yep. and pennsylvania proved that. the conservative and moderate working class democrats--who are similar philosophically to the swing voters the democrats need to attract in order to win--showed up for hillary and didn't swallow the obama hype.

Democrats can be rednecks too :(

Hey! Democrat buddies!

It's the NRO, and they have some concern about how we are conducting ourselves in this political season!

We should listen to them, they must only have the best intentions for our well being at heart!

How many points did Clinton lead Obama before campaigning began in earnest?

How many points to she actually win by?

i've almost reached complete and total apathy. i'm starting to realize that no matter how much i dislike it, the majority of my countrymen are mouth-breathing retards. might as well just make the best of it, cuz i sure as hell have no control over it. it's just not worth building up my hopes for an ideal which simply will not exist in my lifetime. seriously, i don't give a fark any more.

Skleenar: It's the NRO, and they have some concern about how we are conducting ourselves in this political season!

I, personally, am touched by the deep and abiding concern of the Republican media that is protecting we silly liberals from our dumb selves.

jesus, is the NRO shiatting themselves or what?

"Desperation" -- the new fragrance from National Review. It's a heady mixture of flop sweat and bullshiit.

FlashHarry: jesus, is the NRO shiatting themselves or what?

Well they have a semi-senile white guy with a ton of baggage and no real agenda other than "stay the course" as their candidate. So yeah, I'd say they are just a little scared.

As a down-scale white voter, I have pondered and do not concur with such a statement.
And for Gawd's sake, will you stop playing that damn banjo music!!

So, according to NRO, Democrats should be actively pursuing the "Identity Christian" votes, that are such a stronghold for Republicans nowadays?

doublesecretprobation: i've almost reached complete and total apathy. i'm starting to realize that no matter how much i dislike it, the majority of my countrymen are mouth-breathing retards. might as well just make the best of it, cuz i sure as hell have no control over it. it's just not worth building up my hopes for an ideal which simply will not exist in my lifetime. seriously, i don't give a fark any more.

if you feel that way, move to europe or something.

i don't say that in the "love it or leave it" jackass way, i say it in the "you might like it over there, and i often consider doing so myself" sort of way.

None of the candidates are electable to be honest.

burndtdan: if you feel that way, move to europe or something.

fark that. i'm not going anywhere. i have a home and a family and a great life here. with the exception of the retards who elect the dumbshiats that are hell bent on running the country into the ground for their own selfish gains, i'm very happy to be here.

Who keeps submitting these stupid NRO articles?

doublesecretprobation: burndtdan: if you feel that way, move to europe or something.

fark that. i'm not going anywhere. i have a home and a family and a great life here. with the exception of the retards who elect the dumbshiats that are hell bent on running the country into the ground for their own selfish gains, i'm very happy to be here.

If you have such a great life, then why let politics get to you so much? If your overall happiness hinges on politics, I don't know what to tell you. There's much more to life than that.

Maybe Dems don't want the mouth breathing retards to decide the Presidency like they have the last two.

These articles are laughable. After this clusterfark is finished, and Obama either does win or Clinton pries it away, do these idiots really think that voters are going to choose a half-senile nutjob who's basically promising a third Bush term? The trends are still so heavily in favor of the Democratic party -- an economy going down the shiatter, a war in Iraq that even the Pentagon is calling a "debacle" -- that it's difficult to see how McCain could win.

This article is a prime example of the impoverished, idiotic way the Republican party looks at politics. They've become so much about pushing buttons and trying to inflame voter passion by dumbass side issues ("OMG VOTE FOR US OR TEH HOMOS WILL GET MARRIED!!!1111!") that they can't see the bigger picture.

My extended family is about as "down-scale" as you can get, and Obama has support from everyone I've talked to with the single exception being my grandmother (but if you knew her, you would not be surprised at this).

keylock71: How many points did Clinton lead Obama before campaigning began in earnest?

How many points to she actually win by?

Nineteen and nine, respectively.

Nabb1: If your overall happiness hinges on politics, I don't know what to tell you. There's much more to life than that.

it's hard to listen to the news and witness the events of the world and NOT be affected. empathy, sympathy, shame, sadness; all things i can't seem to shake. it just feels like everything i have that i am grateful for hinges on the decisions of people i don't trust, and whose ethos' i consider much maligned.

patrick767: Maybe Dems don't want the mouth breathing retards to decide the Presidency like they have the last two.

