38 comments

• 

  Mike Bach

  6 months ago

  It's gonna get resolved when the Convention happens and all the democrats get behind whichever candidate gets picked. Then the Dems will be able to get back to fighting the GOP.
  
  I think you'd be hard pressed to find a democrat who wouldn't be happy with either candidate as the nom, in the grand scheme of things.
  reply
• 

  dave

  6 months ago

  Don't forget the credentials fight over Michigan and Florida. Their votes could be enough to decide it.
  reply
• 

  Lance Knobel

  6 months ago

  I know. That could really get ugly. But I agree with Mike Bach that in the end most (not all, but most) will rally around the nominee.
  reply
• 

  Spencer Whetstone

  6 months ago

  In Michigan, voters saw Clinton on the ballot but not Obama. They were told by election officials that no write-ins would count.
  
  If the Clintons win by getting their Michigan slate of delegates seated, the most loyal faction of the Democratic coalition (African-Americans) realize they have been screwed again. Obama played by the rules and will lose for his troubles.
  reply
• 

  amyloo

  6 months ago

  Also in Michigan there was a sizable Democratic element that came out to vote "uncommitted." I thought that seemed like a pretty loud statement.
  
  
  http://tinyurl.com/3xlzv2
  reply
• 

  Bill

  6 months ago

  Most Democrats I know say they would be happy with either Obama or Clinton. With some it just comes down to "any candidate but a Republican or a Communist." The current race is just to see which one gets top billing on the ticket. More than likely, both of them will be on it.
  
  The challenge is with Clinton. If she is the nominee for President, even the ultra-conservatives will hold their noses and vote for McCain. They hate her that much. In my opinion, Obama would be the better candidate. As I've been saying for months, the Republicans are scared to death of Obama. They *know* how to beat Clinton and they have the dirt and the lies to do it. They don't know how to beat Obama.
  reply
• 

  Lance Knobel

  6 months ago

  I don't think the Democrats are split down the middle. It just looks that way, as it would at any point when you have two strong candidates remaining. Twice as many people are voting in the Democratic primaries as in the Republican. Obama and Clinton each received just about as many votes on Tuesday as all the Republicans but together. Once a candidate is chosen, however acrimonious the next six (!) months might become, you'll find the vast bulk of Democratic and independent voters coalescing around the Democratic nominee.
  
  There's a convincing case to be made, in fact, that the continuing battle for the Democratic nomination will be good. McCain will largely disappear from the radar screen until the convention. We'll have wall-to-wall Obama/Clinton for months on the news.
  
  What about senator Clinton's famously high negatives? Although I'm supporting Obama and I think he'll both be a better president and a better candidate, Clinton will eviscerate McCain in the debates. He'll look old. His professed ignorance on the economy will be a millstone. His 100 years of war will be frightening. Of course there will be a media love fest around him, and there will be endless media vilification of the Clintons. But I don't think that's going to sway most voters.
  reply
• 

  lemonobrien

  6 months ago

  i'll either vote for obama or macain.
  
  bush/clinton/bush/clinton is too un-american for me.
  i want change, i want to the 21st century to actually start.
  i think obama would be best.
  
  i think if obama wins general delegates, and looses b/c of super delegates;
  then the democratic party is finished.
  
  i don't think the convention will be a bad thing, as long as obama wins; hopefully though he'll have enough of a lead to start hitting macain before the final weeks. if he gets macain in a debate, macain will go off and loose the election.
  reply
• 

  Elisa Camahort

  6 months ago

  Gotta agree with Mike. I don't know many Democrats who wouldn't be happy with either candidate...everyone I know talks about how great it is to be so torn between two real contenders for once.
  reply
• 

  Dan Mitchell

  6 months ago

  The Obama-Clinton (or Clinton-Obama) slate would resolve that problem.
  reply
• 

  dave

  6 months ago

  I don't imagine either of them would settle for that if it were 50-50.
  
  I don't think people remember how weary these stalemates can get. Remember the end of 2000. Who would play the role of the Supreme Court here. Are you sure that you'd really be just as happy with the other candidate? Even after two or three months of dirt flying back and forth? We're just at the beginning of what could be a very long stalemate.
  
  It'll be interesting to come back to this thread and see how it actually turned out.
  reply
• 

  PaulDing

  6 months ago

  There's a reason VPs are often unknowns - people will vote against VPs, but rarely for them. The last time someone won, running with a strong VP, was 1960, and that was only because of election fraud in Cook County, Illinois.
  
  I think you're mistaken about the GOP contest being decided. The right wing of the party doesn't like Mac. Ann Coulter says she would campaign for Hillary if it came down to a choice between Mac and Hillary, and while AC is full of generally full of crap, Mac still hasn't won this thing. If the right wing rallies around Huck, it's quite conceivable that he could win the nomination on the second ballot, with the support of the Romney delegates.
  
  Barack has done so well because he's excited those who otherwise don't bother to vote. Hillary can't count on those voters. Clinton's supporters are mostly regular Democrats who vote year out, year in, so if it's 50/50, I suspect the dems have a much better chance of winning this fall if Barack is the nominee. The minute Hillary is nominated, the GOP will be talking about Bill being disbarred, and suggest that as a wife, she paroled her husband for unpardonable offenses, making her weak on law and order. And if she brings up the war, they'll trot out her vote for war against Iran.
  
  The loan to Hillary's campaign makes it look like she's run out of steam. People like to think their contribution will put someone over the top, not forestall the inevitable. I think Hillary will drop out of the race long before Pennsylvania votes.
  
  I think if I were Romney or Edwards, I'd pick out some vulnerable seats in the House or the Senate, and go campaigning or fundraising for those candidates. Not only would that help the party pass bills in Congress, but it'd put you a leg up for the 2012 elections.
  reply
• 

  dave

  6 months ago

  You're one smart mofo, whoever you are.
  
  I linked from scripting.com.
  reply
• 

  Colin Faulkingham

  6 months ago

  If Dean keeps his word then we won't have to wait until the convention to find out which candidate it will be.
  
  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/06...
  reply
• 

  Mark

  6 months ago

  @davewiner: My charity 10K tweet sale has started! http://www.match2knowledge.nl Can you/will you activate some willing crowd?
  reply
• 

  Chris

  6 months ago

  Trust the process, Dave. The 2008 election stalemate was wearying, but was also a very different situation - very few supporters of one nominee liked the other side, and the process by which it was settled was considered by many to be illegitimate. Polling results I've seen indicate that 70%+ of Clinton supporters would be satisfied to support Obama for President, and vice-versa. Also, no one, AFAIK, contests the legitimacy of the Dem nominating process so far. "Democrats are divided" is a media meme at the moment - anything to sell pageviews - but not much else.
  reply
• 

  Bill

  6 months ago

  Another thought: If we go all the way to the Democratic convention without either Obama or Clinton retiring from the campaign, that means the Republicans will have a hard time throwing dirt and getting it to stick. There are enough differences between Clinton and Obama on the issues that matter to the Republicans that they can't attack both effectively.
  
  Well, it's a theory. :)
  
  With a little luck, Obama and Clinton will be smart enough NOT to run dirty campaigns. If they do that, the Democrats will rise up in a body and vote for the one that gets the nomination. The Republicans can go chew on each other (we could only wish!).
  reply
• 

  Alex G

  6 months ago

  It will get resolved same way all other elections are - with americans getting shafted in the ass.
  reply
• 

  dave

  6 months ago

  I had the same thought. :-(
  reply
• 

  Jeremy Bowers

  6 months ago

  There's a Democratic option that doesn't involve spending us into oblivion? Tell me more. (Seriously.)
  reply
• 

  dave

  6 months ago

  What do you think?
  
  BTW, it seems to me that the Republicans have been spending a lot of our money on the war in Iraq.
  reply
• 

  Jeremy Bowers

  6 months ago

  Fiscal conservatives are homeless right now.
  
  That can't be stable; too many Americans think we're spending too much. Sooner or later, someone's going to figure out how to turn that into votes.
  reply
• 

  Jake

  6 months ago

  It's just as likely to be eight more years...
  
  I think the campaigns will turn negative and be ugly
  I think Clinton will garner the support of the super delegates through tremendous, embedded deal making
  
  The problem is that their are three parties and one party will lose at the convention and then not show up for the general election
  reply
• 

  Michael_Markman

  6 months ago

  We don't have to wait for the convention to begin undermining the 100-years war position of John McCain. Robert Greenwald at Brave New Films has some examples at http://lessjobsmorewars.com/
  reply
• 

  Phil Windley

  6 months ago

  The other unknown is Ron Paul. He's raised lots of money and spent very little. If he runs as a third party candidate, he'll be a spoiler for the Republicans.
  
  I was thinking today that the Democrats almost always do the Republican's work for them: nominating someone who the nation as a whole won't elect. Democrats almost always nominate someone more liberal than most Americans can stomach. In this election, the Republicans have done the opposite: nominating a candidate that has broad independent appeal but not much appeal for conservatives.
  
  There's an opportunity for Democrats there: they know who the Republican candidate is have the opportunity to nominate a candidate most likely to beat McCain. That's Obama. When faced with a choice between McCain and Hillary most independents will choose Mac. I think Obama has more independent/moderate appeal.
  
  Don't believe conservatives who say they'll vote for Hillary over Mac. They're just pouting. On election day, they'll hold their noses and vote for Mac. What they won't do is man the phone banks, etc. Democrats have a real opportunity here if they don't take this to a convention fight.
  reply
• 

  dave

  6 months ago

  Phil, what about you? Would you vote for Obama over McCain? If so, then we've really got somewhere interesting. You know I like you as a person, but our politics are so far apart. Or so it seemed...
  reply
• 

  Phil Windley

  6 months ago

  Could I see circumstances where I'd vote for Obama? Yes. I believe he a man of integrity.
  
  I honestly don't know how I would choose to vote with Obama vs. McCain. I think we need to get to that point before I can make a decision. I want more information.
  reply
• 

  Ra

  6 months ago

  I like Hillary because she wants universal health care. A society that denies its poor medical coverage can't really be developed. Obama on the other hand offers inspirational speeches but does not commit to universal health care. I am sick and tired of orators ruling our lives. Hillary does not seem at ease in her role as a stereotypical glib-talking politician and that makes her look more genuine to me. Also, the candidate who has the max. contributions from pharma corps. is Obama. Having said all this, I don't have a vote :(
  reply
• 

  Jake

  6 months ago

  Where exactly are the poor who are denied medical coverage?
  Last time I was at my local hospital emergency room, I did not see anyone being turned away.
  In fact, I think I'd refer to 7:00pm as the start of open office hours.
  
  I think the phrase "health care crisis" should be changed to "health insurance crisis"
  reply
• 

  dave

  6 months ago

  No one will turn your away from the emergency room (unless they do, it happens fyi), but if you need drugs to treat cancer, diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, emphysema, etc -- you're out of luck if you don't have insurance. You might die years before you would with treatment, or might suffer greatly, where if you had good insurance, you wouldn't. I'm lucky I can afford good health insurance, even so it was a real trick to get it with my pre-existing condition. I doubt if I'd be alive now if I didn't have it.
  reply
• 

  fdsa

  6 months ago

  You probably would have received treatment and you probably would be alive.
  
  However, you may have no assets (assuming you had assets) since they would have been consumed to pay for your catastrophic event.
  
  In fact, as one with a pre-existing condition and at risk of losing insurance and one with assets to be consumed in the case of catastrophic event, you're an example of one who would really benefit from government universal health care. With the government mandating coverage for you, you would retain your insurance no matter how your condition may turn.
  reply
• 

  dave

  6 months ago

  I'd like to note that before I needed the cateastrophic care, I had been paying for health insurance my whole life. I was 47 at the time. So the system got 47 years of me not making demands on the system and just paying into it before I needed to draw on it. In other words, I think I paid for the care I got. Something a lot of "conservatives" don't factor into their argument.
  
  Yet if I somehow lost my current insurance, I'd be back to zero -- uninsurable.
  
  I'd get told of course that I'm one of the poor people, when of course I'm not, and I'm a taxpayer (boy am I) and all the Republican administrations in my lifetime, Nixon, Ford, Regan, Bush I and II, did nothing to help me in this area. They just give me platitudes and tell me to fend for myself in this mess of a system.
  
  Yes, I think a law that says the insurance companies have to find a way to cover everyone, no matter how sick they are, would bre a pretty good way to address the problem, for now. Other less drastic measures might have worked if we had woken up and dealt with the problem earlier.
  reply
• 

  asdf

  6 months ago

  Care in the ER means people who really need ER treatment have to wait. Care in the ER costs more than preventive care.
  
  Yes, health insurance is the answer. If we subsidized insurance for people who couldn't afford it, health care costs would go down and health care insurance costs for everybody would decrease.
  
  We all pay for unpaid health care costs anyway. Why not let the government pick competitive insurance plans from the private sector?
  reply
• 

  fdsa

  6 months ago

  What does health insurance change?
  
  Will those who seek primary health care in the ER suddenly stop going to ER? Will they find a regular GP who will lead them on the road of preventative care? Will they stop the behaviors that put them at risk?
  reply
• 

  PaulDing

  6 months ago

  Emergency rooms are NOT required to cure anyone. They need make the person stable - meaning it's safe to transport them to a different hospital - and then they are allowed to kick the patient out on the street.
  
  My first wife spent 17 years dying of systemic lupus erythematosis. If you walk into an emergency room with SLE, they don't do a darned thing except to tell you to see a specialist. Would you care to tell me what sort of preventative care works for lupus? What kind of behavior puts you at risk for lupus?
  
  But even supposing that it's caused by solving sanskrit crossword puzzles, something she could have stopped doing, I would argue that my son and I didn't solve any sanskrit crossword puzzles, and yet we suffered, too. And you can point out that I took a vow, but my son was wholly innocent.
  reply
• 

  J.R. Mooneyham

  6 months ago

  You hit the nail on the head, Dave! I offer some references for how America is transforming into a third world nation at http://www.jmooneyham.com/decline-america.html
  
  I also quote you from a now ancient (1998) Scripting news entry regarding the shredding of our civil liberties at http://www.jrmooneyham.com/they-own-you-and-all...
  reply
• 

  Michael_Markman

  6 months ago

  Today's democratic voters will mainly rally around the nominee. But if it is true that Obama is "making the pie higher" by bringing in new voters... those new voters would only be available to him.
  
  Anybody remember the fantasy we had a year ago: the Democratic convention will deadlock and turn to Al Gore as the grand unifier? Anybody still interested?
  reply
• 

  Curt Monash

  6 months ago

  As a Patriot fan, I've recently been reminded that it ain't over 'til it's over. But realistically, I don't think the Democrats are going to screw this up as long as they run either Clinton/Obama or Obama/any-reasonable-woman. By internet standards, I'm in a small minority for favoring the Clinton/Obama option . I don't think it's possible to stand up under right-wing scorn-based rhetoric unless one's willing to compromise away the most unrealistic aspects of one's preferred get-something-done policies.
  
  Hmm. I wrote about other aspects of political marketing this cycle at www.strategicmessaging.com, but not that. I should get on it when I'm through reinventing Twitter and disrupting the DBMS market. :)
  
  CAM
  reply