Democratic Underground vs. The Real Democratic Party, lol

[LoZoccolo]

The Real Democratic Party

Hillary Clinton 53%
Barack Obama 20%
John Edwards 13%
Bill Richardson 3%
Joe Biden 2%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Chris Dodd -%
Mike Gravel 0%
None of these (vol.) 4%
Wouldn't vote (vol.) 1%
Unsure 2%

source: ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

Democratic Underground

Dennis Kucinich 26%
John Edwards 22%
Hillary Clinton 18%
Barack Obama 16%
Joe Biden 10%
Bill Richardson 6%
Chris Dodd 1%
Mike Gravel 2%

source: My own 10/5/2007 poll on DU as of this posting. If you want to go right now and try to stuff the box so that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama get bigger numbers to line up with the rest of the real-life Democrats in America, go ahead, lol!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3581573

The usual response is that people on DU are "better informed". Well it looks like you should get out there and do some informing, lol. Oh and when you do that, be sure not to let slip how much smarter you are than the person you're talking to!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. You Know That Is Flamebait

But it is ironic...

[LoZoccolo]

4. Maybe the stuff I wrote at the bottom is.

But the numbers are just statistics that show that all the polling companies are in the pockets of the Clintons! No not really, lol.

[Bitwit1234]

45. It just shows that the Hillary haters are out in force

I don't hate any of the democratic candidates and wouldn't even vote in one of these polls. So you see only Hillary haters do.

[wyldwolf]

84. how so? I find the OP 100% correct.

[ulysses]

2. oh, gee! I've been so wrong!

:eyes:

[depakid]

27. Yep, we've been so wrong

as have the millions who won't vote or don't respond to cheap media polls.

Of course, if one does want to look at polls in a substantive, i.e. not shallow way, one could look those involving specific issues and line them up with policies.

That would yield VERY different answers. Something that the right wing of the party doesn't like to talk about.

[ulysses]

46. depa, we're in the post-ideological period of American politics.

Issues are passe! You didn't get the memo?

[depakid]

72. I did get the memo

http://home.ourfuture.org/reports/20070612_theprogressivemajority/

And I read it critically!

btw: it's not like either of us have ever called the shot and predicted the results about issues, votes or overall strategy around here over the past 6 years....;-)

[ulysses]

76. :) all true.

:hi:

[Mythsaje]

3. How do those numbers stack up to other left-leaning sites on the web?

As compared to the mainstream polls?

People who search and compare policy ideas on a daily basis ARE more informed than those who simply get their news from corporate sources. We understand that when it comes to anything else--why is it such a stretch when we're talking about THIS in particular?

[LoZoccolo]

5. Looks like that information better get to some people real quick.

Get out there and let 'em know how very bright you are!

[Mythsaje]

97. People who know me already know that...

:evilgrin:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I Don't Think DK Is As Popular At Kos As He Is Here...

Markos has pretty much dismissed Dennis Kucinich as a "vanity candidate"...

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. If what you think we are outside normative reality...

Then perhaps this is not the venue for you. Just a thought in passing.

[Donnachaidh]

7. forgot to take your nap today?

Got it reversed there dude. But hey, any guy who is proud of a video where his idea of *communicating* to someone with different ideas is to screech and babble? Guess this mess is par for your course. :shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

11. I implore you to find any screeching in my Nader movie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=9382

Babbling, arguably. Screeching? I don't think so.

[Donnachaidh]

14. the neener neener excuse?

How repuke-like of you! Congrats! You just proved my point. :eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

87. It was neither an excuse, nor about "neener neener".

It was the dooga dooga ideology.

[bread_and_roses]

8. Then if HRC is the nominee she'll surely have enough door knockers etc without we Kucinich etc

types. She won't need, for instance, the many thousands of progressive activists who made millions of voter contacts via phones, doors, flyers, voter registration, etc. for Kerry in '04. So, some of us can relax without guilt, maybe do work we've been putting off since 2000 on other causes or our laundry for a change. Restful.