Nothing like a supporter for the candidate of unity -- calling his fellow countrymen who don't support Obama "mouth breathing retards". I'm sure your candidate would be very, very proud of you.

jake_lex: do these idiots really think that voters are going to choose a half-senile nutjob who's basically promising a third Bush term?

If you follow national politics, you know the Democrats somehow find ways to lose elections that they should really win handedly.

KaponoFor3
Nothing like a supporter for the candidate of unity -- calling his fellow countrymen who don't support Obama "mouth breathing retards". I'm sure your candidate would be very, very proud of you.

Actually I was thinking more of the Bush voters with the exaggerated "retards" comment. But it is pretty frustrating that when there's a candidate who appeals to educated voters vs. one who appeals to uneducated ones, guess which one usually wins?

patrick767: Actually I was thinking more of the Bush voters with the exaggerated "retards" comment.

Either way, a bit harsh against your fellow countrymen, no?

patrick767: But it is pretty frustrating that when there's a candidate who appeals to educated voters vs. one who appeals to uneducated ones, guess which one usually wins?

Depends on your sample size -- recently, I suppose it is the one that appeals to the "uneducated" ones. I just caution you to not automatically reduce all supporters of the GOP to "uneducated" status, as it would likely upset you if most supporters of the Dems were relegated to "communist" status, no?

Skail: keylock71: How many points did Clinton lead Obama before campaigning began in earnest?

How many points to she actually win by?

Nineteen and nine, respectively.

Thanks...

so like in other races Obama managed to close the lead once he started campaigning...

wouldn't Hillary's lead have widened if "down scale white voters" were indeed repulsed by Obama as the NRO , the Clinton Campaign, and the GOP would like us to believe?

doublesecretprobation: Nabb1: If your overall happiness hinges on politics, I don't know what to tell you. There's much more to life than that.

it's hard to listen to the news and witness the events of the world and NOT be affected. empathy, sympathy, shame, sadness; all things i can't seem to shake. it just feels like everything i have that i am grateful for hinges on the decisions of people i don't trust, and whose ethos' i consider much maligned.

i agree with you there. it isn't politics that affects me so much as it's the problems politicians are tasked to fix that they don't, and the ones they cause in the meantime.

politics and the media bother me because they have become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. frankly, i'm sick and tired of being lied to.

today bush is going to talk about the economy.

burndtdan: today bush is going to talk about the economy.

whoops, deleted the second sentence...

i don't even have to watch to know he's going to lie through his teeth.

Meanwhile, The New Republic (^) argues that not only does Obama have the nomination, but that the Dems will ride his election into greater majorities in Congress.

But sure, I'll listen to NRO's stellar insight instead.

dgc360: Who keeps submitting these stupid NRO articles?

More to the point - who keeps greenlighting them?

Fark depends on political flame wars to keep its lights on. For a while it was easy to find a CNN or WSJ article that would keep things hot. Now only the NRO is left to kindle the flames with a trolltastic headline.

It's time once again to wonder if there is anyone at the NRO with actual intelligence. Seriously, who keeps submitting this tripe, and why do we have to green every single NRO article? They're all idiotic flights of fancy with no grip on reality.

quickdraw: dgc360: Who keeps submitting these stupid NRO articles?

More to the point - who keeps greenlighting them?

Fark depends on political flame wars to keep its lights on. For a while it was easy to find a CNN or WSJ article that would keep things hot. Now only the NRO is left to kindle the flames with a trolltastic headline.

The WSJ's editorial page is still the source of many flamebait headlines.

CNN is in the tank for Clinton, and since most of Clinton's supporters (old white women) don't know how to use computers, they don't draw fire as much as links to rightist fearmongering rags.

KaponoFor3: patrick767: Maybe Dems don't want the mouth breathing retards to decide the Presidency like they have the last two.

Nothing like a supporter for the candidate of unity -- calling his fellow countrymen who don't support Obama "mouth breathing retards". I'm sure your candidate would be very, very proud of you.

jake_lex: do these idiots really think that voters are going to choose a half-senile nutjob who's basically promising a third Bush term?

If you follow national politics, you know the Democrats somehow find ways to lose elections that they should really win handedly.

Not when the country is swirling the drain and your party's nominee's platform is basically promising more of the same.

jake_lex: Not when the country is swirling the drain and your party's nominee's platform is basically promising more of the same.

Hi, I'm 2004. Nice to meet you.

KaponoFor3: Hi, I'm 2004. Nice to meet you.

Hi 2004. I'm 2006. How are you doing?

Obdicut: Hi 2004. I'm 2006. How are you doing?

Good man -- hey, you weren't a Presidential election year, were you?

quickdraw: More to the point - who keeps greenlighting them?

Fark depends on political flame wars to keep its lights on. For a while it was easy to find a CNN or WSJ article that would keep things hot. Now only the NRO is left to kindle the flames with a trolltastic headline.

Basically everyone is pretty united against Bush these days..

Yes, because places like Iowa and Idaho are well-known bastions of ivory-tower, latte-swilling, Whole Foods-shopping white elitism.

KaponoFor3: Obdicut: Hi 2004. I'm 2006. How are you doing?

Good man -- hey, you weren't a Presidential election year, were you?

no, but midterm elections are arguably more telling of the populace, because it isn't one big election, it's a lot of local elections, and the democrats won the day.

KaponoFor3: Good man -- hey, you weren't a Presidential election year, were you?

Nope. I was the year that the Republicans lost the House and the Senate simultaneously.

I'd also like to point out that since then, the balance of congressional power has shifted even farther towards the Democrats.

Spin on, burndtdan, spin on.

It's ALWAYS a lot of local elections, including presidential elections, which are, actually, a whole bunch of state-wide (like senatorial elections) campaigns.

And, typically, the party in the White House loses seats in both chambers of Congress in the 6th year of a presidential administration. It would have been more telling if they had not.

Bufu: Spin on, burndtdan, spin on.

It's ALWAYS a lot of local elections, including presidential elections, which are, actually, a whole bunch of state-wide (like senatorial elections) campaigns.

And, typically, the party in the White House loses seats in both chambers of Congress in the 6th year of a presidential administration. It would have been more telling if they had not.

Spin on, Bufu, spin on.

Ignore the will of the people dissatisfied with the lying administration in power. Seriously, the best you can do is "We were supposed to lose anyway?" If that's all you've got, that should make you realize just how hated this administration is.

Bufu: Spin on, burndtdan, spin on.

spin on? one is an election where there are elaborate rules, delegations, electoral college...

and the other is a series of direct popular elections with no elaborations to skew the results.

that makes it arguably (that means not necessarily, but a meritorious argument could be made on its behalf) a better representation of the electorate.

I think the Democrats would be well-served by taking the political advice offered by the NRO.

Every two years the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate are up for election. The only difference in leap years (presidential election years) is, instead of voting just for your member of Congress and (maybe) your senator, you're also voting for a slate of electors pledged to (but not bound to) vote for a president and vice president in the Electoral College.

Elaborate rules? Delegations? You mean, as in at a party convention? That's over long before November, and that's strictly intra-party.

I'm not spinning when I say that the party in power (i.e., holding the White House) much more often than not loses seats in the House and the Senate during the off year (or mid-term) elections. That's just a fact.

I think LBJ is the last incumbent to have gained Congressional seats 2 years after being elected. Hell, 2 years after Clinton was elected, the Republicans didn't just gain seats in both chambers, they won majorities in them for the first time in 40 years (except for the first 6 years of the Reagan administration--Republicans lost seats in 82, and re-lost the Senate in 86.)

So, my point remains, it would have been a much more significant development had the GOP made gains in 2002 and 2006, but they didn't, following trends going back 4 decades.

I'll listen to NRO when Limbaugh takes the advice of Air America

Skleenar et. al., let me introduce you the difference between analysis and prescription.

Lowry is analyzing the current situation of the Democratic nomination process.

He is not prescribing a plan for success for them to win.

Do you not understand the difference?

Bufu: Skleenar et. al., let me introduce you the difference between analysis and prescription.

Lowry is analyzing the current situation of the Democratic nomination process.

He is not prescribing a plan for success for them to win.

Do you not understand the difference?

no, he is analyzing a past situation, and through a clearly subjective point of view. the prescription is implicit in his analysis.

eddyatwork: None of the candidates are electable to be honest.

this is true. hillary and obama would probably both get assasinated, and mccain will die of old age within the 1st 100 days.

/when was the last time we had an 'electable' candidate? they are all full of it.
//also, with the polarization of the country, i don't believe there is a single candidate that could make EVERYONE happy, be it for the country or for a single party.