ABC/WaPo: Bush At all Time Low (31), Obama Extends Lead Over McCain

We know the horse race numbers don't matter, but there's no reason in this latest ABC/WaPo poll for depressed Republicans to cheer up.

Americans Losing Confidence in Current Leadership

Americans are gloomier about the direction of the country than at any point since 1992, and Democrats have matched their biggest advantage in 25 years as the party better able to deal with the nation's main problems, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Despite more than eight in 10 now saying the country is headed in the wrong direction and growing disaffection with the Republican Party, Sen. John McCain, the GOP's presumptive presidential nominee, remains competitive in a general election matchup with Sen. Barack Obama, the favorite for the Democratic nomination, and runs almost even with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Those findings indicate that McCain continues to elude some of the anger aimed at his party and at President Bush, whose own approval dipped to an all-time low in Post-ABC polling. Maintaining a separate identity will be a key to McCain's chances of winning the White House in November. Overall, Democrats enjoy a 21-point advantage over Republicans as the party best-equipped to handle the nation's problems.

McCain eludes some of the anger but not all. And that's now, before the campaign really heats up, and highlights his positions on the issues and ties him to Bush.

       May April  (+/- 3%)
McCain   44 (44)
Obama    51 (49)

The important numbers are Bush at 31 and wrong track at 82. McCain may run better than most other Republicans, but he still has to run against the fundamentals. In addition to right track/wrong track and Bush unpopularity, far more people (38%) are uncomfortable with McCain's age than an African-American President (12%) or a woman President (16%) - the explanation for the pushback against McCain 'losing his bearings'.

Obama will run as a fresh face, and do his best to highlight where McCain and Bush are inseparable (Iraq, health care and the economy). McCain will do the usual Republican shtick about "liberals and Pelosi and San Francisco values", all the things that didn't work in IL and LA special elections (there are new Dem congressmen as a consequence).

Oh, and by the way, Dems are in no hurry to see the race end (Hillary stay in-drop out is 64-35) and don't see it hurting Democrats (despite daily bloviating about this on cable TV, only 27% think it hurts and 56% think it makes no difference).

So, McCain trails by 7 compared to:

Overall, which party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years?

Democrats   53
Republicans 32

meaning that McCain loses less. Still, he loses, with numbers consistent with the latest LA Times Bloomberg poll. And with short coat tails, Republicans and their severely damaged brand are in real trouble this fall.

•  So, who is more electable again, Hillary?

  by Delaware Dem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:33:02 PM PDT

  •  Key Stat of the Poll: Gasoline Prices

    Who do you trust with Gasoline Prices

    Obama: 48%
    McCain: 28%

    by Steven R on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:42:46 PM PDT

    •  I don't trust either with gasoline prices.

      Though I do think Obama will reduce the 'security premium' on a barrel of oil (which accounts for about 30% of the price of a barrel, due directly to the US invasion of Iraq).

      by darthstar on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:58:50 PM PDT

    •  Yeah

      McCain wants 100years of war - which would help the gas prices to rise for the corporate cronies.

      Obama wants US out of there as soon as possible - and hopefully not looking at bullying other Middle East neighbours for the sake of corporate interests.

      Yep that has got to help the Dems with Gas Prices. Prices have more than doubled under Bush.

      by shiobhan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:06:57 PM PDT

  •  MyDD (obviously not an acronym for

    MyDelawareDem) has two maps on their site...Obama losing 248-290 to McCain, and Hillary winning 291-247 over McCain...

    My question is this: Just whose ass are they pulling their numbers from?  

    by darthstar on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:17:20 PM PDT

    •  Spin

      I'm a lazy guy. The mental gymnastics of spin just seem like so much work. Truth and reality are a lot easier to deal with.

      by heliosfootball on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:50:01 PM PDT

•  When things get bad enough

  and Americans have not choice than to elect someone competent, we generally manage to pull our collective asses out of the frying pan..

  by audiored on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:33:46 PM PDT

  •  One thing said on NPR this morning was that

    because of its size, the US is able to 'coast' through bad times for so long that most people don't feel the pain of a crisis until it's far too late...and that the Iraq war was a perfect example.  We're fighting this war on credit, though right now that credit is about as good as that of a compulsive gambler who got 17 huge-value credit cards right before his house was foreclosed on by the banks.  

    by darthstar on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:03:49 PM PDT

  •  Americans Losing Confidence in Current Leadership

    This is like saying that Americans are concerned the world is not flat.  Media usually comes along sooner or later.    

    by dkmich on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:04:23 AM PDT

•  In addition to McCain's age

  his health will be an issue too.  He is not the healthiest 70 year old guy, and his future post cancer is far from clear.

  by NYFM on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:34:27 PM PDT

•  The 31%

  that still like Bush is alot of spittle.

  by ctsteve on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:35:23 PM PDT

  •  electoral backwash? n/t

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:24:18 PM PDT

    •  Electoral College Truth

      While Obama racks up massive popular vote margins in big states like California, Illinois, and New York, giving him a national poll advantage of 3 to 5 pts, the electoral college tells another story:

      http://www.electoral-vote.com/...