[ulysses]

13. I've asked that for years here.

I suspect LoZo has put me on ignore again, so I won't bother asking him. I think the answer is "yes, we think we can win without the left".

[LoZoccolo]

26. Nope, that is not the answer, lol.

We need all of the left. Both the 49% of Americans who are to the left of the Republican Party, and the 1% to the left of that who will give Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama an ample supply of Sister Souljah moments which will put their numbers over the Republican candidate!

[ulysses]

34. so, do you think you're helping with that?

:shrug:

edit: yes, I recognized the Sista Souljah reference and snark. You missed your calling.

[ulysses]

40. anyone to the left of the GOP is "the left" now?

Wow, don't tell wyldwolf - that'll throw some talking points waaay off.

:D

[LWolf]

79. I expect a restful summer and fall in '08.

At least until the party vigilantes start burning bridges on my yard after it's all over.

On edit: "Restful" is relative. It's not like I won't have plenty to keep me occupied once September starts, lol.

[ulysses]

81. I wish I could remember the source,

but there was a quote from some American diplomat in Versailles in 1919, during the treaty negotiations. After butting heads with some of the more recalcitrant members of the Entente over war reparations, he finally announced that he was going to go sit on a beach and watch the world go to hell. Or some such.

Feels like that some days.

[TwilightZone]

9. Nothing new, really. If DU was representative of reality...

Wes Clark or Dennis Kucinich would probably be president.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Hey

I think Wes Clark had the right positions and experience to be a credible presidential candidate...What doomed him was his lack of experience campaigning...

[TwilightZone]

22. Agreed. He was my candidate in '04.

His late entry and the lack of trial-by-fire campaigning prior to hitting the big stage certainly didn't help.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Yeah

He got the "Fred Thompson" welcome into the race...

I think he could have beat Bush*

But politics isn't beanbag... It takes a certain amount of expertise to get elected...

[TwilightZone]

38. I always wanted to see Wes debate W on national security.

That would have had serious entertainment value.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. It Was Disappointing

It was mean Joe Lieberman who attacked him in the debates claiming he flip flopped on the war...Then Dean joined in ...It wasn't true... But it destroyed his nascent campaign...

[NoPasaran]

12. But reality is so... superficial

Or so says John Edwards.

[Sparkly]

15. Interesting reality check.

Thanks. :hi:

[TwilightZone]

16. But, nobody I know supports Hillary.

And, since I know all 160 million American voters, how can she be ahead?

[LoZoccolo]

19. Over 25% of American citizens are on the DLC payroll, lol.

That's the only way that 53% of 50% of people could possibly support Hillary, because of bribery, rofl!

[man4allcats]

17. "If you want to go right now and try to stuff the box..."

I guess that could work, but with Hillary's DU numbers at 18% I'd say she'd need a pretty good stuffing. ;-)

[saracat]

18. The "Real Democratic Party" continually loses elections.Poll after poll

shows Hillary with the smallest margin of victory against the GOP and that is who the "real " Democrats want as a nominee? Do they have a death wish? I also resent the fact that you imply that anyone who does not support Hillary is not a "real " Democrat. I have been a Precinct Committereperson and worked on campaigns since 1972.I have NEVER voted for anyone other than a Democrat.I am as real a Democrat as it gets and I do NOT support Hillary.

[LoZoccolo]

21. I will qualify that: Democratic Underground is a percentage of real democrats.

It is just that there are more people in the real Democratic Party than just those real Democrats in Democratic Underground.

[TwilightZone]

23. In addition, there are a lot of people on DU who aren't Democrats.

I think that "we" tend to forget that. And, I'm not talking about Republicans or trolls.

[ulysses]

24. please elaborate!

How do you decide who's a real Democrat and who isn't?

[LoZoccolo]

29. Anyone who is registered with the Democratic Party. n/t

[ulysses]

32. my god, he answered - ok,

how about in states like GA that don't take party registrations?

