Professor Balkin:

You may want to stop counting your proverbial electoral chickens before you get them.

(1) Bush is very very unpopular...

Because Mr. McCain has spent much of his time tweaking Mr. Bush since losing in 2000, swing voters in the polls do not connect the two.

(2) the economy is not doing so well...

There is not an incumbent running to blame.

(3) the Republicans have held the White House for eight years, the Democrats will almost certainly win the Presidency.

Why?

In the Reagan era, the last two term Republican was followed by another Republican.

In the post Vietnam era, we are 1-1, with Carter squeaking in after Watergate. There is no Watergate today.

Here are the factors the pundits should be considering:

1) During the primaries, Obama has consistently under performed his poll numbers when actual voters cast ballots. Obama is not leading in the general election polls like prior Dem candidates and is instead effectively tied in the Rasmussen and Gallup tracking polls. Thus, if voting for Obama underperforms the current statistically tied poll numbers as it did during the primaries, he will lose.

2) The basis for Obama's exceedingly narrow nomination win rests on a string of victories in caucus states. However, excluding states with heavy African American Dem voting blocks, Mr. Obama lost popular votes in nearly every major state holding Dem primaries. The general election is based on popular voting, not caucuses, and no state will have anything close to a majority African American electorate like the Southern Dem primaries.

3) The GOP brand and control of Congress has waxed and waned during the post Vietnam era (we are in our third cycle now), but the only Dem Presidential candidate to obtain an actual majority of the popular vote was Jimmy Carter with the barest fraction above 50%.

The post Vietnam Dems do not have a presidential coalition which can achieve a majority or even a plurality without the votes of Reagan blue collar Dems. Carter had them in 1976 to achieve his bare majority and Clinton recovered enough of them in 1992 and 1996 to achieve plurality wins. In contrast, Mr. Obama lost the Reagan Dems during the primaries and has not recovered them during the general election.

The current Obama liberal coalition of white collar Dems, the youth vote and African Americans lost in landslides in 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988.

4) THE two issues which concern voters this cycle are fuel prices and who can best serve as CiC. Concerns about the economy are primarily driven by high fuel prices. Also, you can lump the various answers concerning the war, national security and terrorism under the rubric of who can serve better as CiC. McCain has advantages in both areas.

McCain started his campaign running for CiC and Obama's photo op faux presidential tour of the Middle East and the EU is an admission that he has problems in this area. However the trip has not budged the tracking polls. Voters are not buying the spin.

McCain may have an even more effective issue with oil prices. Now that they are paying $4+ for a gallon of gas, folks are no longer so sanguine about self imposed restrictions on drilling for our own oil rather than relying upon overseas imports. About 70% of those polled on the issue want to start drilling here and now. McCain partially awoke to the possibilities of calling for more drilling and has started running commercials on the subject. Mr. Obama's refrain that we cannot drill our way out of the problem only sells with the 30% of the electorate who form his base, not the Reagan Dem blue collar workers who have less disposable income to waste on artificially expensive gas to keep from disturbing caribou on an arctic wasteland or because there was an oil spill off of CA a generation ago.

Is the conservative coalition that has dominated American politics since 1980 essentially gone, like the New Deal coalition before it? (I think it is).

You mean the conservative coalition made up of the GOP and the new Blue Dog Dems who fund the war, pass FISA reform and will vote in a heartbeat to lift restrictions on drilling in ANWAR, offshore and the oil shale deposits out here in CO/UT/WY?

We are returning to the same conservative coalition of the 80s with Dems back on board.
 

Remind me again how well our prestidigita... -- uhhhh, sorry, prognosticator -- "Bart" did in 2006. And then tell me again why I should bother reading his tripe.

Cheers,
 

... the only Dem Presidential candidate to obtain an actual majority of the popular vote was Jimmy Carter...

Hell, Dubya didn't even get a plurality of the vote. Is there a point somewhere that I'm missing?

Cheers,
 

Also, you can lump the various answers concerning the war, national security and terrorism under the rubric of who can serve better as CiC. McCain has advantages in both areas.

McSame [following in the footsteps of Dubya's "country" of Africa gaffe in his first preznitential campaign] certainly nailed it here. Who can argue with such an incisive military mind as that?

Or this? Or the examples listed and linked to here...

LOL....

Cheers,
 

arne:

I have not predicted that McCain will win and Obama will lose. It is far too early for that. In political terms, there is an eternity until the election. Who knows what will come out of the woodwork.

I am merely reminding those who are daring enough to make conclusions this early and have assumed the Mr. Obama has this race locked up that they are ignoring electoral trends over since Vietnam and specifically during the 2008 election cycle.

I would be very concerned if I were an Obama supporter that he is underperforming prior losing Dem candidates in the polls and the primary electoral outcomes to date underperform his underperforming polls.

When I do make my presidential prediction in October, you may want to be aware that I have predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1980 and offered the exact outcome of the 2004 election weeks before the polls did.

My record with Congress is spottier. Thus, I hope my prediction of significant Dem gains in 2008 is similarly spotty.
 

We are returning to the same conservative coalition of the 80s with Dems back on board.

Astute readers at this site know what Bart's deal is and understand that his view of the world is based on a desperate need to believe rather than an interest in what is actually going on.

Bart has a religious belief in "conservatism" and he fears and loathes any facts that don't comport with his assumptions. A tipoff is his glaring inability to graciously acknowledge errors of fact, which errors he copiously commits.
 

I have not predicted that McCain will win and Obama will lose.

Bart, that is a flat-out falsehood.

Granted, you've got in your favor one thing: it is a pain in the ass to go rooting through the archives here looking for the evidence that makes you a liar.

But you're a liar--or a complete incompetent--nonetheless.
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

I am merely reminding those who are daring enough to make conclusions this early and have assumed the Mr. Obama has this race locked up that they are ignoring electoral trends over since Vietnam and specifically during the 2008 election cycle.

I am mereley reminded of your (and Rove's) prognostications in 2006 and don't think they're worth a bucket of warm spit. Why don't you headline them on your own blog for those that have lots of time to waste and need amusement?

I would be very concerned if I were an Obama supporter that he is underperforming prior losing Dem candidates in the polls and the primary electoral outcomes to date underperform his underperforming polls.

You're not, so why not STFU? When we need advice from a RW authoritarian, Republican operative as to how best to run a Democratic campaign, we'll ... call Karl Rove, who is also sympathetic enough to tender advice unbidden. M'kay?

Cheers,
 

Heh.

It appears Jack and Bart at least agree on one thing -- there are enough stupid / dishonest voters to prevent the Republicans from getting what they so richly deserve.

And I hope they're both wrong.
 

Hell, Dubya didn't even get a plurality of the vote. Is there a point somewhere that I'm missing?

Here's an interesting trivia challenge:

Andrew Jackson is generally considered the founder of the modern Democratic party (the old Jeffersonian coalition split, with Jackson taking the Dem half). Since Jackson was re-elected in 1832, name every Dem president who received more than 51% of the popular vote.

No fair looking it up.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

mark:

Without looking, I would guess that only FDR and LBJ exceeded 51% of the popular vote since Jackson in 1832.

Of the Dems who won in the 20th century, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton did not.

I do not believe Cleveland did, but I am unsure.
 

mattski said...

BD: I have not predicted that McCain will win and Obama will lose.

Bart, that is a flat-out falsehood.

Really? Who did I pick and by how much? Curious minds want to know.

BTW, you can go over to my blog and run your search. If I would have made a prediction, it would be there. What you will find is a series of comments similar to my summary of trends here, with careful qualifications that things can change.
 

FDR and LBJ are correct. They are, indeed, the only two.
 

Really? Who did I pick and by how much

With respect, Bart, you stated that McCain would win. You made the statement here at Balkinization and since I don't read your blog and have never made reference to it your suggestion that anything you wrote on your own blog might be in the slightest way germane to this discussion is another "Bart-esque" baffler...
 

What will the next (Obama) regime look like? FISA. Big lofty talk, slimy political expediency, government per the highest bidder. Corporatism w/ a good PR spin. endless back room compromises.

Question:
why is it always about Bart?
 

Getting back to the main post.

I am in general agreement with Balkin's take on the likely outcome of this election, though I am not sure I would go so far as to say election campaigns don't matter (much). I suspect this will be a realigning election, one that will lead to the Democrats as the "normal" partisan majority for a generation or so. But that does not mean elections don't have to be won, cataclysmic event or not. Obama has not yet "sealed the deal", though he strikes me as someone, like Tiger Woods, who does not blow leads down the stretch.

Finally, I don't buy the voting models of Fair or Erickson. There are far too few observations. This is out of necessity, because there have not been enough elections to get a good sample. The result of this is that some minor tweaking of the model can lead to drastically different results. For example, does Ford count as an incumbent in 1976 or not? After all, he was running for election, not re-election. By creating a dummy variable for this factor the model can be made to fit better. With so few observations, a couple of dummy variable like these can massage the data so that it looks to be statistically significant. But that does not mean it will help predict the future. It is worth noting that these models tend not to predict the outcome of "close" elections.

The political scientist Daron Shaw once described these models as akin to shooting an arrow at a wall, and then drawing a bullseye around it. Looks good, but that does not mean it can predict.
 

Given the gyre and gymbol of US history guided by a strong constitution, the article's depiction of the electoral outcome as 'next regime' seems apt. Yet, glancing a few days prior to a posted notification of availability of a SSRN article JB authored related to the event celebrating the vision of Jerome Barron, and Alexander Meikeljohn, and correlative concerns of how our judiciary and regulatory systems have applied, or might apply in the future, to fostering first amendment rights in media, it seems that a partial reply to the proposition of the post is provided in the earlier one; namely, that a careful approach to regulatory agency function, as well as encouragements afforded to congress, might improve the structural setting for communications in a way which enhances government's capabilities to exceed the mundaneness of mere regime. Clearly, open source is as good as its component elements, yet, there is an excellence present in aggregate which adds up to more than the contributions. I think it is this wind of the e-presence dynamic which has facilitated amelioration of what otherwise might have been more excesses than the dwindling reactionary coalition now exiting wrought. One of the instructive exemplars of this phenomenon was the gradual dawn when the US attorney firing scandal reached the news media. Within a week it became clear the subtext was to influence vote counting and access to polls. Today US attorney general Mukasey has announced formation of a flotilla of agents he plans to send to localities to assure voter ID is enforced, and pollworkers honor rights for questionable voters to vote on provisional ballots in instances of challenges to suffrage. This concept seems a trifle thirdworldish, but perhaps we could view it as a counterimage of the impact of offshoring; the feds want to be in our polls this autumn when we vote, a strategy design which fits the character of many other benefits afforded by the current 'regime'. As relevant minutiae, one item the 111th congress would do well to address soon could be constructing a reassessment the status of telco dereg; it seemed to dissolve in the US much by the same mechanisms as it did in other firstworld countries after they passed their versions of telco dereg. Beyond that horizon I would look to the application of internet's multisource input capability as a way to bring better science to the effort to curtail global warming pollutants from civilization. There are issues of population density, as well as scaling the pace of resource extraction and utilization, which leadership needs to address soon. So, once we are moving at adequate velocity toward restoring a well tempered climate, we can use internet to develop ways to make peace, and to desaturate population. A lot of these issues actually are bipartisan or contain ends each party can adopt as distinct parts of its own identity; but there will be profiteers and incumbents brooking the gaps between a few more regimes.
 

What you will find is a series of comments similar to my summary of trends here, with careful qualifications that things can change.

Guess it depends on what the meaning of "win" is.... ;-)

I think the Rethuglicans have learned the virtues of "careful parsing" in the wake of "Monicagate" (see, e.g. maladministration denials of linking Saddam and al Qaeda, and claims about nukular weapons in Iraq). Except they use it for matters of substance....

Cheers,
 

Professor Balkin:

If, as I think Obama's victory means the end of the political era defined by Ronald Reagan and the conservative movement, the question is what this new constitutional/political era looks like, what are its main themes and preoccupations? These are by no means settled yet. It's worth noting that when Roosevelt took office in 1932 nobody knew that the Republican regime of 1897-1932 was over or what the future would look like. Despite Brown v. Board of Education and the early civil rights movement, few people saw the civil rights revolution or the Great Society coming in 1960, when John F. Kennedy took office. And few Democrats understood in 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected, that their day of hegemony was over. (They tended to assume that Jimmy Carter had been done in by inflation and the hostage crisis, that they still controlled the House, and that they would be back.).

So we have a pretty good idea that the next President will be a Democrat, and that the Reagan coalition has fallen apart, but what we don't know is what the next regime looks like. That's something well worth speculating about, even though most of what we guess will turn out to be wide of the mark.

Would you mind developing this theory?

1) Let us assume that those of the opposite party in a realignment election are too blinded by partisan interest to see the change. However, those of us who supported and campaigned for Reagan knew exactly what change he was proposing. Thus, you supporters of Obama should be able to similarly inform we blinded GOP partisans how Obama will change the fundamental Reagan tenets to either return to the prior leftism or some "new" variation.

2) More importantly, the swing voters knew where Reagan stood, elected him in landslides and thus can be said to be voting for a realignment. In contrast, leftists hiding behind center-right rhetoric during elections to get elected cannot be said to be leading a political realignment. Mr. Obama has been running hard to the center-right since he won the nomination. Thus, please limit your answer to my first query to the period after the Dem primaries when Obama is addressing the entire electorate.

3) Finally, in order to have a realignment, some block of voters must realign. You claim that the Reagan coalition has "fallen apart." Can you tell me which block of the Reagan coalition of religious, free market and hawkish conservatives has fallen out of the alliance to join Mr. Obama?

I would suggest instead that it is the Dem coalition which has split in 2008, with Obama losing the Reagan Dem blue collar votes and so far not making appreciable progress in regaining them.

Thanks in advance.
 

There is an important *wildcard* in American politics that can impact the shape of a new regime, and that is the character of the person who assumes the office. Lincoln's assassination almost certainly reshaped reconstruction. Theodore Roosevelt offered a very different model of governance than did McKinley--the comparison of which is an excellent social science experiment.

Obama, should he get elected, will seek to shape politics. And Balkin is correct that we can't really predict how he will do so. But I would simply note that he appears to have extraordinary intelligence and perception. And I look forward to seeing him confront the challenges.
 

BDP: BTW, you can go over to my blog and run your search. If I would have made a prediction, it would be there.

Okay. From the May 20, 2008 issue of the Citizen Pamphleteer:

Right now, I am seeing an easy McCain win, but big losses for the GOP in Congress in favor of an ever increasing Blue Dog Dem caucus.

Does "right now" really qualify as a "careful qualification"?

To the original post, I hope that the new regime's themes will include responsibility and accountability, on both the personal and government levels. Rather than an antithesis to Bush (the symbol, rather than the man), I hope for an aufhebung that carries along the best bits of both sides of the political divide. Whatever regime replaces the current one, there will have to be an emphasis on restoring the integrity of the country in the world's eyes.

Whether those shifts will be real or superficial, I can't say at this point. Frankly, I think predicting the tone of Obama's presidency is a difficult (if not impossible) task without knowing who he will have in his cabinet-- or his OLC, for that matter. :)
 

pms:

"Right now" is a qualification.

You also omitted my ending comments:

However, we have months to go and things change daily.

Stay tuned.
 

"Right now" is a qualification.

Yes, but is it careful? :)

Bart, if you say:

Right now, I'm seeing an easy McCain win...

that's not a "summary of trends...with careful qualifications that things can change." It's a prediction. It may have an expiration date, it may be mutable, but it is a prediction nevertheless.

So, when you say boldly that you "have not predicted that McCain will win and Obama will lose," you are in error.

That's not to say that you haven't discussed and summarized trends on your blog and this one. Clearly, you have spent a great deal of time examining and presenting such things to your audience.

Along the way, however, you made (and have made repeatedly) a prediction about the outcome of the election. Emphasize the ephemerality of your position if you like, but please do not insult your readers by suggesting that somehow they've misinterpreted your statements about the future as predictions.
 

pms:

I do not think I was being vague. "Right now" means at this point in time. To the extent that was somehow unclear, I noted that things can change over the months leading to the election.

For what little it is worth come November, right now, as in if the election were held today, I think McCain would win, perhaps handily.

Do you realize that popular votes for Obama in most primaries fell around 3-7% off of his polling numbers? This was the rule, not the exception.

In states with heavy African American Dem voting blocks, there was somewhat of a reverse effect as African Americans came out heavier for Obama than the polls indicated.

This indicates that people are lying to the pollsters on the basis of race and that effect become far more pronounced after the Wright and bitter clingers controversies surfaced in the March time frame of my post to which you referred. Wright brought racial demagoguery into the mix and the bitter clingers comments were a direct attack on the blue collar Reagan Dems.

There is no indication that this "Bradley Effect" has changed. However, Obama could potentially make some move which would bring back enough Reagan Dems to give him the win. I offered one such scenario a week or two back here and on my blog where Obama could win in a walk by declaring the Iraq War won and then call for bringing the troops home in victory. The hawkish Reagan Dems would eat this up and come home. Obama blew this opportunity in his Middle East trip and the polling remains unchanged, but there could be other opportunities, thus my caution making a pick.
 

garth:

The article to which you referred is "Can you hear me now? Obama's missing 2 percent" by Paul Maslin and Jonathan Brown over at Salon.

[Yes, I read Salon and similar lefty content sources.]

Maslin and Brown note correctly that an increasing percentage of the population has transitioned from landlines to using only cell phones and this group cannot be reached by standard telephone polling.

So far so good.

However, Maslin and Brown then go off on a tangent assuming without evidence that these folks are young, liberal, will vote and are overwhelmingly for Obama.

Based on these assumptions, Maslin and Brown conclude that there is a hidden cohort of Obama voters making up 2% of the electorate that the polls are missing

Given that Maslin and Brown by their own admission can not actually poll this demographic to determine their preferences, they are simply speculating.

The speculative cell phone carrying youth vote went for Kerry by ten points in 2004 and 2-3 polls had no trouble pretty accurately predicting the final vote. Kerry did not enjoy any hidden cell phone surge.

Anecdotally, my conservative friends and family of all ages have also started this transition. Thus, this is hardly a trend limited by ideology or age.
 

However, those of us who supported and campaigned for Reagan knew exactly what change he was proposing.

Yes, he was for gummint "simplification". Such as reducing the WAIS-R scale down to single digits, and instituting a third-grade standard for bromides and platitudes. "Bombing begins in five minutes..."

Cheers,
 

Thus, you supporters of Obama should be able to similarly inform we blinded GOP partisans how Obama will change the fundamental Reagan tenets to either return to the prior leftism or some "new" variation.

Those old "lefty" goals like not running up $7 trillion in debt?!?!? And not starting wars of choice for political reasons (Grenada, Panama, Iraq)?

About the only thing you Rethuglicans have been fairly consistent about is widening the income gap (the income gap is the largest it's been since those halcyon days of 1929) and reducing tax rates on the filthy rich (which are at the lowest they've been for many decades). The Rethuglican mantra: "It's mmmmyyyyyyyyyy money!!!! And while you're at it, shovel some more of yours into the coffers of big bidness so I can have even more...."

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

Wright brought racial demagoguery into the mix....

You misspelled "Hannity". No charge.

Cheers,
 

Bart says:

"Do you realize that popular votes for Obama in most primaries fell around 3-7% off of his polling numbers? This was the rule, not the exception.

In states with heavy African American Dem voting blocks, there was somewhat of a reverse effect as African Americans came out heavier for Obama than the polls indicated."

Can you provide a link to his--and no blog whoring please--give me a link to the original data backing this statement.
 

Mr. DePalma,

please see this for a discussion of the cell phone matter. While you may or may not be right as to the ability for the polls to predict this, the effect is present. second, it is likely to be larger this year than previously, as cell phone exclusiveness is more pervasive now than four years ago.
 

Is the conservative coalition that has dominated American politics since 1980 essentially gone, like the New Deal coalition before it? (I think it is).

If Bart's ranting is any indication, the 'conservative movement' may try to run on the fumes of delusion and be able to linger for awhile yet.
 

mike:

Pew is a good place to start.

Brendan Loy did an interesting analysis comparing exit polling and the actual vote and found a 7-8% average difference.

Jefferson Flanders offered this "Shy Tory" theory that the Obama underperformance arises from the fact that conservatives who voted for Clinton do not cooperate with pollsters as an alternative to the Bradley Effect theory that whitestell pollsters that they will vote for the African American to avoid being thought of as a racists and then cast the ballot for the other candidate they really support.

If you would like more, go google "obama primary vote underperform poll" or some other similar combination of terms. This is a very widely discussed fact.
 

... and yet, we have become an unprejudiced, colour-blind nation and don't need affirmative action...

Cheers,
 

The Pew link doesn't particularly support your position as there are just as many "reverse-Bradley" effect states as there are "Bradley effect" states. The ones in the middle "slightly" over-predicted Obama's results.

Moreover, some of the states used in the Pew analysis will go Democrat regardless of any "Bradley effect", so again, you vastly over-state your claim.

The second link is essentially worthless as a statistical analysis as it takes one exit poll (CNN? as linked by TPM) and averages the difference. Anecdotal at best.

In either event, as I said, you vastly over-state your claim...
 

mike:

The Pew study was done in March, so it already included nearly all of the southern states with heavy African American voting blocks, but did not yet include PA, IN, WV, OR, KY and SD as Bradley Effect states and NC as a reverse Bradley Effect state.

Because this is fairly consistent in Dem popular votes in primary states, I expect the same effect to be present among Dem voters in popular general election votes in caucus states. Furthermore, because none of the caucus states have large African American voting blocks, the general election Bradley effect in those states should be significant.

I do not know if there will be a Bradley effect among GOP voters and Indi voters who generally vote GOP. I do not see it so far. McCain has consolidated party support just below normal historical levels and exceeds normal levels of support among Indis. It is possible that some of the normal mid single digit migration of center left GOP voters to the Dem candidate may lie to pollsters and come back to McCain in a minor Bradley effect, but it would not be substantial.

The Bradley Effect appears to be primarily a Dem phenomenon where substantial numbers of your voters seem to naturally flow into racial camps. arne snarked that this indicates a need for more racial preferences. Ironically, I would suggest that the Dem politics of racial grievance breaking their electorate apart into competing racial groups may very well be a cause of this Bradley Effect.
 

"Right now" is a qualification.

You also omitted my ending comments:

However, we have months to go and things change daily.

Baghdad, I guess it all depends on your definition of "is".

In any case, you clearly made a prediction.
 

Is the conservative coalition that has dominated American politics since 1980 essentially gone, like the New Deal coalition before it? (I think it is).

Following blocked votes on Iraq and FISA, it is interesting to note the latest effort by the leftist Dem congressional leadership to prevent the new center right Blue Dog Dems who won GOP seats from joining the center right GOP to form a majority to reverse old leftist restrictions on oil drilling in the United States:

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other liberal leaders on Capitol Hill are gripped by cold-sweat terror. If they permit a vote on offshore drilling, they know they will lose when Blue Dogs and oil-patch Democrats defect to the GOP position of increasing domestic energy production. So the last failsafe is to shut down Congress.

Majority Leader Reid has decided that deliberation is too taxing for "the world's greatest deliberative body." This week he cut off serious energy amendments to his antispeculation bill. Then Senate Appropriations baron Robert Byrd abruptly canceled a bill markup planned for today where Republicans intended to press the issue. Mr. Byrd's counterpart in the House, David Obey, is enforcing a similar lockdown. Speaker Pelosi says she won't allow even a debate before Congress's August recess begins in eight days.

What collapse?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
 

Would it be too much to call it the next government, or polity, or something that refers to a goal of governance? Calling it the next regime is accurate in its implications for the current regime but profoundly lowers expectations for those elected in November.
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

The Bradley Effect appears to be primarily a Dem phenomenon where substantial numbers of your voters seem to naturally flow into racial camps.

And what evidence do we have of this claim by "Bart"? None. Even if it were true, it could just as readily be attributed to the fact that the Republican party is the party of racist azos (and not blacks), and they were never going to vote for Obama in any case, and are more than happy to admit that. But seeing as we have no general election results, there's no evidence either way ... unless you consider Limbaugh's and Hannity's tooting of their own efforts WRT the "Stop Obama Express" resulting in cross-over votes at the actual polls, which might explain some (small, IMNSHO) portion of the undervotes for Obama in the actual primaries....

Cheers,
 

If we extrapolate from the campaign, an Obama administration will be relatively open, part pragmatic but with fairly stiff principles in some areas, methodical, and attract a lot of highly qualified people. Obama seems to maintain a fairly disciplined operation and commands respect.

To please those delusional enough to imagine that McCain can win -- even with the help of the bigots, or rather, Reagan Dems -- a McCain administration would be staffed with lobbyists who will run roughshod over McCain's limited ability to ride herd on them, and McCain will periodically fulminate and fire someone caught in a scandal, to little real effect. Nobody will know who's really speaking for the administration, McCain will say mutually-exclusive things in the same week, while his underlings quietly do whatever they want. In other words, a continuation of Bush governance.
 

bartbuster:

[to "Bart"]: In any case, you clearly made a prediction.

But he reserves the right to change his mind ... and/or rewrite 'history' ... after the election. ;-)

Cheers,
 

New polling allows me to expand on a couple of my points:

JB: (1) Bush is very very unpopular...

BD: Because Mr. McCain has spent much of his time tweaking Mr. Bush since losing in 2000, swing voters in the polls do not connect the two.

In fact, it appears that this election is becoming a referendum on Mr. Obama, rather than Mr. Bush (old news) or Mr. McCain (known quantity unconnected to Bush).

The new NBC/WSJ polling reports:

The survey's most striking finding: Fully half of all voters say they are focused on what kind of president Sen. Obama would be as they decide how they will vote, while only a quarter say they are focused on what kind of president Sen. McCain would be.

The challenge that presents for Sen. Obama is illustrated by a second question. When voters were asked whether they could identify with the background and values of the two candidates, 58% said they could identify with Sen. McCain on that account, while 47% said the same of Sen. Obama. More than four in 10 [43%] said the Democratic contender doesn't have values and a background they can identify with...

"Obama is going to be the point person in this election," says pollster Peter Hart, a Democrat who conducts the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll along with Republican Neil Newhouse. "Voters want to answer a simple question: Is Barack Obama safe?"

Is Obama safe? Remember, this is the Dem pollster speaking, not me. No campaign wants to be in the position of having to convince the electorate their candidate passes the minimum threshold of being "safe."

How is the Obama campaign trying address this confidence gap?

BD: 4) THE two issues which concern voters this cycle are fuel prices and who can best serve as CiC... McCain has advantages in both areas.

McCain started his campaign running for CiC and Obama's photo op faux presidential tour of the Middle East and the EU is an admission that he has problems in this area. However the trip has not budged the tracking polls. Voters are not buying the spin.

The NBC polling illustrates McCain's domination of the CiC issue as 53% to 25% prefer McCain over Obama as CiC. No candidate in history has ever been elected President when twice as many voters think the other guy would make a better CiC.

The Obama camp knows they are in trouble on this issue and put together the recently concluded rock star tour of the Middle East. However, even his supporters are beginning to notice what I posted a couple days ago: the Obama rock star tour with the wall to wall fawning press groupie coverage has not helped Obama's poll standings as they had hoped.
 

Ah, polling. Mark Murray reports for NBC News on the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll: "[T]he Republican Party's brand is in tatters . . . for the 25th consecutive survey, more view the Republican Party negatively (48 percent) than positively (31 percent). By comparison, the Democratic Party has a 43-37 percent positive-negative rating."

I agree with Dan Drezner: if the Dems can't win this year, the Party should give up.
 

So at the risk of addressing a comment to the point, I have a couple guesses on American directions from here.

First, running the nation as if it was not the only nation on the planet. This means a lot of new directions.

Second, cleaning up the mess. Since you can create a mess in eight years that will take a lot more than eight years to clean up, there's only so much of that we can expect.

Third, governing from the middle. An end to winning by 51% and treating the other 49% like dirt.

Fourth, expecting government to solve the problems that only government can address.

Interestingly, none of this is radical. In fact most of it is mainstream. As E. B. White noted, when all the shouting is over, you've got to have roads and schools, and they've got to be paid for somehow.

And remarkable little of this is partisan. A perfectly reasonable model is the American people will reward at the polls the politicians and Party that gets things done, such as the things I mention above. If the Dems win the Presidency and increase their majorities in the Congress and get things done, the American people may want a Democratic majority for leadership for some time. If not, not.
 

"More than four in 10 [43%] said the Democratic contender doesn't have values and a background they can identify with..."

Wow. Four in ten of those polled are white Republicans (yeah, I know that's a bit redundant) with a significant deficit in empathy and ability to put oneself in the shoes of another.

What's the surprise?

Cheers,
 

arne:

Assuming that the entire GOP does not share Mr. Obama's rather flexible, but predominantly leftist positions (a pretty safe assumption), that fact puts the lie to the fantasy of Obamican realignment. It also leaves a few percent to cover conservative Indis and Dems.

I find the McCain numbers more interesting still. It appears that the GOP, most Indis and more than a few Reagan Dems appear to share Mr. McCain's values. Only the Dem left does not. So much for the breakup of the conservative coalition.

In both cases, the math does not work for Mr. Obama.
 

Barf bark's his smears like a cur --

"Assuming that the entire GOP does not share Mr. Obama's rather flexible, . . . ."

Flexibility is a virtue, except to bigots, who cannot risk it. Got that, Barfer?

". . . but predominantly leftist positions (a pretty safe assumption), . . . ."

Remember Barry Goldwater (I mean as some sort of "conservative" icomn/"hero" -- you couldn't possibly remember him)? He himself said of the Reaganuts, among which you place yourself --

"I have no idea what they are, but they aren't conservatives. I'm as far right as a conservative can get, and they are to the right of me."

To your America-hating ilk, Barfer, anyone to the left of Hitler -- even if that were to include Goldwater -- is a "leftist".

And to your ilk, "leftist" is intended as a dirty word.

You haven't the first fragment of a clue as to the legitimate meaning of the term "conservative".

Your rhetoric is the same one-dimensional slinging of self-generated stereotypes that we hear from such as Hannity, Rash Limburger, O'Really, and other such phony "journalists": punk kids of privilege deluding themselves that they have something of value to say, even though it is all confabulated ideological claptrap from a point on the political spectrum which is held by the view that anything goes in achieving one's ends: any means, any lie, is justified.

And that is topped off with the "cherry" of a Made in Communist China flag lapel-pin/trinket which is they suppose proves not only that they know the meaning of patriotism -- waving the flag in one hand, and waving bye-bye to the troops are being shipped out -- but that they are patriotic.

Self-promotion is not patriotism; but patriotism is, as said Dr. Johnson, the last refuge of the scoundrel.

And he was being exceedingly tactful and polite.
 

It appears that the GOP, most Indis and more than a few Reagan Dems appear to share Mr. McCain's values.

"They all love me. I mean, any right-thinking person would...."

If you put "values" to the voters without labeling them, those values usually held by Democrats are actually quite popular (even if not so within "Bart"'s dwindling circle of compatriots). Of course, any such survey can be gamed through framing of the question ... like: "are you in favour of a strong national defence" ... or "you're either with us or with the terrorists ... which one do you choose?"

While 2006 was a face-slap to wake up "Bart", I'm looking forward to the 2X4 upside the head in 2008 to really "set his mind right".... :-)

Cheers,
 

For reasons given above, I don't think either side should be confident about winning the Presidency this year.

But missing from this thread is any discussion of *Congressional* elections. Even the most loyal and partisan Republicans are predicting another year of losses for their party. The "new regime" will feature 55-57 Dem Senators and a comfortable House majority.

Is that a realignment? Some on the right will spin it as "blue dog" semi-conservative Dems putting the Dem party into the majority. But of course that's a big part of what "realignment" means -- the center is now aligned with one party, instead of the other.

The amount of policy difference this will make will depend on who wins the Presidency, but it will certainly be significant either way.

Finally, while it's too early to tell, this election (and perhaps the last one) seem to be signalling a decline in influence of the religious right.
 

It might also be amusing, Professor Balkin, to muse on the way in which the right wing will react to an Obama presidency.

Will an ultra-wealthy ideologue donate to an effort to discredit and, if possible, impeach, the next Democratic President, or will they be content with continuing their efforts in Congress to simply prevent any legislation which does not benefit them?

While it may be delusional to imagine a McCain victory in November as things stand, I think it is also delusional to imagine that they're going to curl their tails, hang their heads, and spend more time with their families -- or their portfolios, which are likely not doing too well right now.

The right-wing noise machine is still nearly intact, one of whose important functions is to give a plausible cover for counter-factual beliefs. I don't see that changing.

My bet is that it's going to be about the same as the effort against Bill Clinton. Conservatives have a notable tendency to repeat the same efforts even in the face of failure, so it's not a stretch to imagine they'll try something that was successful last time.
 

It might also be amusing, Professor Balkin, to muse on the way in which the right wing will react to an Obama presidency.

Some of that speculation is not so amusing. I think Obama's life is in serious danger. The Right has never accepted the results of democracy peacefully or abided by the rules; those habits won't change, they'll just become more extreme.
 

"Mark Field" --

It might also be amusing, Professor Balkin, to muse on the way in which the right wing will react to an Obama presidency.

"Some of that speculation is not so amusing. I think Obama's life is in serious danger. The Right has never accepted the results of democracy peacefully or abided by the rules; those habits won't change, they'll just become more extreme."

On one hand, I wish people wouldn't raise this issue, as I fear it increases the dnager. On the other, it is the reality as things have been and are, and they do become more extreme when confronted with the Constitution and laws working as intended.

We know Obama has had secret service protection since before all other candidates -- and we know why. And then the comparisons with JFK are made and repeated -- which scares hell out of me.
 

"While 2006 was a face-slap to wake up "Bart", I'm looking forward to the 2X4 upside the head in 2008 to really "set his mind right".... :-)

"Cheers,

"# posted by Arne Langsetmo"

I think nothing less than a railraod tie will do the trick.
 

Mark,

While there are undoubtedly malefactors of every description out there, there is not, and I doubt there will be, any organized right-wing instigation for violence, and please note: I meant organized right-wing reaction to an Obama presidency, not what some individual wackos will do. The latter, I am not interested in discussing.
 

mark field said...

It might also be amusing, Professor Balkin, to muse on the way in which the right wing will react to an Obama presidency.

Some of that speculation is not so amusing. I think Obama's life is in serious danger. The Right has never accepted the results of democracy peacefully or abided by the rules; those habits won't change, they'll just become more extreme.

Please. You are descending into Oliver Stone whackadoodle paranoia now.

Given that the GOP presidential candidates in general and conservatives in particular have enjoyed the "results of democracy" far more often than not, we have very little reason to dispute those results. We conservatives are not the ones in the habit every four years of calling the voters stupid and/or racist fools who vote against their class interests. We certainly do not feel the need to kill the occasional Dem who gets elected to the White House.

Obama does not represent a threat of any fundamental shift to the left because there is no evidence he can be effective implementing policy.

Obama has never run any organization of any size in an executive position. He is much like JFK in this regard, although JFK at least commanded a PT Boat. You may recall that JFK enacted almost none of his legislation with a solidly Dem Congress.

Obama has never assembled a bipartisan majority to enact any legislation of substance (his voting record is consistently far left) and owns no political capital in the Senate. LBJ was the rare Senator turned President who could implement policy because the man knew how to run a legislature and everyone owed him for something or another. McCain has a far better claim to that model than does Obama.

The perverse result is that you are far more likely to see a President McCain actually cooperating with the Dem Congress to enact the liberal legislation that you desire. (:::sigh:::)

Obama will overreach, his programs be easily labelled as extreme and then blocked by GOP and Blue Dog legislators. Think of the first two years of the Clinton Administration with a marginally less Dem and far less liberal Congress than Clinton enjoyed. I cannot think of a better recipe for a GOP take back of Congress in 2010.

Obama does have the capacity, however, to royally hobble US foreign policy ala Carter and to deny the GOP the possibility if installing a conservative supermajority on the federal courts.

For those reasons alone, this conservative will hold his nose and vote for McCain.
 

Jack --

I'm pretty shocked whenever anyone says that this projects for an easy victory for Obama, and uses some sort of analogy in American political history to make the point.

I don't think that there is any analogy, any frame of reference that can help.

As a liberal Democrat, I can't believe that Obama can win. I would put his chances at absolute zero. Even though I think the chances of a close election are close to 100%

I am not even sure Obama could win the popular vote in this country in a fair election, but even if he could:

a. There will not be enough voting machines in the neighborhoods where Obama is likely to have the greatest margin of victory.

b. The Indiana voter fraud case (sorry I have a day job too, so I don't remember the name of the case) means that a lot of people will be wrongly turned away for reasons that are colorable under the Court's decision. All those who were turned away would have voted for Obama.

c. Perhaps all Obama voters should vote by absentee ballot, but who knows if those ballots are farily counted?

d. The real point of the U.S. Attorney scandal was to assure that it would be difficult for Democrats to vote in this election.

e. I am one of those who believe that this election is completely a referendum about whether this country can go from slavery to a President of African descent in an historically short period of time. Therefore, the damage Bush did, and the even greater damage McCain would do, is completely irrelevant to the election of Obama.

f. A lot of commentators left and right try to make this election about whether Obama is like “us” (some archetypical American). I don't think Obama can win that election.

g. So the question that Obama needs to ask us is don’t we want to be like “him”. Many many people would say “yes”. I say not enough, but if I am wrong anywhere in this analysis, I may be wrong here.

g. I think we’ve made great progress as a nation. I don’t think we are there yet.

Bruce Grossberg
 

JNagarya:

On one hand, I wish people wouldn't raise this issue, as I fear it increases the dnager. On the other, it is the reality as things have been and are, and they do become more extreme when confronted with the Constitution and laws working as intended.

See, e.g., "MLK". Hell, see even "JC", if you want some real irony....

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

Given that the GOP presidential candidates in general and conservatives in particular have enjoyed the "results of democracy" far more often than not, we have very little reason to dispute those results.

"Just one word, Benjamin. Are you listening? '2000'"

Or the abuse of the federal gummint in DeLay's Texas redistricting brouhaha....

Or Siegelman...

Or Washington State.

anonanonanonanon.

Cheers,
 

Obama has never run any organization of any size in an executive position....

Unlike Dubya and Arbusto/Harken...

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

I cannot think of a better recipe for a GOP take back of Congress in 2010.

Why does "Bart" here remind me of Stalag 17 and Triz' Trzcinski: [after reading letter from home] "I believe it."

For those reasons alone, this conservative will hold his nose and vote for McCain.

Remind me again, "Bart": What large organisation did McSame ever run?

Cheers,
 

While there are undoubtedly malefactors of every description out there, there is not, and I doubt there will be, any organized right-wing instigation for violence, and please note: I meant organized right-wing reaction to an Obama presidency, not what some individual wackos will do. The latter, I am not interested in discussing.

I agree with this. It's not that I expect some prominent Republican to stand up and ask "Will no one rid me of this troublesome President?". It's that I expect them in general to incite an atmosphere of hysteria in opposition to Obama, one in which hatred will thrive. They'll then wash their hands of the consequences.
 

Arne Langsetmo --

"Barfin' Barfer --

"Obama has never run any organization of any size in an executive position...."

Unlike Dubya and Arbusto/Harken...

Unlike Cheney and Haliburton/KBR/asbestos litigation . . .
 

While there are undoubtedly malefactors of every description out there, there is not, and I doubt there will be, any organized right-wing instigation for violence, and please note: I meant organized right-wing reaction to an Obama presidency, not what some individual wackos will do. The latter, I am not interested in discussing.

"I agree with this. It's not that I expect some prominent Republican to stand up and ask "Will no one rid me of this troublesome President?". It's that I expect them in general to incite an atmosphere of hysteria in opposition to Obama, one in which hatred will thrive. They'll then wash their hands of the consequences."

# posted by Mark Field

Exactly as did G. Gordon Liddy against Clinton, the consequence being the nutjob who shot up the White House.

What we won't have is any Republican standing up and asking the question:

"Are you better off than you were eight years ago?"
 

Mark Field:

It's not that I expect some prominent Republican to stand up and ask "Will no one rid me of this troublesome President?".

Haven't been following Coulter, "Savage", O'Reilly, et al., have you?

Cheers,
 

There can be no doubt that public opinion polls show that were this election for the leader of the free world to take place in whole of the free world, Mr Obama would win by a landslide.

Perceptively, Richard Holbrook said on MSNBC: what Obama’s European tour shows is that Europeans are not anti-American, but they are against the Bush Administration and all that it stands for.

By European standards, Mr Obama is not a liberal, far from it, and there have been some comments from him which have made most Europeans cringe (on the death penalty, for example).

He does come across as honest, intellectual, a realist and fundamentally decent, but the US$65,000 question is whether those are qualities which will sell him to the American electorate who are the only people who vote in this election – and who moreover vote with a flawed electoral system.

