BuddyGroom wrote:That any so-called Democrat could consider voting Republican after 8 years of Bush/Cheney just boggles my mind.

What if you're a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-war Democrat who doesn't care about the environment? It seems to be ignored in the media, but many working class Democrats in the Midwest are just that. They'd probably tell you that 40+ years ago the Democratic Party was about helping the working man, not all this garbage about the environment and abortion rights. Johnson's mistake wasn't escalating Vietnam. It was wimping out. FDR wouldn't have wimped out. Wilson invented interventionism. Sure, McCain might not help the working man, but what's Nancy Pelosi done for them lately?

This cuts both ways. If you're a pro-choice Republican from the suburbs you could reason that Bill Clinton was pretty good for business, so maybe Obama won't be so bad. And really if he is, at least he gets us out of Iraq.

The parties aren't homogenous. There are a lot of Fiscal conservatives who aren't socially or foreign policy conservatives. I have a friend who is fiscally liberal, but pretty conservative socially. She's an independent because she'd never join a party that was Pro-Choice or one that didn't put the working man first.

Bill Kristol has gone insane. He needs to concentrate on which country to invade next. He doesn't address what happens if McCain dies in office. Republicans would've won and Lieberman would be putting in a liberal fiscal policy. Not to mention the whole Pro-Choice thing.

Laexile wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:That any so-called Democrat could consider voting Republican after 8 years of Bush/Cheney just boggles my mind.

What if you're a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-war Democrat who doesn't care about the environment? It seems to be ignored in the media, but many working class Democrats in the Midwest are just that. They'd probably tell you that 40+ years ago the Democratic Party was about helping the working man, not all this garbage about the environment and abortion rights. Johnson's mistake wasn't escalating Vietnam. It was wimping out. FDR wouldn't have wimped out. Wilson invented interventionism. Sure, McCain might not help the working man, but what's Nancy Pelosi done for them lately?

This cuts both ways. If you're a pro-choice Republican from the suburbs you could reason that Bill Clinton was pretty good for business, so maybe Obama won't be so bad. And really if he is, at least he gets us out of Iraq.

The parties aren't homogenous. There are a lot of Fiscal conservatives who aren't socially or foreign policy conservatives. I have a friend who is fiscally liberal, but pretty conservative socially. She's an independent because she'd never join a party that was Pro-Choice or one that didn't put the working man first.

Bill Kristol has gone insane. He needs to concentrate on which country to invade next. He doesn't address what happens if McCain dies in office. Republicans would've won and Lieberman would be putting in a liberal fiscal policy. Not to mention the whole Pro-Choice thing.

what is wrong with you?

BuddyGroom wrote:CNN/USA Today have a new poll out showing Obama and McCain tied at 47%, with McCain having picked up support from Hillary Clinton supporters since July.

That any so-called Democrat could consider voting Republican after 8 years of Bush/Cheney just boggles my mind.

Those people aren't Democrats. They're Clinton cultists. Or at least that's how they're acting. That it's Obama who was derided as the cult-of-personality candidate is pretty ironic.

word my uncle is one of them.

i think he is just racist and is using Clinton as an excuse which I suspect is the case with many of the clintonists still around.

dajafi wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:CNN/USA Today have a new poll out showing Obama and McCain tied at 47%, with McCain having picked up support from Hillary Clinton supporters since July.

That any so-called Democrat could consider voting Republican after 8 years of Bush/Cheney just boggles my mind.

Those people aren't Democrats. They're Clinton cultists. Or at least that's how they're acting. That it's Obama who was derided as the cult-of-personality candidate is pretty ironic.

You are the guy who was seriously conflicted about voting for Clinton in the fall if she had won the nomination, yes?

TomatoPie wrote:Neither Bush nor Cheney is likely to be on the GOP ticket this time

No but a Republican will and I thought pretty much all Democrats were agreed that Republicans have done far too much damage for far too long.

It might suprise you to know I wasn't always a party-line voter. I happily voted for Arlen Spector and John Heinz in the '80s when I first became eligible to vote. No, I never voted for any hard-right candidates and never would. But the Republican label wasn't a complete disqualification in my mind until much later.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:CNN/USA Today have a new poll out showing Obama and McCain tied at 47%, with McCain having picked up support from Hillary Clinton supporters since July.

That any so-called Democrat could consider voting Republican after 8 years of Bush/Cheney just boggles my mind.

Those people aren't Democrats. They're Clinton cultists. Or at least that's how they're acting. That it's Obama who was derided as the cult-of-personality candidate is pretty ironic.

You are the guy who was seriously conflicted about voting for Clinton in the fall if she had won the nomination, yes?

Sort of

I live in NY; my vote doesn't really matter. If she'd won, I would have voted for (former impeachment manager) Bob Barr as the strongest possible fuck-you to the Clintons.