[LoZoccolo]

35. I don't know, lol! n/t

[ulysses]

37. you should probably decide! :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. "Poll after poll shows Hillary with the smallest margin of victory against the GOP"

Now you're just making stuff up:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[saracat]

48. I am not.You can't just cherry pick.There are many polls and they have been posted on DU

that show Hillary with a small percentage point overthe GOP. I am not making anything up!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. That's Not Cherry Picking

It's a link to over a dozen published polls...

[saracat]

59. Here is an example .I will find the polls as well.Still hunting See below!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3577836

"In truth, Democrats who are supporting Clinton because of her electability probably haven't been reading the latest polls carefully. In current match-ups with Republicans, Clinton isn't looking particularly strong, despite the GOP now being weaker and more divided than it is likely to be a year from now. There are also early warning signs that Clinton's presence at the top of the ticket could be a disaster for her party's congressional candidates in many closely contested races."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. You Are Cherry Picking...

I gave you links to dozens of polls... and if you look at all of them Hillary does as well as Edwards and a bit better than Obama...Again:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html



http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm


In fact, somebody linked a fifty state poll that showed Hillary is the only Dem that gets over 270 Electoral College Votes against Rud(e)e

[saracat]

71. Here is another But there is a compliation That I can't find right now

That shows the aggregate has Edwards with the biggest margin. It is the conventional wisdom the Edwrds does the best among the GOP. That is simply the truth. Believe what you want.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. Somebody's Assertion Isn't The Truth

That defeats any epistemological voyage...

[saracat]

83. Superb analysis with links from MYDD. Even the Clinton people admit Edwards is "more" electable !

but you won't be convinced even Doug Schoen is.Sigh. As many of you already know, earlier this morning Clinton loyalist Doug Schoen admitted that John Edwards is the most electable Democrat.Read below.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/behind_the_horse_race_nu mbers_edwards_strongest_democrat_in_gene ral_election_match_ups

I am going to use this opportunity to do two things. Provide a link to the overwhelming evidence that John Edwards is the most electable Democrat (the compilation is being constantly updated),
and debunk the "No New York" theory that some Clinton supporters are trying to advance.

If you are going to try to cite RCP averages, read review first.

The "No New York" theory is basically that Clinton will keep New York blue and Edwards cannot. The New York theory is based on Edwards losing the state by 1% to Giuliani in the latest Survey USA poll of that state.

This theory is absurd. But it should be dealt with.

I should also update the current Survey USA recap...

Out of 51 match ups so far...

Edwards outperforms Clinton 35 times. Clinton outperforms Edwards 15 times. They tie once.

Edwards outperforms Obama 46 times. Obama outperforms Edwards 4 times. They tie once.

The theory does have a little bit of truth to it. Clinton does do better against Giuliani compared to Edwards than she does against Romney and Thompson compared to Edwards. She does do better in New York, she is strong in Florida right now against Giuliani. However, it should be noted that she is far more familiar with voters than Edwards is (familiarity is much different than name recognition...you can recognize a name and still be more familiar with another one. This actually hurts Obama as well, though not as much as his supporters claim it does. He has had a high profile for since the 2004 convention speech, and he has been the co-media darling for quite some time now. However, especially against a household name like Giuliani, Obama deserves some slack.

Back to my point...

Edwards clearly outperforms Clinton against Romney and Thompson.
But my point is that nationally, Edwards consistently outperforms Clinton against Giuliani, and he would be a much better candidate to secure 270 electoral votes.

Here is the explanation why, and some of the reasons why the "No New York" theory is so ridiculous.

The first major problem with this theory is that it is mathematically nonsensical. Edwards does better than Clinton does against Giuliani nationally by enough that the support he receives must come from somewhere, and those people are live in states with electoral votes as well. Sure the electoral college is not perfect, but with Edwards doing anywhere from 3 %to 7% better than Clinton vs. Giuliani nationally there is no way that Clinton has more electoral votes. Unless of course you want to argue that he somehow gets 100% of the vote in ID, UT, WY, SD, and MT or something like that.

