Democratic Campaign Deathwatch Thread

[dudalb]

I love the way both The Dems and the GOP feel the Media is against them.
Frankly, "The Media Is What Beat Us!" is a nice way to avoid admitting that your party ran a bad campaign.
Both parties are cry babies on this issue.
There is a lot about the MSM to criticise..mainly their fondness for the big,flashy and superficial story for the more substantive one...but to accuse them of being involved in some kind of plot to throw the election one way or the other is a bit too much.

 

[Brainster]

I love the way both The Dems and the GOP feel the Media is against them.
Frankly, "The Media Is What Beat Us!" is a nice way to avoid admitting that your party ran a bad campaign.
Both parties are cry babies on this issue.
There is a lot about the MSM to criticise..mainly their fondness for the big,flashy and superficial story for the more substantive one...but to accuse them of being involved in some kind of plot to throw the election one way or the other is a bit too much.

Individuals in the media are certainly biased one way or another, but this is revealed more in "confirmation bias" than anything else. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes remain convinced that they had the goods on George Bush's Air National Guard service, even to the point of accepting the bizarre "fake, but accurate" standard offered by the secretary who was supposed to have typed up the memos. How else can you explain the insistence that they were right to go with the story?

 

[ConspiRaider]

I love the way both The Dems and the GOP feel the Media is against them.
Frankly, "The Media Is What Beat Us!" is a nice way to avoid admitting that your party ran a bad campaign.
Both parties are cry babies on this issue.
There is a lot about the MSM to criticise..mainly their fondness for the big,flashy and superficial story for the more substantive one...but to accuse them of being involved in some kind of plot to throw the election one way or the other is a bit too much.

Hi dudalb -

This person is part of mainstream media: Rush Limbaugh. He's a cheerleader for the GOP. He's the #1 political talk show host in the USA, and that means #1 in the world. You think he doesn't feel his power to influence?

RUSH: No, the strategy is... Yes. The strategy is to continue the chaos in this party. Look, there's a reason for this. Our side isn't going to do this. Obama needs to be bloodied up. Look, half the country already hates Hillary. That's good. But nobody hates Obama yet. Hillary is going to be the one to have to bloody him up politically because our side isn't going to do it. Mark my words. It's about winning, folks!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030308/content/01125107.guest.html

Behind him is Sean Hannity, #2 political talk show host and cheerleader for the GOP.

Behind him is Michael Savage, #3 political talk show host and cheerleader for the GOP.

They each get 3 hours a day, 5 days a week to exclusively peddle the GOP cause, to millions of listeners and viewers.

It works.

You don't get to a "progressive" (Ha!) until Ed Schulz at #8 - and he is an avowed Hillary Hater.

Out of the top 10: Schulz, the Hillary Basher, is the only so-called liberal/progressive/Democrat. And he's a former Republican. Perhaps he'll be crossing back, should Hillary win the nomination?

Here is info on their talk show ratings:
http://66.227.50.219/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=44

 

[Darth Rotor]

Curses, double post foils me again.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Let's separate this derail into two parts:

1. Should the US government be paying for condoms? I say no. If some charity wants to spring up to pay for it, fine.

I cannot agree with you. It's a readiness issue, tied to American security interests in Africa. Why? Because people hump. Your point number 2 ignores human behavior.

As to the security interests, some months ago I posted a link, in a similar discussion about the US Navy being in Uganda and spreading the word on condom use among Ugandans, in particular Ugandan military members.

Why does that make sense?

Soldiers and sailors sick with AIDS are at a reduced readiness to do much of anything. Soldiers and sailors infecting the populace with AIDS hardly lend to confidence in government, derail public health, which in turn is an obstacle to economic and political process.

Condoms are cheap for you and I. In some parts of the third world, the price of a condom is a few days pay.

Giving them away is not that expensive, and removes an obstacle to their use. Their use mitigates a significant public health, and social, problem.

2. Does condom use decrease AIDS? Probably, but not as much as not having sex with people with AIDS would.

How you propose to convince people to stop having so much sex I'd like to hear.

Please, tell us your plan. Remember that you are dealing with human beings.

DR

 

[Brainster]

Hi dudalb -

This person is part of mainstream media: Rush Limbaugh. He's a cheerleader for the GOP. He's the #1 political talk show host in the USA, and that means #1 in the world. You think he doesn't feel his power to influence?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030308/content/01125107.guest.html

Behind him is Sean Hannity, #2 political talk show host and cheerleader for the GOP.

Behind him is Michael Savage, #3 political talk show host and cheerleader for the GOP.

They each get 3 hours a day, 5 days a week to exclusively peddle the GOP cause, to millions of listeners and viewers.

It works.

And yet who got the Republican nomination? The guy that those three spent the last eight years tearing to pieces. Limbaugh, Hannity and (ugh) Savage are not leaders, they're entertainers. They can rally the base, but (as with the libera/progressive talkers, who mostly pimped John Edwards for the Democratic nomination) they cannot take people where they don't already want to go.

