Poll scores

This is a rear-view post about the predictions and outcomes of the '08 election. I know it was a pretty acrimonious primary, but as hard as it is for the commenters here whose only interaction with me is through this blog, I don't wear it long. My blogging here is a small part of the day, if that, and I don't depend at all on it for income. As such, when I contribute its from the standpoint of enjoyment, which is usually the case, even when its been confrontational.

I've get the usual flack here for my opinions on Obama, but I do keep my opinions and my predictions separate, and the latter stacked up pretty well in 2008. Here's the good, bad, and ugly.

--Good: In the first four primary states, I said Obama would win Iowa, Obama & Clinton would tie in NH, Clinton would win in Nevada, and Obama in SC.

--Ugly: I pulled up a 'fail' on super Tuesday though, with no polling to go off in the caucus states, and not factoring in that Clinton had no caucus strategy, I missed most of those caucus states going to Obama.

--Good: Post-super Tuesday, with the exception of the Maine caucus, I closed out by predicting correctly, 23 out of 24 contests.

Overall, I think back to a few personal moments of seeing how it would turn out ahead of time. The first was at the '06, which I attended the Harkin Steak Fry with Mark Warner, and saw the reception of Barack Obama. Then at the '07 Harkin Steak Fry, when I was walking from the main tent down the hill, across the parking lot early in the morning before it filled, to where Obama was having his gathering, opposite corner. The wind was blowing upward and I could hear Obama's '04 speech being re-played as the wind lifted it up across the mile to the stands. That day, I knew he'd win Iowa (even though I was rooting for Edwards). I think the moment I realized Clinton could probably lose the nomination, was when she didn't campaign early on in MI & Fl, as I blogged she should. But even then, it seems like destiny was on Obama's side all along. And finally, the JJ dinner in Virginia, was when I realized how strong Obama's support was in the state, and that he would likely win the nomination.

I really do congratulate all of you who were on Obama's train from the very beginning. I know how that feels, to be there from the beginning, and the taste of victory is sweet, so congratulations again for making this happen.

My own prediction for the 2008 GE:

--Obama winning by 6.4 percent. It looks like I'll be off by a few decimal points. EV-wise, I had flipped back three states (NC, MO, IN) to McCain the last week, but Obama won two of those.

--Democrats netting 24 seats in the House. We are going to pick up somewhere above 20 and below 25.  

--Democrats picking up 9 seats in the Senate. We currently have 7, with MN and GA still in play.

I didn't do as perfectly as I did in '06, when I nailed it by predicting 6 seats in the Senate and 30 in the House for the Dems, but all good enough.

*Ugly: My assessment of Obama as a candidate turned out to be mostly wrong. Though he did flip on all the issues I figured he would (drilling, self-financing...), he ran a phenomenal strategical campaign, from the beginning to the end-- probably the best execution (historically) since Nixon's '66-68 campaign.

*Bad: I also totally underestimated how much the TV media would be in the pocket of the Obama campaign. Not so much against Clinton, which was expected (but not by as much as it happened), but against McCain, which was a welcome surprise. It was a strange feeling for a Democrat, to be on that side of the fence for the first time in my lifetime. My assessment of McCain & Palin was too generous. Palin, though she had a phenomenal opening act, was lacking with any follow-through. McCain's campaign reminded my of Kerry's, in that the guy let go of every political instinct he had and handed the big decisions over to his campaign chiefs.

*Good: Professionally, I was involved with four winning candidates this cycle, three in the Senate and Jared Polis in the House. And I was able to help out with the DSCC team in the four Senate races we won in the west. Outside politics, the success we had the past year with SBNation.com, tech, team, and funding, was awesome. As for the next cycle, I'm sure to be working races, but am now more focused on the VA '09 Gov race than any other. I've also been able to start working outside the US, which I enjoy.

I'm also going to be involved in a couple of accountability efforts of elected Democrats in '10, launching some social activist platforms to push progressive policy. I'm contemplating writing another book, this one more globally about the netroots. In the US, people now have the power in place. Democrats have won, but that doesn't mean we sit back and watch, but instead have to remain engaged and campaign for the right changes. It's amazing what's happening inside other countries that are using the net to change politics.

