New Hampshire Towns Running Out Of Ballots, Especially For The Dems
Voter turnout for the New Hampshire primary is happening more rapidly than anyone had previously expected — so much, in fact, that the Secretary of State's office has gotten requests from various towns to send more ballots, before they run out.
"The towns that are calling now are experiencing heavy turnout, and see their piles of ballots starting to drop at a rate faster than they're comfortable with," Deputy Secretary of State Dave Scanlan told MSNBC. "They're also stating to us that it's the Democratic ballots that have them more concerned than the Republican ballots."
Comments (90)
Michael A wrote on January 8, 2008 1:27 PM:Awesome, a great day for democracy. Maybe we will finally get our country back and the politicians in washington will start to fear and work for the people as opposed to for themselves and special interests. Awesome.
zonk wrote on January 8, 2008 1:30 PM:Just more evidence that we're doomed - DOOMED, I tell you - if this compromising, unelectable, untested Obama character wins the nomination.
It's a terrible day for the Democratic party, I tells ya... Just imagine - we're going to be running out of ballots this November and SCOTUS is going to give us President Gingrich, all because these naive Obambi's had to have their cuddly divide bridger.
We're all doomed. DOOMED!
bridoc wrote on January 8, 2008 1:32 PM:Yeah, how dumb can people get? This was obviously an election for record turnouts, it isn't rocket science, is it so hard to actually anticipate problems before they happen? Idiots. Crap like this in a general election is what reeks of voter fraud, "ballot shortages" in Democratic areas, or other poll malfunctions or changes. Our Democracy rests on the institution of voting, it ought to be sacred, and thus very carefully protected. This isn't a goddamn tailgate party they are planning, it should actually be planned like it is important.
Print some more ballots!
Helter wrote on January 8, 2008 1:33 PM:That's the problem with being unelectable. All these people show up to vote for you and there aren't enough ballots to go around.
John McCutchen wrote on January 8, 2008 1:34 PM:The Hidden Hillary Vote!
RIP
Michael A wrote on January 8, 2008 1:34 PM:Zonk, that was funny. I guess you don't believe in democracy. Just keep living in fear. Remember there might be a terrorist attack tomorrow, so you need an untested, resume fluffer, who couldn't tell the truth if you paid her in the white house. Also, with the tidal wave that is occurring there is no way that a republican wins the white house. Sorry to burst your bubble.
brm wrote on January 8, 2008 1:35 PM:In a little over 6 hours
Thee Bush-Clinton era will end
Celebrate
Mrs "Tears and Fears" will be crying for real tonight
zonk wrote on January 8, 2008 1:38 PM:That's the problem when the silly attacks get so thick... good snark is hard to write :-)
Peace, Michael A -- I'm an Obama backer - just having a little fun with the latest makeshift dam to be swept away by the Obamanami.
Michael A wrote on January 8, 2008 1:42 PM:Oops, sorry zonk. I missed the sarcasm. After seeing the same type of silliness from clinton people, I'm losing it. I'm a little on edge. I just think its awesome that people are finally showing their power. Washington will never be the same. Can you imagine?
GMFORD wrote on January 8, 2008 1:43 PM:That's it! I can hear the opposition now on super Tuesday -- No waiting on aisle (R)!
Petra wrote on January 8, 2008 1:44 PM:Michael A., do you really not get that that was a joke? But then this election has gone on so long we're probably all losing our minds!
I wonder if the Repubs are quaking in their bootsGuccis yet? Bring it on.....
upper left wrote on January 8, 2008 1:45 PM:Thanks for the belly laugh zonk.
bridoc wrote on January 8, 2008 1:45 PM:Yeah, I agree zonk and Michael A, some ridiculous things have been said by Hillary supporters (BluePuppy comes to mind as an obvious example), so it is hard to tell who is being sarcastic and who has their head up their asses.
Michael A wrote on January 8, 2008 1:47 PM:Yeah, petra I know. I'm losing my sense of humor. On the republicans, they are petrified. Wow, people are actually voting for once, which means that they will get slaughtered. I see 60 seats in the senate coming.
Dee Illuminati wrote on January 8, 2008 1:51 PM:If this is true it means that the McCain win might not be as large as predicted, unless the DEMS are voting twice!
If the news is true that Hillary is skipping SC then I would say that this is a meltdown of establishment candidates and that there will be a large turnover in the general election.
zonk wrote on January 8, 2008 1:51 PM:BTW, no worries Michael...
I completely understand. Like I said - the BS has been flying fast and thick these days.
Be prepared - I'm pretty sure the only attack left is that the rise of Barack Obama will resurrect zombie Reagan to run in 2012, and we'll all be srewed.
GMFORD wrote on January 8, 2008 1:52 PM:Re: Michael A -- people are actually voting 'for once'.
That hurts the republicans -- they like to vote for twice or even for thrice.
upper left wrote on January 8, 2008 1:55 PM:Hopefully, the huge turn-out will help shut-up the idiots on the electability front.
It makes me crazy when people argue that bringing millions of new people to the polls to not only help elect a Dem Prez but also elect Dem members of Congress is some how selling-out progressive values. The hyper-partisans have gotten way too carried away.
We cannot achieve progressive change with the party we have; we need to build and broaden the party. Go Obama!
W Action wrote on January 8, 2008 1:56 PM:GMFORD: Funny! Can I use that?
If McCain were to be the R candidate this fall, can you imagine a greater contrast in appearances? Who better to symbolize the passing of an era than an old, (snowy) white, male Republican. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But the fact that he's also wrong on almost everything important will just add a little more zesty tang to crushing the Rs.
w00t!
"On the republicans, they are petrified. Wow, people are actually voting for once, which means that they will get slaughtered. I see 60 seats in the senate coming."
That's a very premature and even immature conclusion to draw. It's obvious that the Democrats have far more interest in their primary because there are so many Dems don't like Hillary and don't want her there. What's more, you have (in Iowa's case, had) 3 well-funded Democrats pouring money and grassroots operations to get out the vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. One of the main differences between the Dems and the GOP is that many of the top-tier GOP candidates aren't even campaigning in these 2 states! Think of Giuliani in IA and NH and McCain in Iowa. But you think that Democrats will turn out in record numbers all over the spectrum.
Man, when Dems don't get it, they really don't get it.
Steve wrote on January 8, 2008 2:03 PM:"If McCain were to be the R candidate this fall, can you imagine a greater contrast in appearances? Who better to symbolize the passing of an era than an old, (snowy) white, male Republican. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But the fact that he's also wrong on almost everything important will just add a little more zesty tang to crushing the Rs."
That is of course, unless you're also a white voter (like most of the electorate) who might decide that the difference is that you want to vote for someone of your own skin color and you see lily-white McCain vs the dark-skinned Obama. People are very wrong to think that Obama's skin color won't effect his vote totals. Personally, I have no problem voting for a person of color and have done so, but I know that's not the case nationwide.
Obama is an excitement candidate and I believe people are going to eventually figure out that he's not saying anything in those big airy speeches of his. He's a hot air orator and if he faces someone like McCain in November, he's going to be in big trouble.
bridoc wrote on January 8, 2008 2:04 PM:Hillary can't "skip" SC, I laugh every time I hear such a ridiculous comment in the media or elsewhere. She has campaigned in SC this whole time, spent tons of money and set up a large organization, she can't just "skip" the election somehow now that it is obviously not going her way. If she fails to show up in the state on election night, it isn't like the election will be called off, she will lose just the same, and look bad just the same. No, if you want to "skip" a state you have to not try to win it from the beginning, like Giuliani did in Iowa. She can't pretend SC doesn't matter now, the game doesn't work like that, there's no changing the rules at the last minute before defeat. She is going down and going down hard.
Craig wrote on January 8, 2008 2:04 PM:GMFORD-
Let's see, an old (snowy) white male, a young (smarmy) white republican male, a walking cadaver white republican male, a stretched out preaching white republican male, and a crazy white republican male-
On the other side, a woman, a black, a hispanic, and a drawlin ambulance chaser....seems like the contrast is already visible to me....
TheraP wrote on January 8, 2008 2:07 PM:This is why I like the scanner ballots in a state where you don't register for a party. We just draw the arrow for the person of the party of our choice!
Of course, if you're the first voting primary, then their method helps the folks outside to know which way the vote is turning. On the other hand, I hope knowing that does not deter Dems from going out to vote.
Good day for the Dems and the Return of the Rule of Law!
Radio Head wrote on January 8, 2008 2:10 PM:Steve:
There are no regular readers of this site you can delude into thinking that Guiliani and McCain's "competition" would have raised overall GOP turn-out in IA and NH. Why would it? They quit those states precisely because they couldn't bring out many supporters. Duh! But please keep thinking like you do now. And tell all your friends. Republicans are very popular and these huge Dem turn-outs are freakishly unlikely to happen this fall.
Michael A wrote on January 8, 2008 2:11 PM:Oh, comeon steve. Oh, people are just shattering primary voting records, but it won't mean anything in a general election? What are you talking about. That's silly.
zonk wrote on January 8, 2008 2:15 PM:Yup, I hear ya Steve... We're dooooommmmeeeddd... DDDDOOOOMMMMEEDDD!
Keep underestimating America though - that's good and important work you're doing.
craig wrote on January 8, 2008 2:19 PM:But thinking about contrasts, yes a faux paus to answer my own email but here goes.
Their might end up being some diversity in the republican party soon if Obama or Clinton wins.
We might see Romulan get a sex change and start eating some serious melanin pills if he thinks that that will help get him elected.
He's changed everything else about his past to get to this point.
W Action wrote on January 8, 2008 2:21 PM:Steve:
I'll bet that Obama never considered the fact that racism will be a factor this fall. Although I'm sure that pandering to bigots will be strictly off-limits in Republican campaigns, maybe some hotheads will try to stir up hatred and fear anyway. It might even be that the "Obama's not only Black but a secret Muslim" e-mail will get re-launched now that he won in IA. Oh wait--that's exactly what happened! Did you get one this weekend, too? I know I did! Who could have predicted THAT?
bridoc wrote on January 8, 2008 2:23 PM:The best chance we have for Congress is 08 is for Obama to be our nominee on the ticket. He'll bring the people out to the polls in record numbers and while they are there voting for him, they might as well mark Dem down the ballot. We'll be sure to have a big increase in the Congress.