Even if Edwards were trailing in NY (the poll the Clinton supporters point to has him down by all of 1% point) then, to reconcile his national performance, he must be doing so well in states like TX, OK, MO, KY, WV, VA, TN, NC (a PPP poll recently had him tied or beating every one of the "four tops" there), and GA that not only would he make up for the lost electoral votes in NY, he would gain a whole bunch more.

Another problem for this theory is that the people who promote it do not understand seem to "natural closing". Natural closing is the term given to Democratic leaning voters ending up where they were always going to end up, with the Democrat. The same happens on the Republican side. When natural closing occurs New York will be safely in the Democratic problem.

Yes, natural closing will happen on the other side as well. But part of what makes Edwards so electable is that he does so well now that even after the closing occurs he will still win or compete in IA, MO, OH, KY, WV, VA, NC, TN (against anyone but Thompson), AR, GA, FL and probably even in "death row for Democrats", ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, and TX, NM, NV, and CO.

Not only will New York and similar states be in Edwards column once the race begins, Edwards will be able to compete against Giuliani in states that Clinton simply cannot. Why? Well, Doug Schoen's analysis (I can't believe I am quoting an orignial memebr of the DLC Hack Pack) gives us some insight...

"Finally, Edwards at this point demonstrates the greatest appeal to Independents beating Guiliani by 13%. Obama wins Independents by 5% and Clinton wins them by 3% against Guiliani"

Thank you Doug, for helping prove my point. When natural closing occurs Edwards will have the current blue states in his pocket (I could potentially see Giuliani making a run in New Jersey, but like I said before those electoral votes will be more than made up for) and Edwards' superiority among Independents will ensure that he can compete against Giuliani in states Clinton could not dream of competing in.

That is the point in all of this. In an actual election he can keep the blue states blue and expand into a lot of red states that no other Democrat can.

If you are accepting both Survey USA numbers and the national general election polls then that would mean that Clinton's national numbers are helped by huge leads she in states that are going to go for the Democratic candidate anyway. That means that Edwards makes up the deficit her lead in blue states gives her in the national vote and then a whole lot more in competitive states. In fact, Clinton's huge lead in solid blue states actually helps the Edwards electability argument, because that means that Edwards is consistently outperforming Clinton nationally against Giuliani by a considerable amount because he does well enough in the states Clinton cannot compete in to make up for her lead in solid blue states, and then give him around a 5% advantage Vs. Giuliani compared to Clinton.

You can either accept this, or throw out either the national GE polling or the Survey USA polling. You can't accept both and not cede that Edwards is doing extremely well in places Clinton could never compete ion.

The "No New York" theory also assumes that national primary polling is accurate, and thus Giuliani is the frontrunner. People need to remember that only 7-11% turnout for primaries. That means that the vast majority of the sample will not even vote. Senator Clinton and Giuliani both are both more familiar with voters, and especially in Senator Clinton's case, "low-info" voters (that is not a slur, by the way, person who thought I called you stupid last time, that is a commonly used term) think that they are supposed to support her. But they are not very likely to vote in a primary and even less likely to show up and caucus.

Rasmussen, who uses a tighter, but still not nearly tight enough screen on their national primary polling sees a significant increase for Thompson and Romney. Their order is usually Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, than McCain...as opposed to Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Romney. And that is what an only slightly tighter screen does. Though Giuliani is doing better in NH, he is struggling in IA and SC. And his "firewall" - FL, is up fro grabs for Romney (Jeb Bush anyone?) and Thompson as well.

My point is that Clinton supporters try to muddy the waters on Giuliani, but the truth is that not only does Edwards do better against him in a GE match up, but he is far from a lock to be the nominee.

I think it is good that at least this group of Clinton supporters is admitting that Edwards is the most electable against Thompson and Romney. They are two-third off the way there.

Some Clinton supporters have said out that if I don't have maps to go along with the numbers they are "worthless". There is one problem with the map requirement. Survey USA is not releasing numbers for every state, so many of those states are going to be, at best, educated guesses.

There is ample proof that Edwards can compete for WAY more electoral votes than Clinton can, no matter who the GOP nominee is, and making a nice little map of just the Survey USA numbers in certain states interpreted by Clinton supporters...or for that matter Edwards supporters is highly misleading.

I have said it a hundred times...look at the totality of evidence.

Another problem is that the Clinton supporters that have been spinning their own special methodology. For instance, though the margin of error is around 4.50% it can expand to them depending on who is winning or losing and by how much. If Clinton is trailing by anything less than 6 or 7 she is "within the margin of error". But because Edwards trails Giuliani by all of one percent (with the match up in the mid 40's) he "turns New York red." If Edwards leads Giuliani by 8% then somehow the margin of error magically expands and "it is within the MoE so he'll probably turn that state red too". Yet if Clinton is leading a Republican by as little as 2 or 3% then she "beats them easily". You cannot have it both ways.

Some of the Clinton supporters' maps are as disingenuous as the Giuliani campaign's maps.

Obviously Clinton supporters don't like that I bring this up and they will try to throw any spin out there just to mitigate the damage. Debunking your claims is fun, and easy, so please keep them coming. All I can say is that the evidence is overwhelming, and I wish you would actually look at it for once, but I am betting that you will continue your cognitive dissonance. If you have a problem with my averaging out the results against the Republicans at the general election polling review then take it up with pollsters like Rasmussen, because they do it to. And if you have a problem with my pointing out that John Edwards is by far the most electable Democrat, take it up with a key Clinton advisor.

We need someone who can bring the country with them to do things like make Universal Health Care a reality. We need someone who can appeal to the hearts and minds of the American people.

A wise man once said that John Edwards could "talk an owl out of his tree". That man was none other than former President Clinton.

So a top Clinton advisor admits that Edwards is the most electable.

President Clinton admits that he is extremely persuasive.

And Senator Clinton has already endorsed his Universal Health Care plan.

Who would have known that some of John Edwards' strongest advocates would be from the Clinton campaign?

Links

Survey USA
http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.a spx

General Election Polling Review
http://esrc08.blogspot.com/

Any theory about electability advanced by supporters of other candidates can be debunked at the link above.

[madfloridian]

28. So you are saying we here are not "real" Democrats?

What an arrogant attitude.

I think the elite wing of the party, made up of just a few who have media access and can control the message....are the ones who are not "real" anymore.

They think we can stay in Iraq, they call Iran's guard a terrorist group, they mouth Republican platitudes with ease...

They are not "real". I am real.

Your LOL says it all to me.

Maybe the "real" wing doesn't need our votes anymore.

:shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

30. For the second time, no. n/t

[TwilightZone]

36. Perhaps a better choice of words would have been "entire"

DU is a subset of the Democratic Party. Actually, that isn't really true, because there are many posters on DU who aren't Democrats.

[madfloridian]

41. The Democrats I know here are mostly Republican.

or are so close you can't tell the difference.

Guess it kind of depends on your perspective.

There are also many in the Democratic "party" who are not Democrats.

[LoZoccolo]

42. That must be awful, just awful.

You have been betrayed in your own forum. That is just sad.

[madfloridian]

51. I find your arrogance toward me and others offensive.

I meant Florida.

I hope the primary goes well because I think the polls are way too overboard right now to be "real"

[LoZoccolo]

58. I find your self-pity manipulative. n/t

[madfloridian]

63. It's called being "real"

.

[TwilightZone]

43. Actually, I meant the opposite.

There are a lot of liberals/progressives on DU who aren't Democrats.

Edit: by the way, I think you're confusing "Democrat" with "liberal" or "progressive". The terms are not interchangeable.

[madfloridian]

53. The OP used the terms. DU vs the "real" Democrats.

It is arrogant.

[TwilightZone]

56. It's an accurate comparison. DU *isn't* the "real" Democratic party.

DU isn't a political party and isn't exclusively representative of any one party.

A significant minority of DU posters aren't even Democrats, so I'm not sure why you're offended.

[madfloridian]

64. Because those "real" Democrats are quite often not "real" Dems.

that's what you are not getting.

[TwilightZone]

65. Based on what? Your narrow definition of "Democrat"?

Democrat = me and everyone who believes exactly as I do

Your assertion that the Dems you know on DU are Republicans is ridiculous. Ideological purity is not an indicator of party affiliation.

[madfloridian]

68. That's my point, don't you see?

Being judgemental as the OP was.

Why can he judge and not me?

[LoZoccolo]

70. Where am I judging?

I said that anyone who registers as a Democrat is a "real" Democrat. That would include any registered Democrat who is also a member of Democratic Underground.

[TwilightZone]

75. Nice try, no sale. The OP wasn't judging anything.

The assertion made in the OP is accurate. DU is not representative of the Democratic Party, with or without the "real" qualifier, in part because DU just isn't composed solely of Democrats.

In fact, if you told everyone on DU that they were Democrats, I suspect you'd get some rather vocal complaints to the contrary.

Your assertions are based on what you think a Democrat should be. In my view, a Democrat is anyone who registers as a Democrat and/or votes, funds, or otherwise supports Democrats. I don't have an ideological purity test that I apply to everyone to see if they should fit my definition.

[madfloridian]

85. Now you are being as judging as the OP

Many in our party now are Republicans at heart. Let's face it. We have a lot of them in Florida that I have known all my life. They have been in both parties, whatever is convenient.

I think the OP meant it as an insult to DUers, and I rather resent it.

[TwilightZone]

86. "Republicans at heart."

Bullshit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3587066&mesg_id=3587066

[madfloridian]

89. Actually, many of the Democrats here ....

are often just that. They have switched parties here so often to run for office or for business reasons, that it is hard to tell the difference.

In fact that is why many Florida Blue Dog Democrats supported Jeb Bush as governor

"Blue Dogs are rural, white, traditional Southerners who register as Democrats but often vote Republican. They usually are the key to victory in Florida elections, because, as people say in Northwest Florida, Blue Dogs don’t necessarily “go home from the dance with the one who brung ’em.” They register as Democrats but vote for Republicans in state and national elections – unless the Democratic candidates are conservative Southerners like themselves. With Florida Republicans outnumbered by Democrats by more than 345,000 voters, Republicans cannot win statewide elections unless Blue Dogs cross party lines to support them. By the same token, Democrats cannot win unless they can keep Blue Dogs in the yard. The decisive role of Northwest Florida voters was made patently clear in 1994, when Jeb Bush lost his first bid for governor because Blue Dogs supported the reelection of self-proclaimed “Florida Cracker” Lawton Chiles. After Chiles stepped down at the end of his second term in 1998 and the Democrats failed to nominate another Southern populist, Blue Dog Democrats supported Bush, who won by a solid margin with their backing."

[cleveramerican]

31. People back losing candidates all the time.

its not rare at all.Something less than half on every election day backs a loser.
Am I a real democrat?

[varkam]

39. Well, there is a major difference between those two polls.

That is your poll is unscientific in nature, and is not likely to represent DUers in general. Consequently, you can't really tell a whole lot from it.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. Do you know the difference between a scientific and a nonscientific poll?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. A Scientic Poll Like An Experiment Using The Scientific Method

Should Be Able To Be Repeated With The Same Results.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. There Is A Simple And Non-Inflammatory Explanation , IMHO

Rank and file Democrats or garden variety Democrats are not nearly as ideological as some at DU ...They are much more diverse...Any party that has Maxine Waters,John Conyers and Heath Shuler, and Gene Taylor in it has to be...

[LoZoccolo]

54. Thank you. I hope people notice I am actually not flaming anyone for their ideology.

Really my point is that DUers should not complain about the candidate that the larger Democratic Party picks when it is their responsibility to compel people to vote according to it. If Hillary gets the nod, it is lame for the whinier DUers to try to punish the rest of the Democrats for their own failure to compel.

[TwilightZone]

57. The response to that argument is often "our candidate is being chosen for us"

I always find that curious. If people feel that they have no say in who gets nominated or believe that our nominee is being selected by the media or the Republicans or whomever, why do they bother being involved in politics in the first place?

[Crabby Appleton]

55. Where's Al Gore? nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

60. The "real" Democratic Party also nominated Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis.

And we saw how well that turned out.

[TwilightZone]

61. The "real" Democratic Party has since nominated Bill Clinton twice.

So, I'm not sure that your point is going to hold up too well.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

69. Maybe... but would Clinton have won in the first place

if it hadn't been for Ross Perot taking votes away from Poppy? As it was, he didn't win even 50% of the popular vote in either election. Without Perot, if he would have won at all it probably would have been very close.

In contrast, both Mondale and Dukakis had their asses handed to them. I don't know whether the Dems would have won if they'd nominated more compelling candidates. All I'm suggesting is that we don't dare risk nominating the wrong candidate (for example, somebody who is extremely divisive and would have the wingnuts voting in droves?) and let that happen again, lest we be totally and forever screwn. It can't even be close. The Dem candidate has to attract enough voters to prevent the election from being too close for them to steal this time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. Would Clinton Have Won Without Perot? Indubatively

1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton defeated incumbent President George Bush. Almost every analysis or reference to the 1992 presidential race claims that Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush the election. No facts are cited, it is merely asserted.

Perot did a lot of damage, it is true. During the spring primaries in the big industrial states like New York and Pennsylvania, when attention might have been paid to Clinton and former California Governor Jerry Brown as they fought each other and debated a domestic agenda for the new administration, all the media covered was the "undeclared" candidacy of Ross Perot.

< Digression - What is an undeclared candidacy? Especially when there were already several independent parties qualified to be on the ballot, but which were not considered worthy of coverage: The New Alliance Party, LaRouche for President, the Libertarian Party, the Socialist Party, the Prohibition Party and the Independent Voters Party. Why was Perot, who was not running, receiving more coverage than the candidates who were running? The answer is money. The American press is not a free press, it's a bought press. Perot promised that, if he ran, he would spend $100 million in media advertising. The press supported the undeclared candidacy of Ross Perot to fatten their own pocketbooks. The minor party candidates, who had no money to spend on media, could therefore be ignored.>

But did Perot defeat Bush? First, look at the turnout. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn't vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined. If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's 46.5%?

The 1992 presidential election was an analyst's dream. Usually, the presidential candidate runs far ahead of the rest of the ticket. Perot's presence in the presidential race combined with an absence of running mates for lesser offices meant that Clinton and Bush ran behind their respective party's nominees for Governor, Senator and the House. Consequently, it was easy to follow Perot's voters as they voted for other offices. They voted for Democratic and Republican Governor, Senator and House of Representative candidates in sufficient numbers to give them higher vote totals than Clinton and Bush.

This assumes that all Clinton's supporters voted for the other Democratic candidates and all Bush's supporters voted for the Republican candidates for Governor, Senator and the House. Since Republican candidates for other offices received more votes than Bush, and Democratic candidates for other offices received more votes than Clinton, this is a statistically valid assumption. The higher vote totals for the non-presidential candidates had to come from Perot's voters.

In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot's voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton's lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.

In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)

In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.

Perot's voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot's voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot's voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.