To be honest, I put spending time with my kids (and they never get enough) ahead of jotting down my thoughts here on MyDD, and given the other commitments I have, the limited blogging is probably going to remain the case in the near-term. We've got a great crew of bloggers here though, and the community size feels just right. Here's to an amazing '09.  Is this where the fun part starts?

Tags: 2008 (all tags)

Comments

71 Comments

VA 09 Governor

I'm just curious who you are supporting for VA Gov in 09?

by yitbos96bb 2008-11-20 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: VA 09 Governor

Brian Moran, all the way.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-11-20 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: VA 09 Governor

Don't know much about him... will have to read up.  McCauliffe was the only name I have been seeing nationally, but that makes sense.   I just couldn't see you supporting him in the Primaries though, so I had to ask.

by yitbos96bb 2008-11-20 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

The community could be a little bit larger.  To that end, it's nice to see erstwhile, generally well-meaning anti-Obama folks filtering back.  I had a feeling that would happen after the election when there would be no EXPLAIN YOURSELF threat hanging in the air.

CAN I HAVE REC/RATE BACK?

by Jess81 2008-11-20 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

It's obvious enough who has to "EXPLAIN YOURSELF" now.

Namely, the Obama supporters who insisted that Obama was the agent of change, and trashed Hillary and Bill Clinton as hateful and destructive, and, in the case of Hillary, a warmonger.

Where's the big "change", people? You never answered the question throughout the election cycle, and it's only getting harder for you to answer it now.

I mean, Hillary for SoS, with her "flawed judgment"? Republicans throughout the administration? Obama going to bat for Joe Lieberman?

Yeah, I think "EXPLAIN YOURSELF" is just about the right sentiment here.

by frankly0 2008-11-20 06:45AM | 0 recs
I bask in the glow of an Obama Victory...

...and revel in your bitterness.

What Republicans?
Who is more qualified to be SoS?
Where has change been abandoned?

Give it up.

by iohs2008 2008-11-20 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: I bask in the glow of an Obama Victory...

Cuz, you know, Obama said that Hillary Clinton's vote for the AUMF represented bad judgement, and since he's willing to be seen in the same room with her he was obviously lying, and really thinks that the AUMF was a great idea despite being against it at the time.

Do I have it about right?

by Jess81 2008-11-20 08:09AM | 0 recs
You, that's about right

The Red Staters really have to try hard to drive a wedge these days.

by iohs2008 2008-11-20 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

yeesh!

by mikeinsf 2008-11-20 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Wow, your attack has so many flaws I don't know where to start.

Obama is certainly the agent of change, especially compared to how McCain or Hillary would govern. ITs painfully obvious already, in seeing the leaks out of Clintonland regarding the Sos spot. Will she? Wont She? How about who gives a fuck? She hasn't even accepted the position yet and I'm already tired of her as SoS. And trust me, this is what we would be living with every day if Hillary was POTUS. Drama, drama, drama, drama. It's no surprise that her supporters (like you) are just as filled with the drama.

Obama is already showing us change by not playing the silly political games that people like you think are so important. He kept Lieberman because he understands that while revenge would be nice, governing is more important. And meeting with McCain again shows that, just as he did throughout the campaign, Obama is going to continue to take the high road.

You could learn a thing or two from Obama (as could we all).

But the real problem with your bitter post is that Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet, and you've already got the knives out. People like you are no better than freepers, constantly flailing around looking for the next little piece of irrelevancy that you can spin against Obama.

Once Obama is sworn in, and he implements real solutions to our job woes, health care woes, Global Warming, etc. you will start to see the real change from what we've had the last 8, nay 20 years.

If Obama fails to address those issues, then maybe your complaints will have some merit. Until then, it's just baseless, sore-loserish whining.

by John in Chicago 2008-11-20 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

I don't know what the bigger problem is: that you don't understand the difference between Secretary of State or just that you're so unhappy.

by Jess81 2008-11-20 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

The rest of us got it back... boy you must have pissed someone off royally.

by yitbos96bb 2008-11-20 07:33AM | 0 recs
Jerome, I'll work with you for Brian Moran

Let me know how and where... but you're not gonna support good 'ole Terry?

by ragekage 2008-11-20 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome, I'll work with you for Brian Moran

I am on Brian's side.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-11-20 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome, I'll work with you for Brian Moran

Well, I'm a half-hour from his district. Lemme know if you need help

by ragekage 2008-11-20 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

I think you're pretty fortunate that you're the one handing out grades (and the grades don't count).  Thanks, though, for the mostly-true and partly-apologetic mea culpa.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-20 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Can we pay a little attention to the elephant in the room? He's feeling neglected.