      Solid south, including Florida. Solid border states, including Missouri. All the plains and mountain states (not including Colorado) throw in Alaska and N.H. and you find McCain with a rock solid 240 EV's that won't change between now and election day.

      It all comes down to Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. McCain needs to win just one. Obama must have all three. Can Obama run the table?

      by richmond199 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:27:25 AM PDT

      •  You have problems interpreting poll data.

        A lot of the polls cited herein are from mid April, (and earlier this month) when Obama and McCain were virtually tied nationally.

        Assuming the seven point gap out was spread fairly evenly across the country, Florida flips, New Mexico flips, Ohio flips ... etc ...

        by Anarchofascist on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:35:30 AM PDT

•  Wasn't the Bush all-time low 27 in the past?

  by EMorgan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:35:36 PM PDT

  •  That was gallup.. n/t

    by audiored on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:39:53 PM PDT

•  The Bush Wedding Everyone Missed

  While all eyes this weekend were on the Crawford, Texas wedding of first daughter Jenna Bush, another Bush marriage this year has gone largely unnoticed in the press. After a stormy eight year courtship, George W. Bush and John McCain tied the knot at a March ceremony in the White House Rose Garden.

  For the details, see:
  "The Bush Wedding Everyone Missed."

  by Avenging Angel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:37:48 PM PDT

  •  Eeewww!!!

    A match made in Hell

    by sistermoon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:08:58 PM PDT

  •  did they serve tongue at the reception?

    by shpilk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:13:58 PM PDT

  •  Was Joe Lieberman the bridesmaid? n/t

    by sunbro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:29:11 PM PDT

•  I wonder what these numbers...

  ...will be once McCain's BIG negatives (pro-Iraq war, pro-GOP economic policies, lobbyists in campaign, links to Hagee and Parsley, etc.) get fully vetted. I suspect it isn't going to be pretty, and Barack will wind up on top.

  by alaprst on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:38:08 PM PDT

•  I know we can't take anything for granted

  but I'm already prepping my November 5th diary. I'm thinking of titles, but I'm currently favoring "Get the fuck out".

  by MeMeMeMeMe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:38:56 PM PDT

  •  Good title

    Concise, to the point. In a word, pithy.

    by TFinSF on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:40:36 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, it'll be pithy

      It thertainly will.

      by MeMeMeMeMe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:45:35 PM PDT

      •  my headline, not so much....

        Na na na na, na na na na, say hey hey...good riddance

        by pmukh on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:49:18 PM PDT

      •  I will be WAAAYYYY too drunk

        to write a diary that day...or week.  

        by Delaware Dem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:53:03 PM PDT

    •  It will have had great pith (n/t)

      A word after a word after a word is power. -- Margaret Atwood

      by tmo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:43:53 PM PDT

  •  Day After Election Diary Title:

    Dear Republicans: Feel the Hate

    In the diary I will quote from Bill Hicks' rant in 1992 after B. Clinton defeated GHW Bush.

    Can you feel the hate?  Feel it!  Feel it you motherfuckers!  

    by LithiumCola on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:48:51 PM PDT

  •  check out www.goodriddance.org n/t

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:25:49 PM PDT

    •  Awesome

      I have bookmarked that site. Thanks.

      by MeMeMeMeMe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:02:55 PM PDT

•  INCOMING: The next MSM/GOP smear on Obama

  In a wonderful Atlantic interview, Obama accurately described the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a wound that infects our foreign policy.

  The Republicans are now BLATANTLY LYING, saying that Obama called Israel "a sore."

  Luckily, now that Obama is the presumptive nominee, he's getting an assist from Rahm Emmanuel who rightly called out Boehner and the shamefully opportunistic Jewish Republican Council on their rancid bullshit, but this is just the kind of thing the McCain-stream Media has been looking for to further push the Hamas nonsense from a few days ago.

  So get ready.

  by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:41:05 PM PDT

  •  I think tthat the lies the GOP will tell...

    this year are going to go from shocking to infuriating to ridiculous to hilarious. We have Youtube this time.

    by jck on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:54:41 PM PDT

  •  This poll tells me a couple of things.

    Americans are so pissed off they aren't gonna fall for the crap smears coming from the right.  Obama is moving up in the polls, and that leaves a predicament for the Republicans.  Should they go after Obama now, or wait until it gets closer to the General Election before they go on an all out smear assault.

    The advantage to going after Obama right now, will be that it will keep Obama from moving too far ahead of McCain to a point where McCain can't catch up.  But if Rove and crew go too hard and too early, the American people will turn on the Republicans for their shameless antics.

    Obama has already weathered many smears, and adding more smears to the mix will piss off the majority of Americans who are tired of distractions and want solutions.  

    There have been many environmental disasters these last two weeks and more disasters are sure to come this summer.  If one really bad disaster hits America before the General Election like fires, a hurricane or Tornado, I will guarantee Americans won't vote for a Bush 3d term.

    by kanuk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:00:50 PM PDT

    •  I don't know about angering Americans but

      The Rev. Wright bit has been worn out. That might have been an interesting card for the GOP to play 4 weeks before the general, but it will be old news by October.

