Comments on: Obama Wins Mississippi Primary

By: ryan

ryan — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:21:34 +0000

“What they want is not what matters, as it did 50 years ago. They will have to get used to it.”

Heh… the Church my parents attend is going through a similar argument, with some older members fighting changes meant to bring in new members… meanwhile the average age of churchgoers increases, and membership shrinks. It's surprising how many people cling to what's comfortable, even if doing so effectively kills off the thing that they're clinging to.

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:57:16 +0000

Ryan: The traditional Dems have lost 7 of the last 10 elections. What they want is not what matters, as it did 50 years ago. They will have to get used to it.

By: ryan

ryan — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:29:52 +0000

cosmo: I agree that Holly's comments and posts have been unsubstantiated and out-of-line, but the original point in this discussion remains: Clinton's wins in large Democratic states show her stronger support from traditional Democrats, and her supporters can rightly claim that she better represents the traditional Democratic party than he does. Obama represents a change to the party, so this election is thus about whether the party sticks to its traditional core or undergoes a transformation. I agree with you that the path represented by Obama is probably better long-term for the party, but am simply pointing out that the traditional Democrats do have a valid argument, namely that “new” Democrats may not be as reliable as the traditionalists. Whoever wins the nomination, the Democrats will lose some support from the other side; whether that is offset by new / more reliable supporters or not is an issue worth discussing.

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:19:39 +0000

'If Clinton is the nominee it pushes me back into the middle, but at the same time people like Holly in Cincinnati (and she claims there are many like her) say they will leave the Democrats if Obama gets the nomination.'

Show me a single post or link Holly has put up where she shows a single bit of rational thought.

Her posts are either silly: http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/primaries/...
or her comments sillier: 'If Obama wins I will leave the Democrats.'

There is no data to support such, and it's just a case of the loser's side whining. Here is an example of her 'analysis':

http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blo...

Holly: Sen. Obama is neither qualified nor electable. My Democratic Party will kill itself AND lose in November if it nominates Sen. Obama.

My reply:

My analysis:

1) O has a delegate lead
2) O has about a 6-799k popular vote lead
3) there is no way Hillary will be able to make either deficit up
4) she will end up, at best, down 120 or so delegates, and down 500k+ votes
5) that's at best
6) the Dems will not commit hari-kiri by pulling a Bush 2000 and selecting Hillary
7 because the Obamaheads wd walk, and Big Mac would kill Hill the Chill
because O will not take a VP slot when he shd be the #1 guy
9) black people would pull a Rodney King if the first black Prez candidate w a real shot at winning is screwed
10) Obama is more electable because he can win in states Hillary cannot
11) because Hillary is eking out wins in the traditional Dem strongholds
12) but O is blowing her out in Red states
13) therefore, Hill's campaign against Mac wd be a defensive one cuz no red state will go blue for her
14) because she has no appeal to Indies
15) while O does appeal to Indies more than Mac
16) and O draws Rep voters, while Hill does not
17) therefore a Mac-O matchup would put Mac on the defensive and O on the offensive
18) because O can win Red states
19) and he's done this all by actually living up to his promise not to fight dirty
20) where Hill only has dirt left and will lose fairly.

Any questions?

I ask you, which is the more well reasoned and supported argument?

By: ryan

ryan — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:57:04 +0000

cosmo: I'm not sure if I fall under the heading of “Obamahead”, but I'm not sure who I would support between Clinton and McCain. Four years ago I would have said McCain with no question, but the fact that he has completely caved on the issue of torture, supports a very militaristic approach to Iraq, and spent much of 2007 pandering to the religious right makes it a tougher choice.

There seem to be a fair number of people like myself who have not signed on to either party in the past but are trending “D” just because we're attracted to Obama's message of making government less about politics and more about running the country. If Clinton is the nominee it pushes me back into the middle, but at the same time people like Holly in Cincinnati (and she claims there are many like her) say they will leave the Democrats if Obama gets the nomination.

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:30:31 +0000

'A lifelong Democrat who vehemently disagrees with Obama is a reliable party-line voter; a new "Obamacan" could potentially be a one-election voter who may not vote "D" for candidates other than Obama. My sympathies lie with the longer-term strategy, but it's understandable that risking the "automatic" voter makes some people nervous.'

You posit a false dichotomy. The war and economy pretty much ensure all but a few Feminazi Hill Shillers will vote Obama, just as most Obamaheads will vote Clinton, even if she screws him.

But, Hillary has no pull with Indies or Reps, O does. That's why she has a far greater chance of losing to Big Mac than he does.

By: ryan

ryan — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:06:22 +0000

cosmo: I suspect the answer to the question of whether it is better to strengthen the base or increase the party size while alienating some members of the base is one that people will answer differently depending on whether or not they are a member of that base. A lifelong Democrat who vehemently disagrees with Obama is a reliable party-line voter; a new “Obamacan” could potentially be a one-election voter who may not vote “D” for candidates other than Obama. My sympathies lie with the longer-term strategy, but it's understandable that risking the “automatic” voter makes some people nervous.

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:07:05 +0000

And while Dean has been a lackluster party head, he's 100% right on this one- Florida screwed themselves, and they have to pay for a redo.

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:06:21 +0000

CO: But that's because neither O nor Edwards campaigned there. had they it likely would have resulted in less than a handful of delegates one way or the other. That's why there needs to be a revote. If one side plays by the rules and the other cheats, you cannot count the results as fairly won.

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:49:48 +0000

For a moment, it looked like party leaders were marching toward a Florida revote. But Obama's campaign signaled today that the mechanics would be an obstacle, and Florida's congressional delegation just took a hard line against a re-vote in a joint statement:

Washington, DC – The Members of Florida’s Democratic Delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives issued the following statement regarding the seating of Florida’s delegates at the DNC National Convention this August.

“We are committed to working with the DNC, the Florida State Democratic party, our Democratic leaders in Florida, and our two candidates to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated.

“Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind.”

h/t Politico

As I recall that one gave Clinton a 40+ net delegate win

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:24:56 +0000

Ryan: what this all means is Hillary is eking out wins in her base, while Obama is winning legions of new potential Democrats. Which is a better fall position?

By: ryan

ryan — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:57:44 +0000

The not-so-subtle suggestion in the “Obama isn't winning big Democratic states” message is that since he wins big in Wyoming and Mississippi but didn't win New York, California, and other solidly Democratic states that he's not going to win the big Democratic states in the general election. The reality is that the devil will be skiing on the day that John McCain wins California. Obama's appeal is aimed squarely at the less-partisan elements of his party, which means he has to work a bit harder to win the hardcore Democrats but brings along a larger swath of moderate voters.

There may be a valid argument to be made that Hillary is winning more traditional Democrats than Obama and is thus more “deserving” of being the Democratic nominee, but there is an equally valid argument to be made that Obama is creating a new generation of Democrats by attracting moderates. This election is thus about what it means to be a Democrat, and whether the party consolidates the base at the expense of attracting new members, or risks losing some members while attracting new faces and new ideas.