MyDD :: The media & us losing 2000, 2004, 2008?, 2012?

The media & us losing 2000, 2004, 2008?, 2012?

by fairleft, Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:38:23 AM EST

Most electable candidate in 2000: Al Gore. Mainstream media destroys him: it starts with attacks on Gore's character and a Bill Bradley love fest, gets worse in the race against Bush, and finishes with a media firestorm demanding Gore concede Florida and the election.

Most electable candidate in 2004: Al Gore. He tests the waters, finds the same crazed Gore-hating media, and decides not to run; doesn't want to deal with that sh*t again.

Most electable candidate in 2008 other than Gore: Clinton. Mainstream media destroys her: the attacks on her character are overwhelming, accompanied by a Barack Obama love fest and absurdly early and overwhelming 'loser' catcalls demanding she concede.

Most electable candidate in 2012 (assuming Obama loses in 2008; it's a strong possibility (see below) though I think he'll win by a nose): Clinton. She decides not to run, doesn't want to deal with that sh*t again.

On Clinton's electability and Obama's relative weakness there, check out electoral-vote.com any time in the past month. Here are the latest numbers:

Electoral-Vote.Com, May 23

Electoral Votes: Clinton 315, McCain 206

Electoral Votes: Obama 242, McCain 272

It's getting real frustrating. And nope, sorry, in the face of reality I'm not falsely optimistic.

Tags: Al Gore, Bill Bradley, George Bush, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 34 Comments :: Post a Comment

how do you know this is reality? (1.50 / 2)

you have a flying Delorien?

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:39:46 AM EST

Re: how do you know this is reality? (1.66 / 3)

I know the reality immediately above my "in the face of reality" comment. Which shows Obama losing by a significant margin to McCain in electoral college votes. Despite that I still think Obama has a better than 50% of winning, but not a lot better than 50%.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:48:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This far out in the elections teh polls showed (none / 0)

Dukakis winning.

Polls are nto acurate is what I am saying.

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:23:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This far out in the elections teh polls showed (2.00 / 2)

The current reality is the polling figures. Ignore them at Obama's peril. And if polls this far out showed Democrats Dukakis and Kerry winning and show Obama losing, that might make a reasonable person pessimistic about Obama's chances.

(Dukakis and) Kerry had not alienated a significant chunk of the Democratic Party base in May, good for him, but gradually his support especially among 'the white working class' was eroded and Bush won again. Obama has a head start on the erosion in that 'swing voter' support. At least he knows, I hope, where his persuasive work has to be focused.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:35:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I see (1.00 / 1)

so if the polls this far out showed Obama losing then its bad, if the polls this far out show Obama winning then its bad.

Basically it does not really matter what the polls show, you think he will lose.

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:22:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If we lose this year... (none / 0)

I wouldn't sweat it too much; we've got Mark Warner in the bullpen. This guy is Bill Clinton without the baggage; we've got a guaranteed victory in 2012.

Hillary and Obama are historic candidates, rather than great candidates. They are pretty good candidates but each of them possesses a ton of baggage and both seem insistent on digging themselves into gigantic holes every three weeks voluntarily with their own words. With that said, I'm still optimistic for a victory this year. Much of our chances of winning depends on how this nomination process is settled and who the winner chooses as his or her VP.

by Blazers Edge on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:43:23 AM EST

Re: If we lose this year... (2.00 / 2)

He gave the Dem response a year or so ago and never recovered from it. Seemed to have the fire of a Harry Reid and a twitchy eyebrow to boot.

Our best candidate in 2012 will actually again be Gore, but assuming he won't run (and assuming Obama loses, which I think is a little less likely than him winning (despite the polls)) it'll be Hillary.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:46:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If we lose this year... (none / 0)

She wouldn't get enough African-American support in 2012 to defeat Warner; with Obama's endorsement in 2012, Warner would probably start with 75% support from African-Americans and would already have the liberal wing of the party in his backpocket (see Jerome Armstrong's love for Warner). There is no way he would get beaten among blue-collar males in the same way that Obama has been getting beaten during this process. The comparison that some make with Edwards is bogus; JE couldn't carry Warner's bags.

by Blazers Edge on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:50:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If we lose this year... (none / 0)

If the Dems change their rules to winner-take-all, Hillary might stand a better chance of winning.

by Actright on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:07:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If we lose this year... (none / 0)

Nah, all Obama needed was some support from blue-collar males to defeat Hillary in Ohio and Texas. Warner will have Obama's base and will be able to at the very worst, split blue collar males with Hillary.

I may be contradicting myself here, but Warner not running was the worst thing that could happen to Hillary; if he runs, Obama doesn't. She would have been able to defeat Warner as I think it'll be pretty difficult for governors to win in the next three election cyles given the increased focus on national security/foreign policy. She would have also received the 75% support from African-Americans this year that Warner would likely receive at a minimum in 2012.

by Blazers Edge on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:12:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If we lose this year... (2.00 / 1)

And no more caucuses, except maybe in Iowa. Very undemocratic, and they hurt Democrats' chances in November by advantaging the candidate with the younger, activist supporters rather than where November will be won, over older swing voters.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:21:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If we lose this year... (none / 0)

You can't simultaneously advocate winner take all on a state by state basis (not very democratic) and complain about caucuses being not very democratic. Proportional representation is something that liberals have supported for a long time, and it is the only way to hold state by state primaries and have a delegate total that approximates the popular vote.

Winner take all gives ridiculous results like McCain winning 30% of the vote and getting all the delegates because he got 1% more than the next highest running candidate. Results like that make no sense and make a mockery of the primaries.

Winner take all is also awful, as it allows candidates to completely ignore any state they are strongly likely to win or that their opponents are likely to win. This is why our general election campaigns ignore 38+ states completely, and it sucks, particularly as a way to pick a party candidate of the whole party.

Just because winner take all would have meant that Clinton would have won doesn't make it the best way to run an election.

by letterc on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:06:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think there should be a bonus for winning (none / 0)

maybe a tenth of the votes. Everything else should be proportional. Maybe I mistated above, but I don't agree with winner-take-all.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:49:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think there should be a bonus for winning (none / 0)

Sorry I misread you.

I'm pretty neutral on caucuses, but I'm definitely in favor of proportional representation.

by letterc on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:26:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If we lose this year... (2.00 / 1)

Caucuses have never favored young voters ever before. Who has more time and more experience with elections, people in their 60s (mostly retired, no young children, decades of time to figure out how to participate in caucuses), or people in their 20s (working full time, many with young children, many of whom have never caucused before)?

The Dean campaign tried to use young voters in Iowa, and he got blown out of the water because young voters couldn't be bothered to show up for a 2 hour vote, and the ones who did didn't know what to do once they got there. The Obama campaign did a stunning job of bringing out new voters of all sorts, the Clinton campaign could have done the same for her voters if they had run as good a campaign and had decided it mattered.

by letterc on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:16:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Makes no sense (2.00 / 1)

The 18 to 22 year-olds, Obama prey, have all the time in the world that those older people do not have. It's a party to the kids and they showed up in droves, along with black voters. Sixty year-olds don't want to be bothered hanging out with political junkies. All these criteria are opposite for the general election, where the adults always vote and the kids never show up.

I think what is as stupid, as winner take all with 30% of the vote, is getting extra delegates for winning very democratic districts. Winning the Republican districts, if anything should bring bonuses but even that is stupid if that result won't be reflected in the GE.

After this process we have a candidate ahead who is losing in the GE race. If we have an Electoral College system, the primaries should reflect that, not a delegate carnival.

The DNC has no rights in telling any state what to do because the leadership could tailor its rules to one candidate, as Dean did for Obama. What should happen is the Super-Delegates should be able to discount caucuses and primary/caucus results like Texas, where Hillary won the state by 4% but got less delegates.

Howard Dean should be thrown out of the DNC. Super Ds will have to justify their supporting a candidate because they wanted to jump on the bandwagon, even though all indications show that he is a weaker candidate in the GE. When Obama loses, that is what they will have to do.

According to a Newsweek poll: http://www.newsweek.com/id/138462

Obama 46
McCain 46

Clinton 48
McCain 44

And that doesn't even take into consideration the electoral college map which makes Clinton's lead a lot larger.

by allend on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:02:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Makes no sense (1.00 / 1)

Your title is a very accurate description of your comment. It is probably the only accurate thing in your comment.

by letterc on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:23:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The media &you losing (1.66 / 3)

I could debunk your factless and demagoguerific diary, but I'll just slap this picture in here instead.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:49:10 AM EST

As an Obama supporter who reads ICHC (none / 0)

this is pricless.

Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.

by Massadonious on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:11:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Polls in May Show Reality? (none / 0)

Worth pointing out that on May 25, 2004, John Kerry was winning 320-218 according to Electoral-Vote.com.

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/may/ma y25.html

So clearly what the averages of polls show just over five months until election day is a very accurate prediction of what happens come November.

by duncin32 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:50:16 AM EST

Re: Polls in May Show Reality? (2.00 / 2)

Yes, they show the present state of public opinion, and the present is the best though imperfect guide to the future.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:55:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Polls in May Show Reality? (2.00 / 1)

With imperfect being the key word.

Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.

by Massadonious on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:10:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Polls in May Show Reality? (none / 0)

I think you're being unreasonably optimistic if you simply ignore what the polls say about Obama vs McCain.

As for how the polls compare the two Democrats' electability, they've consistently shown Clinton doing better than Obama. Not sure if there is better evidence for comparing Clinton's electability to Obama's. What do you propose?

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:25:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Polls in May Show Reality? (none / 0)

You probably would have also said it was unreasonably optimistic to simply ignore the polls that showed HRC with a double digit lead nationally and leading in every non-home state or Iowa poll five months before Iowa when it came to who would be the Democratic nominee.

Citing polls five months before an election is a nice snap-shot, but isn't a strong argument for who is actually going to win come election day.

by duncin32 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:33:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Polls in May Show Reality? (none / 0)

Obama's campaign didn't ignore them, it figured out a way to deal with them; whatever it did it would be helped by a the Hillary hating media and it learned to work with and take advantage of that.

I put the electoral vote numbers to show the contrasting electability of Hillary and Barack, not to predict November. Not sure if there is a better way to show that than by those poll numbers translated into electoral college votes.

And, like I said, I think Obama will squeak out a victory because of the bad economy and Iraq and people just wanting a change. That's despite the polls showing him losing right now.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:41:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Be it Obama or be it Clinton (none / 0)

Our nominee is going to the White House.

The only way we lose is if we are so divided and bitter in November that we can't win. I think that Senators Clinton and Obama will do whatever is necessary to pull the party together.

I feel it in my bones. This is our year. We're going to give those wingnut assholes a thumping so hard they'll have to shit standing up until 2010. No primary infighting is going to stop that. No way!

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:25:16 AM EST

Re: Be it Obama or be it Clinton (none / 0)

We're running against McCain, not the wingnut assholes, and it was us that got thumped in 2004 by certifiable wingnut Bush and Darth Vader Cheney.

I think we'll squeak it out, if the media stays in love with Obama and protects him, and if he can win over a large number of non-African-American under $75,000 folks.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:29:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Be it Obama or be it Clinton (none / 0)

McCain wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, he supports the Bush foreign policy. He opposes abortion and gay rights. The only thing he is somewhat sane on is immigration. He's a good man, but it's an election year, so in my book, he is still a wingnut asshole.

This is our year to shine. If we don't win this year, we can't blame it on the media. If we can pull this party together, we're going to kick some serious GOP butt!

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:34:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So Fairleft (none / 0)

you really don't think an Obama/Clinton team would take 320 electoral college votes (assuming that the nonsensical outrage from today could be put to rest)?

I think McCain's best VP choice is Huckabee; fighting Obama for independents will be a tough chore. Huckabee is his only chance to really gin up an evangelical turnout that will at least somewhat resemble the evanlegical turnout of 2004.

by Blazers Edge on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:36:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Fairleft (none / 0)

I don't know crap about Repub politics, but if I were advising him I'd tell McCain to choose a candidate that appeals to Midwestern white working class voters. But not sure if there is anybody in the Repubs who can help him much there. The Minnesota governor? That woman from Alaska might be sexy choice.

He'd be making a mistake if he chose a 'wingnut' evangelical candidate, imvho. Most Americans are tired of the 'wingnut' stuff and want a 'normal' Prez/VP, and the evangelical votes have to go McCain anyway. Anyway, if McCain can sweep Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana he's in.

If Obama chooses Bayh that might hold Indiana for him, but an Obama/Clinton has the best chance of winning. Who knows, we were way ahead this time four years ago with a not terrible candidate.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:49:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Huckabee's a natural, (none / 0)

and has a populist vibe. But some of the far out creationist stuff and similar, I think he hurts McCain more than helps him. I'm probably wrong, though.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:51:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Has anyone noticed... (none / 0)

The poll tracker on the front page?

I wonder how many heads are going to explode when they find out that even on MyDD, Obama has a viable General Election map.

Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.

by Massadonious on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:28:50 AM EST

I think they use electoral-vote.com (none / 0)

or some close variant of it. Obama is ahead of McCain today, May 24 at electoral-vote.com.

Anyway, as I said in the sentence introducing it, I posted the comparison between Clinton vs. McCain & Obama vs. McCain to compare the electability of Clinton and Obama. Clinton continues to be much more electable by that measure.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:04:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's because.... (2.00 / 1)

imo,

Gore: should have stayed and fought (not a fighter).

Kerry: should have fought back after swiftboat (not a fighter).

Other than that - we keep electing "elitist" democrats like Kerry, like Dukakis, like Bradley - they do not connect with working class dems....

Successful candidate: Bill Clinton - why? he connected with working class dems (reagan democrats). So does Hillary. Barak does not.

end of story.

by nikkid on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:29:12 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.