I have just been re-reading Bernard Weiner’s Nov 16 2004 article on the Crisis Papers web site : To European Friends:
Explaining the 2004 Election Disaster in which there was this passage:

“But the Hard-Right, which cares not a fig for democratic institutions -- other than in how it can manipulate them -- decided to forego civility and go for total annihilation of their opposition. Rightwing billionaires established think-tanks, bought up and founded mass-media outlets (national radio talk shows, cable TV shows, Fox News, et al.), spent millions on training college-age Republicans, etc.

That Hard-Right infrastructure was in place for nearly 15 years or more, and is getting stronger, especially given its current tight alliances with the fundamentalist/evangelical churches.”

Nothing better illustrates the hard right at work than the posts of Neocon Bart De Palma to this blog.

By his own admissions in previous posts, this epitome of the ‘loathsome spotted reptile’ species does not even necessarily believe what he posts – he lurks here, as he put it, ‘to hone his debating skills’ which he can then, no doubt, use in Colorado to mislead the voters: for example into supporting a ballot initiative which is deceptively titled as being pro civil rights but which in fact would outlaw positive discrimination by state agencies.

While Neocon Bart certainly plays ‘Wormwood’ to the Karl Rove ‘Screwtape’ – the reality is that there are millions of such little devils out there spreading their poison – and the poison is spreading.

I well remember a UK election where the hard right ran an election campaign with the unwritten slogan:
“If you want a n*gg*r neighbour, vote Labour”

Some updated versions of a campaign in the same mould are easily to be found today:

“Barack Obama: advocate for Muslims, gays, child murder and porn” is today's heading on one Christian blog.

Likewise Neocon Bart’s own blog today sports the heading “Is Barack Obama Safe?”

So, for what it is worth, my take on the election is that the ‘loathsome spotted reptiles’ are hard at work and that accordingly this election way well be a close run thing.

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

So I hope all those of you who are not 'loathsome spotted reptiles' are out there fighting the good fight.
 

mark field said...

It's not that I expect some prominent Republican to stand up and ask "Will no one rid me of this troublesome President?". It's that I expect them in general to incite an atmosphere of hysteria in opposition to Obama, one in which hatred will thrive. They'll then wash their hands of the consequences.

You mean like making movies fantasizing about assassinating President Bush that received critical acclaim on the left?

Or perhaps the lesser violence of encouraging other nations to to kidnap and imprison leaders of the other party for imaginary war crimes/thought crimes?

You might actually want to listen in on the "right wing noise machine" before making these uninformed claims They deal in polemic and ridicule, not assassination or violence. We conservatives restrict our calls for violence to waging war against our foreign enemies.
 

The third reason is that I have every reason to think that the outcome is already decided.

I would not be so certain. Many things will happen between now and Election Day. Both candidates will be the subject of scandalous revelations, whether grounded in reality, ludicrous misrepresentation of reality, or sheer falsification. Both will say things that sound phenomenally stupid to the American voter when turned into sound bytes. The price of oil will go up or down; the economy will get better or worse; Iraq will become more stable, or less.

You are right that the situation looks very good for Obama and the Democrats generally. But "already decided" is a gross overstatement. Dukakis had an enormous lead in the polls at this stage.
 

mourad said...

There can be no doubt that public opinion polls show that were this election for the leader of the free world to take place in whole of the free world, Mr Obama would win by a landslide.

Mr. Obama is more than welcome to run for election for President of the EU as a "citizen of the world."

Leadership of the free world is not an elected position. The United States rather than the larger EU holds this position by default because the EU refuses to lead. Even Mr. Obama's modest rhetoric about asking the EU to do more in Afghanistan was met with uninterested silence by the passive crowd of Germans.

Nothing is preventing the EU from leadership apart from their own desire not to do so.

Lead, follow or just get the hell out of the way.

Perceptively, Richard Holbrook said on MSNBC: what Obama’s European tour shows is that Europeans are not anti-American, but they are against the Bush Administration and all that it stands for.

Your average Euro was never anti American. They simply prefer American leaders to be passive (like they are) and to defer to the EU. Obama is definitely made to order for the EU.

By European standards, Mr Obama is not a liberal...He does come across as honest, intellectual, a realist and fundamentally decent, but the US$65,000 question is whether those are qualities which will sell him to the American electorate who are the only people who vote in this election...

Obama does not believe so, thus his hard shift to our center right during the general election.

I have just been re-reading Bernard Weiner’s Nov 16 2004 article on the Crisis Papers web site : To European Friends: Explaining the 2004 Election Disaster in which there was this passage:

“But the Hard-Right, which cares not a fig for democratic institutions -- other than in how it can manipulate them -- decided to forego civility and go for total annihilation of their opposition. Rightwing billionaires established think-tanks, bought up and founded mass-media outlets (national radio talk shows, cable TV shows, Fox News, et al.), spent millions on training college-age Republicans, etc.

I am being completely serious when I say that you really need to expand your content concerning the United States because you are being sadly, albeit willingly, mislead.

1) The billionaires and multimillionaires attempting to manipulate our electoral system are predominantly from the left. Soros and the coastal wealthy have financed an array of Dem 527 campaign organizations which dwarfs their GOP counterparts in number and funding.

2) The Dems control nearly all of the old model news media on television and the newspapers. On the old model, the conservatives have Fox News and a handful of papers. If there was any doubt about this imbalance, compare the groupie wall-to-wall coverage of the Obama's recent Middle East trip with the relative blackout on McCain's far more numerous trips to the area. The conservatives get their message out primarily through the alternative media of talk radio and the internet.

3) However, the conservatives do have a definite advantage in think tanks generating policy proposals. We conservatives prefer a contest based on actual substantive policy differences because we know we have the advantage in the arena of ideas. Your leftist article portraying conservative policy development as evil and considering a debate over policy to be a "manipulation of the system" indicates something less than enthusiasm in engaging in a battle of ideas.

Nothing better illustrates the hard right at work than the posts of Neocon Bart De Palma to this blog.

I am flattered and you are correct.

Likewise Neocon Bart’s own blog today sports the heading “Is Barack Obama Safe?”

If you had read the post, you would know that title to be a direct quote from a Dem political pollster forming his conclusion from his own polling results. Is he also part of what you consider to be the "hard right?"

Unlike yourself and others here, this "loathsome spotted reptile" does not play the name calling game.
 

Bart DePalma vomits --

mark field said...

It's not that I expect some prominent Republican to stand up and ask "Will no one rid me of this troublesome President?". It's that I expect them in general to incite an atmosphere of hysteria in opposition to Obama, one in which hatred will thrive. They'll then wash their hands of the consequences.

"You mean like making movies fantasizing about assassinating President Bush that received critical acclaim on the left?"

Substantiate, punk.

"Or perhaps the lesser violence of encouraging other nations to to kidnap and imprison leaders of the other party for imaginary war crimes/thought crimes?"

It is settled law, also in the US, America-Hater: torture is illegal always and everywhere, cannot be made legal, and efforts to make it legal are illegal.

In the context of so-called "war," every element of that is a war crime. Tell us again how John Yoo didn't actually author the Torture Memoes he authored, in which he endeavored to make torture "legal" -- that is, endeavored to give the appearance of legality to that which cannot be made legal, and thus violated the law in so doing.

"You might actually want to listen in on the "right wing noise machine" before making these uninformed claims They deal in polemic and ridicule, not assassination or violence."

Lying that, as example, John Kerry was not a hero -- and that he wounded himself -- is "polemic" and "ridcule"? No, liar, it is LYING in order to character-assassinate.

You mean like the efforts of the extreme right-wing calls for Clinton to be assassinated, one of those made by a senator?

"We conservatives restrict our calls for violence to waging war against our foreign enemies."

Including, of course, those within the US you and your your fellow white supremacists/false "conservatives" smear as being "foreign" "enemies" -- such as Barak Obama, and as that overt effort has evolved into your question, "Is he 'Safe'?"

As said, and as you well know: you are anti-American -- and proud of it.
 

Arne Langsetmo --

Mark Field:

It's not that I expect some prominent Republican to stand up and ask "Will no one rid me of this troublesome President?".

"Haven't been following Coulter, "Savage", O'Reilly, et al., have you?"

And then there are the all-too-frequent "flubs" on FOX, such as the belittling "confusion" of the names "Obama" and "Osama," immediately followed, still "laughingly," that both should be killed.