      Kind of like talking about Communists.

      by JohnGor0 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:27:45 PM PDT

  •  Hard to Complain When the DNC and Obama

    Hard to complain when the DNC and Obama distorted McCain's statements about a 100 years war.  Factcheck.org and virtually every other reputable media site said the Dems/Obama were misstating the record. Of course, the Daily Kos crowd cheered the distortion then.  Funny -- things can come back and BITE you if you are unprincipled.  

    by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:12:22 PM PDT

    •  oh boy, a troll!

      and as soon as McCain:

      1. Points out when in the next 100 years the casualties will stop.

      or

      2. How long we will endure casualties before we withdraw.

      We can accurately call criticizing McCain for supporting a permanent occupation fantasy a "distortion."

      by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:31:55 PM PDT

      •  yea, but the rest of the world

        will call it what it was.  i despise mccain and the republicans, but obama claims to be running on  a morally high ground, but he is not doing that here.  supporting this lie is just more hypocrisy.  all of the stench over clinton's "lies," but obama gets a free pass. why?

        by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:15:00 PM PDT

        •  The stupidity of McCain's remarks remains valid

          If he says that the U.S. may stay in Iraq for a hundred years if no soldier is killed he might as well say I'm going to jump into that lake as long as I don't get wet.

          by vanguardia on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:06:05 AM PDT

  •  Rahm defends Obama?

    Luckily, now that Obama is the presumptive nominee, he's getting an assist from Rahm Emmanuel

    So am I to understand that Rahm is ONLY defending Obama since he's the presumptive nominee? Am I to understansd that Rahm would NOT defend Hillary if GOP smeared her with similier lies, because she's NOT the presumptive nominee?  

    Rahm's not the team player I thought...

    by HorseThief on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:07:43 AM PDT

•  I assume a fair number of the 44% who

  poll as voting for McCain are more expressing a hope that McCain will pan out as a viable candidate than anything else.

  There's nothing surprising about that.  As we get into the general and approach election day, it will dwindle, but not necessarily by much -- people will keep hoping McCain turns into a decent candidate right up to election day.  And that reason for saying "McCain" to a pollster does not make for much a GOTV mentality.  Vote McCain!  He might be okay!

  by LithiumCola on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:46:09 PM PDT

  •  I'm not all that worried about the 2008 cycle.

    What worries me is the colossal, stupendous, almost unimaginable mess that any Dem president is going to have to clean up, starting in Jan. '09.  It's hard to believe, given the numerous, deep, Bush Admin. crises that we face--the wars, climate change, the economy, health care, education, poverty, income inequality, etc.--that we can sufficiently turn things around so that the American public sees some progress, some relief.  It's going to be a huge challenge.  So I'm worried about 2012.    

    by feelingsickinMN on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:58:06 PM PDT

    •  Buying the bottom

      There is an advantage though in getting in when things already are really bad. It sets a low baseline for your performance. Look at, say, FDR. Things weren't great in 1936, but they were better than 1932  (23.6% vs. 16.9% unemployment).

      by heliosfootball on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:05:33 PM PDT

      •  I hope you're right...

        Like feelingsick, I worry about the mess that the incoming President Obama is going to be facing in January, 2009.  And I don't have faith that the average American voter will understand that it's going to take years, maybe even decades, to recover from the disastrous eight years of Dumbya.  

        So the Republican theme for 2012 might be, "You gave these guys a chance and they haven't made everything better yet."

        by GITuck on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:49:17 AM PDT

•  This struck me...

  Americans are gloomier about the direction of the country than at any point since 1992

  1992, gee that was just after having 12 years of Republican rule wasn't it?  Hmm, I see a pattern here. Unfortunately American voters have a very short attention span, they seem to keep forgetting that they keep getting screwed by post-Nixon conservatives.. Of course it isn't all their fault, the media does what it can to constantly distract people from the real issues...

  by playon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:48:53 PM PDT

•  but, but, but, but Mcauliffe says Hillary

  will STILL win the popular vote.  So there!  

  by NorthlandLiberal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:50:03 PM PDT

  •  CNN.com is headlining McAuliffe's "prediction"

    I've got to hand it to CNN's web team, they're really dedicated to shilling for Clinton, moreso than a bunch of myDD bloggers, really.

    by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:54:13 PM PDT

    •  Have you been over to MyDD lately? There

      is some truly amazing denial over there.  I can't help feeling bad for lots of them, who really have a lot of passion invested in a Clinton nomination.  At the same time, I would be surprised if a lot of the anti-Obama, pro-Clinton commenting over there is not induced by Rethug trolls.  It seems so obvious, so egregious, urging solid Dems to vote for McCain, saying they will vote for McCain.  No true Democrat could ever, under any circumstances, vote for McCain.  His positions are entirely antithetical to Democratic positions.

      by feelingsickinMN on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:04:11 PM PDT

    •  it still goes back to Hillary's 'general sherman'

      approach to this campaign.  It's like watching a train wreck/disaster before your eyes.  No one feels they can stop it, but see it will continue to do terrible damage.  

      by NorthlandLiberal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:00:40 AM PDT

  •  He is reality-challenged.

    Which is a polite way to say he is a liar.  

    by Delaware Dem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:54:52 PM PDT

  •  Fuck McAuliffe.

    He was a lousy DNC chair and he's a lousy Campaign chair.  Part of my problem with Hilary is her association with him and other sleaze bags, who in addition to being sleazy are totally ineffective.  

    by CO Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:13:12 PM PDT

•  of course, the only relevant numbers

  are the state-to-state contests.  with obama polling beneath mccain in florida, ohio, missouri, north carolina, and virginia, this seems like a done deal.

  by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:51:43 PM PDT

  •  you hear this

    all the time, that only the state-by-state numbers matter, but it's complete BS.  If Obama wins the popular vote by 7 points, there is no way he can conceivably lost the Electoral Vote.  Has never happened, will never happen.  

    You only have to worry about a popular vote/EV mismatch if you win by a very narrow margin (and even in Gore's case, it took the Supreme Court to hand the EV to Bush).

    The way to create real change is to win because the people are behind you, not because you gamed the system to get 3 extra electoral votes, and that is how Obama is going to win.

    by RhwMn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:12:45 PM PDT

    •  lose, not lost n/t

      by RhwMn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:13:35 PM PDT

    •  um,

      the only numbers that matter are the state-by-state numbers.  this is not true? what a joke.

      by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:16:33 PM PDT

      •  please

        cite the last time a candidate won the popular vote by 5 points and lost the electoral vote.  The state-by-state polls represent one assay, the national polls represent another.  If they differ, there is no a priori way to know which is in error.  

        But if one were to concede your point, since when does a Democrat need to win North Carolina?

        by RhwMn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:24:09 PM PDT

        •  um,

          since we have an electoral college that is winner-take-all, the state contests are the only relevant measure.  no matter how you spin things, this is  still the case.

          by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:30:00 PM PDT

          •  as a rhetorical gesture

            the "um" thing gets old fast; it's really just one step up from 'sigh.'

            I'm amused to see an HR for the last comment--I'm not a DKos guru, but it does make me wonder if being a dork should be enough to get you troll-rated.

            by RhwMn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:40:07 PM PDT

            •  sigh...

              how's that?  anyway, still evading reality.  nice.

              by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:44:23 PM PDT

        •  Pendantic

          cite the last time a candidate won the popular vote by 5 points and lost the electoral vote

          This may be a bit pedantic, but I think knowledge is always good. The last time there was a major difference in popular vote and winner was in 1824. Andrew Jackson received 153,544 votes and John Quincy Adams received 108,740. Jackson also received more Electoral Votes. He didn't have enough to win though and the House simply selected John Q.

          The biggest difference between popular vote when the Electoral College went the other way was in 1876. Rutherford B. Hayes got the presidency with 4,036,298 votes against Samuel J. Tilden's 4,300,590 total.

          by heliosfootball on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:32:22 PM PDT

          •  ugh... pedantic

            Damn you no spell check!!!!!!

            by heliosfootball on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:33:16 PM PDT

          •  IIRC, through 1824

            a significant number of states didn't even have a popular vote; their electors were chosen by the state legislature and/or Governor. (SC was the only holdout past '24 or maybe '28; it didn't have a popular vote till after the Civil War.)
            And '76 turned on other factors entirely, especially the legitimacy of rival elections in several Southern states still under Union occupation.
            Pe(n)dantry is fun!

            by Allogenes on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:20:35 AM PDT

  •  Better check the calendar

    Yup, GE is still ~5.5 months away.

    Somewhere, a bridge is missing its troll.

    by christomento on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:21:35 PM PDT

    •  troll - that's the best you can do?

      my ancestors were called Nig....ers..., beaten, enslaved, "freed" and then segregated.  troll is barely scratching the surface.

      by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:45:54 PM PDT

      •  so you criticize others for "whining"

        about race-baiting, assuming (falsely) that everyone at DailyKos is white and male, then you post this gem of a comment.

        Mmm, hypocrisy...

        by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:52:30 PM PDT

        •  nope, i didnt

          i merely said that MY  ANCESTORS were called the n-word.  this says nothing about your ancestors, just mine.  

          by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:04:52 PM PDT

  •  Are you a Democrat? To me, your comments

    indicate that you are NOT a Democrat.  This site is dedicated to electing Democrats.

    by feelingsickinMN on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:24:26 PM PDT

    •  The above comment was addressed to

      damitajo1!

      by feelingsickinMN on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:25:19 PM PDT

    •  he's a liberal-hating "Clinton supporter"

      i.e. McCain supporter

      HR on contact.

      by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:35:46 PM PDT

      •  not

        i am a hater of phony progressives.  apparently, there are a lot of them on here....given the emotional reactions and the fear of dissent.

        by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:48:03 PM PDT

        •  haha

          you're criticizing others for emotional reactions?

          Your entire stint here at DailyKos has been one big self-righteous hissy fit.

          And phony progressives? For what? Not supporting Clinton? So you're going to vote for McCain?

          Your hypocrisy is more than a little amusing.

          by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:51:26 PM PDT

          •  nothing to do with clinton

            you cannot even allow your hatred of clinton to get out of your head for one second.  what a joke.  my arguments have nothing to  do with clinton.  liberal hypocrisy pre-dated her birth and lives on today.  i would never vote for mccain.  yuck. but that doesnt mean i have to endorse every candidate the democrats offer.  that's the beauty of true "freedom of choice."  apparently, today's "progressives" cannot handle individual liberty.

            by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:01:04 PM PDT

            •  I don't hate Clinton

              but I love being lectured about "hating" a candidate when bare your delusional hatred of Obama as a badge of honor.

              Your earlier posts indicated that you are an angry Clinton supporter, and you haven't indicated any other basis for your hatred of everyone here other than this nebulous notion of "liberal hypocrisy"... which you evidently define as "being an Obama supporter."

              Of course, the only hypocrite here is you.

              by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:06:19 PM PDT

              •  grand.

                now who's assuming stuff about the status of people on the board?  is it ok if YOU do it but not I?

                by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:08:24 PM PDT

    •  yawn.

      i guess democrats hate dissent.  what's the point of being a progressive if you cannot tolerate dissent?

      by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:46:41 PM PDT

      •  it's not dissent, it's being an asshole

         kool-aid is just empty calories. (0+ / 0-)

        nothing substantive.  oppressed people need more than dreams and lotteries.

        by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:23:31 PM EDT

        [ Parent | Reply to This | RecommendHide ]

        We are in a status of separate and unequal, yet all you people do is whine about McCain's age, and so-called "race baiting" in this campaign -- proving once again that King was right about the fakeness of white liberals.  This party is trash, and I am gladly abandoning it this November.

        And it goes on.

        by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:49:46 PM PDT

        •  and on and on

          of course, rather than engaging anything that is said, your simply say it is negative.  lol. that's a great way of evading points that are contrary to yours.  cool. how "big" of you.

          by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:02:43 PM PDT

          •  points? what points?

            Saying Democrats hate dissent? Calling people hypocrites? Phonies? Kool-aid drinkers?

            These aren't points, they're insults.

            by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:07:09 PM PDT

            •  dems hate dissent

              when they say that dissent is hateful.  yes, i stand by that. dems are phoney if their states have the most segregated and racially isolated schools in the country and all they can do in terms of ed policy is bash no child left behind.  rather than criticize me, why not debate the merits of this reality?

              by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:10:03 PM PDT

              •  I was going to reply pointing out how...

                you just perfectly described republicans in this post. But then I realized that as a reality challenged individual you wouldn't pay attention to me and just repeat what you said.

                And yes, I could cite facts to prove my point. But what's the point if they'd be ignored?..

                by Cofcos on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:24:22 AM PDT

              •  Dems hate dissent...

                As long as you define dissent as saying ANYTHING against their lord and savior Obama, then yes...

                by HorseThief on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:22:10 AM PDT

    •  YEAH!!!! damitajo1

      Don't you know BETTER than to DISAGREE with OUR collective opinion?  We DO NOT want to hear ANYTHING that CONTRADICTS our world view that OBAMA is GOD...Otherwise....any disagreement on this issue will result in the following:

      1. we will collectively put both fingers in ears and repeat na-na-na-na-na-na-na until you GO AWAY...or

      2. We will band togather to have you BANNED because you are going against the collective will of this site...

      ...So there!

      by HorseThief on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:16:59 AM PDT

•  Duhbya gave all Republicans his negative coatails

  by Lefty Coaster on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:52:28 PM PDT

  •  Tarnished the brand

    as Tom Davis [R-VA] more or less said.  Wouldn't negative coattails = vest?

    by conlakappa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:50:40 PM PDT

•  "...real trouble this fall." Here's how ...

  ...I define real trouble: 30- to 40-seat net gain in the House for the Democrats, plus four net gain in the Senate, plus the White House.

  Remember, you read it here first. Well, maybe you didn't, because a few other folks have said the same thing before me. But some other folks entirely have said that this is way too optimistic, especially after the 29-seat gain of 2006.

  Nonsense. If anything, I may be underestimating.

  Full disclosure: I thought Kerry was going to win by several million votes.

  by Meteor Blades on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:52:34 PM PDT

  •  Too conservative.