If we are going to talk about assessments of Obama, maybe we should look at what really went on.

No reasonable account of Obama's success in the 2008 election can avoid mentioning the obviously enormously distorting, and unpredictable factor of the financial crisis that took place only a few weeks out from his election.

Have people already forgotten that Obama was, if anything, down in the polls before that crisis hit? Or that his poll numbers immediately shot up to, and stayed stable at, the levels at which he did indeed win?

Until that crisis, and with all his media helpers, Obama had been completely unable to capitalize on the huge surge against the Republicans, and the record repudiation of Bush's Presidency by the public. Obama's numbers in the election itself well trailed the numbers for Democrats in Congress.

Problem is, waves come and waves go, as Bush learned when his 90% approval ratings after 9/11 deteriorated a rather more modest, oh, 25%. In the end, it will be performance and actual personal qualities that will prevail for Obama.

by frankly0 2008-11-20 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

FactCheck: Obama was up in the polls before the Financial Crisis hit. McCain took a temporary lead due to the RNC and Palin. But we can debate all day whether it was the financial meltdown or the Moose Hunter Meltdown that brought down McSame.

I am 100% confident Obama would have won whther the financial crisis had happened or not. I will conced that he may not have won in such a dramatic fashion, but he would have won nonetheless.

by John in Chicago 2008-11-20 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Do you really have to distort like this?

Certainly in the Rasmussen poll, which proved to be  the most on target, Obama was down before the financial crisis hit.

In general, Obama was effectively tied before the financial crisis, in virtually all of the polls. His numbers immediately took a great jump after that crisis. This is simple fact.

Your idea that Obama would have won without that crisis has no support in the polls. A 6% win is not huge to begin with. What's nearly certain is that it would have been a very close race had the financial crisis not intruded. Acting as though it had no important effect, worth 5% at the least, is just denying obvious realities.

Do you really have to engage in this kind of revisionism?

If that crisis had not hit, and Obama had either lost or just barely squeaked by -- in an environment more favorable to Democrats than any in a generation -- what would that say about Obama's actual political skills and appeal?

by frankly0 2008-11-20 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Look, I've seen your previous posts and I know you have a strong desire to downplay Obama's landslide victory, and I'm not even going to engage you on it, because frankly, there's bigger fish to fry.

Your speculating based on your deeply held feelings that Obama was a flawed candidate. Obmaa led in every poll post primary, except for the one to two week period where McCain had a convention bounce. That's indisputable fact, but feel free to spin it in an anti-Obama way any way you like, but it won't change a thing. Let's just say I think that is a far-fetched, reality-challenged observation, and leave it at that.

by John in Chicago 2008-11-20 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Obama's victory was not a landslide.

See 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984 for landslide elections.

It wasn't close and it wasn't a landslide.  

by reggie44pride 2008-11-20 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Please, show me this unimpeachable source you must have access to that nobody else has access to, which shows what the definitive definition of "landslide" is.

There are many who believe that in modern presidential politics, anything over 300 EV's is a landslide.

Some think it has to be 400 evs. However, there is no clear consensus.

My opinion, as it was before this election, is that anything over 350 EVs is a landslide. Especially for a candidate that is not running for reelection. Reagan's 400ev's in 1984 wasn't that impressive considering he was a popular incumbent.

by John in Chicago 2008-11-21 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

I have a better question: what does it say that when the crisis DID hit, voters trusted Obama more than they trusted McCain?

By the way, you're being slippery anyway - you said Obama was down in the polls, and when someone pointed out that that wasn't the case, you changed your argument to "Obama was effectively tied" and then tried to act like the person who you were arguing with said that it had no effect.

You know it's not true, so why say it?

by Jess81 2008-11-20 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

When I say that Obama was "down in the polls", what I mean is that he recorded a lower number than McCain in the polls (certainly it was so in the Rasm. poll, and I believe it was true in the average of polls -- though that may depend on which polls are considered in that average).

However, the margin by which McCain may have led was at most 1 or 2 pts. With the margins of errors, and obvious issues with representative samples, I don't exactly consider that a real lead, and therefore would describe it as "effectively tied" -- as I did.

