« The Obama Prairie Fire. Do the Clintons Have any More Firewalls? | Main | Clinton Campaign Now Under New Mismanagement »

The Misogynists on the Bus go Beep, Beep, Beep

Clinton_nutcracker.jpgSatire and parody work because they hit so close to home, revealing the truth in a humorous way, as was evident recently when a very popular Christmas gift last month turned out to be the Hillary Clinton nutcracker. That product fits the view of a small but significant group of male voters have of Clinton; that she's a tough-as-nails ball-buster of a woman.

In and of itself it's not really indicative of anything other than the widely-held (and true, in my view) perception that Clinton is a tough, hard-edged woman who will ride roughshod her opponents.

And my travels through the blogosphere tells me that image troubles some men, especially politically moderate and conservative men for some reason. It scares them enough to cross idealogical boundaries and vote for Hillary's opponent in an attempt to stop her. These woman-fearing cross-over Republicans and Independents aren't liberals -- in any sense -- as is betrayed by their woman-fearing incessant, obsessive Hillary-bashing, but the momentum and zeal with which they hate Hillary is skewing and tilting the Democratic primary process to a meaningful degree.

Voting Against Hillary by Voting for Obama

There are definite signs that there are single-issue nutcracker-fearing crossovers who are in favor of Barack Obama merely because they are opposed to Hillary Clinton.

They aren't aligned politically with Democratic principles, and they are out there in significant enough numbers that these self-acknowledged Republicans and Independents, who aren't Democrats or liberals or progressives but are merely misogynists, would vote for John McCain and a continuation of Bush's doctrines and policies on a heartbeat rather than vote for Hillary Clinton.

And if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, will they stick around and vote for Obama on the general election? I think not. With Hillary Clinton out of the picture their motivation to support Obama is diminished, and with Barack faltering in the debates and flailing his way down the campaign trail towards November's general election -- failing to deliver anything more than the same platitudes and vague promises, as we all know he will -- those same swing voters who swung over and voted for Obama against Clinton will migrate back across the line and vote for McCain.

With Clinton out of the picture this small but significant sector, lacking a true liberal and progressive agenda of their own, will go trotting back to McCain.You can bet your Hillary Clinton nutcracker on it.

The Crossovers will Cross Back

Much has been written in the last several months about the Bradley-effect, where people profess support for a black candidate then change their minds once it comes time to actually mark the ballot, and while these moderate and conservative Republicans and Independents will hold their nose and vote for Obama in order to stop Clinton and punish George Bush for his betrayal, they may well follow their political ideologies and "discover" many reasons not to support Obama in the general election.

They aren't aligned politically with Obama anyway; these are the folks who voted to keep George Bush in office in 2004 -- what does that tell you about their politics? But they are strongly motivated to keep Clinton out of office, and are willing to vote for Obama in the primary to keep her out.

Since they aren't true liberals and progressive there will be plenty of reasons for them to ultimately choose McCain over Obama. Not to worry, Barack will give them all the ammunition they need.

But will these "crossovers" crossing back be enough to cause Obama to lose the election? By itself, in my view, the answer is no.

Make no mistake -- Obama is quite capable of losing the eelction all by himself.

But while this crossover effect appears poised to help throw the nomination to Obama due to the closeness of the race between Clinton and Obama (that now appears poised to come 'down to the wire' and be decided in a hot-contested and contentious brokered convention) I think the huge Democratic voter turnout will squash the Republican efforts to hold onto the White House no matter who the Democratic nominee is - even with the crossovers crossing back. We could run O.J. Simpson as President with Britany Spears as his VP running mate and we Democrats would still prevail this November.

But, unchecked, the resulting effect of the misogynistic moderates and conservatives could be that they've decided that our President will be Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton, thereby greatly increasing the odds of a return to Republican power in four years, and that would be a nutcracking shame.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3/5 (6 votes cast)


Comments (29)

mantis:

It seems clear that Lee will ignore this but it bears repeating. As I wrote on the other thread:

Obama has gotten the majority of votes from Democrats in seven closed primaries/caucuses: Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana, and Maine. Compare this to only five closed contests, including Florida, for Clinton. This shoots a bunch of holes in the assertion that Obama supporters aren't liberals or Democrats. Also, Newsweek is reporting that Democrats are satisfied with the candidates as nominee in the following numbers:

Hillary Clinton: 84%
Barack Obama: 84%

Democrats are satisfied in the same overwhelming numbers (especially compared to the Republicans satisfaction with their choices) with both candidates. I guess the 84% that like Obama are really just Republicans and Independents, right Lee? Let's not forget Obama's ratings from various liberal interest groups (guess what? He gets high marks from all of them).

I know facts and statistics are easy for you to ignore, especially when you've got a whole sack full of conjecture to throw around, but Obama's support among liberals and Democrats is undeniable.

Btw, let me just say that I agree that Clinton has been dealt a very unfair deal by the media (with a hand from the Republicans), and misogyny definitely plays a part, but this is not Obama's fault.

Lee Ward:

mantis blathered: "This shoots a bunch of holes in the assertion that Obama supporters aren't liberals or Democrats."

Some aren't - thats clear. Look at the nuymber of voters, as verified by the polls, who would vote Democratic if Obama is the candidate, but would vote Republican if Clinton is.

These aren't "Democrats" or "liberals", mantis, these are moderates and conservatives who are anti-Hillary - only - and the fact that they would vote for McCain over Clinton proves they arent' liberals or Democrats, or anything close.

And in this post I'm addressing the "the view of a small but significant group of male voters" that are moderates and conservatives and who have crossed over to vote against Hillary. It appears you've completely ignored what I wrote in your haste to blather on...

mantis:

Look at the nuymber of voters, as verified by the polls, who would vote Democratic if Obama is the candidate, but would vote Republican if Clinton is.

Care to share those "verified by the polls" numbers? If not, it's simply conjecture. As far as your post is concerned, the only basis you provide is your "travels through the blogosphere." Sorry, but I can travel through the blogosphere and find you all sorts of stupid shit that ain't true, but is parroted by many. Who cares?

And in this post I'm addressing the "the view of a small but significant group of male voters" that are moderates and conservatives and who have crossed over to vote against Hillary. It appears you've completely ignored what I wrote in your haste to blather on...

My point is to highlight the broad base of Democratic and liberal support Obama does have, and you don't have anything more than a small group of male voters you discovered in your travels through the blogosphere, whose minds you can apparently read allowing you to predict who they will really vote for in the general.

At least you admit that, "the huge Democratic voter turnout will squash the Republican efforts to hold onto the White House no matter who the Democratic nominee is," but that only makes one wonder, what is your point then? Well, from previous posts it seems very clear your point is to paint Obama as some anti-liberal to Clinton's "pure" liberal (sound like another party we know?), whose success is dependent on the support of people who will vote Republican in the general. You're wrong, and you know it, so you then try to make this about me.

You can call my comments "blathering" if you want, but they're a hell of a lot more substantive than your trips to imaginationland.

mantis:

Btw, whatever happened to the video of the "national interview" you saw, and promised here to produce "around Feb 1 or 2"?

You've got a lot of assertions, but nothing to back them up. You would fit in well with the Republicans.

Clinton or Obama '08!

Lee Ward:

"Care to share those "verified by the polls" numbers? "

Ah yes, I forgot how uninformed you are - the polls that show Obama doing better against McCain then Clinton - look them up, I don't have time to bother with the continuing education of uninformed trolls like you, mantis.

"you don't have anything more than a small group of male voters you discovered in your travels through the blogosphere,"

Obama appears poised to defeat Clinton by a very small margin, so the "small but significant bits" of his supporting constituency become more important and relevant. Apparently that's over your head, since you always try to reduce the discussion to the simple abstracts you understand. Again, I feel no need to prove you wrong - your trolling is that obvious.

No one is denying there is a large group of Obama supporters. That is so moronic and obvious its not worth discussing, and that wasn't the subject of these posts anyway - which is why they aren't addressed.

and which is why your trollish behavior and attempts to change the subject and then argue against what I didn't say is all the more amusing.

ryan a:

Lee,

Man, it might be time to reign yourself in. You're getting a little flagrant about all this.

I do not see the point in the way that you are writing. Mantis is correct in calling you out, because your political "analysis" of late has degraded significantly.

And it's not like you have a surplus of commenters over here on the 'Blue' side of the spectrum, by the way. It seems to me that you might consider a more respectful and balanced approach.

Again, just suggestions here...

mantis:

Ah yes, I forgot how uninformed you are - the polls that show Obama doing better against McCain then Clinton - look them up

Let's get this straight, if Clinton is the nominee, those Republicans who would vote for Obama will vote for McCain, but if Obama is the nominee, those same voters who say they would would vote for Obama will really vote for McCain? What do you base this conclusion on? Your "travels through the blogosphere."

How do you know the difference between the matchups with McCain (which considering the margin of error and how much time there is between now and the general, are all but insignificant) is the result of "a small but significant group of male voters," who will really vote for McCain? That's what I'm asking you to back up with something more than conjecture.

Obama appears poised to defeat Clinton by a very small margin, so the "small but significant bits" of his supporting constituency become more important and relevant.

I agree, they are important. My point is that you have been trying lately to assert that the sole reason for Obama's success is the support of moderates and Republicans (and specifically not liberals or progressives), not that they may be a tiny bit of his support. You're further ridiculously specious assertion is that because Obama has more support among moderates than Clinton (if in fact that is true), this means he is not a liberal/progressive, all evidence to the contrary.

No one is denying there is a large group of Obamqa supporters.

There's no denying there is a large group of liberal/progressive Obama supporters, except you have been trying to deny that.

ryan a:

One more:

Well, from previous posts it seems very clear your point is to paint Obama as some anti-liberal to Clinton's "pure" liberal (sound like another party we know?), whose success is dependent on the support of people who will vote Republican in the general. You're wrong, and you know it, so you then try to make this about me.

I think that Mantis is pretty much dead-on. Your overly aggressive allegiance to Hillary is seriously disturbing. You are sounding pretty damn dogmatic about this. Isn't that what we're all trying to get away from?

Lee Ward:

"Let's get this straight, if Clinton is the nominee, those Republicans who would vote for Obama will vote for McCain, but if Obama is the nominee, those same voters who say they would would vote for Obama will really vote for McCain?"

Yes, there is a significant number of voters who will swing that way. The polls confirm it.

"My point is that you have been trying lately to assert that the sole reason for Obama's success is the support of moderates and Republicans (and specifically not liberals or progressives), not that they may be a tiny bit of his support."

Sole reason? No, I never said that - there you go changing the subject then arguing against something I never said AGAIN:

Here's what I've said:

"fits the view of a small but significant group of male voters have of Clinton"

Not "sole reason for Obama's success" - a small group.

"that image troubles some men, especially politically moderate and conservative men for some reason. It scares them enough to cross idealogical boundaries and vote for Hillary's opponent in an attempt to stop her."

Not "sole reason for Obama's success" moderate and conservative corssover - a small but significant group.

Now you're just plain lying, or you're foaming at the mouth so badly you aren't even reading what I've written.

Instead you suggest that I've said "sole reason for Obama's success" is blah blah blah and you rail against an argument I haven't made.

It's nothing more than trollish blather...

ryan a:

Lee, do you know how to defend your position without losing control? Drop all the name-calling bullshit, and you might actually be able to make an argument.

Lee Ward:

I make my arguments in my posts, ryan.

Wrestling with trolls in the comment threads -- especially those who distort what I've written and then challenge me to post links to support the arguments they now falsely attribute to me -- is just sport.

mantis has been especially boorish lately, and deserves to be slapped around in my view.

Hey! I just noticed that I'm one of the editors on this blog, which means I get to choose what I write and how I write it.

Thanks for your advice, I'm sure its well-intentioned.

mantis:

Yes, there is a significant number of voters who will swing that way.

Prove that there is a significant number of voters who say they will vote for Obama but in truth will vote for McCain. Prove it. Show us the polls that confirm it.

No, I never said that - there you go changing the subject then arguing against something I never said AGAIN:

Did you not say this?

Don't confuse Obama supporters with "liberals," Joe - many of them are in fact Republicans and moderates who voted for Bush, and are Obama supporters because they don't want a true liberal in office.

They're anything but progressives, as this issue demonstrates.

What is that supposed to mean, Lee? It seems pretty clear to me you don't consider Obama supporters to be liberal/progressive.

ryan a:

Hey! I just noticed that I'm one of the editors on this blog, which means I get to choose what I write and how I write it.

Ah yes, sarcasm. Very witty indeed. I am fully aware of the fact that you are an editor, Lee. Good for you. Keep on posting whatever you want. But when you make arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny, at least have the class to admit it.

Case in point:

This is yet another excellent chance for Barack Obama to demonstrate that he really does stand up for progressive change by speaking out against the sexist remarks made by the network -- in concert with Clinton -- by doing what any real progressive Democrat would do in this instance. Stand up and "do the right thing"and call MSNBC onto the carpet right along with Clinton.

That post was little more than a weak attempt to smear Obama based upon an exaggerated, and trivial, event. You attempted to use the situation to make the claim that Obama supporters are somehow not "real progressives," whatever that means. You got called out, and then overreacted instead of engaging reasonably.

Again, I understand the fact that you support Hillary, and that you can write whatever you want, but transparent smear tactics in the guise of political writing just aren't going to fly very well. Keep it up if you want, but you're not really going to encourage any kind of participation around here besides an echo-chamber. But then, I guess it all depends on what you're trying to do with this whole thing anyways, doesn't it?

Thanks for your advice, I'm sure its well-intentioned.

You're welcome for the advice, and yes, it was well-intentioned. Hopefully you'll take it into consideration.

Polemic argumentation may be fun, but it's usually little more than that. Substance matters.

Lee Ward:

I don't see a single word in any of your or mantis' comments addressing the crossover vote by misogynists which, by the way, was the subject of this post.

"Substance matters."

Bring some to the table and we'll talk. Address the damn post **in any fashion** and we'll talk. Cut and paste a screed from another comment thread, as mantis did in comment #1, and you won't be taken seriously. Sorry...

Ignore the polls which show Obama fairing better in ahead-to-head match with McCain than Clinton does in the same head-to-head match-up, and you won't be taken seriously. Sorry...

In other words, argue with me the same way you argue with writers on Wizbang and -- surprise, surprise - you'll be treated the same way they treat you. It has nothing to do with our respective politics, it's the integrity of the speaker and the integrity of the argument. Address mine, and I'll address yours.

But trolls aren't here for the discussion - you push their button and they go off, ignoring and distorting what you've said.

I guess they think they're supporting their candidate that way - but for me, as I said, engaging them is just for sport.

mantis:

I don't see a single word in any of your or mantis' comments addressing the crossover vote by misogynists which, by the way, was the subject of this post.

Except when I asked you to back up your claim that there are voters who will support Obama in the primary but will "crossover" and vote for McCain in the general (an argument which ignores the closed primaries he's won, as I pointed out). You can't support it, so you ignore the question.

Cut and paste a screed from another comment thread, as mantis did in comment #1, and you won't be taken seriously.

Here's what you told me in the other thread, when you weren't dismissing me as a troll:

I've got a post hitting the front page in 10 minutes that discusses it more, and explains why I think it's significant and it "matters"...

So I came to this thread and reposted some of the relevant points, which you ignore not because they are irrelevant but precisely because they are relevant and undercut your argument.

Ignore the polls which show Obama fairing better in ahead-to-head match with McCain than Clinton does in the same head-to-head match-up, and you won't be taken seriously.

Who ignores them? My point, which I made quite clear, is there is no evidence that his lead in national polls is the result of Republicans who won't vote for him in the general, as you assert.

Keep dodging and babbling about trolls, but that won't change the fact that your argument about crossover voters is pure conjecture.

Btw, most Democrats consider the fact that Obama has appeal among moderates and independents, in addition to his overwhelming (and equal to Clinton's) support among Democrats, as a good sign for him in the general. You somehow see it as a negative, and you have to invent reasons not supported by any facts to do it.

Lee Ward:

"Btw, most Democrats consider the fact that Obama has appeal among moderates and independents, in addition to his overwhelming (and equal to Clinton's) support among Democrats, as a good sign for him in the general. You somehow see it as a negative, and you have to invent reasons not supported by any facts to do it."