    A 30-40 seat gain in the House will translate to more than 4 pickups in the Senate.  If we gain 30-40 seats in the House, then Hagan, Shaheen, Udall, Udall, Warner, and Begich all win, so that is 6 right there.  

    by Delaware Dem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:57:48 PM PDT

    •  You've both made me very nervous! I'm a glass

      half empty person, who prefers to look on the dark side. That way, practically everything that happens is a pleasant surprise.  I'm hoping for an ultra-pleasant surprise in November, but I'm not counting on it--not counting my chickens, or my senators or reps, in fact.  But of, for just a moment, let me imagine that you are correct in your estimates!

      by feelingsickinMN on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:11:19 PM PDT

    •  I want to remain calm...

      but the giddiness takes over when I project what may  happen this fall. I want Lieberman tossed overboard from all committees etc. Not that it matters, but having 60 in the Senate will be sweet. I seriously doubt a need to override a President Obama veto. (damn it feels good to type that...President Obama)

      But seriously, they need to get some shit done. Not that we need a Dem version of Tom Delay, but we could benefit from a little party discipline. Not that I want  too much blind loyalty. I find the lack of total party lockstepping refreshing, quite frankly. But, as we say round here "May while while the sun shines"

      by bemclau on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:15:49 PM PDT

      •  Ahem...Make HAY while the sun shines n/t

        by bemclau on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:22:53 PM PDT

      •  not sure what you mean here

        your reference to deLay and then to "party discipline" confuses me.  the deLay reference makes me think you are speaking about the house -- and that is what is confusing.

        the house sent bill after bill after bill to the senate -- the democratic-lead house to the nominally democratic-majority senate.

        house bill after house bill were log jammed and stopped in the senate, not the other way around.

        the party discipline seems to me is a senate issue where we have not  seen senate dems being able to creatively or aggressively beat back mcConnell's gridlocking of the senate and the stymieing of the house legislation.

        am i missing something here?

        _______________

        it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

        -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

        by dadanation on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:34:42 PM PDT

  •  yeah, and we will have world peace too!

    this is an outlandish estimate!

    by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:13:27 PM PDT

    •  Come on!

      Have some Kool Aid. We can dream a bit. Kinda like the lottery, it is worth $5 to know I have a shot, and having a shot, I can daydream a bit.
      I am just glad to move on to discussing the GE. I am looking to donate to congressional candidates now, spread the wealth.

      by bemclau on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:20:38 PM PDT

      •  kool-aid is just empty calories.

        nothing substantive.  oppressed people need more than dreams and lotteries.

        by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:23:31 PM PDT

        •  Dear damitajo1,

          after looking at your past comments, you are a real downer. I see you like the word "wrong" in your subject lines. I also see you are a Clinton supporter, and seemingly very anti-Obama. True?

          So what gives? How can I cheer you up a bit? Seriously!

          by bemclau on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:45:32 PM PDT

          •  just another amoral hypocrite

            self-righteously condemning the DKos community en masse while declaring himself dedicated to the personal destruction of Obama because some people on the internet posted things that could be vaguely interpreted as "sexist."

            Just your usual bipolar Clinton supporter. Ignore. It will be HR'd into oblivion soon enough.

            by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:47:23 PM PDT

            •  lol

              i supported clinton, but my arguments here pre-dated clinton.  i am passionately opposed to liberal hypocrisy, the same way that dr. king spoke out against liberal white hypocrites.  sorry, i am not a "safe" black guy trying to get into the white house.  i am speaking my mind.  if you guys were so progressive, you would listen to race critiques that did not just confirm your own upper-class sensibilities.  instead you label me a troll and clinton-supporter, as if those were rebuttals.

              by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:51:56 PM PDT

              •  "race critiques"

                is a poor euphemism for morally condemning everyone you encounter, calling them phonies and hypocrites on the basis of no knowledge other than the fact that they don't support your candidate.

                You're pathetic, and your angry insult-laced rants don't warrant rebuttals.

                by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:54:27 PM PDT

                •  wrong

                  sorry stoszek - you are engaging in severe social construction.  i have posted arguments pertaining to the u.s. educational system supported by factual data.  if you have ever read the works of gary  orfield, one of the most respected education policy experts in the nation, you would know that my claims are true.  of course, in daily kos world, anything that deviates from the dogma is smacked down, just like a church.  great.  

                  by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:57:15 PM PDT

                  •  haha, I love the pseudo-academic posturing

                    Congratulations on posting arguments with factual data, I would enjoy hearing them if 90% of the rest your comments didn't consist of emotional outbursts, insults, and self-righteous posturing based on your delusional assumption that everyone here is a white upper-class male.

                    And you know, here's a tip, being able to cite an expert does not validate every bullshit utterance that comes trickling out of your hateful, hypocritical fingers.

                    by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:00:31 PM PDT

                    •  yawn

                      "hateful hypocritical fingers." what melodrama.  i do not assume you are white and male....you are what you are.  but upper-class whites are just as responsible for social inequality in this country -- even more so -- than poor folks.  this is not "hate"; it's a statement of reality.

                      by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:06:58 PM PDT

                      •  I'm sorry, what was that lie you just said?

                        sorry, i am not a "safe" black guy trying to get into the white house.  i am speaking my mind.  if you guys were so progressive, you would listen to race critiques that did not just confirm your own upper-class sensibilities.

                        You evidently are making assumptions about me, moron.

                        by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:08:15 PM PDT

                        •  Reading is Fundamental...