The two ways of putting it are hardly incompatible.

And of course they trusted Obama, the Democrat, over McCain, the Republican, given that voters saw the problem as attributable to the Republican President and his policies.

by frankly0 2008-11-20 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Obama won by 6.8% and an electoral vote of 365 to 173.

He beat McCain by over 8 million votes.

To me this is a very solid victory and this cannot be dismissed.

Obama would have won even with out the economic meltdown. His organization and GOTV was far superior to McCain's and enthusiasim for his candidacy was tremendous.

The strategy of focusing on early voting was a great strategic move.

Donot down play his victory.

by BDM 2008-11-20 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Nice rewrite of history.

No you are incorrect or a Republican spinning McCain's lackluster campaign.    Obama was ahead in the polls when the crisis hit... but it was close.  THen again, he had just finished taking back McCain's RNC bounce....    The first Debate helped big time and the Crisis helped cement the lead.

So No, you are wrong.   We award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.

by yitbos96bb 2008-11-20 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Let's go down memory lane.

The economy was an issue BEFORE the crisis. In all the polls before the crisis, the economy was listed as the number one issue over the war. John Mccain lost the battle for the economy with a statement that didn't get a lot of play after the crisis because it was replaced by "The fundamentals of the economy was strong". Back in April, he was vidotaped as saying*" No I don't have a lot of experience as far as the economy. I need to do some boning up".*

That's where he lost the election. Because even if the market hadn't crashed, Obama and co. would have made the election about jobs, jobs and jobs.

Between those two statements and "I voted with George Bush over 90% of the time", was the trifecta of death.

The economic crisis just helped along an inevitable conclusion.

by xodus1914 2008-11-20 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

are you that lil elephant in the MyDD room?

by swissffun 2008-11-20 11:57PM | 0 recs
I Second Your Point

About the great crew of bloggers you have here.  Even though you still haven't figured out the difference between "who" and "whom".

by kaleidescope 2008-11-20 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: I Second Your Point

I have, but I don't let anyone in on it.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-11-20 07:15AM | 0 recs
what have you learned about the media?

Was the Obama campaign better at working the media than HRC, Edwards and the other Dems? Than McCain? Than Kerry and Gore?

What make Obama better?

Does the media respond to the national attitude?

Is this merely getting sick of one party's shtick after a period of time?

Or is the media responding to the discontent of its audience?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-11-20 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: what have you learned about the media?

Obama's better was his story line, and there is always this thing of 'burnt bridges' at play with the media, so with Obama its more of a clean slate they have to work with-- not so with the Bushies that McCain hired or the Clintonites.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-11-20 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: what have you learned about the media?

Gore had a compelling story line about serving in Vietnam.

Kerry had a compelling story.

McCain had a compelling story.

I think there's more to it.

Also, having fresh media people usually isn't considered an advantage.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-11-20 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: what have you learned about the media?

I disagree completely. This is in no way meant to diminish veterans who serve, but electing the first black president is a MUCH bigger story than someone serving in the military.  

There are plenty of white male veterans, but at that time, zero black presidents.

Of course media psychology can't be summed up by only one factor, but the story was most definetely a big cause.

by world dictator 2008-11-20 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: what have you learned about the media?

How many anti-war activists have been elected POTUS?

Gore went to Vietnam with misgivings about the war and his father went from supporting to opposing the war and lost his Senate seat.

Gore, Kerry and McCain botched selling themselves.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-11-20 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: what have you learned about the media?

I don't see how anything you've said responds to my point.

Even if Gore, Kerry, and McCain sold themselves as best as humanly possible; none of them would have been the first black president.

by world dictator 2008-11-20 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: what have you learned about the media?

Folks are suffering from amnesia. Barack Obama has the most compelling life story of any American candidate ever, when compared to world events and the stae of our country.
Son of a Ivy-Leauge educated, African Muslim but he is a Christian. Son of a White, single mother, who once lived on welfare and eventually died of cancer primaritly because she didn't have adequate healthcare.

All this during a time when we are fighting a war against Muslim extemists, the present adminstration doesn't care about healthcare and race relations are finally getting better.

Obama's vistory occured at the intersection of Opportunity Drive and Readiness Parkway.

He couldn't help that he had a great story.  But we need to give him great for making sure everybody knew his story.

by xodus1914 2008-11-20 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: what have you learned about the media?