Such "flubs" are too frequent to be accidental.

And what was that Coulter said about killing "liberals"? Isn't a "liberal" anyone the extreme right-wing lunatic fringe labels as being a "liberal" -- facts, reality, and truth notwithstanding?
 

Barfin' Bart --

"Or perhaps the lesser violence of encouraging other nations to to kidnap and imprison leaders of the other party for imaginary war crimes/thought crimes?"

Torture is torture, regardless your defense of that which the US condemned when committed by Nazis and other facists. But it is interesting that you lie against the law on the matter in order to actually admit what it is currently (to which everything is falsely reduced by you and your fellow smut-peddlars):

A partisan issue actualized by a corrupt, anti-American political party -- correction: criminal enterprise --which falsely whines about being a put-upon victim simply because equality before the law is not limited to white supremacists.

Arresting war criminals, even if they happen to be US citizens, is not kidnapping.

I'll ask again: When, Bart, are you going to get an ACTUAL education in ACTUAL law, so at minimum you are able to distinguish between that which is law, on the one hand, and that which, on the other, is raw racial hatred founded on fantasy-based penis envy?
 

jnagarya said...

mark field said...It's not that I expect some prominent Republican to stand up and ask "Will no one rid me of this troublesome President?". It's that I expect them in general to incite an atmosphere of hysteria in opposition to Obama, one in which hatred will thrive. They'll then wash their hands of the consequences.

BD: "You mean like making movies fantasizing about assassinating President Bush that received critical acclaim on the left?"

Substantiate, punk.

The movie is Newmarket Film's "Death of a President."

This contemptible waste of celluloid won International Critics' Prize at the Toronto Film Festival as well as praise from a wide range of domestic liberal media critics.

My favorite review was from TV Guide: "Given the controversy, which strongly suggested that the filmmakers had it in for President Bush, the film's biggest shocker may be how kind Range and coscreenwriter Simon Finch are to him. "

In contrast, imagine if you will the reaction on the left if Rush Limbaugh had made this same exact movie about assassinating Barrack Obama. Would they be saying that Limbaugh was being "kind" to Obama?

You can catch a clip of the film here and rent it at your local Blockbuster.
 

Bart DePalma --

"Leadership of the free world is not an elected position. The United States rather than the larger EU holds this position by default because the EU refuses to lead."

The wiser alternative is cooperation. All your extremist nationalism has accomplished is legitimate distrust among our traditional allies -- and thus their increasing refusal to cooperate with the Bushit criminal enterprise for legitimate moral and legal reasons -- and increased enemies among those you and your pal Bushit claim to want to totally -- an impossibility -- eliminate.

"Even Mr. Obama's modest rhetoric about asking the EU to do more in Afghanistan was met with uninterested silence by the passive crowd of Germans."

Have they that RIGHT? Of course they do -- except in Barfin' Bart's closed-minded universe. Mourad has detailed the cause of the probelms in and from Afghanistan, and that none of that would have happened if the US had kept its nose out of the business of the Middle East: those countries would have taken care of the problem.

"Nothing is preventing the EU from leadership apart from their own desire not to do so.

"Lead, follow or just get the hell out of the way."

The wiser course is cooperation -- having friends and allies willing to help out with such as, say, Afghanistan. That they refuse to participate with the Bushit criminal enterprise in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and mass slughter of innocents is direct result of that criminal enterprise's alienation of our friends and allies.

Our freinds and allies are not responsible for the actions of the Bushit criminal enterprise -- and wisely do not want any part in them. Thus our gov't has become exactly that you and your ilk loathe -- but only in other countries: a rogue state which engages in, at very least, state terrorism against its own people.

"Your average Euro was never anti American. They simply prefer American leaders to be passive (like they are) and to defer to the EU."

They simply prefer cooperation over that they've learned, from centuries of conflict, doesn't work except to cause unnecessary wars and death: the refusal to cooperate based upon a simpleton's exremism: that there can only be leaders and followers, and never partners. "Someone's gotta be the boss/dominator" is your fundamental lie. Your fundamental delusion.

"Obama is definitely made to order for the EU."

And we need that: cooperation -- else we lose all around, including the loss of intelligence informattion necessary to national security.

"1) The billionaires and multimillionaires attempting to manipulate our electoral system are predominantly from the left."

Really? Who was it that intervened -- for the very first time in our history -- in the 2000 election in order to stop the incomplete vote-counting?

Who were the individuals, and who gathered them together, which was flown to Florida, there to pretend to bee floridians, and as a Brooks Brothers mob feloniously interfered with the lawfully court-ordered vote-counting?

To which party did OH's "Christian" fundamentalist secretary of state, Blackwell, belong?

"Soros and the coastal wealthy have financed an array of Dem 527 campaign organizations which dwarfs their GOP counterparts in number and funding."

If true, that only goes to show how small a minority is your America-Hating white supremacist gang.

"2) The Dems control nearly all of the old model news media on television and the newspapers."

Absolute nonesne. Regardless party label, the owners of the media are "conservative" -- they represent and maintain the "conservative" status quo.

"On the old model, the conservatives have Fox News . . . ."

Except that FOX "News" is not news -- it is out-and-out propaganda for a particular extreme right wing lunatic fringe point of view. Much as you hate truth, law, and standards -- reality -- it is not "liberals" who distinguished between opinion and fact based upon idiological preference. News is comprised of FACTS -- which have no partisan affiliation -- not of opinion and out-and-out smear campaigns against all other points of view.

"We conservatives prefer a contest based on actual substantive policy differences because we know we have the advantage in the arena of ideas."

And you call all of your lies and disortions of truth, facs, and reality "policy" because your standard is the all-out assault, by any means believed necessary, against all points of view different than yours. Against, in short, facts, truth, and reality, because none of your program can be sold for what it actually is: raw anti-Americanism centered around raw racial hatred based upon cherished delusions.

". . . a debate over policy to be a "manipulation of the system" --

The illegal politicization of the DOJ may be "policy" -- and it certainly apprears to be -- but the manipulations of the DOJ for political ends is not "policy": it is CRIMINAL.

Or, shall we agree that your ilk's "policy" is nothing more than wholly unconstrained criminality?

"Unlike yourself and others here, this "loathsome spotted reptile" does not play the name calling game."

The liberal view is at the center of the political spectrum, whereas yours is so far to the right it is outside the legitimate political arena altogether. Thus when you label even moderate liberality as "far left," you are both name-calling -- slinging a label you yourself believe is a dirty word -- and lying.

Otherwise, I'll leave it to others to blow your LIE out of the water.
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

You might actually want to listen in on the "right wing noise machine" before making these uninformed claims They deal in polemic and ridicule, not assassination or violence. We conservatives restrict our calls for violence to waging war against our foreign enemies.

I do. Doesn't support your case. See above.

BTW, what you call "ridicule" can't hold a candle to what the pros (like TDS and Stephen Colbert) do. See, e.g., the early and appreciated demise of the FauxSnooze copy-cat try at a RW "TDS"....

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

Leadership of the free world is not an elected position. The United States rather than the larger EU holds this position by default because the EU refuses to lead.

Clue fer ya, "Bart": Dubya the Deciderator-in-Chief is not "Leader of the Free World". Obama actually stands a chance of achieving such, but most of the world farts in Dubya's general direction.

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

I am being completely serious when I say that you really need to expand your content concerning the United States because you are being sadly, albeit willingly, mislead.

1) The billionaires and multimillionaires attempting to manipulate our electoral system are predominantly from the left. Soros and the coastal wealthy have financed an array of Dem 527 campaign organizations which dwarfs their GOP counterparts in number and funding.

The "self-hating Joos", you (and the rest of the troglodyte RW foamer contingent) mean.

But not true, even aside from the implicit, "wink, wink" slurs on Soros.

Cheers,
 

"Bart"'s really puttting on the "woe me, we're so picked on" hai shirt:

2) The Dems control nearly all of the old model news media on television and the newspapers. On the old model, the conservatives have Fox News and a handful of papers....

Try "What Liberal Media" by Eric Alterman (or any of Glenn Greenwald's columns).

... If there was any doubt about this imbalance, compare the groupie wall-to-wall coverage of the Obama's recent Middle East trip with the relative blackout on McCain's far more numerous trips to the area....

Oh, garbage. Try ThinkProgress's reports on this supposed "imbalance" (and see what the SCLM are doing here and here.