                          That post was not personally addressed to you, Stoszek.  YOu are a great warrior. Thanks for the attention.

                          by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:11:34 PM PDT

                          •  Reading is Fundamental...

                            You remind me of Oswald Bates in way.

                            by bemclau on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:20:54 PM PDT

                    •  she is not being hateful or hypocritical

                      by ge0rge on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:35:53 AM PDT

              •  I am listening

                I am listening.

                I don't troll rate. I figure anyone is free to spell out opinions.

                But jeez...I am now an upper-class white. LMAO! Please stop. I am white...hardly upper-class with upper-class sensibilities, I am a farmer/software developer, I know, odd combination. Farming is not paying the bills...not all of us grow grain, so I have a day job.

                I applaud being opposed to hypocrisy, but where does all the negativity and anger come from...all from liberal hypocrisy?

                by bemclau on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:59:43 PM PDT

                •  maybe she missed that race isn't the only issue

                  A lot of Obama's white support is based on his
                  greater credibility on being opposed to the war.
                  Another segment is based on his having championed
                  ethics reform and his having (LIKE EDWARDS!) avoided
                  contributions from lobbyists and other fatcats.
                  If that is where you are coming from then she has
                  mis-characterized you and you have a right to feel
                  offended, IF she was talking to or about YOU (which
                  she may not have been, specifically).

                  There is another kind of white Obama support that
                  she was talking about, the kind that Obama himself
                  alluded to in the speech when he acknowledged that
                  some people were looking for (quoting Obama)
                  "racial reconciliation on the cheap".
                  He denied that that was what he was peddling, but
                  there simply is no denying that a lot (even
                  if not yours personally) of Obama's white support
                  is from people who expect it to grant them an
                  immunity token against charges that they (and
                  by extension,Amerian institutions generally) are
                  (still) racist.  As in, if somebody tries to call
                  you racist for opposing affirmative action, you get
                  to say "I voted for Obama and he doesn't support
                  affirmative action either; he and I are about the
                  kind of leadership that will actually help black
                  people get their stuff together."

                  Everybody who actually wants to heal racism is
                  entitled to be angry at people thinking that a
                  vote for Obama is itself solving the problem.
                  It really does have the potential to make the problem worse
                  if people conclude from it that Obama got it all on merit
                  with no affirmative action or welfare and that that proves
                  that the rest of black America doesn't need any help either.
                  Noted Obama surrogate Rev. Michael Eric Dyson has famously said that
                  "If Barack Obama wins the presidency, Jesse Jackson
                  will not be out of a job."
                  But there are some white Obama supporters who are hoping
                  he will be.

                  by ge0rge on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:50:59 AM PDT

              •  If you actually were trying to stand up for...

                ... black people, which obviously Obama
                was not doing (his whole campaign was
                predicated on his being post - racial),
                then you should've been for Edwards, not Clinton.

                by ge0rge on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:37:53 AM PDT

            •  I guess...

              I wonder if getting damitajo1 to vote for Obama and other D's on Nov is a lost cause.

              Is damitajo1 bitter?
              Is damitajo1 voting for McBush?
              Does damitajo1 hate puppies and kittens?

              Let the healing begin with me.

              by bemclau on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:52:35 PM PDT

              •  yeah,

                lol -- i hate puppies and i am voting for mccain.  i initially thought this site would offer a tiny bit of intellectual challenge.  but, alas, it just confirms the worst nightmare -- just a biased and intolerant of dissent, without offering any substantive critiques.  and you wonder why progressives have failed miserably at advancing a national agenda.  look inside.  

                by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:55:14 PM PDT

                •  poor baby

                  you didn't get to whine and insult everyone without a reaction.

                  by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:57:16 PM PDT

                  •  i love reactions

                    you are the ones telling me  to leave.  naw, i'll stick around.  your "reactions" do not bother me.  they just prove what i'm saying: this is a dogmatic choir.  nothing more.

                    by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:58:13 PM PDT

                    •  no, you're going to be banned

                      not for "challenging dogma," but for acting like an immature asshole who can't debate like an adult. :)

                      by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:01:48 PM PDT

                      •  oh, i will emulate you.

                        how many times should i use "asshole"?  and why should I be banned for going against dogma?  if so, then it's worth it.

                        by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:03:45 PM PDT

                        •  yes, you're a real martyr

                          congrats.

                          Children will forever speak of the brave men who baselessly called everyone on a messageboard a "hypocrite" and a "phony" because they did not share his taste in virtually identical political candidates.

                          by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:09:50 PM PDT

                          •  i mentioned clinton once

                            apparently you are fascinated by clinton. let go.  i am talking about other issues.

                            by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:12:32 PM PDT

                            •  actually

                              a good number of your posts consist of complaining about Clinton bashing, self-identifying as a Clinton supporter, and praising Clinton as too good for the Democrats.

                              That's more than once.

                              And you're not talking about issues, you're just insulting people.

                              Time to take your meds, buddy.

                              by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:16:46 PM PDT

                              •  not true...

                                at least not here.  sorry, but i have talked about education, political contradictions and other issues far more than clinton.  apparently, clinton is so ingrained in your psyche that you cannot let go. that doesnt seem healthy. be careful.   it sounds a little obsessive.

                                by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:19:26 PM PDT

                                •  that would not be accurate

                                  and you know it...

                                  unless someone else wrote thisunder your name today:

                                  hmmmm (0+ / 0-)

                                  So original for the Daily Kos crowd.  I dont want Clinton on the Court because that's just not her thing.  I am a core Clinton voter, and you just made a lousy prediction.  If I am not coming around, and I am a young, black civil rights attorney who knows how expensive arugula costs at Whole Foods, then just imagine what the white women, older crowd, and Reagan Dems are doing....

                                  by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:13:20 PM PDT

                                  you seem to forget that you reference hrc more than once.  funy thing, memory...

                                  _______________

                                  it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

                                  -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

                                  by dadanation on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:31:49 PM PDT

                                  •  If she is a black civil rights attorney...

                                    ... and is not coming around, then
                                    she must be in a state that is not in play,
                                    like New York.
                                    If her state were in play then as a civil rights
                                    attorney she would know the importance of the
                                    Supreme Court.  She will be voting Democratic
                                    in November if it matters.   Nobody needs
                                    to "come around" before Denver.

                                    by ge0rge on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:00:01 AM PDT

                                    •  the individual in question

                                      is no longer with us here.

                                      and perhaps you misread the blockquote above.  i did not write that, the individual to whom i responded did.

                                      that person had claimed, quite factually inaccurately, that they had NOT referenced hrc in other posts.  i cited just one example of where that person was not being honest.

                                      as such, your response is oddly placed as a reply to mine.  which leades me to this very simple request.  by inference, you suggest that i have made quite a demand of this person.  

                                      therefore, please show me where i tell ANYONE that they NEED to COME AROUND at all let alone BEFORE denver.

                                      _______________

                                      it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

                                      -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

                                      by dadanation on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:20:31 AM PDT

                •  Perhaps if you were to read more ...

                  ...widely in the Diaries and on the Front Page, you would encounter some critiques a good deal more substantive than you have offered in the 56 comments you've made today.

                  by Meteor Blades on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:44:05 PM PDT

                •  This site offered some interest, at least

                  before it degenerated into an argument between you, damitajo1, and everybody else.  So you're voting for McCain  -  in spite of the war, choice, the economy, the future of the Supreme Court  -  well, goodie for you.  Bye now.

                  by stonepier on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:31:48 AM PDT

          •  sometimes reality bites....

            i'm actually quite happy.  do you need cheer?

            by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:53:08 PM PDT

            •  I am plenty cheeful...

              then you went off. You are the killbuzz around here.

              So let's me try some "intellectual challenge"-ing.

              What is a dogmatic choir exactly?

              by bemclau on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:04:13 PM PDT

    •  Would you care to back of your ...

      ..."outlandish" with some actual analysis? I'll be happy to do so. But, as I made clear, my record on electoral predictions is not fabulous.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:35:33 PM PDT

•  Dare I say...

  America is BITTER?

  Maybe pissed is a better adjective.

  Hang W around McBush's neck, today tomorrow, everyday til November. Funny to watch Blunt corralled into admitting McBush represents a Bush 3rd term...well economically. We need to say the 3rd term for Iraq, for the SCOTUS, and the 3rd term on incompetence. The when McBush says he is diff from Bush, ask him why he is running away from his President...piss off the 28% of Americans that cling to Bush.

  by bemclau on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:53:27 PM PDT

•  They need to go "Social Security" on McCain

  the time is right now for a 527 or the DNC to start running ads highlighting McCain's stand on privatizing Social Security; he's for it, no wait, he's sort of for it, no wait, he was for it before he was against it . . . well, whatever his position is (and that's a good point to make) he ought to be on the defensive now.  Also, it could help to shore up Obama's support among the 65+ crowd.

  by greggp on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:58:32 PM PDT

•  I've got to build my lawn sign...

  just the picture of Bush hugging McCain. No further comment needed.

  by jck on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:59:52 PM PDT

•  Perpetuating the myth that McCain can beat BO

  is the best they can hope for.    There is no less reason to reject modern conservative politics today than there was in 2006.  Indeed, the magnitude of the blunders and mismanagement is on a scale that, once we start focusing on it, will BURY MCCAIN, secure the house and the senate.

  Hillary, take a vacation already.

  by RichardWoodcockII on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:08:06 PM PDT

  •  2006 v 2004

    so, magically, conservatism became less appealing in '06 than in '04? Please, this country has a very conservative core, and it is foolish to link midterm results with predictions about the upcoming election.  

    by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:15:29 PM PDT

    •  modern conservatism is not what they thought

      they're just waking up to it later than you.

      by RichardWoodcockII on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:20:49 PM PDT

      •  yeah.....

        um hm.  that's what people said in '92....Reagan/Bush made the country more "liberal." LOL.  What a joke.  

        by damitajo1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:22:10 PM PDT