I disagree completely. This is in no way meant to diminish veterans who serve, but electing the first black president is a MUCH bigger story than someone serving in the military.  

There are plenty of white male veterans, but at that time, zero black presidents.

Of course media psychology can't be summed up by only one factor, but the story was most definetely a big cause.

by world dictator 2008-11-20 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

I give Jerome an F and award him the distinguished "Worst political blogger of 2008 election" prize.

Nobody came close - on many levels- the bias, the predictions that never came through, the censorship, etc.

The record is public.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-20 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

You really are on the wrong blog with this type of comment. Find your home.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-11-20 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

S/he's being rude, but I'll ask the question:

In hindsight, would you have managed MyDD differently? How so?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-11-20 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

I think MyDD's traffic in 2008 speaks for itself. When Stoller and Bowers left many thought this place would dry up. It didn't. Not even close.

by Texas Nate 2008-11-20 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

How does MyDD's traffic rank in the hierarchy of the liberal blogosphere?

Traffic could have grown on MyDD simply b/c the growth of the blogosphere.

Did MyDD gain or lose market share?

Does MyDD have a well defined identity?

My take is that Swing State Project has overtaken MyDD in its core function and Five Thirty Eight is a better source for polling info. MyDD's niche seems to be people who are either banned or disgruntled at the Orange Satan, but like to talk politics and prefer Scoop.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-11-20 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Its not likely that MyDD could have become significantly less popular while still having, I assume, near record breaking stats.

I also think comparing blog vs blog stats is partially misleading since other blogs like Daily Kos have a lot more publicity to none blogosphere types.

Don't get me wrong, I think a discussion about where MyDD should go from here is worthwhile, but I don't it has anything to do with Nate's point that MyDD is still really popular. Anyway you slice it a large number of hits is still a large number of hits.

by world dictator 2008-11-20 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

The traffic did go down dramatically after the great "Is this snark?" ratings purge and subsequent departure of the PUMAs.

by sneakers563 2008-11-20 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Um... wow....

I think Jerome went a little off the reservation during the primaries and was a little nasty during the beginning of the GE... but after the COnventions, he seemed to get more excited.    

No harm, no foul... we all got nasty during the Primaries.  Its over now...  WINNING forgives a lot of issues.  All jerome wanted was a Dem win... he just disagreed with some of us on the best way to do it.

by yitbos96bb 2008-11-20 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Yes, because no other blogger/political pundit endorsed a candidate.

I really don't understand why some, and I emphasize some, Obama supporters feel this intense rage that not everyone thinks he's the best politician ever.

Do I love Obama? Absolutely not. Do I like him and celebrate that he won? Absolutely.

by world dictator 2008-11-20 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Ah World Dictator: another blogger with a distinguished track record.

Rage? I have no rage! I am completely at peace.

But the facts are the facts and a blogger is accountable for his blogging. Or not? Are we really going to defend some of the comments/diaries he posted? I do not have the desire to dredge that muck up.

I wish Jerome nothing but the best but as someone that read this blog for many many months and when Jerome invites an assesment of his performance by himself judging his performance and opening up opinion via comments I see nothing wrong with offering my own opinion.

And I am not the only one. I know people who used to post here who are very reasonable non hyper-partisan activists who think like I do that Jerome jumped the shark.

But this blog- MyDD is not just Jerome's blog- its the blog of all the front page diarists and all people who post. Jerome's presence here has been pretty marginal for a while now anyways..Heck I've probably posted more here the past few weeks.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-20 08:08AM | 0 recs
Who are you; the blogging police?

You have lots of assertions but little supporting evidence

First, I don't recall making many, if any, predictions so I don't know how I could have a track record one way or another.

Regardless, I don't see how one can hold themselves any more accountable than by going through their predictions line by line and explaining why they were right or wrong. I don't see you refuting anything Jerome has said about his predictions, so I assume you agree with his post election analysis.

But even if Jerome was wrong 100% of the time, who cares? You act like its a sin to make an inaccurate prediction. At the end of the day, this is all "fantasy baseball" we do for fun on our past time. Someone being wrong about who will win Iowa has about as much of a tangible effect as my prediction that the Raiders would make the playoff.

Bottomline, if you want to "hold someone accountable" give evidence and analysis for why their prediction was wrong, don't be just call them names. And if you really think making a wrong prediction is THAT wrong then really hold Jerome and Mydd accountable by not coming here.

by world dictator 2008-11-20 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Who are you; the blogging police?

WHat??? Why would I rehash all that crap??

I make my statement and if you don't like it tough. Its supported by many statements of the "Obama is the worse Democratic nominee ever (or of my lifetime)" variety.. Obama can't win this.. Obama will never win that.. If they don't give Hillary what she wants with Florida and Michigan its over etc etc

And I don't come here cause of Jerome's diaries my friend. There are other diarists and bloggers.

And who called anyone a name?

As far as you its not the predictions you made but the absolutely ridiculous comments you made about Obama during the primaries. Comments that had absolutely no basis in reality. What? You want me to go back and read all your comments? Sorry I'm not into torturing myself.

I stand by my statement and if you don't like it too bad.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-20 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Who are you; the blogging police?

Your post make little sense. Let's go in reverse order.

1. Making an allegation that I made some comment(s)  which had "no basis" in reality, but failing to provide said comment(s) is pretty much the equivalent of just making something up. I mean really, if you're going to make an accusation, or hold me "accountable" then you need to actually produce some proof. Otherwise it just results in unwarranted back and forth. For example, remember that one time you made that sexist comment about Hillary Clinton? I'd look it up but I don't want to torture myself.

2. I think saying Jerome is the worst blogger of 2008 definetely counts as name calling.

3. If you don't come here for Jerome's commentary, why do you read and comment on his entries? Every time you click Jerome's entry you're "failing to hold him accountable".  There are certainly front page diarest who I don't care for, so I just don't read their posts.

4. Its very disingenious to say you're not going to "rehash" the past, but then critisize Jerome for past comments. You could've simply disagreed with Jerome's analysis of his predictions, but you didn't and still have choosen not to.  Instead you started critisizing Jerome personally.  That might be your opinion, but its certainly rehasing the past.

Its also rehasing the past when you say, "jerome said something about Obama being a bad nominee, etc,etc." If you're going to call someone out don't half ass it, just do it. Calling it an opinion doesn't lower the threshold of proof when it comes to an accusation. You can have an opinion, but like Joe Biden said, to Obama ironically, everyone's entitled to their own opinion but not their own truth.

by world dictator 2008-11-20 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Who are you; the blogging police?

I stand by my statement World Dictator.

If I said global warming is happening I don't think you'd ask me for evidence. Anyone who's read this site for the past year knows what Jerome's diaries have been. There is no need to repeat them.. If you didn't find his diaries off the reservation then perhaps you are likewise deluded and that is your right.

I think I am doing plenty by standing up and calling a spade a spade.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-20 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Who are you; the blogging police?

So basically you're incapable of refuting the holes I've poked in your accusations. Cool. Thanks. Good debate.

by world dictator 2008-11-21 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Who are you; the blogging police?

No. I am just not interested in having a debate with you! Why would I be?

I made my point and as I stated you are welcome to  accept it or not. Its really not that important to me.

However, your track record is there and anybody who wants to see it can see your ridiculous statements about Obama. You've said way worse things about our newly elected president than McCain ever did...

Thats the great thing about blogging: your track record is out there...

by obama4presidente 2008-11-21 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Who are you; the blogging police?

One last point. If you can have a negative "opinion" of Jerome, why can't he have a negative opinion of Obama?

by world dictator 2008-11-20 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Who are you; the blogging police?

Its not about opinions..its about reality.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-20 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Who are you; the blogging police?

That made no sense whatsoever

by world dictator 2008-11-21 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Who are you; the blogging police?

Sure it does: people can have whatever "opinions" they want but in the end what matters is not our own subjective interpretation of things but the actual reality.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-21 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Who are you; the blogging police?

Good luck! Lets work together to make the next years good ones for the country under Obama.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-20 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Jerome,

Your thoughtful commments and insights will be missed as you catch up with your family.  But i look foward to these as 2010 gets closer.

best  david

by giusd 2008-11-20 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Jesus. You people. And for frankly0, I have no words.

Hey, Jerome the primaries are bygones, you 'manned up ' to your mis-assessment on Obama the candidate and his campaign. In addition ,you said where you wrong and why.  
That's more than enough in my book.
Now it's time that we all put our Blue hats on and get to back to the business of change.
Happy holidays to you and the family, and I look forward to seeing your blogs in the future.

by xodus1914 2008-11-20 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

And for frankly0, I have no words.

Yes, and basically I'm allowed no words here, having my posts censored one after another.

Even arguing that Obama's 6-7% victory margin was based primarily on the financial crisis -- an interpretation that's impossible to dismiss by any serious analyst -- is a point of view that cannot be spoken here.

Intellectual dishonesty continues to reign at MyDD.

by frankly0 2008-11-20 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

You are a fool, it is called a convention bounce. see Nate who has a brain to see how that works. obama had 4-6 point advantage all through the campaign except for "10 days" in which McCain got a bounce after his speech and his highest number was +5 for gallup (his highest in Rasmusan or any other poll including R2K which both turned out to be pretty accurate at the end of this cycle was never above +3 in that period). his  winning chance on fivethirtyfive was never better than a 55% or so as well. if you look at the polls right before Lehman crashed his lead in gallup dwindled on a downward spiral to 2 points and  he was tied in Rasmussen, his convention bounce was starting to finish. The markets didn't help obama that much since his lead was Gradual (+2-3 after the crash to consistent 6+ AFTER the first two debates), what helped obama enormously was McCain's out of touch REACTION to the crisis (fundamentals are strong, suspension) and obama acting very consistent and calm during the same preriod, also winning all the debates helped a lot. Soo Get your puma head out of the sand and look at the facts.

by YourConcernsAreNoted 2008-11-20 01:43PM | 0 recs
mccain

i don't get the idea that the media were anti mccain. how about mccain simply ran a shitty campaign, with no real solutions/ideas, while at uthe same time betraying every bit of honor and respect that he had engendered. he was a terrible candidate who ran an objectively horrible campaign. not too many nice things you could say about him.

by highgrade 2008-11-20 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores


Very nice, Jerome.

Im curious about what the general thinking is about Democrats winning the state House in Virginia next year and the relative amount of effort that is going to go into that.

I consider the crucial difference between Clinton and Obama more ideological.  Obama ran more on a Left/Right political logic in which race simply is a prominent fact and factor.  Clinton ran more on a liberal/conservative logic.  In which social issues, including gender and religion, matter more.

by killjoy 2008-11-20 08:16AM | 0 recs
Thanks Jerome for a wonderful albeit controversial

and provocative blogging year. Thanks for providing this platform for many like me who sought refuge here early this year. It was turbulent year with a tumultuous ending. Next few years are turning out to be quite challenging. We definitely chose the right person at the helm, although history will have to prove out our choice.

Personally I'll be reading (lurking) more, writing less here. More time is needed to be devoted to my research and travel. Here's to all, thank you for the wonderful ride.

by louisprandtl 2008-11-20 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Nice diary, Jerome.  Kudos.  Many people wouldn't write a diary acknowledging one's earlier off-the-mark assessments and predictions.  Good call on the senate and house races, though.

by ProfessorReo 2008-11-20 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Thanks JErome. It takes a big blogger to be able to list the places where you were wrong and I for one appreciate the honesty. Especially on the point of Sarah Palin. As many were you were blown away by her initial impact, but there is a reason why people need to be on the national stage a little while before one judges them on their future merit. She is not likely to be the repub standard bearer in any successful elections.  

The primary battles here were some of the most intense and exciting blogging experiences I have ever had and I will always remember that time. Thanks for providing this platform for all of us to run our mouths.

by wasder 2008-11-20 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores

Since you don't need money from this site I don't have to donate ever again, awesome!

The only thing missing is a "you were right" to the commentators on various subjects (Ex: Palin) but that might be asking a bit too much of anyone.

by MNPundit 2008-11-20 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll scores
I came over here from Kos because of the out of hand CSD raging over there. I still love reading the diaries and FPers over there, but My DD feels more like a community to me than DK does.
This was a friendly place for Clinton supporters, and I will always appreciate Jerome for providing that place during the turbulent primaries.
Thanks, Jerome.
by skohayes 2008-11-20 01:33PM | 0 recs
PUMA support

You allowed Alegre and Texas Darlin' free rein here during the primaries, and silenced those with opposing points of view. Alegre's gone off to her corner, but Texas Darlin's gone off the deep end.

You used your censorial powers unwisely. The people you propped up have proved to be unworthy of your support.

by Black Anus 2008-11-20 03:03PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads