Not that my opinion counts for much, but I think of it more like this:
"Rust Belt": Ohio, Penn, Ind, Mich
Tossup: Illinois
"Midwest/Plains": Dakotas, Neb, Kan, Mizzou, Iowa, Minn, Wisc
Oklahoma falls to the "Southwest" along with Texas, NM, and AZ

But they could all be the midwest, for the matter, except maybe Pennsylvania

SI

Frankly, Biden is the strongest move I have seen Obama make. Every other thing the man has done is fluff, words, nothing and a whole lot of media glitz too ready to hand him the crown.

The Biden choice is the first one the Obama campaign made that has teeth both now and after the election. And the first move I at least can attach some approval of, for his foreign policy experience, if nothing else.

Agreed. The Democrats ran on this main premise 4 years ago. They're evidently deciding to stick with it this year. At some point, they've got to stop using guilt by association and start telling the independent and swing voters why they're the candidates of change rather than the best of two evils.


If Obama loses this election, I don't have any doubt that Hillary will be the Dems candidate in 2012. I mentioned that the Clinton camp appears to be setting her up for that option and this move only furthers that. I mentioned that earlier in this thread. They're steering clear of outright endorsement of Obama right now so they're hands are clean in 2012.

This has become a bit laughable. I was just pointing out that there are many people, for better or worse, in the different regions that lump people into regional bias. Who knew that was so controversial?

Im sure they'll change the message when the message stops working. So far, even McCain has tried to campaign on a message that he's different than Bush too. So obviously the experts disagree with you in so much as apparently now is not the time to stray from the message of, "we will not be like Bush."

I like the choice of Biden.

I think the demographics that he appeals to (Catholics and seniors, in particular) will be helpful in states like PA (I actually think he removes PA from "swing state" status), OH, VA, NH, and probably FL.

As far as long-time politicians go, he appears to be squeaky clean with his only mis-steps having had taken place 20+ years ago. And, if folks want to make things that happened 20+ years ago fair game, the Keating Five and McCain affair become fair game (both of which are light years worse than Biden's plagiarisms, in my opinion).

I think McCain now has a fascinating decision on his hands because, the more I think about it, Mitt Romney's ability to help deliver two key swing states (CO and NV) could really, really help McCain, as could his economic and fund-raising stature (although the pairing of two guys worth over $100M each might not play well). I think some of the Southern and hardcore Christian voters may not like the choice of Romney, but I doubt his inclusion would make them vote for Obama. I don't think McCain personally likes Romney, but I think he has more of a dedicated national following than any of the other pro-life candidates being talked about.

When did it work? The Democrats lost the 2004 election. They ran on the 'not another Bush' premise in 2000. The Democrats have gone from having an 2008 election that they should easily win to a dead heat. The vast majority of people that respond to that message voted for Kerry and are going to vote for Obama. I don't disagree that it's good when talking to the Dem base, but I'm not sure it's a winning election strategy. You couldn't find a Republican voter right now that wouldn't tell you that they're shocked that Obama doesn't have this wrapped up by now.

Has there ever been a Republican ticket that hasn't been painted as a rich elitist by the Democrats? Certainly not in my lifetime. Even Bob Dole from Kansas got painted as elite because of his Washington connections and his successful wife. I really don't think his wealth will play a factor in regards to a selection.

I still think this election will be close, but don't you think running against someone with a roughly 30% approval rating will have a better chance of success than when he had a roughly 45% approval rating?

The real question is whether Obama can successfully attach McCain to Bush.

the latest elections, the ones that happened most recently, the ones where the status quo sic. Bush affiliated people (whether appropriate or not) got hammered.

You'll also be hard pressed to find a Republican, outside of the stalwarts that still supports Bush, his legacy, or wants things to remain the same. Even some of the most ardent Bush supporters of the past have switched allegiances, no offense intended to those who have since I see them as finally seeing the light.

The Democrats have obviously switched to that tactic at this point after the polling numbers turned south. They certainly want to make it all about Bush. As I stated, IMO, it's not a winning formula. I totally agree that it's all about if they can truly create a connection that will resonate with all voters, not just the Dem voting base.

Well its your opinion certainly but the last elections showed that the masses opinion, at that time (a whopping 2 years ago), were in stark contrast to yours.

I was tired of intelligence, balanced political furor here and so I decided to post on DailyKos for once.

Daily Kos: Your message is currency

It wasn't a troll post, either. I was just talking to a friend about it this afternoon and decided to rant about it. We'll see how it goes...

Folks over there are funny. Disagree with the company line and they just show up to skewer. Makes what we do here seem a lot more civil in comparison.

Faux News reporter wades into protest march in Denver. Hilarity (and NSFW audio) ensues from about 1:40 on.

Although, tell me: are we really supposed to take "Griff Jenkins" seriously? He's been airlifted from the 50s, man.

I gotta say, those groups represented themselves and their message really well. That'll show Fox News.

Once you wade into the diaries/comments it's a free for all with a lot of unpleasant folks. I'll read the front page fairly regularly, but it's just too much trouble to sort out anything worthwhile in the diaries. It's like that on both sides though, as places like LGF are just as full of idiots.

Seems like one expecting articulate discourse in the middle of a screaming protest march may find more fertile ground elsewhere. Mostly I enjoyed the crowd broadcasting their unanimous message over the very airwaves they curse as it's carried interminably long. Star corporate media indeed. :)

Oh yeah, I know the right wing sites as crazyland. Good to know that it goes both ways. I was just messing around, my piece wasn't all that fleshed out. I should've mentioned that I'm a lot more independent than the one I wrote implied. It wouldn't have mattered to them, but...that's precisely the point. If Obama is trying to appeal to indies, these are things that indies might be thinking.

But I guess I can't expect "netroots" to care about that stuff.

It was fun, anyway.

There's a big difference between offering articulate discourse and simply stating your message before a television audience.

Fox News were not looking for "articulate discourse". Indeed, had they got that the story would never have made it on air. But they did get what they were looking for - the opportunity to depict (all) Democrat voters as inarticulate rabble.

I've still heard nothing to explain the Mayberry starch of Griff Jenkins. I want answers.

+1

And here I was arguing that liberals were too divisive and more concerned about confrontation and insults than any kind of productive change. I'm sure they changed a lot of minds out there. Bravo.

"Liberal Rallies" tend to attract 20-something stoners who aren't that into politics but know that "Bush sucks". Not representative of all Democrats, of course. But representative of something.

The need to raise the voting age perhaps.

These are disaffected stoners looking for a good time. Going to Denver beats working this week.

With Fox, though, there are very few minds to change. In the 2004 election "Fox Viewer" was a more reliable Bush vote than Republican, Conservative or even Evangelical.

A senate/house election is much more based on regional politics than George Bush's rating. Perfect example was Missouri. McCaskill got on mostly due to the screw-ups of the Republican governor and incumbant senator than anything having to do with Bush. Their screw-ups had nothing to do with their support/non-support of Bush's policies.

LOL, mmmmmk

JiMGA made me lol.

LOL. That would make things 100x worse.

As a moderate independent who leans conservative on economic issues and leans liberal on social issues, I don't mind the Biden pick as a VP choice. Prior to the VP choices, I felt I had already decided that I likely was going to vote for Obama pending any changes based on stances (or lack there of) taken on various issues over the next couple of months.

His choosing Biden doesn't really bother me that much as an independant voter. I fully realize that no matter how much "change" is called for, or how much a candidate tries to be the Washington outsider, if you try to fully go full bore Washington-outsider, you will repeat some of the same problems from the Jimmy Carter administration.

I briefly had some hope that Sam Nunn would have been chosen, as that would have virtually locked in my vote for him, but I do also realize that is probably more due to Nunn having been an absolutely outstanding senator from when I lived in Georgia. I know he probably didn't have the national level of appeal that a Biden has to the same effect however.

I'm not flat rulling out voting for Mccain at this point, but I do feel that Obama will have to "lose" this election for me, but I can absolutely say if Mccain picks Romney as his running mate, that could pretty close to come as a lock for me to not voting for Mccain this time around. Perhaps it is just my bad experience with Romney in Massachusetts or my bad experience with Gore as senator from Tennessee, but Romney just reminds me of the Republican version of Al Gore, whom I or any of my family from Tennessee absolutely refused to vote for any any form or function. Unfortunately in hindsight this probably was just a case of me forgetting that the majority of politicians are flipflopping backstabbing windtunnels and it is not just limited to Gore and Romney though.

Oh, and I've never heard of anything south of Connecticut considered "New England" ever. There are two non-interchangable geographical areas that I guess some of the forum posters here are confusing. New England does not equal the Northeast United States.

LOL.....let's make this clear once again. There are a lot of people west of the Mississippi that lump the two regions in as the same thing, mostly due to political leanings. No one on this forum is confusing anything. Most people on this forum don't fall into that category because I'm pretty sure that posters on this forum are smarter than the average citizen.

McCaskill was elected because of Bush. Matt Blunt and Talent were not the main reasons for her election. It was a referandum on Bush and the national Republican party.

Why woudln't you vote for Barr then? How does Obama satisfy your economic values at all?

I don't tend to vote for third party candidates, call it ignorance on my part or a failure of the current election system, but I just feel doing so often accomplishes two things: 1) Putting my vote on someone who has no chance of winning and 2) removing my vote from a candidate that does have a chance of winning whom I would rather see in office than option B.

I would have to guess that I am not alone in that feeling, but I guess the past 12 years I have lived in two states that every election was pretty much decided for the electoral college well before the actual voting day (Texas and Massachusetts), but I try to draw my line of voting apathy at that as I make sure to always put my vote in each election, even if my presidental vote has not made a difference once since I became old enough to vote.

I totally understand, and the great majority of US voters agree with you, but just to throw in my 2 cents on 3rd party candidates-

I guarantee your vote won't ever swing the election - even if you lived in Ohio or Florida. It's never going to happen. So why vote strategically? Why don't you just exercise this right the way it was intended - to vote for the candidate you'd think would do the best job, or the candidate whose views are most similar to your own?

Well, to be honest, can't every person alive say this exact same thing? I mean, we have never had a state grant its electors (or even one elector) to one candidate over another due to a one vote margin.

You are probably correct that my two points contradict each other. I guess that is what happens when you let emotions get involved. :) Don't get me wrong, I am definitely not saying what people -should- do, just how things have shook out for me as I honestly feel that I probably fall in the moderate independant voter that both candidates must have in order to win the election. There seems to be a bunch of posturing about what the "middle" feel from both sides (the right and the left), so I was simply saying what this "middle" person feels :)

Couldn't disagree more. She targeted both of them for their lack of leadership from the very start. I'm not a fan of McCaskill, but I can't say I disagree that both of them lacked the leadership qualities needed for the job. Talent and 'Skippy' both had no one to blame but themselves.

Sounds like Ted Kennedy was able to make it to Denver and will be in the house tonight for the tribute. Nice touch by the party.

I guess that is true, and maybe I am just remembering things back in my days living in Georgia with some revisionist history for some reason, but I honestly felt in Georgia every state election, for senators, governor, state rep seats, etc all were pretty hotly contested, and we ended up with split senators as well as neighboring districts often having opposing party representatives.

Technically even then the single vote didn't swing an election, but it just felt to me that things were at least undecided and it was more important to get out there and vote. When I lived in Texas everything was such a Republican slant, and in Massachusetts everything is such a Democrat slant, it just feels completely different.


Maybe I am just older and more cynical now, or it is the internet and news media outlets that make everything much more spelled out well in advance than it used to be.. it just feels less important now is all. :)

Sometimes the "best job" is defined by "least worst". When you're pretty certain to be unhappy with all of the options when the day is done, there seems like a pretty good case to be made for voting in a way that does the most to prevent the candidate you're sure to be unhappiest with from winning.

I have held "independent" views for a while now and until recently had voted with the "lesser of two evils/3rd party vote is a waste" mindset. But I heard a Liberterian canidate put in best about the wasted vote theory.

If I vote Obama mostly because I don't like McCain and don't like the current system or I vote for McCain mostly because I don't like Obama and the current system then I am really voting to continue the current system which is exactly the opposite of my stated reason for my vote.

That's why I love living in a swing state. It's always fun to vote knowing that you could play an important part in deciding the next President. The local races are often just as tight.

Refresh my memory, you were here from when to when again?

Only in the past decade has the governor's race been competitive, 1980 was the first GOP Senator in Georgia since the Reconstruction era, as late as 1988 the state had only one GOP Rep in Washington, and the real breakthrough in the state legislature didn't occur until 1992.

Pretty thorough recap of their sad history in the state (surprisingly candid about how bad it was) can be found here.

Absolutely, if it were remotely possible that your one vote could actually prevent anything. (Which is I guess conceivable, though extremely unlikely, on a local level, but completely impossible on a national level)

True dat. Ultimately I think a lot of votes are largely psychological in nature, specifically hoping to avoid a feeling of blame if things don't go the way you want. You can at least say to yourself "I tried" or even "it's not my fault".

I believe Mack Mattingly and Nunn were my two senators when I first started following politics. Even then though, half of the democrats that ran in Georgia were technically conservative democrats that seemed more conservative than some of the republicans who ran. At least based on my memory, it felt to me that the majority of the mainstream Georgia candidates were fairly moderate on either sides of the aisle.

I don't really remember a Republican gov. while there, but for some reason I thought I remembered there being some close competition for it. I thought for some reason it wasn't a sure thing initially that Zell Miller was going to get it or such. For local representatives I was in Buddy Darden's district until they did that huge redrawing of districs that ended up dumping me into Newt Gingrich's district. I still don't understand how an area that had voted democrat for quite a while suddenly had one of the most conservative representatives in the state, but oh well. :)

Good point - it's really all psychological no matter what, so it's just a choice whether to feel that you "voted for X in '08", or you "voted against X in '08" and both are completely legitimate, as it's your vote. It kind of creates a personal identity and history, even if neither have any practical impact.

Zell won by just over 2% against Guy Milner in 1994.