• I agree with Dean's confrontational, adversarial approach.  I disagree with the dumb way he "shoots from the lip, providing, as you say, too many cheap and easy sound bites for the opposition.

    And I'm disgusted the "progressive" Democrat-bashers are just as bad as Lieberman et alia when it comes to bashing other Democrats...only a different set.  

    It will take all Democrats and fair fraction of independents working together to overthrow this malignancy in our government.  And instead some of you want circle-jerks of arguing moral and political purity. Feh.

  • I thought I'd posted this reply earlier but can't find it now...apologies if this is somehow a duplicate.

    ====

    Nope.  I don't think Hillary's being a scapegoat.  If she wants the 2008 nomination, she gets it, it's that simple:  nobody will be able to match her for star power, $$$, top personnel, organization.  I wasn't wild about her but I, too, am warming up to the possibility.  Any Dem who can't stand the idea of Hillary being the nomination better start choking it down now.

    The interesting thing about all these attacks now is that if she still wins re-election handily next year, a lot of the wingnut wad will have been already expended and it will be "old news" for 2008, thus somewhat innoculating Hillary from new attacks.  

    As it is, I question how much good the attacks can do because, unlike John Kerry, she's already very well known, very well defined, and most people have an opinion about her.

  • Nope.  I don't think Hillary's being a scapegoat.  If she wants the 2008 nomination, she gets it, it's that simple:  nobody will be able to match her for star power, $$$, top personnel, organization.  I wasn't wild about her but I, too, am warming up to the possibility.  Any Dem who can't stand the idea of Hillary being the nomination better start choking it down now.

    The interesting thing about all these attacks now is that if she still wins re-election handily next year, a lot of the wingnut wad will have been already expended and it will be "old news" for 2008, thus somewhat innoculating Hillary from new attacks.  

    As it is, I question how much good the attacks can do because, unlike John Kerry, she's already very well known, very well defined, and most people have an opinion about her.

  • It's not that Red and Swing states are getting more Purple per se, it's the effect of Urbanization, which tends to produce Democratic trends.   Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina are four states that, over time, I think the Dems have some chances at.   It will help if people like Howard Dean don't shoot from the lip without speaking.  As a poster up-thread indicated, it's counter-productive to needlessly piss off the very people whose votes you want/need.
  • Much discussion is flawed on its statistical merits and suicidal in its subtext.

    In the first place, with even an 80 percent loyalty rate, most important Democratic initiatives would pass with with a 225 or 230 seat margin, for that 80 percent number is an average.  You're going to see far more defections on some votes than others.  Shrug.  That's the way it is.  I can name at least 20 House seats and 7 Senate seats where I'd be grateful for an 80 percent Democratic vote right now.

    In the second place, going after partially non-compliant Dems is a waste of resources.  Per the above, I'd rather spend the resources knocking out 97 percent GOPers than burning down the house to roast the pig by going after 80 percent Dems.

    Finally, if you think the national demographics would support a majority of 97 percent Dems, you really don't understand the country.  I live in one of the Bluest cities around (Santa Monica) but it gets very purple within an hour's drive.

  • on a comment on Abolish the Electoral College? over 9 years ago
    You've got it nailed.
  • on a comment on Abolish the Electoral College? over 9 years ago
    The power of having disproportional influence.
    It's a zero-sum game.  
  • on a comment on Abolish the Electoral College? over 9 years ago
    Game the proposal:  the "Maine" plan screws the Democrats by giving the GOP a permanent EV bulge.

    A 60-40 vote in a bunch of small states gives them 3 and 4 EV's at a 100 percent clip.  Whereas a state like California going 55-45 gives the GOP 20+ EV's they wouldn't have otherwise gotten.

    Btw, there's a difference between the Maine and Colorado plans:  the Maine methond gives one EV per Congressional District and the two EV's representing the Senate seats as a whole to the Statewide winner.  The Colorado plan puts all the EV's into a pool and then splits proportionately.

    Take the state-by-state results of the 2004 election and game it under either system:  the results will be uglier than what actually happened.

  • on a comment on Abolish the Electoral College? over 9 years ago
    Put yourself in the position of the voters of Wyoming: they have a slam dunk disproportionate weight of 3 EV's in the EC, which, as small is it is, outweighs the relative percentage of their population.  What will entice them to give that up?  Altruistic idealism?  ROFL!!!

    Expanding the frame a little, what will entice GOP legislatures and governors to give up the built-in advantage they've got among a number of states?  Going to the popular vote dimishes a now built-in GOP advantage.  They can and will block any change.

    Next case.

  • comment on a post Abolish the Electoral College? over 9 years ago
    It takes only the legislatures of 12 states to not ratify a Constitutional amendment to block it.  Abolishing the EC isn't happening.  You're not going to get the GOP-dominated legislatures, particularly in hard red states like Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina to go along with diluting their relative power.  All it takes from there is a wink and a nod from the RNC to a state like Arizona or Texas and it's dead dead dead.

    It's like the GOP impeaching Clinton: you can go through the process, get great drama, and ultimately the underlying math just isn't there.

    I'd like to see the EC abolished.  I don't think it's happening, not just in my lifetime but that of my college-age daughter.

  • on a comment on Vilsack Is Out over 9 years ago
    The Democratic Party needs Dean's enthusiasm, Dean's energy, Dean's connection to both its base and traditional "outsiders."   The Democratic Party does not need Dean's image at its helm; the party will be  tarred as with JK as the party of northeast liberals at a time when it needs to strengthen support with working class men and women in states like Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and West Virginia, the states the Democrats must be competitive in--and win--if they're going to be successful.  I don't think the Democrats have to do what some deride as "Republican Lite" so that they can compete in the South; the South, except for Florida and maybe Arkansas, I regard as a lost cause...just look at the numbers.   But the Democrats DO have to shore up their strength among non-Southern working class whites and Hispanics...and I don't see a party with Dean as its figurehead image being able to do that.   This guy Rosenberg, on the other hand, I find intriguing.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads