If My Candidate isn't the Nominee, I'm Going to:
a. shoot self in foot;
b. cut off nose to spite face;
c. vote for McBush!
According to the MSM, the Democratic Party is on the verge of tearing itself apart over who should be the nominee. One could even say that Democrats are suffering a strange form of bi-polar disorder where the primary symptom is the desire to have a third Bush term if a Democrat not of ones choosing wins the nomination. So prevalent is this dis-ease that I have given it the nom de guerre bi-MACK.
But how accurate is this diagnosis? Does bi-MACK represent a new virulent strain of DemocratusReaganassous - which first gripped the country during the 1980's, was sent into remission in the 1990's thanks to the DLC(linton) vaccine, reemerged eight years ago as the Bush-II variant and was (supposedly) wiped out with the IraqBacklash innoculant of 2006? Or is bi-MACK a virtual virus, created by the MSM and spread virally via virtual news? As virtually everyone either claims infection or knows someone who claims they are infected, bi-MACK is now a virtual pandemic. But does it really exist in the real world?
Reality Bites
The existence of bi-MACK became "real" with the release of a March 26, 2008 Gallop Poll that claimed
A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination.
How sizable was the proportion of Democrats infected with bi-MACK? A "whopping" 28% of Hillary's supporters and 19% of Obama's supporters are apparent victims. Disregarding the fact that 28% of Hillary's supporters who would vote for McCain in the General Election represents, at best, 14% of the people who voted in the Democratic primaries to date (based on the assumption that Hillary has received half of the popular vote thus far), a meme was spawned by the MSM that bi-MACK was the end-of-the-DemocraticParty and a valid indicator that McCain was all but certain to be the next POTUS. Just this morning a major newsradio program in NYC described the number of potential deserters as "significant".
Viral Vectors
Considering that both Hill and Bill have helped to propagate bi-MACK:
"commander-in-chief threshold"
(thanks to jedreport for this vid)
"two people who loved this country"
(thanks to radiovice for this vid)
Is it little wonder that Clinton supporters are one and one-half times as likely to succumb to bi-MACK as Obama supporters? Nevertheless, without a historical context, bi-MACK can appear more prevalent and deadly than it may actually be. In order to gain a deeper understanding of just how "significant" the infection rate of bi-MACK is, I will use voter demographics from 1976 and 1980 to establish a baseline. I will then compare and contrast the desertion rates from this time period with the demographics of the current potential deserters to see if, indeed, "henny penny, the sky is falling".
Past Tense
In 1976, 22% of Democrats voted for Ford (that's right, the man who pardoned Nixon received 22% of the Democratic vote). In 1980, the first year of DemocratusReaganassous, 26% of the Democrats voted for Reagan. As Carter won the '76 election with a 22% desertion rate, and lost in '80 with a 26% desertion rate, I'll take a 26% desertion rate as the baseline for determining if bi-MACK represents a threat to the Democrats. From this perspective, many would conclude that the 28% of Hillary's supporters who admit to being infected are above the baseline and are, therefore, a threat. Again, this totally ignores the fact that, as stated above, 28% of Hillary's supporters are, at best, 14% of Democratic voters. If Carter was able to win in '76 with a 22% desertion rate, are we overreacting to bi-MACK? If so, then is bi-MACK real, or is it MSM hype designed to increase animosity between Obama and Clinton supporters? This would ensure more virtual news and increase the probability that McCain will be a contender in the GE. Both events would be good news for the MSM, as a fight (real or virtual) is the blood upon which it feeds.
Deserters or DINOs
Delving further into the Gallup Poll revels that there is a readily identifiable group that is skewing the polls. Independents/LeanDemocratic (39%) and ConservativeDemocrats (38%) makeup the largest pool of Hillary deserters. For Obama supporters, these two groups are also on top of the deserter list at 29% and 25%, respectively. Interestingly, women comprise only 26% of Hillary deserters, so the idea that it is Hillary's most loyal support group that would be most likely to desert is not supported by the data! Men(30%)who support Hillary are more likely to vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. However when we take note that non-Hispanic Whites (29%) and White Hispanics (29%) are also more likely to suffer from bi-MACK, a clearer picture of who is most infected with bi-MACK comes into view - White Men.
DINOs in da Midst?
I certainly hope that White Male Kossacks will understand that even though the overwhelming majority of White Males vote for Republicans for POTUS, at least since 1964, I am not implying that all White Males do so. Wokay, enough of the PC BS. As a current Pew Research poll indicates (summarized smartly at The Jed Report) the majority of White Males prefer McCain over Obama 55% to 40%, and over Hillary 58% to 35%! In the past, White Males - who are
the demographic segment that, to a fair if impolitic approximation, not only runs the country but also keeps the country running
would have spun these numbers to be reflective of some fault in Hillary or Obama that prevents them from winning over a majority of the ones who get things done; however, after eight years of being Bushwhacked and after watching McCain:
conflate Iran and al-Qaeda
(NOTE - On FauxNews!)
do his Beach Boys rendition
and flip-flop on Bush's Tax Cuts
one could assume that even "Stupid White Men" would come to their senses! Unfortunately, that's the thing about "assume" - it'll make an ass out of u and me! But perhaps they already have come to their senses. Perhaps they are right - I mean, correct. Maybe its the rest of us who just don't get it. Maybe its everybody else who is playing identity politics and the fact that only White Males have been President is simply the mandate of heaven! Come on, when was the last time you heard a CNN (Blitzer, Dobbs, King, Cooper) or an MSNBC (Scarborough, Matthews, Gregory, KO, Abrams) or a FauxNews (whoever) talking head do a segment on White Male identity poli....opps, nevermind!. So I'm sure that White Males are convinced that bi-MACK is real, and why not. They are the ones most infected.
Checking on who constitutes the most infected group amongst Obama supporters corroborates the finding that it is primarily White Men who will desert the Democratic Party if the nominee is "the other". While only 18% of Obama's female supports would vote for McCain (out of a total of 19% of Obama's supporters who are infected with bi-MACK) 21% of Obama's male supporters would desert if Hillary is the nominee. Once again we find that non-Hispanic Whites(24%) and Hispanic Whites(21%) are at the top of the deserters list.
Frying Pan or Fire?
Which demographic is least likely to be infected with bi-MACK? Any fair minded person would be able to answer that question without even looking at the data - non-Hispanic Blacks. Only 15% of Hillary's, and 10% of Obama's, Black support would vote for McCain if their chosen candidate is not the nominee. Perhaps this in keeping with the fact that Blacks are the most anti-Republican demographic. If whites voted for Republicans at the same rate that Blacks do,
Percentage of Blacks Voting for Republican Presidents:
Reagan: '80 - 14%; '84 - 9%.
Bush-I: '88 - 11%.
Bush-II: '00 - 9%; '04 - 11%
there would be NO bi-MACK, NO DemocratusReaganassous, NO Republican Party. Period. (Of course, if Whites voted for Republicans at the same rate that Kossacks do, the results would be similar, if not identical)
With all the Clinton race-baiting, if Hillary is the nominee she will receive at least 85% of the Black vote. The simple reason for this is that Blacks tend to vote for the most liberal candidate. For example, in the November 2006 Senate race in Maryland the liberal\Democratic candidate was a White Male and the conservative\Republican candidate was a Black Male. Though many Black elected representatives backed the Black Male (to send a message, they claimed, to the Democratic Party), the White Male won the race with the overwhelming support of Black voters. No matter how many Condis or Colons or Clarences the Republicans promote, Blacks are not going to vote for a party that they perceive as being antithetical to their best interest (comprende Kansas?).
Good News
During her Town Hall meeting in Fayetteville, NC on Thursday, March 27, 2008, Hillary implored Democrats to not vote for McCain!
"Please think through this decision," Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word "please."
"It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country."
The crowd applauded loudly. (emphasis mine)
"First of all, every time you have a vigorous contest like we are having in this primary election people get intense," she continued. "You know, Sen. Obama has intense support. I have intense support."
Clinton stressed that there are "significant" differences between her and Obama, but said "those differences pale to the differences between us and Sen. McCain."
"I intend to do everything I can to make sure we have a unified Democratic party," she said. "When this contest is over and we have a nominee, we’re going to close ranks, we’re going to be united."
The salient point is that "The crowd applauded loudly" when Hillary said that voting for McCain "...is not a wise decision for yourself or your country." Let's hope Mr. Bill gets the message and gets on the bus! Unfortunately, the very next day in an interview with WaPo , Hillary seemed to backtrack a bit when she declared that
I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for.
Though many may see this as another example of the Sybil Attack stratagem
the forging of multiple identities for malicious intent, named after the famous multiple personality disorder patient "Sybil"
that has been employed before as part of the Clinton campaign's "kitchen sink" PsyOps
(thanx to jedreport for this vid)
let's not loose sight of the fact that
"The crowd applauded loudly" when Hillary said that voting for McCain "...is not a wise decision for yourself or your country."
In other words, even Hillary's supporters want a Democratic Presidency!
More Good News
On the March 28, 2008 edition of RealTime w/ Bill Maher, there was a "(wo)man-on-the-street" segment where Dan Savage asked real people if they suffered from bi-MACK. Though I started this diary some two hours before the cablecast of RealTime, I was pleased beyond words that what Dan discovered was more or less in synch with "my idea". Except that not only could Dan NOT find a White man who would desert the Democratic Party if "the other" becomes the nominee, all the White men he interviewed thought voting for McCain was insane! Happy-Happy Joy-Joy!
Nothing to Fear but...
the game isn't ova till its ova. Could the Democratic Party still self-destruct, even if bi-MACK is not as deadly as the MSM would have us believe? You bet it can. Just remember, WE are part of this Party. If we're going to allow ourselves to be injected with poisons that turn us on each other, then you better practice saying "President McCain"; however, resistance is NOT futile! The next time some talking head tries to convince you that bi-MACK is for real!, just laugh, call someone who you know is voting for "the other", and laugh it off together. After all, "the other" may not be your friend, but McCain is the enemy.