I fear the very opposite would be true with Hillary though, Republicans would use her to rally the troops and come out to the polls in record numbers on their side, and she doesn't inspire or energize a lot of Dems and very few independents...through the same process I fear it would hurt candidates down the ballot. This theory is further backed up by Republicans already using her face in attack mailers against local Dem candidates (see VA-01 special election).
The presidency is extremely important, but we should keep in mind the ramifications for the Congressional races as well.
Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 2:25 PM:I think we can all rest assured that Obama will win this nomination. It's pretty obvious too that he is bringing out people who would otherwise not have voted. In the R circles it's pretty commonly talked of as well in states (like NH) where you can get some I's in that are R's to vote Dem, to vote for Obama so they get the candidate they want to run against. The focus must be on maintaining this wave. The primary is not enough, the general is coming and this has to continue for him to win, if he gets past the rockstar period, he's toast. So I guess my point is stop squibbling and ensure the excitement doesn't end.
stemper wrote on January 8, 2008 2:30 PM:Craig-
LOL on the 'Romulan sex change' post. Thank you!
I saw the Mittster on Anderson Cooper last night, saying "I've been talking about *change* since the beginning!" and I just laughed my ass off.
Josh wrote on January 8, 2008 2:31 PM:What a great thing, people actually showing up and voting.
What a great thing.
bridoc wrote on January 8, 2008 2:35 PM:@Anonymous
I disagree, Obama is definitely not the candidate the Republicans want to run against. They have been caught off guard by the wave of support that Obama has generated. They don't know how to take on Obama, the last Republican debate was a great example of this: their comments about him were more positive than negative. Obama's popularity is something they are afraid to touch lest they get burnt. They are very comfortable attacking Hillary, at demonizing Hillary, at using Hillary to rally their troops. It would be very easy for them to reignite their party against Hillary, but Obama is a giant question mark for them.
So no, you are reading the independent/republican support wrong. I believe it represents a frustration with the status quo (both Bush and Bill Clinton status quos) and really ache for something new and exciting for American politics. This is why he appeals so broadly, not because he is moderate, not because he is an easy target, but because he actually inspires and represents much needed change in American politics.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 8, 2008 2:37 PM:Awesome, a great day for democracy.
Indeed, my sentiments exactly. These news items bode very well for all of us. It is such a new experience reading good election news, I am hardly able to deal with it. If you will forgive the cliché, I am feeling more fired up and ready to go with each passing minute.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 8, 2008 2:46 PM:In the R circles it's pretty commonly talked of as well in states (like NH) where you can get some I's in that are R's to vote Dem, to vote for Obama so they get the candidate they want to run against.
Uh huh, whatever...
Meanwhile, back in the reality of actual Republicans (as opposed to the fictional ones populating the dreams of certain folks here who pine for a contest against Obama...) it would appear that they are actually not rejoicing over his likely ascendancy.
I expect that Barack Obama is actually a more formidable candidate than Hillary Clinton. He will actually be harder to beat. He should not be. But he will be... I think our chances against Barack suck unless we have a McCain or a Huckabee. I don't see Romney or Rudy beating him.
There you have it, ladies and gents. Actual republicans (not the fancy formed whimsies of certain folks' imaginations) voice an opinion, and notice it is not one of delight at the prospect of a matchup against Obama. I leave it to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions from that observation.
John McCutchen wrote on January 8, 2008 2:47 PM:
First, they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi
Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 8, 2008 2:48 PM:Viva la revolucion!
The humans are coming! The humans are coming!
Mine eyes have seen the glory!
rational wrote on January 8, 2008 2:49 PM:Count me in the column of inspired Dems. If Hillary is the nominee, I would probably vote for her in the general, but won't be enthusiastic about it. OTOH, I'm excited that the country is finally waking up to its senses and rooting for real change, or at least as close to real change as one can get in Washington DC. The country is falling apart on several fronts and Bush and his appointees had a lot to do with that, so it would be terribly unwise to continue with Bush-like Republicans or Bush-lite democrats. It is easy to go beat up powerless, third world countries. The hard part is figuring out what battle to pick and fight it effectively. Obama demonstrated that he is wise enough to pick his wars carefully. Decisions surrounding wars are the most important ones a President can make.
Michael A wrote on January 8, 2008 2:50 PM:Good quote on Gandhi, John.
Check this out from the manchester union leader. It's an aside statement, but it looks like more than 500,000 are expected to vote. That's more than 100,000 more than the previous record of 392,000. Wow!!!!
Julie W. wrote on January 8, 2008 2:50 PM:As an agent of Change, Obama has already had a positive effect and change on our political landscape as evidenced by the "nicer tones" of the current campaign commercials and political discourse prevalent today among the candidates, which heretofore has been down right dirty and ugly. This is due to Obama's position not too take the low road, continuing to walk the high road in spite of earlier low poll numbers --,continuing to stay positive and above the fray, continuing to focus on the important issues facing us today, and continuing to speak about his message of hope and change. -- And then they followed.
Maybe Huckabee can run against Obama effectively, the irony of course is that both are very effective in public speaking and not establishment choices.
But Huckabee could be tough as a 'values candidate for change' and that would take off the table all the assumptions.
I read all the statements of stale, old, white and pasty McCain. In many respects the electorate is: "stale, old, white and pasty" but what I have found fascinating is the new voter turnout, and that I think is the key to winning this year.
Can McCain make an appeal to that generation? I'm not sure and I can't predict when one of the candidates will make a mistake next.
I would not have imagined Hillary crying before yesterday, her campaign must have gone nuts. I mean did Margaret Thatcher cry on TV? A woman can win in politics, but she is thought poorly of if she is assertive and 'emotive.'
Far from being a manufactured fairy tale, the lead from Yahoo was 'tears and trailing' in NH and that was not an event orchestrated by Obama.
It will be insteresting to see where the next stumble or dirt comes from.
But don't count McCain out, that has been done once this election already.
But Hillary took a stumble when it mattered most, McCain months ago....
Rick B wrote on January 8, 2008 3:00 PM:The Democratic message - and it's excellent candidates - is clearly getting to a lot of people.
The U. S. Chamber of Commerce, as the mouthpiece of our corporate masters, has begun to realize that there is a strain of populism running through the Democratic candidates and even over to Huckabee.
So the CoC is going to try to find out why the Corporations are getting such bad press and work with the people who feel the corporations are out to get the average American.
Sorry. Just got back from that other Universe and haven't fully readjusted. Here is the LA Times story about how the President of the U.S. CoC is threatening anti-business politicians.
Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 3:08 PM:I'm the anonymous above and my name is Dave, I always forget to type that in, not trying to hide. That information was based on an email forwarded to me by my sister who has stayed on mailing lists since her stint at the Heritage Foundation. I love the inside view and try to ensure it keeps coming by staying relatively mum. There's no secrets, she knows I'm a lefty but we love each other. (Awww.) I come from a long lineage of Southern white racists, rest assured there are no other lefties in my family. But I am also gay.
I'm not sure how you cast me as someone against Obama from that message. I am vehemently supporting Obama now. It's no secret that I supported Edwards, but he's not getting the nomination. I supported Dean but that didn't stop me from working hard for Kerry.
I suppose my point is, it's not over. This is a "wave", a "movement" but I disagree with those who say it cannot be stopped, ask Howard Dean about quick rises and falls. Therefore, I'm only encouraging now that it is clear who the Dem. nominee will be (I don't think that's going too far out on a limb) and since he has generated this level of excitement and support, we must maintain that instead of continuing to squabble. Don't blow it. His tests have yet to come. My message is pro-Obama.
Hillary cannot win this now, Edwards cannot win this now. (Again, do not think I am going too far out on a limb there). We must unite. Listen to Obama's message and let's try to practice it. There's no gloating, no resting, there's a Presidency at stake here and I want a Democrat to win. If his current star power can be maintained for 10 more months, I believe he can do what you say he can do as well.
I do think it is safe to say we have a candidate, but still work to have a President.
DownriverDem wrote on January 8, 2008 3:09 PM:I will support and vote for who ever is the Dem candidate. But I fear a very racist election by the GOP if Obama wins the primary. I really doubt if white guys will vote for Obama. They are too afraid of change. Please tell me I'm wrong.
Michael wrote on January 8, 2008 3:10 PM:One minor quibble, John:
the ghandi quote is one of my favorites, and the line in my signature at another website...but you left a line out.
first they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win
I put it in my sig a couple weeks after donating to Barack back in March, when hadenough et al where laughing at him as a flash-in-the-pan, "all sizzle no steak" phenom
ghandi is, of course, one of Obama's favorite philosophers and a huge influence on MLK, another of Obama's favorites, so its especially poignant
Windowdog wrote on January 8, 2008 3:13 PM:If only they'd used Diebold machines then all of this could have been avoided and Doddsyntaxerror idden~!!!
A FATAL ERROR HAS OCCURRED...
Michael wrote on January 8, 2008 3:13 PM:I actually would expect the "wave" to crest a bit, probably a month or two after Obama would theoretically get the nomination. Just like in the primaries, after the initial burst, he kinda stalled out. I don't know that this level of intensity is sustainable for 10 straight months, especially without a steady stream of primaries to serve as positive-media catalysts.
I'd imagine he'd cool his jets for a bit, recoup, go about the business of laying the foundation for his general run through teh summer (just like in the primaries) and then use the acceptance speech at the convention to kick off the big push to the general.
its all about timing. look at the pollster graphs and you'll see what i'm talking about.
Michael A wrote on January 8, 2008 3:15 PM:Some more election humor. An obama voter was interviewed in nh, an older gentleman, and he said as follows:
Does Obama have enough experience to be president, we asked St Pierre. “If that actor, what’s his name can be president, then Obama can.”
Ronald Reagan? “Yes, if he can be president, then Obama can. Obama’s a lot smarter than Reagan,” St. Pierre said.
How telling and true.
steve wrote on January 8, 2008 3:15 PM:If only those ballots were going to registered Democrats, instead of undeclareds and independents. I would like to have early primaries where Democrats -- and Democrats alone -- decide who represents the party's values best.
bridoc wrote on January 8, 2008 3:16 PM:@Anonymous
I realize you are pro-Obama, I was only faulting the idea that Republicans are getting Obama a boost because they think he is easier to beat, because he isn't, and I think most of them realize that. If they really wanted to bolster a straw candidate they would have come out for Hillary because the Republican machine has a great track record taking down Hillary (just look at her 50% unfavorable ratings and at how angry conservatives get when talking about her).
There may be email chatter to the contrary of all that, but I don't think there is any real strategy there because it would be completely illogical for them.
Michael wrote on January 8, 2008 3:18 PM:steve-
heaven forbid someone actually expands the ranks of the democratic party!!
anyway, your complaint seems kinda silly, since Obama actually won the Dem vote in Iowa (though it was closer than the overall #s, he still won, and converted a lot of indies along the way--a good thing), and all the polls of NH have shown him winning the Dem vote there too.
educate yourself
nogo war wrote on January 8, 2008 3:20 PM:As we git giddy.....
It is time to support TRUE progressives
in Dem primaries for the House.
I am glad that folks now proclaim Obama
"inevitable".
Steve...I pray to Huckabee's Jesus that it is McCain.
These folks had their 15 min.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137
Edwards is sill here..
Susan wrote on January 8, 2008 3:25 PM:zonk
go clean out your 6 bird cages,
but try not to get any droppings in your cup o noodles cheetoos lunch pack
Michael, I'm plenty educated ... but thanks. Obama did not "convert" independents who showed up for him. They started independents, and they will remain independents. They voted in our primary this time. They didn't join the Democratic Party. Some (quoted in several Iowa media outlets) to keep Hillary down because she will be stronger in a general election; some voted to register anger at Bush, but would never trust Obama to actually be president. They voted to send a message, not to elect a president. If Obama makes it to the general, the Republicans will have lots to work with -- all the drugs, women, finances, religion, shady friends, etc. that the Clinton's can't touch because of racial politics and that the press won't go near while they coronate Obama.
blackstar wrote on January 8, 2008 3:32 PM:where are all the Clinton shills who were so vocal about their candidate (and so critical of Obama's chances) before Iowa? hopefully for her they're out there trying to get 65+ women to the polling places so she doesn't get embarassed.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 8, 2008 3:33 PM:If Obama makes it to the general, the Republicans will have lots to work with -- all the drugs, women, finances, religion, shady friends, etc.
Fine, fine. If you want to take that tact, suit yourself. Meanwhile, we on the Obama side are going to be rolling our sleeves up and getting to the real work of electing a democrat and getting our country back on track. When and if you finally come to see that this is not just a trap, we would be glad of your help. If you need some time to come to grips with the reality of it, however, we will still be here when you finally get over your fears.
Michael A wrote on January 8, 2008 3:35 PM:Ok, could we please not bag on certain groups of voters, especially the elderly. That's really in poor taste and will just piss people off.
Steve wrote on January 8, 2008 3:38 PM:"I will support and vote for who ever is the Dem candidate. But I fear a very racist election by the GOP if Obama wins the primary. I really doubt if white guys will vote for Obama. They are too afraid of change. Please tell me I'm wrong."
According to the fanatically pro-Obama (probably mostly young white guys and gals) on this site, you're dead wrong because they think that Obama is the best thing since sliced bread. They argue that his receiving 38% of the vote in a left-leaning primary disproves any worries of racism or racially sensitive voting in this country.
But my guess is that it's nowhere near as simple as this. Being black will probably hurt Obama in some places and not hurt him in others. Let's just stand back and look at this from a non-partisan and realistic perspective for a sec (if that's possible here).
Consider that there were some pretty impressive black candidates of both political persuasions that ran some "impressive" campaigns in the 2006 elections. Think of Michael Steele in Maryland, Lynn Swan in Pennsylvania, Harold Ford in Tennessee, Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio and Deval Patrick in Massachusetts. Steele ran a stunningly strong campaign (I was a supporter), and I particularly strongly feel that, had a credible white Democrat run against Republican Bob Corker in Tennessee, Corker would likely have lost due to his weak campaigning and the Democratic landslide at the top of the TN ticket (Bredesen). In the general election, only Deval Patrick actually won and I really believe ethnicity had something to do with the big defeats suffered by Swann, Steele and Blackwell.
Looking further back, another example includes Ron Kirk of Texas, who in spite of promising beginnings in the 2002 campaign, was ultimately crushed by white Republican John Cornyn. The fact that Obama is the only black US senator in this country and Deval Patrick is our only black governor only underscores my point. Obama will probably have fewere problems in states like IL, MA or NY, but how will he fair in Ohio or Florida - not to mention southern battlegrounds like KY, TN, AR and LA?
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 8, 2008 3:44 PM:Obama will probably have fewer problems in states like IL, MA or NY, but how will he fair in... southern battlegrounds like KY, TN, AR and LA?
He will likely fair just as poorly there as Sen Clinton would if she is the nominee. We are kidding ourselves if we imagine that either will do well in the south. Al Gore did not even carry his home state of TN. The south is off the table for either of these two, so it is pointless to mention this as a mark against Obama, as it is just as much a mark against Clinton.
steve wrote on January 8, 2008 3:50 PM:Greg, you live in a fantasy land. Keep those tinted glasses on for as long as you can, my friend; I'm sure it's easier that way. When you take them off, you will see that Obama will never when a general election, for myriad reasons ... some of which are understandable (drugs, women, finances, etc); some of which are infuriating (the realities of race in this country); and some of which are totally predictable (the fact that he has no experience or record).
RobbyLove wrote on January 8, 2008 3:54 PM:If Obamania continues like this, we'll be talking about "Obama Republicans" just like we used to talk about "Reagan Democrats". His message is hitting all the right notes.
Obama would be VERY competitive in the Southern states and pull some wicked surprises come November.
craig wrote on January 8, 2008 3:54 PM:bridoc wrote on January 8, 2008 3:16 PM:
@Anonymous
"....If they really wanted to bolster a straw candidate they would have come out for Hillary because the Republican machine has a great track record taking down Hillary (just look at her 50% unfavorable ratings and at how angry conservatives get when talking about her).
There may be email chatter to the contrary of all that, but I don't think there is any real strategy there because it would be completely illogical for them."
don't forget the carl roving mad playbook. make the opposition really angry that your attacking a candidate (hillary) so that they vote for her, because you know you can beat her...interesting that so far, very little attacking of barack, 'cept for the looney tune "muslim" connection emails...
of course i expect that to change real soon....
PS: If romulan changes sexes and gets a deeper melanin injection so that he can win, he can come back as "ohura"...then he would even be closer in name to the candidate with pizazz....
DM wrote on January 8, 2008 3:54 PM:Steve,
I don't think you're a racist, but I do think you're in denial and have a seriously low opinion of your fellow Americans.
I guess by assuming your fearful fetal position, Roosevelt or Kennedy would never have become president because, after all, the country had never elected a disabled person or a Catholic.
Open your eyes. You think everyone else is deluded, but isn't it possible that it's you who needs to wake up?
Don't fight it, ride the Obamanami!
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 8, 2008 3:55 PM:Dear Steve,
One thing that reading this blog of late has taught me is that this election is like the murder of the samurai in the Rashomon. We each look at the same news events and each see a totally different campaign than the other sees.
This is simply a long way of saying that your "plausible" is my own "no way" and your "fantasy land" is my "electoral reality." I take it that you are not much swayed by that which I write, but I can assure you that I am no more swayed by anything you have written. Fair enough, that. I guess we will see who is right in the end.
craig wrote on January 8, 2008 3:56 PM:steve wrote on January 8, 2008 3:50 PM:
Greg, you live in a fantasy land....
"and some of which are totally predictable (the fact that he has no experience or record).
steve-if it really took experience to get into this office, how the hell did we end up with the shrub?
Steve you are way uninformed and racist. Sorry charlie, your analysis is weak. The only dem candidate that would lose would be clinton. All the rest, will win hands down. The question becomes by how much and it appears that obama can get a mandate and tons of people to the polls. Gee, what a concept. But oh, lets keep playing the race card bogeyman. This is the 21st century steve. Obama cleaning up in iowa blows up your racist argument.
On experience, he has enough experience, just as much as clinton, and probably more than edwards. I think the experience card is a red herring. Crawl back under your racist rock.
zonk wrote on January 8, 2008 4:01 PM:Stay classy, Susan :-)
...and for the record, I've already humanely put the birds to sleep - since we're dooomeeedd, DOOOOMMMEEED!!! - I felt it would be cruel to leave them alive to suffer through the apocalypse.
Sorry if you take offense, but man oh man... I just cannot get over the ludicrous argument that we should select a nominee based on fear of the GOP spin machine.
It's the repurposed GOP fear spin all over again.
If that's all you got left -- a noun, a verb, and Karl Rove -- that's a campaign bankrupt of ideas.
David_F wrote on January 8, 2008 4:03 PM:Steve's last point reminds me that:
When you look at this thing on a state-by-state basis, it's far from certain that Obama would have an easy time in the general election. (I haven't seen an analysis yet of which states he'd put back into play by winning over independents and/or Reagan democratcs, etc.) Further than that, on a state-by-state, delegate-by-delegate basis, it's far from certain that he'll even get the nomination ahead of Clinton unless her support erodes at a quicker pace after today. If she wins a couple of big state primaries where she's currently ahead in the polls, it could be tight going into the convention.
Steve wrote:
"If only those ballots were going to registered Democrats, instead of undeclareds and independents. I would like to have early primaries where Democrats -- and Democrats alone -- decide who represents the party's values best."
Weren't you just commenting that "Man, when Dems don't get it, they really don't get it."? You're obviously no Democrat, so who the hell are you to say who can vote as a Democrat and who can't?
For the record, I'm an Edwards supporter. As far as I'm concerned, if "Undeclared"s and Independents want to turn out in record numbers to vote for Obama, I say:
"Let 'em!"
Julie W. -- Obama gets huge props for the increased turnout. I'm not, however, going to give him credit for single-handedly making campaigning "nicer." To the extent the campaign is nicer, I think it's largely due to the punditocracy consensus that not being nice lost both Dean and Gephardt Iowa last time.
Desider wrote on January 8, 2008 4:07 PM:Reagan was governor of California for 8 years. Not bad preparation for running for president.
DM wrote on January 8, 2008 4:11 PM:David_F
I have no doubt that Clinton will fight her hardest. However, she is running out of money and time. No one wants to support a loser, and that's what she'll be if things don't change quickly.
As for your electoral math, Obama just kicked ass in two states that Bush won against the toughest political machine on either side.
DM wrote on January 8, 2008 4:12 PM:Desider,
And Hillary was first lady for 8 years. Therefore . . .
Michael A wrote on January 8, 2008 4:14 PM:Desider, but, but he didn't have any foreign policy experience. He was green and we were facing the fight of our lives with the mean old soviet union that wanted to take away our way of life.
Chris G. wrote on January 8, 2008 4:20 PM:Well I am going to head home from work and then go out to vote. I probably won't get the place (Manchester, Ward 12) where we vote until 5:15/5:30, so I should be in place for the last rush.
My wife and I are registered to vote, so hopefully we go through the line fairly quickly. In 2004 we had to register there since we just moved into the area, so that took forever (up to 2 hours if I remember right). I voted there in 2006 and was in/out in 10 minutes. So no idea how quickly this will go, with this heavy turnout.
Michael wrote on January 8, 2008 4:24 PM:Actually, Steve, you're obviously not educated, as anyone who participated in the Dem Iowa caucus had to either register in advance as a Dem or register on site. So yes, he converted plenty along the way.
What's more, already their are anecdotal reports of a wave of new, same-day registrants in NH as well, including one such anecdote on the front page of this very site.
And, again, the point still stands: we've seen no evidence as of yet that these primaries would've turned out any differently if Indies weren't allowed to vote.
As for the whole bit about blacks in American, thanks for your "concern", but it's pretty obviously at this point way off base.
wes2 wrote on January 8, 2008 4:28 PM:Arrgh. Sorry, I sent only part of my post.
I think it's important to be somewhat levelheaded about the ways in which Obama is transformational. I give him plenty of credit for being transformational wrt to turnout, but I don't think he singlehandedly makes campaigning nicer. He may contribute to it, but I think it's a mistake to think that it's solely attributable to Obama -- the overwhelming weight of conventional wisdom policed niceness in this caucus season. The distinction matters because if we think that Obama alone will keep campaigning on a higher ground, I believe we're in for a world of hurt in the general.
Steve wrote on January 8, 2008 4:32 PM:MichaelA said:
"Steve you are way uninformed and racist. Sorry charlie, your analysis is weak. The only dem candidate that would lose would be clinton. All the rest, will win hands down. The question becomes by how much and it appears that obama can get a mandate and tons of people to the polls. Gee, what a concept. But oh, lets keep playing the race card bogeyman. This is the 21st century steve. Obama cleaning up in iowa blows up your racist argument."
Actually, I'm not uninformed nor am I racist. I've been studying and following politics for many years now. Calling me a racist only validates my point because it shows that you resort to insult rather than fact. The facts aren't to your liking, so you insult me. My point stands.
"On experience, he has enough experience, just as much as clinton, and probably more than edwards. I think the experience card is a red herring. Crawl back under your racist rock."
I'm not crawling anywhere. Obama is an oratorical celebrity who's lived a charmed life. He has no depth and he's not ready for prime time. His speeches mean nothing and he has no specificity. On top of that, he's black, which poses a fundamental question to millions of voters. Plain and simple.
Steve wrote on January 8, 2008 4:34 PM:By the way, there are 2 "Steve's" writing on this thread. Please be aware of that.
Sand wrote on January 8, 2008 4:36 PM:YIKES -- Is this True? I don't like the 'feel' of this, especially what has happened in the past in NH.
81% of New Hampshire ballots are counted in secret by a private corporation named Diebold Election Systems (now known as "Premier"). The elections run on these machines are programmed by one company, LHS Associates, based in Methuen, MA. We know nothing about the people programming these machines, and we know even less about LHS Associates.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/opedne_michael__080108_all_diebold_all_the_.htm
From: rladlof@ix.netcom.com
Resolve one issue for me and . . . I will happily join you all on the Obama train:
Obama has twice declared that human rights were not worth lending his voice and political capital to protect . . . That his vote would not count . . . That protecting the rights of flesh and blood Americans is trivial.
Defend that. Show me how I can accept that.
Not showing true leadership and doing everything possible to stop the Mukasey nomination and warrantless wiretapping THEN publicly belittling the importance of doing so was a watershed moment for me and points to a mindset were proto-fascism has become acceptable.
Defend that and I'll pull the lever for Obama.
Michael A wrote on January 8, 2008 4:43 PM:Uh, steve, the neanderthal bigot steve, here's a website for you: redstate.com. You will like it there.
Europe wrote on January 8, 2008 4:43 PM:Thanks for the interesting conversation. Although primary elections are mentioned even on the first web-pages of our news companies, it's just mere numbers. It's a shame that we don't get a deeper impression of the election's emotions.
We are many here on this shore who are looking forward to recover our friendship with the U.S.
I hope the "Obamanami" will last until the general elections.
Go for it!
The relatively tiny number of votes that have been cast so far are protest votes -- people trying to send an anti-Bush message. Protest votes in a primary do not translate into votes for a President in a general election. I spent plenty of time in New Hampshire this weekend, and met many (well-meaning) people who are voting for Oabama to send a message in the primary, but have no intention at all of voting for him in a general election. Since he has no experience or depth, they don't trust him with the country's security or future.
kaspian wrote on January 8, 2008 4:56 PM:I find it very interesting to read the early comments on the Obama phenomenon by Republicans (like Steve, though he's much too intelligent to be broadly representative of the GOP base).
It's evident that the prospect of an Obama candidacy kind of baffles the Republican side. Their reactions are all over the board. Steve, for instance, seems to be placing a lot of hope in a really dark view of human nature -- first by believing that there's a whole boatload of negative stuff about Obama that we just don't know about yet, and secondly by assuming that his race is going to be a net minus in the campaign, even a decisive one.
To take the race issue: that's ridiculous. Racists are out there, but in ever diminishing numbers, and they wouldn't vote for any Democrat. My feeling is that Obama's complicated racial profile actually turns out to be a net plus. He's just the sort of "good, decent, hard-working Negro" whom my Southern, staunchly conservative father would have approved of.
As to Obama having dirty laundry just waiting to be aired ... I don't believe it. I think the guy's clean. Of course, that won't stop the Republican hate machine from launching swiftboat-style attacks. But this kind of thing just isn't going to work in 2008. We've seen it before, we know it's coming, and when it comes -- and gets slapped down -- it will mainly serve to remind people how sordid and mean-spirited the modern GOP has become, and how much we all want to be rid of it.
The GOP will try various lines of attack over the coming months, only to find that the tried-and-true tactics -- playing the fear card, playing the race card, spreading lies via e-mail and talk radio and hateblogs -- are just badly out of phase with the Zeitgeist. People really are sick of this kind of thing.
Don't get me wrong: these GOP set-piece strategems will work like magic with the hardcore 30-percenters who would believe it if you told them Obama eats babies in secret Islamo-Satanic rituals, and the line for the Rapture is forming up in the Wal-Mart parking lot. But those people are voting Republican anyway. And trying to tap this old well of ignorance and hatred and anger and resentment in 2008 -- when the public is starving for a positive message, a ray of hope, something good to believe in -- is going to come at a frightful cost.
So this is the problem: The GOP can't run a positive campaign because if the 2008 election turns on real issues, the Democrats kick ass, seeing as how (a) the public agrees with Democratic policy positions across the board, and (b) the GOP front-runners are all different breeds of kooks, not least Rev. Huckabee. A sober, positive, non-hysterical discussion of the candidates' respective positions gives the Dems a big win.
At the same time, the GOP can't run a negative campaign because they are running (assuming Obama is the opponent) against a man who radiates more light than Ronald Reagan at the brightest hour of "Morning in America." Obama is the most electrifying orator of his generation. His presence on a stage affirms everything that we as Americans like to believe about ourselves -- including the very old-fashioned idea that any child can grow up to be President. You try to attack this man, and everybody in the audience instinctively rises to his defense. The GOP finds itself trying to campaign against sunshine and hope, against a black man who has worked hard and played by the rules and succeeded in the most all-American way, against an overwhelming public desire for transformation, even for a kind of political transcendence.
There is just no tool in the GOP kit, no paradigm in the modern conservative thought-world, ready to deal with this reality. And the best news of all is that Republicans -- even smart ones like Steve -- don't seem yet to have begun to understand what's about to happen. To say that they're in denial is an understatement. More like, they're trapped in an alternative (and wholly negative) reality of their own making. By the time realization dawns, they may be staring helplessly at an electoral tsunami on a par with 1932.
Of course I could be wrong. But I think there's a considerable likelihood this is just how things will play out. And there's a near-certainty that if things really start breaking our way -- as they seem to be breaking, thus far -- the GOP will find itself utterly powerless to respond.
Just got back from voting in Manchester, NH Ward 12. The place was packed with new voters, with I'm guessing at least 100 people in line waiting to register. The registered voter line was busy but steady, it took me about 20 minutes to get through it.
The officials and volunteers looked tired. I don't blame them.
TheSavage wrote on January 8, 2008 6:40 PM:"The relatively tiny number of votes that have been cast so far are protest votes -- people trying to send an anti-Bush message. Protest votes in a primary do not translate into votes for a President in a general election"
I find this post [and which ever damn steve that posted it,you could at least include your middle initial to eliminate the confusion but thats your hangup] rather amusing.
He is totally ignoring the fact that the last state elections the good people of NH threw damn near every republican in state office to the curb. Savage
TO figure out which states Obama can "bring into play," first we need to assume who the GOP candidate will be.
McCain is not going to fare well in the South. Romney has the broadest appeal, and Guliani has 9/11. Huckabee will be resurgent once he wins SC.
I believe it will be Romney. That is a big problem for the GOP, bc of all the anti-mormon sentiment in the GOP base. With a Romney-Obama general election, Barack can bring many states into play. Based on 2006 alone, Ohio is in the Dems hands. What else will he bring into play? How about North Carolina, Virginia (yes, VA!), Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, New Mexico, and Nevada. Other possibilities include MT, WY, AK, KS, SC. Are there more? Maybe...
re:
"jose wrote on January 8, 2008 6:42 PM:
TO figure out which states Obama can "bring into play," first we need to assume who the GOP candidate will be.
McCain is not going to fare well in the South. Romney has the broadest appeal, and Guliani has 9/11. Huckabee will be resurgent once he wins SC.
I believe it will be Romney."
Silly rabbit-Hicks are for Fred(s)
