Genius wrote on June 15, 2008 11:52 AM: Overheard at the Democratic Party HQ:

"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

bakeem lloyd wrote on May 19, 2008 10:37 PM: Yea, sure... Let's completely overlook the fact that Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Utah, North Dakota and Wyoming are all chocked full of white people who clearly don't work very hard. I remember when I drove through Wyoming thinking that there was a Starbucks every 300 feet in Casper.

If you are going to play dog whistle politics, please come up with something more clever than "hard working" white people.

Anyone who looks at the demographics of the states Hillary Clinton has won in the democratic contest will see that while it does come down to racial lines in many places, those states also happen to have the oldest populations in the country, with few exception. Sussing that out would require LOOKING at the data, but I know that John Brummett is not doing that kind of analysis.

So... anyone see the 75,000 people drawn to a political event in downtown Portland? No hard working white people there.

You people make me sad.

Gary wrote on May 19, 2008 12:08 AM: John,
I apprediciate your willingness to go out on a limb with a prediction. However, most can understand that an African-American child of a single, unwealthy parent is not in any way 'elite'. He worked by choice for little money, in some of the toughest neighborhoods in Chicago.

He advocates policies that raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in favor of offering opportunities--historically American opportunities like solid public education, college, and supporting businesses that look out for their workers--to those who historically struggle to create such opportunities without an economic boost.

How can you refer to him as a "tax raiser not in tune with everyday people" without acknowledging that the taxes he is talking about raising only affect the top five percent of income earners? The elite, it seems, would be the ones losing money in the tax increase. Why don't you discuss the reality of what Obama's argument will be: the economic system we have in place--corporate driven and laden with lobbyists paid gross-sums to retain and increase the wealth of their employeers--does not have the best interests of its workers in mind.

RCP polls have Obama further ahead in the general election than they had George W. Bush over John Kerry approaching the election, and the general election has hardly even started yet.

My prediction: Obama will win the entire NE, including Pennsylvania and DC (117). He will win MI, IA, WI, MN, and IL (+65 = 182). He will then win CO, NM, OR, WA and CA for a total of 273 without having to win FL or OH.

Debbie McCoy wrote on May 18, 2008 07:35 PM: I really enjoyed your brilliant article, and I whole heartedly agree!

OneWhoKnows wrote on May 18, 2008 06:14 PM: Gas IS $8 a gal, rb. Everywhere in the world but here. This is because we supply 40% of our own oil.

The French and English have been paying $5 a LITER for the last 8 yrs+. I know, I've been there.

The reason oil prices are so high is because China saw us creating a national oil reserve and said "what a good idea" and began buying every drop they can get.

As anyone with half-a-brain can understand: when demand increases, supply decreases and prices go up.

There are only 2 ways to counter this. 1.) Increase supply: more oil on the market will naturally drive down the price.
2.) Reduce demand: using less oil will naturally drive down the price.

Obviously, option 2 would be the better of the two, but its just not going to happen. Developing countries (India) and new economic powers (China) are now players in the game, and they aren't going to reduce their intake anytime soon.

The best economic times this country has seen recently have been when one party controls the Presidency and the other controls the Congress.

Need an example: Clinton and the Republican House and Senate or Reagan and the Democratic House and Senate.

Both were the best of modern economic times because the American people forced the parties to work together.

Best case senario for this election: Democrats control the House and Senate, and McCain elected President. It forces the country to the center in order for anything to get done.

An Obama/Clinton Presidency coupled with Democrats controling Congress is the same as Bush and the Republicans in charge of everything. When one party has control America veers either left or right of center economically.

So, if you want to return to the prosperity of the 80's and 90's:

Vote For John McCain!!!!!!

Jim wrote on May 18, 2008 04:24 PM: Sounds right. The voters don't like the Republican Party, but they don't like the Democrats either. They just hate the Democrats less. Since the Democrats are likely to keep control of Congress, and will probably expand their lead, McCain can make a good case to the voters for divided government.

McCain is polling at 15-20% among Democrats. Obama is polling at 5% among Republicans. As a contrast, Bush and Kerry got each about 10% of the vote from those who identify with the opposite party. Look for "McCain Democrats" to be a force in this election, both at the top of the ticket (voting for McCain) and down the ballot (voting Democratic.)

lillian wrote on May 18, 2008 02:42 PM: I am not voting for clinton or for obama that being said, it appears to me that we are hearing re a double standard here why is when a woman doesnt give up prior to all votes being counted she is selfish destructive etc ? i did not hear those comments when huck whatever his name is went till the end. The situation is this is not over the media has been atrocious ignoring one candidate and so many things can happen prior to the convention end of August. If something i like now of Mrs clinton is her energy and ignoring all the negativism . To me those are qualities of strength and leadership rather of passivity and rethoric.. the dems will nominate a man with the less experiencwi and nobody will open their eyes until it is too late and just like people would not listen to logic in 2000 or 2004the same here. hey no diferencia. you may think there is a diferencia but no. there is none.

Herb wrote on May 18, 2008 02:11 PM: I hope you are right and Obama loses. He is far far to the left of mainstream America. I don't like that he has Muslim in his blood. I don't like the company he keeps, including his pastor for 20 years who hates white people and hates our country. I fear his terrorist friends. I really can't stand his wife michelle, she is the angriest millionaire in American history.

I don't like how smug and arrogant he is and how he looks down on common folk, gun owners, and the religious. I don't trust a man who was a cocaine user, it really shows he has a bad character. I can't stand his rabid fans, there were raised on American Idol and Obama is their false God. Most of all he isn't qualified to be President. I have never disliked anybody this much before, Presidential candidate or otherwise, If he loses the general election I will cry tears of joy.

Generation ZZZZZZZ wrote on May 18, 2008 02:05 PM: The "white vote" you keep alluding to is the Democratic white vote - ie "white guilt" vote.
I don't care what color Obama is, or what color I am.
But I don't think you can coast through life on affirmative action and end up as POTUS.
Obama probably believes things are supposed to be easy for him because they always have been - that's what affirmative action has taught him.
He has zero qualifications for POTUS - if you know of any, please name them.
Otherwise, suck it up and prepare to watch your candidate take a nose-dive in the general.
Then you can blame it on racism - rather than accepting that Obama ran for an office for which he has no qualification.
If we applied affirmative action to the current nomination process, he would have taken Hillary out long ago. He probably would have only required 30% of the vote to her 70%.
At any rate, he's disqualified, not based on his race, but because he's simply not qualified.
He has exploited his skin tone to enjoy his meteoric rise - and I applaud him for that. Everyone should work the system, and he's done a magnificent job.
And now that I think about it, maybe he is qualified. He definitely knows how to work the system.
So I'll vote for him, just so my friends won't call me a racist. I hope that will make everyone happy.
Cuz McCain has been a great statesman - but he's like really old and stuff and he's "just like Bush".
So far, Obama has been preaching to the choir, and he can't even get them to sing his tune.
Hrmmm...
So many bad choices for so very long - I think maybe I'll just stay home again on election day.

The Fop wrote on May 18, 2008 01:24 PM: I agree with this analysis. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the American people felt safer with the Republicans in control of all three branches of government. But 2005 and 2006 were rough years in Iraq, and people got tired of hearing the Democrats whining from the sidelines.

In 2006 they handed the Dems control of Congress and a razor thin majority in the Senate. Yet the Dem led Congress has even lower approval ratings than Bush.

I think the American people want to see a balance of power. The more it looks like the Dems will win big in Congressional and Senatorial contests, the more it helps McCain chances of winning the Presidency. This might not be the case if the Dems chose a guy like Evan Bayh as the Presidential nominee. But alas, Bush Derangemnent Syndrome inspired them to pick someone that the liberal base can swoon over who is completely out of touch with mainstream Americans.

Read All Comments