You don't get to a "progressive" (Ha!) until Ed Schulz at #8 - and he is an avowed Hillary Hater.

Out of the top 10: Schulz, the Hillary Basher, is the only so-called liberal/progressive/Democrat. And he's a former Republican. Perhaps he'll be crossing back, should Hillary win the nomination?

Yes, can't trust those former Republicans can we?

 

[New Ager]

And yet who got the Republican nomination? The guy that those three spent the last eight years tearing to pieces. Limbaugh, Hannity and (ugh) Savage are not leaders, they're entertainers. They can rally the base, but (as with the libera/progressive talkers, who mostly pimped John Edwards for the Democratic nomination) they cannot take people where they don't already want to go.

You're way off.

Rush and fellow talkers didn't endorse anyone. So, no one to follow.

And more conservative votes went for other candidates other than McCain.

McCain won because of a set of circumstances(Guiliani's blunder, many conservatives in race, and winner take all states.) If it had been McCain against only Romney, McCain would have lost.

And Rush hasn't lost any power. Look how he is influencing the Dem race with his chaos campaign. It seems people will follow.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You're way off.

Rush and fellow talkers didn't endorse anyone. So, no one to follow.

And more conservative votes went for other candidates other than McCain.

McCain won because of a set of circumstances(Guiliani's blunder, many conservatives in race, and winner take all states.) If it had been McCain against only Romney, McCain would have lost.

And Rush hasn't lost any power. Look how he is influencing the Dem race with his chaos campaign. It seems people will follow.

How does this assertion of Rush Power square with the analysis that he gets about 3% of the radio listening audience in his time slot?

Are you advertising for him?

DR

 

[T.A.M.]

Fortunately, most of the people who are going to listen to, adhere to, the things Limbum and Vannity have to say are those who would never be convinced to elect Obama or Hillary anyway.

That doesn't mean they do not have effect...they do, but I do not see them convincing many people that would be swayed.

Their largest effect comes from keeping these stories going long beyond the standard expiration date.

TAM

 

[BPSCG]

As enjoyable as I find the spectacle of Clinton and Obama tearing each other to shreds, I find the following suggestion for how to end the brawl intriguing:

Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, is in a unique position to settle his party's presidential nomination battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
And the solution he could offer his party would not involve winning another primary or caucus, negotiating redo votes in Florida and Michigan, convincing superdelegates to make or break commitments, or masterminding convention floor fights.

The solution that is within his power is simpler, yet more profound than any of the extraordinary political events America has witnessed this election year. It requires only the rarest of things: an individual willing to set aside his own power and ambition for the good of his party and his country. It is this: Mr. Reid could step aside as leader of the Senate and hand the post to Mrs. Clinton. Only the proffer of this consolation prize would likely persuade Mrs. Clinton to drop her divisive, and now futile, quest for her party's nomination...

...He well knows that Mrs. Clinton would never accept the vice presidency under Mr. Obama. Mr. Reid also understands Mrs. Clinton's naked ambition and drive to win. He knows her calculating nature, and senses her need for an out. His years of experience tell him that if Mr. Obama loses to Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama will be finished, much in the same way that Al Gore and John Kerry have been swept into history's remainder bin of failed Democrat presidential hopefuls.

But has Mr. Reid thought out the power equation? If Mrs. Clinton were Senate majority leader during a McCain presidency, then she and she alone would be the leader of the party and first in line for the nomination in 2012.

 

[T.A.M.]

Intriguing, and may end up happening after North Carolina, if she insists on continuing after it.

TAM

 

[Dr Adequate]

As enjoyable as I find the spectacle of Clinton and Obama tearing each other to shreds, I find the following suggestion for how to end the brawl intriguing:

OR we could try for a compromise based on genetic engineering.

 

[T.A.M.]

That is just wrong.

TAM

 

[Brainster]

You're way off.

Rush and fellow talkers didn't endorse anyone. So, no one to follow.

I guess you missed this.

 

[Puppycow]

As enjoyable as I find the spectacle of Clinton and Obama tearing each other to shreds, I find the following suggestion for how to end the brawl intriguing:

I'm skeptical that Senate Majority Leader is a more attractive position than Vice President. I don't think it translates into real clout. I mean, does Harry Reid really wield any more clout than other senators? Plus, doesn't it tend to be an unpopular position? Harry Reid's approval ratings are abysmal. I don't know if that's because he really has done an abysmal job (I haven't been impressed, but I don't really follow what he does closely) or if it's mostly just a position whose occupant tends to have low approval ratings.

And I also don't think it's really necessary at this point to offer some backroom deal to get her out of the race.

But if I was Hillary, I think Supreme Court Justice would be a much more attractive consolation prize than Senate Majority Leader.

 

[Trakar]

The trouble with the "Gore" thing is two-fold...

