FWIW -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080603/ap_ ... RXQAKs0NUE

I look forward to his speech tonight!

VoxOrion wrote:I've got an idea. How bout we find out if carbon offsets actually accomplish something first?

I'm afraid that's a non sequitur. Probably some cro-magnon contemporary asked the inventor of the wheel whether the dang thing would "accomplish something"; it really is neither here nor there.

Of course carbon offsets - or rather the creation of a market in which they would trade - actually accomplish(es) something.

Whether or not cap & trade, or any other "market-based" externalities solution, "truly" or "fairly" balances the books, implementation would change the dialogue about industrial externalities. Frankly, discussions of the implications of this sort of market-based system may do enough.

jeff2sf wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
I did an electoral college map yesterday using the latest per state head to head polling results. Clinton beat McCain with 297. Obama/McCain literally came down to Ohio, which is a virtual tie but trending McCain. Sure it's early, 5 months till November. IMO, still too early as anything can happen, either can implode or surge. But it's looking like it'll be a tough road for Obama, he can't afford any missteps or mistakes, and it's possible any new "Rev. Wright"-type revelation that comes to light in the coming months can sink him.

You'd like that... wouldn't you?

Like what? Is any observation that isn't totally favorable to Obama taboo, deserving of disdain and condescension?

I'm just a voice giving warning to the Democrats, a warning that the progressives' and New Left's remaking of the party at the expense of alienating core Democrats is a formula for failure. That their effort to condescend and taint anyone that does not outright embrace Obama is a costly mistake that is turning off a lot of the "core Democrats" and non-partisan swing voters, votes they need to win the general election. Since the party's inception in the 1820's, the Democrats have been incapable of winning the presidency without substantial support from the "working class" and "rurals" and "core Democrats" and "swings" in the mid-Atlantic states. Axelrod's strategy of "expanding the base" with indies and youth while dismissing the "core Democrats" with indifference is reminiscent of the Dem strategy in 1972 (and revisited in 1988). Yeah, its a "new political era" with a "new Democratic coalition". Heck, I'm not a Democrat, so I couldn't care less if they transform themselves into a second class party. It may actually be entertaining to witness.

I hate politics

me too, but for different reasons

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Bill Clinton goes ape@#%!, unleashes tirade against a Vanity Fair writer during an interview on Monday.

The Vanity Fair article, called a tawdry anonymous quote-filled attack piece by Clinton's office, not only blasts Bill for bringing negative attention to Hillary's campaign, but also eludes that Bill's been hittin' the ladies whilst on the campaign road for Hillary.

Clinton's office issued a memo in response. Link to a blog that contains the text of the memo.

Article containing audio of the Bill Clinton interview

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
I did an electoral college map yesterday using the latest per state head to head polling results. Clinton beat McCain with 297. Obama/McCain literally came down to Ohio, which is a virtual tie but trending McCain. Sure it's early, 5 months till November. IMO, still too early as anything can happen, either can implode or surge. But it's looking like it'll be a tough road for Obama, he can't afford any missteps or mistakes, and it's possible any new "Rev. Wright"-type revelation that comes to light in the coming months can sink him.

You'd like that... wouldn't you?

Like what? Is any observation that isn't totally favorable to Obama taboo, deserving of disdain and condescension?

I'm just a voice giving warning to the Democrats, a warning that the progressives' and New Left's remaking of the party at the expense of alienating core Democrats is a formula for failure. That their effort to condescend and taint anyone that does not outright embrace Obama is a costly mistake that is turning off a lot of the "core Democrats" and non-partisan swing voters, votes they need to win the general election. Since the party's inception in the 1820's, the Democrats have been incapable of winning the presidency without substantial support from the "working class" and "rurals" and "core Democrats" and "swings" in the mid-Atlantic states. Axelrod's strategy of "expanding the base" with indies and youth while dismissing the "core Democrats" with indifference is reminiscent of the Dem strategy in 1972 (and revisited in 1988). Yeah, its a "new political era" with a "new Democratic coalition". Heck, I'm not a Democrat, so I couldn't care less if they transform themselves into a second class party. It may actually be entertaining to witness.

So black people aren't core democrats?

I'm an independent from PA who's in love with Obama (though I just found out my analyst is taking an 8 week leave to go work for the Obama campaign, which seriously screws me for my next project).

You're just a Clinton fan.

Oh, and by the way, you kept saying how you couldn't understand how the Dems were going out of their way to make "the most successful Democrat in the last X years a pariah". Puh-freakin-leaze. What the heck is this, a monarchy? Because Bill Clinton did a nice job as a president, we now must vote for anyone associated with his name because he says so? It doesn't work that way. And besides that, everyone was cool-de-la with Clinton for the last 6 years or so, but then he comes out, sticks his foot in his mouth regularly in insulting Obama, and acts very non-senior-statesman, and some people call him on that? Well I'm sorry, you win an election, it's not a de facto rubber stamp that allows all siblings, spouses, and children to win office (unless you're a Kennedy, but I already railed on them). You're not fair and balanced, you never say word one bad about any other candidate.

It's all anti-Obama all the time. Now if you were an avowed McCain or Clinton supporter, I'd be cool with this (I'm a pretty big McCain fan). But no, you're acting as a whatever-the-term dajafi coined last month, something troll.

Concern troll. Not my term.

I was going to make the same point about who is and isn't a "core Democrat." Historically, PiP has a point of sorts: through the early '60s, "people like us" (educated professional/managerial types) generally were not Democrats unless some big FDR-like wave was going on. And in '72 and '88 and other years the coalition of intellectuals and non-whites wasn't a winner overall (though the Democrat still won among low-income voters).

But to make the obvious point, in '72 you had a reasonably popular incumbent and a fatally flawed, politically clueless challenger whose supporters had been successfully demonized by the incumbent. In '88 you had the heir to a popular two-term president and a challenger who was less than thrilling and tactically disadvantaged compared to the political all-star team the heir had assembled.

In 2008, the challenger is probably the better politician (though it's close). His strategic team already has bested the folks who were previously considered unbeatable among Democrats. He's facing an heir to a two-term president... who is almost universally acknowledged to be a catastrophic failure, even among many who share his views in the abstract. The challenger has his flaws, but he's also got more money and more enthusiasm. It's not a good comparison.

It's all academic at this point, but it does look like Hillary would have made the better general election candidate against McCain. Obama has a higher ceiling and a lower floor, but Hillary seems to have a much, much easier time cobbling together 270 than he does.

Of course there's more to life than winning elections* and so plenty of reasons to support Barack instead of Hillary.

*Or so they tell me.

Interesting factoid heading into election day in NJ tonight:

Republicans have not won a United States Senate seat in New Jersey since 1972, when Clifford Case was re-elected to a fourth term over Paul Krebs, a former Congressman from Essex County. Only West Virginia and Hawaii have gone longer than New Jersey without sending a Republican to the U.S. Senate; Massachusetts has also gone 36 years without a GOP Senate victory.

Republicans have also not won a statewide election in New Jersey since 1997, when Gov. Christine Todd Whitman won a second term over State Sen. James E. McGreevey. Since Whitman’s re-election, 49 other states have elected a Republican to statewide office. A Republican presidential candidate has not carried New Jersey since 1988.

Despite the Republican electoral woes, it’s been fourteen years New Jersey Democrats have re-elected an incumbent; the last time was in 1994, when Frank Lautenberg won a third term in the Senate. No state has gone longer without re-electing a statewide officeholder.

jerseyhoya wrote:It's all academic at this point, but it does look like Hillary would have made the better general election candidate against McCain. Obama has a higher ceiling and a lower floor, but Hillary seems to have a much, much easier time cobbling together 270 than he does.

I don't claim to be neutral, but I just can't believe this. So much mud would have come out on the Clintons: Bill's foundation fundraising and (probable) post-presidential screwing around, Hillary's triangulations and lies and self-contradictions, all the hangers-on and flunkies and their various scandals and mini-scandals. Obama didn't air any of that stuff because he didn't need to--but McCain would have, and the press bias for him against Hillary would have been something to behold.

