What to think of this poll result?
Democratic voters increasingly are focused on nominating the most electable presidential candidate, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama fares better than New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton against prospective Republican rivals.
Apparent translation: It doesn’t matter all that much what s/he thinks, so long as s/he can win. Ideas? They either don’t much matter or there is such ideological purity that it doesn’t matter which suit gets stuffed because the result will be the same.
Hmm.
Proof positive that we have rotted our minds to the point that a sound bite will do ya, follow the crowd off the cliff society….
Who cares what happened last year/month/week…we can barely recall today.
Experience no longer counts, it’s who looks good right here, right now…
Oh, and..yeah that future thingy…it’s like in the future, so what does it have to do with decisions today?
I pondered the same thought while listening to Hugh today…
Palpating my liver, here.
Must titrate and calculate my consumption to achieve optimum numbness when they come for me after the election, so that it doesn’t hurt too much.
Hope I can get a shot or two off at ‘em.
(Yeah, they’ll win, that’s why I wanna be numb.)
Pondering it, they nominated what many believe was the more qualified candidate, and the one who really won according to some, but it didn’t do them any good in the end. They won Congress, but again it’s done them little good and there are no coattails to ride on that accord. No, gaining back what is rightfully theirs, won fair and square 7 years ago, is where this election is headed for the Dems. Policy? That can be discussed later, once in power. Getting to power is the first step. Just ask the liberal Speaker of the House, and for that matter the anti-war Senate Majority Leader — not much happens without numbers on your side, and the biggest number of them all is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Can’t blame them, really.
Clearly both sides know with a divided Congress and a divided electorate neither the hard right nor the hard left is likely to get their way via election triumph. No, the only way to salvage something from this election is to first be elected, then lobby. From negotiations in conference committee can steps be made.
Republicans are praying Hillary, with those high negatives, gains the nomination. It is not suprising that Democrats are throwing their weight behind the one who can win the office.
At least, according to the polls.
– Max
It happens on both sides. The Republican intelligensia is in a tizzy over the rising popularity of Huckabee. Their argument against him is simple: He’d lose all 50 states if he was the nominee.
If this is how Democrats are thinking they are sensible to do so. Yes, ideological purity plays a role – these are people who would not admit to “wasting” energy in polite society – and ideas arguably are not terribly important to people who think an imaginary change in the weather means the sky is falling. But there are commonplaces amongst Republicans which are equally foolish, I am thinking especially of that part of the Republican establishment that will literally hold hands with Saudi Arabia while claiming to fight a war on “terror” (much as FDR fought a war on blitzkrieg, presumably).
Still, supporting a candidate who can be elected is perfectly sensible given your system of government. Both parties are made up of coalitions which cut across regions, socio-demographic lines and factions thrown together more by historical accident than common sense. It may not make sense for Jews who support Israel or socially conservative blacks to keep voting Democrat given the party’s track record (though the same might be said for the President at Annapolis and his wobbly support for key issues important to socons). I expect sticking with your coalition makes sense in terms of lobbying and resources until something happens to make the whole voting bloc jump to the other coalition and continue the process there. The best example of such a swift would be the move of southern Democrats to the Republicans and the continuing adjustments as this new alignment settles in. Mike Huckabee – with the Democrats on almost everything except gay marriage and abortion as are, apparently, many of his supporters – is as good an example of anyone on the other side of the aisle for the apparent non sequiturs of factional interests thrown together as monolithic political parties.
they nominated kerry because he was ‘electable’.
thank the Lord who put us on this green earth that 51% of the american public thought otherwise.
The sad part is that far too many people consider their involvement, in an event that is only held once every four years, in the vital political process as meeting their civic obligations.
As much as I hate what our political process has evolved into it still beats the alternative. That said, it sure would be refreshing to find a worthy candidate to support rather than ride this mess out and end up voting for the lesser of all evil.
You’d have to be fairly paranoid about the Democrats to believe that. Unfortunately, I’m “that guy.”
There’s little-to-no difference amongst the Top Three Dem candidates, with the possible exception of Edwards and his “class-war” rhetoric, which is a lot more strident than Hillary’s or Obama’s. Not that the us vs. them stuff doesn’t exist in Obama’s or Clinton’s ideology, it’s just not as prevalent. Or as loud.
Hey, there’s a ways to go before the election. I’m looking foreward to each in turn to trip over his/her own d__k and become “disqualified”.
Different subject: how about a debate between Newt and Allen? Make it 2 hours, no interuptions. I’d watch! (Sorry. I thought of that this morning on the way to the range).