If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

This analysis can be further confirmed by comparing the 1992 and 1996 results where Perot's vote dropped by 10 million compared to 1992. By comparing the vote totals for Clinton in both years with Bush's and Dole's (assuming Dole voters and Bush voters were the same voters) it is possible to conclude that in 1992 Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush: Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia. However, Perot cost Clinton: Florida and Arizona in 1992. So, in 1992, Perot cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 37 electoral votes. Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, so 5 more would not have given him victory.

This same analysis shows that if Perot had not been on the ballot in 1996, Dole would have carried Nevada instead of Clinton. So, by any measure, even admitting that Perot's presence may have cost Bush a few electoral votes in 1992, it was no where near enough to change the outcome of that election, nor the Clinton - Dole contest in 1996.



http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm




"In contrast, both Mondale and Dukakis had their asses handed to them. I don't know whether the Dems would have won if they'd nominated more compelling candidates. All I'm suggesting is that we don't dare risk nominating the wrong candidate (for example, somebody who is extremely divisive and would have the wingnuts voting in droves?) and let that happen again, lets we be totally and forever screwn."


Hillary has more political acumen in her spleen than those two gentleman had in their entire bodies...As far as suffering Pug attacks nobody suffered more Pug attacks than her husband and he left office with an approval rating in the 70's and is now recognized as one of our greatest ex presidents:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2003-05-26-wickham_x.htm


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302036.html?hpid=topnews

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

80. "Indubatively"?

Thanks -- we got a new word!

[TwilightZone]

78. There are articles floating around DU that indicate that Clinton still would have won.

They've been posted quite often lately. You might be able to find them via search.

Part of the problem with the "Hillary can't win" argument is that there is a lot of data indicating the opposite and little data to support the assertion that she can't. She's leading in most head-to-head polls vs. the Republicans and is generally the strongest of our candidates in those matchups.

Are polls faulty? Sure, but evidence (outside of anecdotal evidence and "feelings") showing that she can't beat the Republicans seems to be rather scarce.

Poll source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. This Meme "I Don't Know Anybody Who's Voting For Clinton" Is Tiresome

My Rethuglican boss told me in 1994 he never met anybody who voted for Bill Clinton...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. Mondale Was The Sacrificial Lamb In 84

Dukakis benefited from Gary Hart's implosion over the Donna Rice brouhaha...

[ulysses]

67. the next time someone brings up Mondale as the reason the DLC was needed,

can I quote you?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. Sure

I see my role here as a traffic cop

[sniffa]

88. again, we get it: you're not happy here

i'm just stunned this wasn't done in poLL form. :eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. He Likes It Here

He seems like the argumentative type...

[LoZoccolo]

91. I have something of a policy about not being an "also poster".

I will typically only post if I have something significant to add, which is usually when I disagree, and that goes some ways toward explaining my high concentration of contrarian posts. Like you won't see me posting about how I think illegal wiretapping is bad because I agree that it is bad, and I'd only be repeating what other people say.

I also have a fascination with issues of strategy, which often goes against the grain of an environment that some see as a place to nurse their emotions. Strategy often recommends a counterintuitive course.

As far as the polls, sometimes they are social experiments, but the one that sniffa was initially upset about was simply me trying to find out where people were at on a particular issue because people were posting lots of their own threads on the same topic and I thought they might be doing that to try to look like their side was in the majority. I wanted to curb that. I didn't post my opinion in that thread and it was a simple yes/no question so it wasn't a push poll, though I admit that I have done those.

And yeah, I like to argue.

[ulysses]

92. !

I will typically only post if I have something significant to add

:rofl:

[mmonk]

93. I'm voting for change. Our country is in trouble.

We will remain in trouble with politics as usual. Laugh all you want but name identification isn't a smart vote.

[LoZoccolo]

94. And voting for change is not necessarily effecting change. n/t

[ulysses]

95. not voting for change will most assuredly not effect change.

:shrug:

[mmonk]

96. Voting for no change is certain to not bring any.

Our county's reputation, our country's values, our country's foundations are under massive threat that people aren't getting in their heads.