Ahhh, so "electability" matters when it counts in Obama's favor, but back when Clinton held the advantage in terms of electability many Obama supporters were saying it was inconsequential...

and I agree that it is inconsequential this far out from the election. Four months ago the same type of poll showed Giuliani would beat Clinton or Obama - and look at how wrong that turned out to be. Giuliani would have a tough time running for his old job as NY Mayor now.

ryan a:

If you did not want the discussion to continue in THIS thread, then you shouldn't have linked to it in the other thread.

About THIS post:

But, unchecked, the resulting effect of the misogynistic moderates and conservatives could be that they've decided that our President will be Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton, thereby greatly increasing the odds of a return to Republican power in four years, and that would be a nutcracking shame.

Well, your basic argument is that no matter what the Democrats are going to win, right? So your real concern is that these "misogynistic moderates and conservatives" are going to, ultimately, be responsible for the election of Obama. And you don't want Obama to win.

So, again, your real concern here is that Hillary is not going to win. You take a long time to get to that point, and try to use these hypothetical misogynists as ammunition. Your assumption is that a person who votes against Hillary hates women, which is weak logic at best:

There are definite signs that there are single-issue nutcracker-fearing crossovers who are in favor of Barack Obama merely because they are opposed to Hillary Clinton.

Yes, there are definitely people who are voting Obama because they detest Hillary. But how do you then make this leap:

They aren't aligned politically with Democratic principles, and they are out there in significant enough numbers that these self-acknowledged Republicans and Independents, who aren't Democrats or liberals or progressives but are merely misogynists, would vote for John McCain and a continuation of Bush's doctrines and policies on a heartbeat rather than vote for Hillary Clinton.

Where is your data? Is this pure conjecture? Did you interview a sample of the US population to figure this out? Your leap here, in assuming that a vote against Hillary is misogynistic, is pretty extraordinary. I have plenty of friends who simply cannot stand Hillary and that's why they're voting for Obama. But that does not make them automatic women haters Lee.

You can make any claim you want about large groups of people, but this looks like little more than guess-making and conjecture. That's fine and all, but not much to base an argument off of.

I do see your point, although I think you have been a bit flagrant with some of your assumptions here. I know you're saying that there is this segment of moderates who are simply voting against Hillary, but there are also plenty who are voting FOR her, right? And there are plenty of moderates who are voting for Obama simply because they like what he's all about. So I'm not sure how to factor out the "misogynist moderate conservative" vote, as you are trying to do, to ascertain its effects upon the upcoming nomination.

Such an analysis might require a little more leg work, so to speak.

mantis:

So you agree that national polls are inconsequential this far out from the election, but those same polls are the only basis for your contentions about "crossover" voters.

Unless you have something else to back that up, but seeing as how you ignored that part of my comment, I'll assume you do not.

And please spare me the "Obama supporters were saying" crap. I don't put stock in those national polls at all; I only made that point since you based your post on them. And I wasn't an Obama supporter until my preferred candidates dropped out, so put away your strawman. I am now, but I'd be fine with voting for Clinton; she would make a far better president than any of the Republicans. I have no idea how you could support Obama after all the bullshit you've been pushing about him in recent weeks.

mantis:

Well, it looks like Kevin Aylward might be casting a crossover, or as he calls it, a kamikaze vote, in tomorrow's primary. For Clinton.

Shall we assume this means there is a "small but significant group of male voters" who are voting for Clinton in the primary because they believe she is weaker than Obama in the general? That's what my "travels through the blogosphere" are telling me....

Lee Ward:

Is it confirmed by the match-up polls, as it is with the Obama supporters who would vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee?

There are far more moderates and independents who voted for Bush in 2004 that are now voting for Obama, than there are Bush voters who are Bush voters who are now voting for Clinton. so I don't think this will be significant, mantis.

There are always going to kamikazees like this. If California wasn't going to be a close match I would have considered switching registration and voting for the McCain, just because if there are any Republicans I'd want in office I'd prefer McCain over the rest of the knuckleheads. That's a different strategy than what Kevin suggests, and mine is in-line with the Oabama/McCain moderates.

mantis:

Is it confirmed by the match-up polls, as it is with the Obama supporters who would vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee?

