check their facts doesn't make McCain's smear true.

by rfahey22 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:38:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: seriously: the race card doesn't work (2.00 / 1)

Sorry, but that wasn't "the race card." When people circulate pictures of you in tribal garb, emails that you're a secret Muslim terrorist, and all the other things that have happened, it's not "playing the race card" to point out that basic theme.

No way. No how. No McCain.

by freedom78 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: seriously: the race card doesn't work (none / 0)

Wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that Hillary's campaign or any Hillary supporter was behind the 'Muslim garb' incident. In all likelihood it was David Axelfraud and Donna Brazile using the tricks they learned from her good friend Karl Rove (google it). That picture showed up on the Obama mouthpiece Huffington Post on a day when Hillary Clinton was giving a big foreign policy speech and not one MSM outlet covered her speech. Now, why would her campaign do something like that? Answer: They didn't.

by miker2008 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:06:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 1)

Oh please. Fact is, Obama and his associates are the only people casting this campaign in racial terms, and they've been doing it since Obama's June 2007 "D-Punjab" memo about Hillary Clinton, right through all the dirty racebaiting executed against the Clintons and Geraldine Ferraro during the primary.

McCain's watched that and learned how to deal with a bully. Good for them. They're moving on to deal with the issues, and so should you.

by miker2008 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:03:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 2)

You sicken me.

by Spanky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:59:11 PM EST

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (1.66 / 6)

As do Clintrolls who use repug talking points sicken me.

by venician on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:17:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (none / 0)

Swissfun you're violating TR privileges. Giving me an O rating is not called for.

by venician on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:04:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (none / 0)

How bad would it be if they actually used a Republican attack ad, almost verbatim?

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:41:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 3)

I am hoping that something happens so Hillary can become the nominee.

but realistically, I don't see it.

I think, however, he is being arrogant and short sited not to bring her in as his VP.

If you think about it, Hillary as VP would help him alot with women over 40, seniors, working class dems, all the ones he needs to win and that are currently hovering around Mccain. Plus he will get all those Hillary supporters - millions of them.

Hillary is a very good debater, she will be able to make the case for him and for their candidacy better than anyone else in the party.

I think he would be making a huge mistake to bring anyone other than Hillary in as VP.

Biden, Bayh, Sebillus, Richardson - they simply cannot bring in the votes the way Hillary will be able to with all of her supporters.

Hillary is excellent at playing "bad cop" - we have all watched the "fighter" fight the fight and if he puts her in the ring with Romney or whoever, she will WIN these rounds.

by nikkid on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:16:23 PM EST

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 3)

She is also Manna for the Repugs. They couldn't wait to vote, not For McCain, but Against Hillary.

by venician on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:19:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 2)

Yes but his problem is not with republicans - it's with the base of his party. He has a problem with women over 40, white working class, seniors. He only has 75-78% of the dem voters - this is not a good sign.

You've got to get the dems WANTING to vote for him and her supporters aren't fully behind him.....

And

It's about the economy. Hillary wins on this one too. Far more people trusted her on the economy in all polls than Obama or McCain.

by nikkid on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:23:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (none / 0)

And what exactly do you hope happens to Obama so Hillary can step in?

by venician on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:11:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (none / 0)

Well you know, Bobby Kennedy was still running in June.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:31:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She motivates the Evangelical faction (2.00 / 1)

of the Republican Party to get off their couches and go vote against her. Right now, they're not all that enthusiastic about the upcoming General Election.

No need to whack that hornets' nest and get them all fired up.

by Liberal Monk on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:37:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (none / 0)

It's worse than that. Obama is only carrying roughly 54% of the registered DEM's at this moment. I assume (who know what happens when you assume), that the % will go up as Nov., nears. But right now with the National polls on avg. being 48-44, we really need that % to be much, much higher. If he were in the 70+% range I think the National polls would be in the 50-42 range, but he's not even carrying 80% of the Party. And the compromises and flip-flops are only making the decisions more complicated and making the race closer than it really should be.

We should be blowing McCain out of the water. Right now, that's not happening.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:45:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (none / 0)

forgot the link.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/04/c linton.poll/

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:47:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Check again (none / 0)

The article you linked to was a month old. Do you have more recent numbers for registered Democrat support of Obama, "at this moment"?

by jere7my on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:28:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check again (none / 0)

Not at the moment, they should be out by Tue/Wed of the coming week.

However, this turd of a gem popped out yesterday.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

Tied up. 2600 registered voters. 44% apiece. Simply disgusting. There is no reason it should be tied up.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:25:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just to clarify: (none / 0)

When you said, "Obama is only carrying roughly 54% of the registered DEM's at this moment," you actually meant a month ago, and you have no data since early July?

Moreover, the poll you linked to measured the preference of registered Democrats between Clinton and Obama. So, what you intended to say was, "Obama was only carrying 54% of registered Democrats in a matchup against Clinton a month ago." Obviously, that is no longer relevant. Today, given a choice between Obama and McCain, registered Democrats choose Obama to the tune of 80%+, according to CNN.

I'm not sure why pollsters would continue to ask about an Obama-Clinton matchup, and, if they did, why we would care.

by jere7my on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just to clarify: (none / 0)

No, what I meant was at this moment he is only carrying 54% of the registered DEM's, with all available information taken into consideration. You can not, despite your willingness to creat information of that sort arbitrarily. Otherwise we would be Republicans. The information currently available is what we have to work with. I don't see how that is no longer relevant. The data is, what the data is. When the new poll comes out, the there will be new data.

What you're trying to spin and failing at is funny. Clinton dropped out in June. This poll was taken more than a month after that. And I can find no where any information to back-up or attribute to your claim from CNN or any other organization of your 80+% of registered DEM's, regardless of the sample size.

Easily the article and the poll is indicating that Obama's support is variable and is not increasing as quickly as it should be. I believe it's largely due to his compromising on the issues, the failure to take McCain on directly, and the laizefaire attitude that he has taken since Clinton suspended her campaign.

What is the poll telling us? It tells us that he has dissapointed his base. He has slipped a little in support. But that he can still right the ship if he takes heed.

What's worse in what you do correctly point out, and which I believe helps to bolser my argument. Is that in a direct head-to-head matchup, Obama is only taking 80% of registered DEM's. 80%. Yet, in a choice between Clinton who has suspended and Obama, he's only carrying 54%, down from 60% last month (June) when she was still in the running.

Pollsters are still asking, because they see his falling numbers. They hear the rumblings, and are curious as to how his "compromising" affects his electibility and/or preference of registered DEM voters, hence the continued questions.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 09:34:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just to clarify: (none / 0)

What? No. You're contradicting yourself here, and typing sentences that don't actually make sense. First you dispute my 80%+ figure, then you cite it? What are you trying to say?

"At the moment" does not mean "a month ago". We do not have any data on how Obama is faring against Clinton in voter preferences since early July -- for reasons that seem pretty obvious to me, to wit she is no longer running against him.

I mean, I guess I could tell you how Dewey is polling against Truman at this moment. After all, we have polling data from 1948, and it hasn't been superseded by any new data, so at this moment it's pretty close between the two of them. That's how polling data works, right? It keeps on being true until a new poll is taken?

The number you cited is a month out of date, and measures something that no longer matters: whether registered Democrats prefer Obama or Clinton. It says nothing at all about whether they prefer Obama or McCain, and says nothing at all about what's happening at this moment. And yet you keep talking as though that month-old number somehow reflects the events of the past week. I am puzzled.

by jere7my on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 10:45:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just to clarify: (none / 0)

First of all I didn't dispute your 80% figure. I said I can't find any reference or quantitative poll or survey to back up or even reference your claim.

In other words I call Bull Shit.

At the moment, does encompass "a month ago", since that is the only data set that is readily available to compare with. Your assertion that it does not matter will only become valid when the next availabe set of data becomes available. Then the poll/data that I have laid out will be not the latest polling data. That is why your Truman reference is not only in-valid, but shows you don't understand how polling information and the dissemination of that information works. There is further information of how Dewey v. Truman faired...yet you still fail to understand that.

The number I cited was published a month ago, and continues to measure something that does matter. The DEM convention has not taken place yet, Obama has continued to fall in numbers for reasons I already cited. It does matter whether registered DEM's prefer for those reasons, once the base line paramaters change the questions change. Obama/Clinton questions will continue to be brought up until the nomination is secured, that's plain to see. That indeed does reflect what has happened in the past week and two weeks. It does reflect upon how many registered DEM's at this moment feel about Obama.

The poll didn't reference a direct Obama v. McCain at all, hence no mention of how he's doing against McCain. If you want iformation on that, you would need to reference a different poll. But just to keep you updated, it's all tied up Nationally 44% apiece.

I continue to point this out, and yet you keep talking as if that number DOESN'T reflect the events of the past week.

I know now why you're puzzled.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:49:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You keep contradicting yourself (none / 0)

"First of all I didn't dispute your 80% figure. ...
In other words I call Bull Shit."

Do you know what words mean?

by jere7my on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 12:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The data is easy to find, btw... (none / 0)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109042/Candid ate-Support-Political-Party.aspx

Obama carries 80% support among registered Democrats (as of last week). That 80% has remained remarkably consistent (+/-2%) since Clinton dropped out of the race in early June, and if anything it's increased slightly. (CNN had him at 83% last week, but that's their "poll of polls".)

I'm afraid I don't see the eroding support you're basing your thesis on. To remind you, you said "Obama is only carrying roughly 54% of the registered DEM's at this moment. [...] If he were in the 70+% range I think the National polls would be in the 50-42 range, but he's not even carrying 80% of the Party."

by jere7my on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:43:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just to clarify: (none / 0)

Also, you write, "Clinton dropped out in June. This poll was taken more than a month after that."

Clinton formally dropped out on June 7th. Your article was published on July 4th (it says so right there in the URL), and the data was collected in the days before that. You will note that June 7th to July 4th is less than a month -- 27 days, in fact. Not "more than a month". OK?

Kindly take a little more time for fact-checking before you post. And stop citing month-old polls; you aren't helping whatever case you're trying to make.

by jere7my on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 10:59:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just to clarify: (none / 0)

LOL! You are getting desperate in your mania.

Clinton dropped out on June 7th. The poll was taken on the Tue/Wed of that week and published on July 4th/5th. Yes, 27 days later...roughly 1 month after she suspended her campaign. Please tell me...how many days are in a month?

Please, your mania is making a fool out of you. If you don't like the facts that are coming out, quit making maniac assertions like this is grade school. Man up and face the facts. Your continued asssertion that this is a non-vaild poll is only making your mania transparent, and is not helping Obama or your case.

If you want to get worked up, wait till the next poll comes out, which should be next week...yes taken, then compiled and then published all within a couple of days from Friday. Then you can say all you want about old-polls.

And if you need help understanding other things, like the electoral college, required delegates, DEM convention process,etc. just ask. I'm sure it will take quite a few back and forths for you to get it, but I'll try to explain as simply as I can.

'Kay.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:02:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Okay... (none / 0)

You said "more than a month". It was actually 27 days. You were wrong, yes?

Admit that, instead of trying to turn your own math error into an attack on me, and we might get somewhere.

by jere7my on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 12:41:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0)

...technically 24 or 25 days, since the data was collected on July 2nd and 3rd.

24 days is not "more than a month". 25 days is not "more than a month".

I explained all this to you more than a year ago, yesterday.

by jere7my on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 12:48:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well... (none / 0)

See above post to be pnwed.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:40:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well... (none / 0)

Typing to fast...please excuse the mis-spelling.

Pwned!

I assume you'll want an in depth analysis of this also. I'll tell you what, give 1500 words on why and then we'll discuss your being pwned within 3 days.

Until then, 54% is still less than 60%...and 27 days is still approx. 1 month.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:43:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay... (none / 0)

I'm so glad your arguing the points of the poll and your supposed point of argument.

Instead your going playground, since you can't and trying to put up a strawman argument. The actual math results were approx. 27 days. I said that. However, how long is approx. 1 month in mathmatical terms?

Bueller? Bueller? Yes, Einstein, 1 month is approx. 30 days...how many days from 27? Class? How many days difference is 27 from 30? That's right class! THREE!

So your semantically arguing over 3 days give or take a day for polling information to be compiled and dissemenated.

Admit that, instead of arguing over your supposed math error, like I did previously and then maybe, just maybe you'll begin to see the light.

If you want to argue over 3 days the significance of those 3 days to a poll in which it is still the only relevant data, since it's the only current polling information that we have, then I am more than willing to argue over the statistical significance of the 3 days in which your are kindergartenly trying to pin down.

This is a prime example of why we are floundering, because people like this are arguing over something like 3 days instead of what the significance of polling indicated and the reasons behind the problems of those polls that took place in a time period more than 3 days longer than mathmatically mentioned.

this is why we get our hats handed to us like in '04, because instead of fighting and helping to steer the candidates, and keep the messaging clear. Some of us want to argue about 3 days.

Instead I'm sure you'll want to keep your head in the sand and walk around squawking, 3 days, err, 3 days. Get back to me, when you want to discuss the poll and it's significance or when the new poll which should come out early this coming week for the new data points.

Until then....err...jere7my want another 3 days?

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:38:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kindly admit you misspoke (none / 0)

You were attempting to shore up a weak argument by exaggerating, and I called you on it. You said it was "more than a month." It was not. Seems pretty simple to me.

We both agree that you were wrong to say "more than a month", right? None of your many words, even the bold-faced ones, change that.

by jere7my on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:00:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kindly admit you misspoke (none / 0)

No, what you got called on was 3 days. Everything must seem pretty simple to you. You don't argue the point of the poll or the validity of the argument. You're whining about 3 days.

You can try and harp, and whine about your 3 days, but it still doesn't change the facts that you couldn't refute the evidence or even provide a counter argument to the discussion.

You degeneratd into a playground taunt and are attempting to hang your hat on that peg. Your all hat and no cattle.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:57:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep, got hats (none / 0)

I notice you've spent quite a few more words on defending your error than I have in pointing it out, so I wonder which of us is harping. But, really, I'm only "harping" because I'm idly curious as to whether you're willing to admit to a simple mistake, or whether you'd rather try to obfuscate your exaggeration with a lot of insults and irrelevancy. So far, it's the latter.

I notice that you've so far ignored the recent Gallup poll I linked to above, showing that Obama does indeed have the support of 80% of registered Democrats, as I originally claimed:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109042/Candid ate-Support-Political-Party.aspx

Note that that number hasn't changed more than 2% either way since Clinton dropped out. Since that undermines your entire argument about Obama's eroding support, I can see why you'd rather keep this irrelevant side-bloviation going, but for the record I'm not the one refusing to provide actual points for discussion here.

I do have several hats, and no cattle, so I guess you got me there.

by jere7my on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:56:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep, got hats (none / 0)

Alright, now were getting down to it. I didn't know we were under a word limit here, but I guess if you can't effectively argue your point, you might want to restrict those who can. Fine, no problem, let me know how many words you want to use and we'll now play by those boundaries as well.

To be honest, I didn't see you link to your Gallup poll until now. I went back to the main thread and see that yes, in a seperate response you did include it, but I don't think it was in the thread we were discussing. But none the less it is interesting to see it. I for one don't put much stock into Gallup after the Primaries, but that's neither here nor there.

Let's examine it. How many respondents did it have? What were the key cross-tabs? I see it says weekly aggregate, and that's why you're getting your steadiness of +/- 2, statistically, but before I would take it as pure faith, I would like to see sample size, and the other key tabs before passing any kind of negative judgement.

I haven't checked out Gallup very much since the Primaries, and use pollingreport.com more often, but I will check into what they have now and browse around and see if I can find their cross-tabs.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:13:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Every Republican I know (none / 0)

had only one reason to vote this year

and I'll quote one of them and try not to hiderate me, because this is coming out of a REPUBLICAN's mouth, not mine;

"Anything to keep that stupid bitch and her disgusting white garbage husband away from the White House"

The hatred of her is stronger than anything ever said at kos or here. It's disgusting, yes, but without her on the ticket, it's 50-50 they vote, put her on, 100% they go McCain.

It might not matter, I don't care if he puts her on the ticket, I just don't think it's going to help. He has won a huge majority of her supporters already.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:34:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fortunately not all republicans (none / 0)

are as hateful as some of the dems. Sad but true.

I know a lot of republican women who would vote dem in a NY minute if Hillary were on the ticket. They do not like McCain at all and Obama has failed to impress them. Hillary on the other hand knows how to get work done and can multitask amazingly. Women, regardless of affiliation, identify with those characteristics.

by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:18:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (none / 0)

Yeah, but it's unlikely to happen: a) Obama cannot stand Hillary, as he, his campaign, and his bazillions of Hillary-hating supporters have made abundantly clear; b) She doesn't really want it. Why would she want to play second banana to a second banana? She has shown generosity and party loyalty in saying that she would serve if asked. And a lot more than some of the other people who's names were added -- then had to be struck -- from the VP list.

by miker2008 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:10:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He's crushing McCain on economy (2.00 / 1)

it's Paris Hilton that giving him grief.

by Neef on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:30:13 PM EST

Re: He's crushing McCain on economy (none / 0)

LOL! Please, I don't need Obama to start hanging out with Paris. I don't need that image of him getting out of a car... :o

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:48:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is not the nominee yet, (2.00 / 1)

and will not be unless a majority of delegates vote for him at the convention. The convention starts on August 25. Obama's "presumptive nominee" status is only because a bunch of people have said he is. However, they have a right to change their minds if Obama continues to drop, and if it looks like he's already been defined.

part of the problem is that to win the nomination, he had to pander to the far left. Hillary was square in the center, which was better because she'd be much harder to dub as a flip flop. FISA, offshore drilling, and we can only imagine what is next.

by Lakrosse on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:30:58 PM EST

Re: Obama is not the nominee yet, (2.00 / 2)

Back to the denial stage of your grieving process are we?

by venician on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:23:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is not the nominee yet, (none / 0)

Obama's "presumptive nominee" status is only because a bunch of people have said he is.

This and the fact that nobody else is still campaigning for the nomination.

What is The October Protocol?

by Koan on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:35:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 1)

I really thought this was going to be a snark diary.

Maybe it is?

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:31:44 PM EST

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 1)

Nope. And now it's on the Rec List.

by rfahey22 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:38:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 2)

Don't be so sure. I am starting to think there is such a thing as unintentional snark.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:29:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 1)

I've always been against Hillary, but she is a bulldog (relax, I call my wife a bulldog , also). I know she would fight and fight hard as veep, but I can't get around the knowledge that she would mega-motivate the other side.

Liberal in So Cal

by lqbruin on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:33:30 PM EST

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (1.00 / 1)

Conservatives will be fully motivated against Obama by the time McCain's and the Machine are done with Obama. The dip in the polls you are seeing is the result of this very thing happening.

Its a matter of fighting or dying.

Obama should have come back to the US, all claws and teeth. He didn't.

by MKyleM on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:34:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (none / 0)

Agree 100%. However, how much do you think they will get motivated by the fact that right now, they're not sure they'll even be able to staunch the losses in the Congress, while the WH is pretty much written off.

Like sharks if they smell blood in the water, they will come after him, and that will rally their base. The gaffes he's making now, are just piquing their attention. If he seems beatable, and somehow they think they can keep the WH, they sacrifice the Congress.

He needs to stop giving it away, and start drawing a line in the sand. As he himself said:

"On the national level, bipartisanship usually means Democrats ignore the needs of the poor and abandon the idea that government can play a role in issues of poverty, race discrimination, sex discrimination or environmental protection," Mr. Obama said.

Working across the aisle is great, but sometimes you've got to take a stand. He understood that at one point. I don't know why he's deviating now.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (1.50 / 2)

Just fyi: I know Republicans who don't like McCain; will not vote for Obama; but actually would have voted for Hillary Clinton as President.

by cameoanne on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:39:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 1)

Calm down. It's too steep a learning curve for a lot of people. They'll excuse anything and everything Obama does until January 21 and harass anyone who dissents. After that date they'll admit that they knew it was all going to be a lot less than they pretend to now.

Don't forget the basic facts of the primary: the average Party members split evenly between the priority of the gussied up moderate short term agenda of Obama versus the long term hardcore agenda of HRC. Conservative party insiders decided it for Obama. Obama has pretty much tuned out liberals. It's all pretty much the 1976 Carter game.

Take a wild guess at what kind of Presidency he'll have, that is if he manages to squeak by McCain. In polling threads Obama supporters are starting to talk openly of a 52% Obama ceiling. Landslide, here we come.

by killjoy on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:33:56 PM EST

Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job. (2.00 / 1)

Because the Clintons are oh so well known for their liberal stances... Gimme a break.

I'm riding the Low Road Express. Join me at www.lowroadexpress.com

by LtWorf on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:01:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

landslide here we come (2.00 / 1)

Take a wild guess at what kind of Presidency he'll have, that is if he manages to squeak by McCain. In polling threads Obama supporters are starting to talk openly of a 52% Obama ceiling. Landslide, here we come.

52% would be pretty damn good. If you factor in Nader and Barr at 3% combined then you have McCain coming in at 45%. That would be a huge win. Of course, that's being optimistic for McCain. His ceiling seems to be around 44%.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:13:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So sad I visited here. n/t (none / 0)

by cultural worker on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:38:43 PM EST

This POS is on the Rec List with TWO RECS? n/t (2.00 / 1)

What is The October Protocol?

by Koan on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:42:54 PM EST

Re: This POS is on the Rec List with TWO RECS? n/t (none / 0)

The number of comments a diary receives affects it's rise to the rec list. Also, I believe that the amount of mojo doled out within the diary affects it as well.

So, yeah, sadly a Troll diary can easily make it to rec list based on a large number of comments calling it a Troll diary.

I am ever-hopeful that updates to the rec/rate system will someday be under the tree at MYDD.

by Kysen on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This POS is on the Rec List with TWO RECS? n/t (none / 0)

I'd rec you for that explanation, but I know now what the effect would be...

And damn. I've now commented on this diary. Will I never learn?

by duende on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:59:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How does the rec system work? (2.00 / 1)

This is on the rec list with two.

The Following Users Have Recommended This Diary:

nikkid
Lakrosse

by jere7my on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:43:27 PM EST