I know you’re not that old, it was more of a rhetorical question. And as a reminder to myself, I should copyright the term “Obamanomenon” in case anybody wants to put it on a t-shirt.
Where McCain had to distance himself from Bush for the sake of the party, the party will have to kick McCain’s sleazy, self-serving, mentally diminished, lying, un-Mavericky loser ass out of the party altogether if they want to redeem themselves. He’s a disgrace. There’s no hope for him.
Here’s one projection of the 2012 electoral map changes:
The effect is a shift to the “red” side. Excluding swing states, that looks to me like at least a net cumulative 7-EV shift from reliably Democratic states to reliably Republican states.
The good news is that young voters are going Democratic, and I don’t see those voters switching sides down the road. Maybe that (along with the influx of Democratic voters from other states) will help turn some of those red states purple in a lasting way
Nah, Nevada is hardly “reliably Republican,” (and obviously California is far from it.)
So, +6 to “red” states at worst.
I was counting Nevada as a swing state and Cali as a blue state. Minimum swing of 7 EVs to the red.
I disagree: -14 (Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania)-21 (New York)+1*1 (California)=-5
Missouri, Ohio, Florida, and Nevada are more or less swing states, -1-2+2+1=0
Utah, Georgia, Louisiana, Arizona, Texas are to varying degrees red states. +1+1-1+1+3=5
But do remember that electoral votes matter for more than just Presidential elections. They determine how many House seats there are as well, and red/blue every four years often has not much to do with that partisan split. For example, Texas has 13 Dems and 19 Reps, but has been reliably Republican up until now (aided by a favored son in 6 out of the last 7 elections).
I truly believe that both sides desperately want the power for it’s own sake more than they will ever admit. I hate our two party system, and I despise the lunacy and dishonesty that accompanies politics in general as a result of partisanship and unwillingess to either compromise or for the government to legitimize a true third (or fourth, or fifth, etc) political party through a fair campaign money policy.
I see neither side as better than the other. Neither side is beholden to the genuine interests of the average American anymore. It’s all a big money game, with big money coming in and going out on either side, just from different (or not so different) sources.
Had it not happened, though, would Bush have been re-elected, or would it be Kerry running for reelection this year though?
Aren’t those what we want? 
Had it not happened, though, would Bush have been re-elected, or would it be Kerry running for reelection this year though?
Aren’t those what we want?
Seriously, I once read somewhere, “a branch that does not bend with the wind breaks.” Looks like that’s what’s happening to the Republican party.
The standard Republican desperation defense. Rather than try to defend the indefensible, simply claim both parties are equally bad, without bothering to provide evidence of course. Repeat it often enough, and the propaganda will be taken at face value.
Why would you assume I’m a Republican and could you demonsrate a remarkable difference between the two parties as to whom they are supposedly beholden to in terms of large American corporations?
There is a lot of assuming and presuming around here these days if one does not fall lock step in line with the O’bama crowd.
I share your sentiments exactly. I’d love to be able to vote R, but MCCain isn’t worth me getting off my couch to go vote in the first place. I’d love to vote for O, but his stand on several of my key issues just wont allow me to do so. So here I am, stuck with nobody I will vote for. In my mind, a vote for either is a vote of agreement of the candidate and their positions. That is just not going to happen this year.
I’m sick of voting for the lesser of two evils.
An interesting position on the coming battle for the soul of the future GOP.David Frum pushing back against Rush and Tony Blankley’s desire to pull the GOP back to the “blueprint” of Reagan-style conservatism. They are, he states, selling
I’m leaning more to the side of, no, they won’t.
The kind of extreme demonization of Obama coming from some right-wing sources is far, far beyond anything I’ve ever seen in a presidential election in the U.S. Not even Clinton faced this sort of mindless rage. I think the bizarre hatred for Obama from these people is really going to poison the GOP. Their manner and rhetoric are becoming increasingly violent and worrisome to me, and not just expressed towards Obama, but towards the media and of course the people who are Democrats themselves.
I really hope things settle down after Obama wins; that this raging, hate mongering will fade away into the fetid corners in the dark whence it came, and that the GOP will recover some honor and dignity.
But I’m not seeing a lot of either from the most vocal elements of the GOP right now.
I notice you didn’t mention GW Bush. Gona take a lot to beat some of the things that were said about HIM in the last election by loony lefty types. Remember the chimp chart? Remember all the over the top things that he was supposedly going to do if re-elected?
I think that the well is so poisoned now that each side goes further and further when they lose. When Obama wins a segment of the Republicans is going to go nuts…and I expect to see the same kind of Moveon.org stuff from the right about Obama that was done to Bush. Of course you are probably sitting there shaking your head and thinking ‘yeah, but that stuff about Bush was RIGHT!’. It’s all about oxes and gores and all that stuff…
-XT
I won’t defend this stuff, but comedic, derisive mockery is hardly in the same category as a massive viral whispering campaign centred around pernicious and blatant lying, which is what the poster was talking about. Stuff like Obama is Muslim and was born in Kenya; Obama is an apostate Muslim through his father and will ignite a fatwa; Obama is “other;” Obama palls around with terrorists and he’s a socialist.
Now, we do know there was some in-the-same-league nasty things going around in 2000, but the evidence suggests the chief victim was actually McCain in the primary from Rove’s push polling for Bush.
I would say the moral equivalent of Bush monkey mockery is probably dismissing Obama as a cultural elite and lampooning his messianic aura. But that’s not what is being complained about here. You may think Bush’s attacks were far less charitable, but the point can be made Bush is far less impressive too. He certainly gave plenty of ammunition for such attacks; they didn’t exist in a vacuum. Nobody accuses GHWB or Jeb or other Republicans of being monkeys.
I think much of the derision poured on Bush stems from an incredulous reaction to the fact that a non-trivial number of people actually regarded him as presidential on the basis of his faux Texan charm and his have-a-beer-with affability. That doesn’t excuse puerile attacks, but there it is.
Well, from my vantage he has been a complete disaster, so whatever was said, not all of it has turned out wrong. Bush campaigned on a platform of compassionate conservatism, humble foreign policy, fiscal responsibility, and a more abstemious private sexual morality than Clinton. But once elected, he governed to the far right - and led the country to disaster.
Admittedly, he has been somewhat more constrained in the second term, but you can’t unscramble the egg so easily. If you regard his presidency as an ongoing calamity, as I do, the case made against Bush in 2004 stands as an ongoing critique of his leadership, whether or not you cherry-pick some hyperbole from it.
Looking at his low approvals, it’s apparent that a fair chunk of his former support, including those who obviously did not engaged in excessive attacks, would agree.
I’m not talking about the fuckups he actually DID…I’m talking about the over the top stuff that was causing such handwringing. He was going to outlaw abortion, institute prayer in schools, create a government theocracy, invade Iran, Syria and Belgium (ok, just kidding on that last one), etc etc.
As for the monkey stuff being humorous…well, humor is dependent on one’s perspective. I don’t think that there has been much said by the main stream Republicans that is any worse than what main stream Dem’s had to say about Bush. As for the loonies on the fringe…again, I think it’s fairly equivalent as far as over the top horseshit goes, just in different ways. Bush was criticized for being stupid, ignorant, idiotic, moronic, evil, fascist, Nazi-esque, Hitler-like, fundamentalist, etc etc. Obama is criticized for being black, intellectual (as if that’s a bad thing), socialist, foreign born (it’s to laugh), Muslim…and black.
Depending on where one stands is going to determine which attacks seem ‘reasonable’ and which seem ‘over the top’. What I can’t stand is the hypocrisy of some (on both sides) who screech about the attacks on THEIR candidate but then handwave away attacks on another because they agree (or just don’t see why anyone would get riled about it).
-XT
No, this is different and much more worrisome.
Most of that stuff on Bush was merely unflattering mockery. Most importantly, it was not oriented toward inflaming hatred, like the far right is doing now towards Obama. Also importantly, major Democratic candidates didn’t go after Bush II with the kind of venomous and hate-mongering lies that we’re seeing from, for example, Palin (e.g. “palling around with terrorists.”)
Bush received some serious heat, it’s true (and in my opinion this was richly deserved as we can all see in retrospect). But the “terrorist Muslim” or “dangerous Socialist” lines of attack on Obama are going much further toward incited violence and hatred than I have ever seen in my lifetime. Both sides use fear factics, that is true. The far right is simply taking it much further than I’ve seen.
I think the GOP is seriously losing its way. Vitriol and blame gaming are going cause them to take way longer to get their act together again.
Look, I want the GOP to get itself straight, to get itself back on track without the baggage from the fundamentalist Christians and hawkish neocons. But this fear mongering is going to make that much, much harder.