Actually it is, as there are less people willing to say they would vote for Clinton in the general election. Some of those people unwilling to vote for her in the general might be willing to vote for her in the primary because they think she'll lose.

Your assertions are not confirmed by match-up polls, because you claim that those who say they will vote for Obama will actually vote for McCain. You have yet to back this up. All you have is that more people prefer Obama to McCain than Clinton to McCain. This is not a negative for Obama except in your imagination. Guess what Lee? In a two-person race, you have to win over moderates, independents, and even swing voters from the other side in order to win the presidency. You seem to believe that the only worthy candidate is one who gets support only from within his/her party. That is a losing candidate.

Lee Ward:

"Guess what Lee? In a two-person race, you have to win over moderates, independents, and even swing voters from the other side in order to win the presidency."

Bullshit. Democrats can win the election with the huge Democratic turnout we're seeing in the primaries. Moderates and Independents are not needed to assure a Democratic victory, and the fact that there may be a large bloc of republicans who can't hold their nose and vote for McCain further supports this.

I am a decline to state voter (been fed up with both the Greens and Dems for their self-destructive behavior, but will never vote republican) for Obama, I am being misogynist? I have fought for feminist causes my entire adult life.

Too bad for you that I have voted Democratic consistently since I could legally vote and worked for Mondale/Ferraro. So, spare me the whole "a vote for Obama is a vote against women" because it just doesn't fly.

I will vote for whoever gets the nomination, but I prefer Obama over Clinton. It doesn't matter to Clinton Supporters that I have defended the Clintons since 1992 up to just before the Feb 5th election -- I am a deluded traitor to them because I chose Obama.

It kills me because I might have to vote for Clinton, whose campaign has disrespected me as a voter because I am not falling in line with the democratic establishment. I will not vote republican. I will vote for her if she is the nominee even though her tactics have made me ashamed of her.

JLawson:

For what it's worth (which isn't much) - I MIGHT vote for Obama... but there's no way in hell I'd vote for Hillary. Hillary, as far as I'm concerned, is a known quantity after observing her for the last 16 years and I want no more of her or her husband. I'm no misogynist, I simply believe she's the wrong person at the wrong time in the wrong position.

And there'd never BE a right time for her.

If that makes me a misogynist, so be it.

As Ryan posted above...

Your overly aggressive allegiance to Hillary is seriously disturbing. You are sounding pretty damn dogmatic about this. Isn't that what we're all trying to get away from? -- Posted by ryan a | February 11, 2008 2:24 PM
Only the wrong sort of dogma, Ryan. Heretical thought is not acceptable. The CORRECT sort is perfectly acceptable, and must be supported by any means possible.

Strange how that happens, isn't it? You'd think the left would be more tolerant of heterodox thinking and beliefs - after all, the internal self-congratulations for how 'liberal' and widely tolerant of other opinions the free-thinking 'progressive' crowd is are pretty much unceasing... until doctrinal policy is questioned, at which point you drag out the metaphorical nukes and plaster your opponent. Someone is a troll for simply questioning a source?

It's entertaining, kind of, but worrisome to the outsider. 'Progressive', to this poor unintelligent prole observing from afar, seems about as attractive and viable in the long term as the accomodations and administrators at a gulag. There is policy, and you have no input into it, and you dare not even consider deviating from it. You do as you're told, you don't question what you're told, buy what's made available to you and the administration will decide that - not the free market - and maybe you'll get some tofu meat-substitute in your soup and a ration of toilet paper once a month.

Pardon me if I fail to see the appeal.

ryan a:

JLawson:

Strange how that happens, isn't it? You'd think the left would be more tolerant of heterodox thinking and beliefs - after all, the internal self-congratulations for how 'liberal' and widely tolerant of other opinions the free-thinking 'progressive' crowd is are pretty much unceasing... until doctrinal policy is questioned, at which point you drag out the metaphorical nukes and plaster your opponent. Someone is a troll for simply questioning a source?

I used to assume that the left was automatically more open to different kinds of thinking and ideas--but that was back in my more idealistic days. Polemic and dogmatic thought exists across the political spectrum--and it's no 'better' on the left than the right. I've run into both sides of it, and neither is pretty.

That's one of the reasons why I refuse to give unwavering support to ANY political party. No deals. Democracy requires constant checks, and constant criticism.

There's no reason to ever sit back and expect any political leaders to do the right thing just because they sound good when they talk, or just because they espouse certain political 'beliefs.'

mantis:

Democrats can win the election with the huge Democratic turnout we're seeing in the primaries. Moderates and Independents are not needed to assure a Democratic victory,

Keep dreaming, buddy.

mantis:

and the fact that there may be a large bloc of republicans who can't hold their nose and vote for McCain further supports this.

So you think there will be enough Republicans who will sit the election out rather than vote for McCain to insure a Democratic win without any independents, yet you think there's a significant number of Republicans who will vote for Obama in the primaries but will cross back to McCain? Huh?

Lee's imaginary Republicans: Many will refuse to vote for McCain or will vote for McCain, but for now are Obama supporters.

Lee Ward:

"So you think there will be enough Republicans who will sit the election out rather than vote for McCain to insure a Democratic win without any independents, yet you think there's a significant number of Republicans who will vote for Obama in the primaries but will cross back to McCain?"

Well, no - there you ago again distorting what I say so you can disagree with it.

let's break it down...

"So you think there will be enough Republicans who will sit the election out rather than vote for McCain to insure a Democratic win without any independents"

Some will do that yes. But I didn't say that alone that is enough to win the election, now did I?

You also need a massive Democratic voter turnout, which according to the primary results, we'll have.

The swing independents who would vote for Obama, but will vote for McCain rather than vote for Clinton, will not be enough to overcome the large Democratic turnout if Clinton is the nominee.

Clinton will win despite that, which is why I say that in the general election, at this point in time, the Independents are inconsequential to a Democratic victory (but they could decide the Democratic nomination). The polls that show they do matter in the general election only if you do not take into account voter turnout.

These polls take 100 voters, and they get results like this: (See questions 3a-4b)

Clinton 43% vs. McCain 43%

Obama 46% vs. Mccain 40%

Fine. But that only is predicative if you ignore turnout. If 105 Democrats turn out to vote for every 100 Republicans turn out to vote, then Clinton will beat McCain with the above ratios, correct?

I use 105 vs 100 as a mathematical example, I'm not suggesting that will be the ratio. It could in fact be greater, maybe much greater.

So when the Obamaniacs say "We have to have Obama because only he can beat McCain" - I say bullshit!

I realize this is over your head, mantis, but I'm sorry. I cant simplify this any further... You're just too damned focused on trying to support your candidate and demonize Clinton (and me) to be objective. There's a lot of that going around among Democrats these days. Oabamtrons with blinders on who argue with you if you say the sun will rise in the east.

You also wrote:

"yet you think there's a significant number of Republicans who will vote for Obama in the primaries but will cross back to McCain?"

I sad they'd cross back to McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, and I said the polls support this.

My concern about these non-liberal moderates is that they will vote for Obama in the primary and possibly push Obama into the nomination, when in fact they aren't liberal -- they're just moderates who hate Clinton (and Bush and everyone else who's burned them).

I think it's a shame if the Democratic nomination process comes down to small number of delegates deciding it goes to Obama, and it turns out that the moderates were the deciding factor - especially since some fof these moderates are so "un-liberal" they'd vote for McCain rather than Clinton.

Tsk, tsk, that would be a cryin' shame.


JLawson:

Ryan -

Polemic and dogmatic thought exists across the political spectrum--and it's no 'better' on the left than the right. I've run into both sides of it, and neither is pretty.
Very true - I'm having trouble with a guy at work about that. He's a true Hillary supporter, keeps asking me why I won't vote for her, keeps saying she's for 'change', keeps saying she'll be wonderful, that the country needs 'relief'. He can't understand why I don't believe her, I've tried to tell him, but he just goes "No, no - she's good! She's good!"

I think I'll try telling him the more he bugs me about her, the less inclined I will EVER be to vote for her.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.