Nate Silver posted something yesterday about how her polling better in some abstract sense didn't take into account what she would have had to do to take it away from Obama, and the collateral damage that would cause. I think there's something to that, but also it doesn't take into account how much anti-Clinton muck would have been stirred up by now had things gone the way most expected six months ago.

jerseyhoya wrote:It's all academic at this point, but it does look like Hillary would have made the better general election candidate against McCain. Obama has a higher ceiling and a lower floor, but Hillary seems to have a much, much easier time cobbling together 270 than he does.

Of course there's more to life than winning elections* and so plenty of reasons to support Barack instead of Hillary.

*Or so they tell me.

*the world according to jerseyhoya*

One last random thought...

So I get home to the parents house yesterday, and I have a sample ballot waiting for me. I registered to vote in DC about 6 months ago, and voted there in the primary back in February. I have not voted in New Jersey since the '05 gubernatorial primary. As I've more or less lived in DC for 6 years now and haven't spent more than two weeks straight in Medford for that whole time, it'd be a pretty big stretch to still consider myself an NJ resident, so I switched my voter registration to DC. Anyhow, I just thought it was a little weird that DC hadn't contacted NJ to get my name off the voter roll. I know when I got my driver's license switched they let them know right away.

Also, considering I don't have any ID that says I live in NJ, if I was forced to show photo ID when going to a poll, they would know I no longer live here. But since they don't, I could vote illegally today if I wanted to. Take that. I'm an example of why we need picture ID laws.

mpmcgraw wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It's all academic at this point, but it does look like Hillary would have made the better general election candidate against McCain. Obama has a higher ceiling and a lower floor, but Hillary seems to have a much, much easier time cobbling together 270 than he does.

Of course there's more to life than winning elections* and so plenty of reasons to support Barack instead of Hillary.

*Or so they tell me.

*the world according to jerseyhoya*

The world according to people who can read, look at a map, and do addition.

who is going to win rob andrews or that old guy?

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It's all academic at this point, but it does look like Hillary would have made the better general election candidate against McCain. Obama has a higher ceiling and a lower floor, but Hillary seems to have a much, much easier time cobbling together 270 than he does.

I don't claim to be neutral, but I just can't believe this. So much mud would have come out on the Clintons: Bill's foundation fundraising and (probable) post-presidential screwing around, Hillary's triangulations and lies and self-contradictions, all the hangers-on and flunkies and their various scandals and mini-scandals. Obama didn't air any of that stuff because he didn't need to--but McCain would have, and the press bias for him against Hillary would have been something to behold.

Nate Silver posted something yesterday about how her polling better in some abstract sense didn't take into account what she would have had to do to take it away from Obama, and the collateral damage that would cause. I think there's something to that, but also it doesn't take into account how much anti-Clinton muck would have been stirred up by now had things gone the way most expected six months ago.

By would have made a better general election candidate, I don't mean if she had ripped the nomination away from him in the last month. At this point, the Democratic Party would be nothing short of suicidal if it gave her the nomination.

There's no way of testing this in reality, since you only get one shot every four years, but if the process was started over and conducted in such away that Hillary won legitimately (winner take all primaries? her staff not being retarded and ignoring caucuses?), I think her strength in PA, OH, FL, MI would have made her probably a 75-25 chance to win over McCain. Obama is probably a bit better than 50-50 right now. Even now the polls reflect her being stronger in most of the battle ground states, and that figures in anyone who is paying attention realizing that she won't be the nominee.

I don't think mud on the Clintons coming out would have done all that much to move numbers. The Clintons survived it for 8 years in the White House and came out alright.

This isn't something where I'm ever going to be able to prove you wrong, but just looking at those numbers on the 538 site make it look like Hillary would have had an easier time winning.

mpmcgraw wrote:who is going to win rob andrews or that old guy?

The old guy, by a lot probably.

jeff2sf wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
I did an electoral college map yesterday using the latest per state head to head polling results. Clinton beat McCain with 297. Obama/McCain literally came down to Ohio, which is a virtual tie but trending McCain. Sure it's early, 5 months till November. IMO, still too early as anything can happen, either can implode or surge. But it's looking like it'll be a tough road for Obama, he can't afford any missteps or mistakes, and it's possible any new "Rev. Wright"-type revelation that comes to light in the coming months can sink him.

You'd like that... wouldn't you?

Like what? Is any observation that isn't totally favorable to Obama taboo, deserving of disdain and condescension?

I'm just a voice giving warning to the Democrats, a warning that the progressives' and New Left's remaking of the party at the expense of alienating core Democrats is a formula for failure. That their effort to condescend and taint anyone that does not outright embrace Obama is a costly mistake that is turning off a lot of the "core Democrats" and non-partisan swing voters, votes they need to win the general election. Since the party's inception in the 1820's, the Democrats have been incapable of winning the presidency without substantial support from the "working class" and "rurals" and "core Democrats" and "swings" in the mid-Atlantic states. Axelrod's strategy of "expanding the base" with indies and youth while dismissing the "core Democrats" with indifference is reminiscent of the Dem strategy in 1972 (and revisited in 1988). Yeah, its a "new political era" with a "new Democratic coalition". Heck, I'm not a Democrat, so I couldn't care less if they transform themselves into a second class party. It may actually be entertaining to witness.

So black people aren't core democrats?

Yep, there it is. Anyone not GOP that doesn't embrace Obama, race must be a factor. I never stooped to comment on some of the sexist sentiment I've seen here.

jeff2sf wrote:I'm an independent from PA who's in love with Obama (though I just found out my analyst is taking an 8 week leave to go work for the Obama campaign, which seriously screws me for my next project).

You're just a Clinton fan.

Nope. While I may have started to respect her a bit lately because of the fight she's exhibited, I never really cared for her. Don't care for any of the crop of candidates. Although I kinda felt bad for her sometimes because of all the crap she got here and in the media.

I kinda liked Bill Clinton a bit because he was a moderate, a centrist. I was hoping the Dems would have put up a moderate because I feel the GOP needs to lose the WH because of Dubya, and a moderate is more palatable for the country's electorate. Instead, I get the sense of some arrogance from the "New Left", that they're a sure thing because of Dubya.

jeff2sf wrote:Oh, and by the way, you kept saying how you couldn't understand how the Dems were going out of their way to make "the most successful Democrat in the last X years a pariah". Puh-freakin-leaze. What the heck is this, a monarchy? Because Bill Clinton did a nice job as a president, we now must vote for anyone associated with his name because he says so? It doesn't work that way. And besides that, everyone was cool-de-la with Clinton for the last 6 years or so, but then he comes out, sticks his foot in his mouth regularly in insulting Obama, and acts very non-senior-statesman, and some people call him on that? Well I'm sorry, you win an election, it's not a de facto rubber stamp that allows all siblings, spouses, and children to win office (unless you're a Kennedy, but I already railed on them).

And there's the expected "monarchy" arguement.

BTW, people were "cool with Bill" because he wasn't seen or heard from for those 6 years. Many a Dem didn't like him during his administration because he was centrist and not a lefty, feeling betrayed that a D prez didn't advance a liberal agenda. HRC received a lot of hate because she's Billy's wife, a Clinton by marriage.

jeff2sf wrote:You're not fair and balanced, you never say word one bad about any other candidate.

There was no need for me to, McCain and HRC get their share from the Obama backers here. I was the only non-GOP'er to dare post anything either negative or percieved as negative about Obama.

jerseyhoya wrote:One last random thought...

So I get home to the parents house yesterday, and I have a sample ballot waiting for me. I registered to vote in DC about 6 months ago, and voted there in the primary back in February. I have not voted in New Jersey since the '05 gubernatorial primary. As I've more or less lived in DC for 6 years now and haven't spent more than two weeks straight in Medford for that whole time, it'd be a pretty big stretch to still consider myself an NJ resident, so I switched my voter registration to DC. Anyhow, I just thought it was a little weird that DC hadn't contacted NJ to get my name off the voter roll. I know when I got my driver's license switched they let them know right away.

Also, considering I don't have any ID that says I live in NJ, if I was forced to show photo ID when going to a poll, they would know I no longer live here. But since they don't, I could vote illegally today if I wanted to. Take that. I'm an example of why we need picture ID laws.

Do you not have a passport? Wouldn't that work? You also might still have a NJ Drivers license and a DC license. Not too difficult to arrange that.

ID laws are a crock.