1. He lost in 2000, and REPs will exploit the "loser" aspect of it.

So did McCain, And Gore actually won the popular vote, which would be the Democratic response to any talks of "losing" in 2000

2. If he picks neither of Clinton or Obama as VP, the party will fall COMPLETELY apart, and if he picks either of them, the other half will be PISSED OFF, and likely skip out in November.

TAM

I see no reason why the party would completely fall apart if Gore was chosen and didn't choose either Obama or Clinton. In such a situation I don't see how he could chose either one. How about a Gore-Edwards ticket?

Seriously, I don't think you could force Gore into this mess at gunpoint, and I don't blame him at all, if anything I think he saw this coming 2 years ago.

 

[ConspiRaider]

I see no reason why the party would completely fall apart if Gore was chosen and didn't choose either Obama or Clinton. In such a situation I don't see how he could chose either one. How about a Gore-Edwards ticket?

Seriously, I don't think you could force Gore into this mess at gunpoint, and I don't blame him at all, if anything I think he saw this coming 2 years ago.

You're absolutely correct - Big Al isn't going to play any kind of Veep role in this election, and I doubt any other. And actually I think it'd be a mistake for him to endorse either Hillary or Barack. He has nothing to gain. Doesn't need to do this anyway. He's got his Nobel Peace Prize, his hard-earned worldwide respect and he is going to take his global warming awareness fight directly to world leaders and populations.

When you're a good person at your core - and that is what Big Al is - and you have to endure the media onslaught of being branded a Liar, amongst other things, every single day and night for months and months: Any single one of us here can be broken, to an extent, by that unending assault on our character and good name. The rigors and trials of the 2000 campaign knocked Big Al back on his heels for awhile after the presidency was handed to Bush by the U.S. Supreme Court.

So good to see him come back the way he did - his way. He blew off politicos, the media - and sallied forth on his mission. And look what he did. That is an American success story all of us (excluding Republicans of course) should hold up and be proud of.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The only Gore scenario that could actually work is so Machiavellean in its scope that it'd never happen.

The country would have to begin to see the current situation as a deadlock that will not be solved. (This is entirely possible, of course, as I can see this going to a ridiculous standoff and SCOTUS having to determine Florida/Michigan. By that time would anyone be left to vote Dem?)

If such a view starts to take hold, Gore would then need a stalking horse to directly take on the deadlockees on his behalf. This would require going after both of them as not having a clear majority and both of them as harming the party and the party's chances to take the White House.

The party hacks (aka "super delegates") could, in such a scenario, push either or both of the leading candidates to back out and throw their support to the great peacemaker, Gore. Put Hillary on the Supreme Court, give Obama the veep slot or make him the Ambassador to the UN.

Problems galore with this scenario, of course. There are no "king-makers" like in days of old. And there's no logical party to play the "stalking horse" role. Edwards could maybe do it, but probably wouldn't.

Ah, well... just another fantasy. What we're probably going to get is a bloody mess. Right now both camps are licking their wounds a retrenching from the catfights of the past couple of weeks. Look for more slander and innuendo around Monday morning. And meanwhile, McCain is now doing Letterman impressions and looking statesmanlike.

 

[The Atheist]

And meanwhile, McCain is now doing Letterman impressions and looking statesmanlike.

... and sweeping up the swingers.

 

[latent aaaack]

As bad as the current situation is, it's not likely to disenfranchise and disillusion a big fraction of democratic voters, especially key demographics like blacks. The worst case scenario for the dems is that they lose a block of their constituents permanently by going over their heads after getting their hopes way up. Obama's like a big bubble that the democratic party has to delicately try not to let burst for as long as they can or it could do permanent harm to the party.

The only Gore scenario that could actually work is so Machiavellean in its scope that it'd never happen.

The country would have to begin to see the current situation as a deadlock that will not be solved. (This is entirely possible, of course, as I can see this going to a ridiculous standoff and SCOTUS having to determine Florida/Michigan. By that time would anyone be left to vote Dem?)

If such a view starts to take hold, Gore would then need a stalking horse to directly take on the deadlockees on his behalf. This would require going after both of them as not having a clear majority and both of them as harming the party and the party's chances to take the White House.

The party hacks (aka "super delegates") could, in such a scenario, push either or both of the leading candidates to back out and throw their support to the great peacemaker, Gore. Put Hillary on the Supreme Court, give Obama the veep slot or make him the Ambassador to the UN.

Problems galore with this scenario, of course. There are no "king-makers" like in days of old. And there's no logical party to play the "stalking horse" role. Edwards could maybe do it, but probably wouldn't.

Ah, well... just another fantasy. What we're probably going to get is a bloody mess. Right now both camps are licking their wounds a retrenching from the catfights of the past couple of weeks. Look for more slander and innuendo around Monday morning. And meanwhile, McCain is now doing Letterman impressions and looking statesmanlike.