If I lived in anything like a swing state, I probably would have voted for the Restoration, then bathed for something like a month straight. I think it's more important that the Republicans lose the election after Bush than anything else, probably even the trend toward more-or-less monarchy and branding in American governance.

dajafi wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:CNN/USA Today have a new poll out showing Obama and McCain tied at 47%, with McCain having picked up support from Hillary Clinton supporters since July.

That any so-called Democrat could consider voting Republican after 8 years of Bush/Cheney just boggles my mind.

Those people aren't Democrats. They're Clinton cultists. Or at least that's how they're acting. That it's Obama who was derided as the cult-of-personality candidate is pretty ironic.

I really believed you'd have to search far and wide to find a bigger fan of Bill Clinton than me. I mean, if there was room for a 5th president on Mt. Rushmore, I'd be advocating that it be Clinton. (Well, not over FDR, but you get my point.)

But that these so-called Democrats can't accept that Obama won the nomination fair and square, and is being supported by Hillary, I think they should just leave the party and be done with it. If any person of a liberal viewpoint isn't 100% committed to beating the Republicans this time around, then they are useless in my view.

BuddyGroom wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Neither Bush nor Cheney is likely to be on the GOP ticket this time

No but a Republican will and I thought pretty much all Democrats were agreed that Republicans have done far too much damage for far too long.

If you think John McCain's policies would be bad for America vote for Obama. That's McCain, not Bush. You can choose to vote for the guy with the "D" because the other guy has an "R" regardless of policy or competence. Then you aren't demanding the Democrats work hard for your vote and judging all Republicans without looking at who they are.

Republicans should be asked to work harder than Democrats because of Bush-Cheney, but they shouldn't be disqualified on that basis.

I think it's more important that the Republicans lose the election after Bush than anything else, probably even the trend toward more-or-less monarchy and branding in American governance.

Between 1869 and 1913 the Republicans had the Presidency for 36 of 44 years. If that wasn't a monarchy I doubt it'll happen now.

But that these so-called Democrats can't accept that Obama won the nomination fair and square, and is being supported by Hillary, I think they should just leave the party and be done with it.

I know a few Hillary supporters and they don't see anything fair or square about it. They won't get over it because they're told.

I do agree with you that if they are straight Party line Democrats they should throw darts at a picture of Obama and vote for him. I've encountered Republicans who dislike McCain and think if they vote for him they lose their Party to some liberal and compromise their morality. If he loses, they send a message and end up with the President they want less.

I can imagine that voting for Obama could be seen as an endorsement for the way Clinton was treated. If Obama loses they send a message and they too end up with the President they want less.

Laexile wrote:Between 1869 and 1913 the Republicans had the Presidency for 36 of 44 years. If that wasn't a monarchy I doubt it'll happen now.

For much of that time, the Republicans were a progressive party. The Democrats were the conservative party in those days.

CalvinBall wrote:that is quite possibly the worst reporting i have ever seen

Could have passed for an SNL sketch, not that it was funny but it seemed fake because the reporter was so bad
I do like the constant asking "Don't you support free speech?" but then not wanting the protesters to curse.

The McCain campaign just emailed that it's reasonable to expect a 15 point bump out of the convention.

Uh, OK.

If you guys are down double digits on Monday morning, this election is over. Period. You're announcing your veep Friday. That should hopefully step on any convention bounce. Going second here is a huge benefit. If you're gonna set expectations, at least make them realistic.

jerseyhoya wrote:The McCain campaign just emailed that it's reasonable to expect a 15 point bump out of the convention.

Uh, OK.

If you guys are down double digits on Monday morning, this election is over. Period. You're announcing your veep Friday. That should hopefully step on any convention bounce. Going second here is a huge benefit. If you're gonna set expectations, at least make them realistic.

i would think they mean favorability ratings, not outright head to head national polling.

You would think wrong.

philliesphhan wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:that is quite possibly the worst reporting i have ever seen

Could have passed for an SNL sketch, not that it was funny but it seemed fake because the reporter was so bad
I do like the constant asking "Don't you support free speech?" but then not wanting the protesters to curse.

The recreate 68 people seemed a lot like a typical LSU tailgate crowd.

Teddy K looks and sounds pretty good. Nice to see him get this opportunity.

I wonder how many are watching this speech. I respect Ted's work on behalf of a lot of things I believe in, but this speech is a little rough.

Jim Leach? Really? A friend of mine helped defeat him two years ago. Jerseyhoya, I think this calls for a shot of pure grain alcohol.

No, Bud Light from here on out this evening. I'll drink a beer though for it.

His loss in 2006 was definitely in my top two or three shocks. Only two I can think of that were maybe more shocking was Jeb Bradley losing to Carol Shea-Porter in NH and Jim Ryun losing to Nancy Boyda in Kansas.

jerseyhoya wrote:No, Bud Light from here on out this evening. I'll drink a beer though for it.

His loss in 2006 was definitely in my top two or three shocks. Only two I can think of that were maybe more shocking was Jeb Bradley losing to Carol Shea-Porter in NH and Jim Ryun losing to Nancy Boyda in Kansas.

I mean, listen to him orate! How could he lose?