... The conservatives get their message out primarily through the alternative media of talk radio and the internet.

Well, that's in part because the RW's only "message" is just attack and slime.

Cheers,
 

3) However, the conservatives do have a definite advantage in think tanks generating policy proposals. We conservatives prefer a contest based on actual substantive policy differences because we know we have the advantage in the arena of ideas....

... and "Bart"'s won every debate he's waded into here. Which is why he walks away victorious and on to the next thread leaving his erstwhile opponents with theuir moths agape.... ;-)

Cheers,
 

[Mourad]: Nothing better illustrates the hard right at work than the posts of Neocon Bart De Palma to this blog.

["Bart"]: I am flattered and you are correct.

Hey, Don Quixote, ya mispelled "clueless".

Cheers,
 

Here's "Bart"'s FauxSnooze "balance".

Cheers,
 

And the "RW media" (a/k/a, the slime machine ... and believe me, this is not the start nor the end to this vicious crap that will churn your stomach for the next 8 years and six months).

Cheers,
 

Neocon Bart said:-

"Leadership of the free world is not an elected position. The United States rather than the larger EU holds this position by default because the EU refuses to lead."

”However, the conservatives do have a definite advantage in think tanks generating policy proposals. We conservatives prefer a contest based on actual substantive policy differences because we know we have the advantage in the arena of ideas.”

Wrong on both issues, Bart.

The President of the USA has de facto been the leader of the free world since the end of World War II because the USA came out of the war as the most powerful nation with the largest military and the strongest economy - in part because it did not come into WWI until 1917, in part because it delayed entry into WW2 until 1941, and in part because the war was not fought on its own home territory. So post WW2, the USA was the only country in the free world which was not bankrupt. Europe as a whole could not have managed post war without US aid.

But the leadership role of the US President has always been one of 'primus inter pares'. The Bush Administration failed to understand the requirements of the role - a failure born of a combination of arrogance and ignorance.

Ignorance because the policy makers in the Neoconservative think tanks such as the AEI and the Heritage Foundation which provided so much of the Administration's policy were actually so naive as to believe that:-

(i) the USA could win major wars without the assistance of allies;
(ii) invasions could be accomplished without follow-up nation-building efforts;
(iii) occupation troops in Iraq would be regarded as liberators;
(iv) the Taliban culture and the Al-Quaida sub-culture could be defeated by military means alone;
(v) the so-called “war on terror” could be fought without regard to the “rule books” of international conventions which have painstakingly been constructions by nations since 1900.

Arrogance, because the policy makers in the Neoconservative think tanks such as the AEI and the Heritage Foundation which provided so much of the Administration's policy were actually so naive as to believe that the totality of the sovereign nations in the world would line up obediently and defer like vassal states of the Roman Empire to the US hegemony of the “New American Century”.

As a consequence, the present Administration is world-wide as unpopular as any US Administration has ever been, and domestically its “soak the poor and favour the rich” economic policies have brought it to unpopularity levels not seen since Herbert Hoover. Domestic weakness, deficits and a currency slide also impact on international standing.

Small wonder that Neoconservative think tanks such as the AEI and the Heritage Foundation have been systematically purging their web sites of the traces of past policies and are desperately looking for new ones.

On the security front, gone are the advocates of the “do it alone” approach – the latest AEI conference blurb starts with the unsurprising words:-

“In the Long War on terrorism, the capabilities of America’s allies and local security partners will determine whether we achieve our goals in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond. Building and sustaining these partnerships has proven to be a great challenge, as well as a delicate task to manage from afar.”

Also gone are all the articles on “sound, pro-business fiscal policies”, “tax breaks for the wealthy”, and “reducing the federal deficit”. Instead:-

“According to the most recent data from the Reuters/University of Michigan Survey of Consumers, consumer confidence is near a fifty-year low. Record rates of foreclosure, declining home values, and rising commodity prices are all driving a negative attitude about the economy.”

The ‘about turn’ is unsurprising given that the AEI provided more than 2,000 bureaucrats for the Bush Administration and it is their policies which have resulted in that economic situation.

So what is the AEI now pushing as policies for the McSame campaign ? What one might expect from persons of a fascist mind-set when their previous policies have met with inevitable failure.

Support for the campaigns for the ballot propositions in Colorado, Nebraska, and Arizona to amend the state constitutions to eliminate preferential treatment based on race and gender in public education, employment, and contracting is being pushed by one Edward Blum on the AEI web site together with other policies on race and immigration issues in terms tailored to appeal to the “poor white jobless”.

Depressions are always fertile ground for these kind of policies and there will always be the ‘loathsome spotted reptiles’ around ready to feed the poor the message of hate and mistrust of others.

Bart acknowledges above, that he is part of the "hard right" pushing the agenda of the right-wing think tanks.

It is a great pity that he does not acknowledge the failure of the Bush Administration or even the lessons of history.

But then, if he were able to do that, he would not qualify as a member of the "loathsome spotted reptile" species.
 

Mourad:

Depressions are always fertile ground for these kind of policies and there will always be the ‘loathsome spotted reptiles’ around ready to feed the poor the message of hate and mistrust of others.

In a chrono-synclastic infundibulum moment, we watched "Hotel Rwanda" last night. It is truly appalling what can happen when the megaphones of hatred are turned to high volume, and ignorance and fear (not to mention just a smidgen of evil and lust for power) are pervasive....

CHeers,
 

FWIW, more hilarious (if the subject matter weren't so serious) demolishing on "Bart"'s rampant silliness above here. Check it out; it will leave you in stitches (w/o insurance, if McSame and company have their way).

Cheers,
 

This was a fantastic article. Really loved reading your we blog post. The information was very informative and helpful...

Cara mengobati kanker dengan herbal, Cara mengobati kanker dengan tradisional, Cara mengobati kanker dengan alami, Cara mengobati kanker dengan cepat, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 3, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 4, Cara mengobati kanker stadium awal, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 2, Cara mengobati kanker stadium akhir, Cara mengobati kanker tanpa ke dokter, Gambar obat kanker yang ampuh, Gambar obat kanker yang ampuh, Obat kanker ampuh dengan singkong, Cara mengobati kanker stadium awal tanpa operasi, Obat kanker manjur dari tumbuhan, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 1 tanpa operasi, Obat kanker ampuh dengan daun sirsak, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 2 tanpa operasi, Obat kanker paling mujarab yang efektif, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 3 tanpa operasi, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 3, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 4 tanpa operasi, Obat kanker paling manjur 2016, Cara mengobati kanker stadium akhir tanpa operasi, Pengobatan kanker mujarab tanpa operasi, Cara pengobatan kanker yang manjur, Pengobatan kanker manjur dan aman, Cara pengobatan kanker yang mujarab, Cara pengobatan kanker tanpa operasi, Cara pengobatan kanker yang ampuh, Obat kanker mujarab tanpa operasi, Obat kanker manjur tanpa operasi, Obat De Nature
 

obat herbal mengobati kanker serviks stadium 3
obat alami untuk mencegah kanker serviks
obat medis untuk kanker serviks
wwwobat kanker serviks
obat vaksin kanker serviks
obat untuk mengatasi kanker serviks
Tumbuhan untuk obat kanker serviks
Obat untuk menyembuhkan kanker serviks
obat untuk penderita kanker serviks
obat tradisional untuk kanker serviks
obat utk kanker serviks
obat untuk kanker serviks
obat tradisional utk kanker serviks
sirsak obat kanker serviks
obat sakit kanker serviks
hello world obat untuk kanker rahim stadium 3
obat herbal kanker rahim stadium 4
obat kanker rahim stadium 1 1
Obat kanker rahim stadium 2
Obat penyakit herpes kelamin pria
 

obat kanker serviks tradisional jawa
obat kanker serviks tradisional jawa sumatera
Obat kanker serviks tradisional sumatera
Obat kanker serviks tradisional kalimantan
obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal jawa
obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal jawa sumatera
obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal sumatera
obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku pedalaman
obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku pedalaman sumatra
Obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku jawa
obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal s
obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku minang
obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku sunda
Obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku irian
obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku dayak
obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku kubu
obat tradisional kanker serviks suku
obat kanker serviks tradisional herbal suku bugis
obat herbal herpes genital dompo
obat herbal herpes genital dompo simplex
 

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
 

True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi connects automatically.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya