Zogby: Close Race For The GOP In NH — McCain Losing Indies To Obama

Comments (29)

NCSteve wrote on January 6, 2008 10:54 AM:

Damn. That's the best case scenario.

Jay Andrew Allen wrote on January 6, 2008 11:00 AM:

Just a few days ago, the talking heads were saying that *McCain* would soak up independents, which would hurt *Obama*. Looks like finishing fourth place didn't give their guy as much momentum as they might have hoped.

Abe wrote on January 6, 2008 11:03 AM:

Oh please! YES! If Obama manages to win the nomination and turn Willard into his opponent in one fell swoop, then I think the Democratic establishment should just throw out the Clintons and start worshipping at the altar of HE WHO BRINGS HOPE.

Charismatic Underdog Obama vs. Slimy Rich Panderer Romney=Obama in a landslide

frankly0 wrote on January 6, 2008 11:14 AM:

What a surprise. Obama parrots right wing talking points, and picks up right wing voters who would otherwise go for McCain of all people.

It's working like a charm for Obama. For progressive policies, not so much.

awrbb wrote on January 6, 2008 11:22 AM:

No way Romney wins after the pile-on last night.

frankly0 wrote on January 6, 2008 11:24 AM:

People who say that they are progressives might ask themselves, what does it say about Obama that he's so gladly adopted right wing talking points even at the Democratic primary? What do you think is going to happen if he wins the nomination and enters the general election cycle?

Is it even imaginable that he will refuse to go even further to the right, and adopt even more, and more damaging, right wing talking points?

Anybody but a fool has to be able to see that we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg so far in what kind of pre-emptive compromises Obama is willing to make with progressive policies.

If he wins the nomination, watch out below, progressives.

I mean, if you really are a progressive.

awrbb wrote on January 6, 2008 11:33 AM:

frankly0,

Please give an example of one of these so-called "right-wing talking points." Drawing a contrast between trial lawyers and civil rights attorneys doesn't count. Neither does noting the obvious fact that the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns failed to put a Democrat in the White House.

Douglas wrote on January 6, 2008 11:34 AM:

Oh please! Now we have right-wing trolls coming on here trying to sow seeds of doubt that Obama isn't progressive? Go back to Freeper forum ya trolls!

heretic wrote on January 6, 2008 11:37 AM:

I guess there is no need to hide it anymore:

"I think the Democratic establishment should just throw out the Clintons and start worshipping at the altar of HE WHO BRINGS HOPE."

I always said that Obama's supporters were a bunch of religious zealots. They are the wingnuts of the Democratic party. Yes, we should banish from the party the only two-term Dem since FDR and one of the most popular presidents in modern history. If Obama does, god forbid, get elected, he will no doubt be another one-term wonder like Carter and usher in another long period of Republicanism. I'll tell ya, though, if its a realigned party behind McCain that cuts the wingnuts loose, I'd take that over a Dem party that has found religion any day of the week.

frankly0 wrote on January 6, 2008 11:45 AM:

aawrb,

Oh please.

Social security is in "crisis", perhaps? Just maybe?

Everybody knew when Bush and his ilk used words like that that they were promoting right wing positions. Everybody. We all went to the barricades over this very word again and again. We all understood that it was a meme that had to be defeated if we could hold back the forces trying to pull down SS.

Obama then uses those very words -- giving all the cover the right wing might ever need to use it again themselves -- but it's OK with Obama supporters, because, groupies that they are, they can't do enough independent thinking to realize and acknowledge that there's a real problem.

And it absolutely doesn't matter if Obama's own position on SS is not the same as the right wing position. Anybody with a brain knows that those distinctions simply get lost in the political context, precisely because the right wing makes sure they get lost.

And why did Obama use this right wing point? Why, simply to have a response that might work against the criticisms he was receiving from other candidates. He knew that the "SS is in crisis" talking point resonated with voters for the same reasons the right wing does: its effectiveness is demonstrated in focus groups, polling, and actual elections.

Did it matter to Obama that it would do damage not just to his opponents, but also to progressive policies? Of course not: he was, as always, really only concerned with his narcissistic ambition.

TheraP wrote on January 6, 2008 11:50 AM:

romney is not winning "by a hair." This is within the margin of error, and we don't even know what that is exactly.

Clearly the repubs are hurting badly, searching for a candidate... like poor people scrambling over a garbage dump.

bvd wrote on January 6, 2008 11:52 AM:

"If he wins the nomination, watch out below, progressives. I mean, if you really are a progressive."

Frankly O: You remind me of the "progressives" I knew in the early 80s at college. Each one insisted he/she was "lefter than thou." Folks took very seriously whether someone defined themselves as "Marxist," "Marxist-Leninist," "Marxist-Trotskyist," "Maoist," etc. I recall a guy who was in the Democratic Socialist party being dismissed sneeringly as a "Social Democrat." I always thought these people were a joke. I also could see they were a big part of the reason the left as a whole has been so unsuccessful so often. Time has, I think, proven me correct.

It's not up to you to define who is or isn't, or what is or isn't, progressive. Marching to the Party Line (whichever party) is wrong. We criticize the right for being Republicans first, Americans second. But how many of us on the left do the same thing?

Comparing Obama to Bush, or to Hitler as another poster has done, is just clueless.

frankly0 wrote on January 6, 2008 11:57 AM:

Oh by the way, here's a comment from the Weekly Standard essentially praising Obama's ignoring progressive netroots (Ain't it great to have the right wing rooting for you, Obama? Don't it make you and your supporters proud?):

Here’s a dirty little secret that the liberal blogosphere will probably try to flush down the memory hole in the coming weeks – they didn’t like Barack Obama...Obama incurred the wrath of the progressive blogosphere, and good God, a miracle occurred – he won anyway.Obama showed indifference or even hostility to their agenda. His success reveals the liberal bloggers’ lack of king-making ability. This particular emperor has no clothes. A progressive blog-reading audience of roughly 100,000 people has alternately enthralled and frightened the Democratic party for a couple of years now. Obama either saw that foolishness for what it was, or was sufficiently committed to his principles that he refused to pander. If he paid a price at the Iowa caucuses for this “gamble,” it was one he could afford. More likely, he paid no price, as the progressive blogosphere is deeply unrepresentative of the Democratic party rank and file. We learned that much last night.

link:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/01/democratic_voters_to_nutroots.asp

awrbb wrote on January 6, 2008 12:05 PM:

Wow, frankly0.

You're essentially saying that a "progressive" candidate can never address the problem of funding Social Security, because the all-powerful right wing will twist the agenda. Sure, they may try, but who says we have to let them succeed? Is your outlook really that despairing?

frankly0 wrote on January 6, 2008 12:13 PM:

awrbb,

I don't know what to say to you. Where in God's name were you back in 2005 when we were all fighting against Bush's SS privatization initiative?

There was even a web site progressives set up to counter Bush's initiative, called thereisnocrisis.com.

And now you're acting as if, nonetheless, this is something that our next President must bring up at this very stage.

All I can think to say to you is that you seem to be so deep into the KoolAid for Obama that you're not worth talking to on this, or probably any other point relating to Obama.

awrbb wrote on January 6, 2008 12:15 PM:

Glad you were there fighting against the privatization initiative.

Did you happen to notice that you WON?

NCSteve wrote on January 6, 2008 12:34 PM:

Yes, we get it, FranklyO, all the good netroots liberals know that Obama will eat your children:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/25/19711/011/707/426427

Barack Obama will eat your children by Mark Warner is God Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 04:11:48 PM PST [UPDATE: The evidence of Obama's children eating can be found in this photo right here. Some people have beer guts. Obama has a children gut!]

Barack Obama is slightly less progressive on one or two issues than other Democrats. He wants to bring people together, which is in itself inherently evil. It makes me so angry when he says he wants to bring people together. I cannot stand the idea of Americans uniting. He cannot accomplish this, because no politician in the history of the United States has ever brought the American people together. It has never been done. We have always had a red-blue divide, as far back as I can remember, to 1998 or so. That's the beginning of history. It is impossible to unite people. If he tries, he will fail, and then he will eat our children.

Our best chance to win in 2008 and accomplish our progressive policy goals is to be nasty and to smite the Republicans at every turn and to nominate unpopular politicians.

Barack Obama is evil and a hypocrite because he did this one thing one time and then said another thing another time. No one has ever done that, ever. Ever. He is a demon.

Barack Obama will eat your children.

Mark Warner is God's diary :: ::
Barack Obama once said something mildly negative about an organization that is sort of kind of related to the board of directors a union. He is a union buster. He wants to destroy all unions, and then eat the children of the union bosses.

Barack Obama repeats over and over that he was against the war. This is obnoxious and it pisses me off, because I'm supporting a candidate that supported the war, and I find it inconvenient so I hate him for it. And it makes me wonder if he wants to eat my children.

Barack Obama wants to bring up the social security issue. If we bring up social security, the Republicans will automatically privatize it, despite the fact that we have control of both houses and the presidency, and privatization polls at 25%, and we control both the House and Senate (and hypothetically the presidency). This is not an issue that we should use as a wedge to bang over the Republicans heads. No, we should bury this issue, because it does not help us. It would be a tragedy if Republicans were forced to again vote for privatization, which is wildly unpopular. The defensive posturing of the "ignore social security" strategy is still useful, even though there is no chance of privatization ever passing. The Republicans wouldn't ever call votes and make Democrats vote for unpopular programs, so we shouldn't do it to them. Paul Krugman is a great political strategist, who has run many campaigns.

Barack Obama is loved by the media. They treat him really well, and this is a bad thing. Campaigns are not about manipulating the media with messenging that generates good coverage. Campaigns are not about convincing the media to write good stories. They are about fighting the media and pissing them off and scaring them. Whichever candidate angers the media the most should be nominated, because they have clearly demonstrated that they are a tough candidate that can piss the media off effectively, which is very important for a president if they want to get anything accomplished. Their incompetent handling of the media should be rewarded, and candidates like Barack Obama, who force the media to write good stories, should be tossed aside. If the media writes bad stories about someone, then they should be nominated for that reason. Barack Obama should not be rewarded for generating positive press coverage - he should be attacked until his children cry (right before he eats them).
In summation: Barack Obama eats children.

PS: Merry Christmas to Hillary supporters, Edwards supporters, Obama supporters, and everyone else out there!

A commenter has corrected me. I made an error in this diary. It turns out that Obama does not eat all children, but infact only eats progressive children.

frankly0 wrote on January 6, 2008 1:04 PM:

NCSteve,

Jesus, is that all you've got?

Look, the SS privatization effort took place only two years ago. Are you Obama supporters so utterly clueless that you really believe that it will never again rear its head?

And WHY did SS privatization get to be so unpopular? Answer: precisely because it was perceived to be a radical fix to a program that was not broken. THAT is why we all fought so hard on the very issue of whether SS was in crisis. What we all knew was that insofar as SS was considered to be in crisis, then all kinds of solutions could be put on the table, privatization among them. We all knew that it could be disaster to say that SS was in crisis because it would then be up to the best obfuscator to offer up a "solution" -- and there's no one better than the Republicans at that game. Why on earth take any uneccesary risk on that point?

That's what we all understood, again, only two years ago. How did we all forget this?

I think I know: his name was Obama. He's so charismatic that he charms actual, other well entrenched memories out of people's heads.

And why did the man have to bring the subject up to begin with? To promote some important progressive policy goal that must be addressed in the immediate future? Why, of course not. It was a naked, narcissistic move to promote his own political ambition, progressive policies be damned.

dbt wrote on January 6, 2008 1:06 PM:

Obama's progressive credentials are rock solid. Try studying the last 20 years of record, instead of reading some blogger quoting some other blogger who read a 5 word excerpt from drudge.

DTM wrote on January 6, 2008 2:09 PM:

frankly0,

Obama opposes privatization or any other fundamental change in the structure of Social Security. He does believe that in light of the projected shortfalls in Social Security, we should adjust the cap on the payroll tax.

Do you actually disagree with Obama on the substance of the issue?

NCSteve wrote on January 6, 2008 2:10 PM:

Frankly0,

I don't claim to be a mind reader, but if I were him, this is why I'd bring it up.

When they were in the majority, the Republicans spent a lot of time and money convincing people that a real but fixable problem in Social Security represented a "crisis." Their ulterior motive was privatization, but they failed miserably in achieving that goal because their plan was transparently stupid, especially once the harsh light of Katrina finally penetrated the fear-blinkered eyes of the independents who voted for Smirky in 2004. However, they did succeed in creating a lasting impression among many that a crisis was looming. Got that? The belief that your framecopping is what stopped privatization is a figment of your, and a bunch of other dogmatic Democrats,' imaginations.

So here's the world in 2009. Democratic president. Democratic Congress. President Obama recommends to the Democratic Congress that they fix the very real Social Security problem through the simple expedient of applying good liberal policy--increased progressivity of the SS payroll tax. The Republicans can't resist the effort to fix it. It's a "crisis," remember? Instead, they either have to get on board or push privatization again. Those who push privization lose because they're in the minority and, contrary to the PTSD induced fantasies of 90s Democrats, they do not have superpowers. Bill passes and is signed. Yay for us, we solved the crisis where everyone else before us failed. On to the next problem. There is nothing we cannot do.

Wow, when you put it that way, it really is a scary, scary scenario. We get credit for fixing the "crisis" that the Republicans invented by restoring a little progressivity to the tax code, and, in the process, build political capital and credibility that allow us to fix harder problems. the Republicans have to choose between getting on board with the majority or showing again that they have nothing to offer except the same old morally and intellectually bankrupt bullshit. Good luck in the midterms guys.

And ya wanna know something else? No matter how hard you push the speech code, there is a real problem in need of fixing. If we don't fix it, then when the boomers have sucked the trust fund dry in twenty or thirty years, and can't pay full benefits to all those boomers who are stubbornly refusing to die on schedule, I guarentee you it will be a crisis.

DTM wrote on January 6, 2008 2:38 PM:

NCSteve,

That, of course, is precisely the problem: the scenario you laid out is a big victory for progressives, one that would eclipse the defense of the Social Security status quo in 2005. And it would not be a victory for which people like Kos could claim the lion's share of the credit.

So what you are laying out actually threatens the power, and perhaps even livelihood, of some people who flourished through oppositional strategies during the height of the GOP's takeover of the federal government. And unfortunately, people tend to react negatively to such threats even if their stated policy goals would be served.

NCSteve wrote on January 6, 2008 2:57 PM:

And that's the source of my perpetual frustration with the people who seem to think Mugabe's approach to managing victory was better than Mandela's. Would you rather have a good policy outcomes, or would you rather gratify your emotional need for retribution and vindication? Pick one. You can't have both.

Douglas wrote on January 6, 2008 3:15 PM:

frankly0 - you quote extremist reactionary blogs criticizing progressives and try to stir up discontent on a progressive forum. That is the very definition of a troll. You can't even hold a coherent argument for more than half a sentence. Of course you fear Obama, because he threatens your fragile sense of security that comes from your reactionary paradigm.

You are a reactionary right troll. I know we progressives don't automatically censor dissenters like you are used to on the right, but don't waste your time with your swill here, we aren't as gullible as the people you are used to hanging out with - we don't jump ship and ignore reality at rumor and innuendo.

Go back to the Freeper forum or whatever other rock you crawled out from under. Buh-bye.

frankly0 wrote on January 6, 2008 3:36 PM:

NCSteve,

You simply refuse to answer the question in any serious way about why Obama had any need to bring up the SS crisis issue now,, rather than, say, decades down the line, when there might or might not be a real issue in SS's funding. Nor do you address the point that the very reason that privatization is so unpopular is because the public has accepted that there is no crisis in SS, and therefore we don't have to talk about "solutions". Once it is granted that SS is crisis, how do we have any idea whether a Republican plan on privatization will or won't be popular with the public? Again, THAT is why we all fought so hard to demonstrate that SS was NOT in crisis.

And, to me, it's obvious why Obama started talking about SS being in crisis. He wanted to have a line of attack on his opponents. He knew that declaring SS was in crisis resonated very well with the public -- which is precisely why Bush and company also used that particular tack. It did not matter to Obama that his attack simply fed into right wing talking points. He was concerned solely about his narcissistic ambition to win, whatever the cost.

frankly0 wrote on January 6, 2008 3:42 PM:

Just one further point: the Republicans know perfectly well that the way they can get their nose under the tent in SS, so that they can ultimately dismantle it, is by claiming to all that it is in crisis.

The major reason privatization became unpopular was precisely because Democrats could portray the Republican claim that SS was in crisis as being in bad faith. Once the public accepted that the Republicans had ulterior motives in trying to "fix" SS, privatization, their proposed solution, became highly unpopular.

There is simply no reason to believe that if the public accepts that SS is truly in crisis then it will not be willing to adopt privatization plans. No reason at all.

Peter H wrote on January 6, 2008 3:48 PM:

NCSteve,

I find some of the blogosphere's antipathy to Obama ridiculous. That being said, social security is one of the issues where I have concerns. Personally, I believe that Social Security's problems are overstated. Let me quote Dean Baker, one of the economists who's done the most to confront the myth of a crisis in Social Security, on this issue:

Of course, the only reason anyone is even talking about cutting benefits and privatizing the program is that the right has managed to convince the public that Social Security is on its last legs. For more than two decades they have spread stories about the baby boomers bankrupting the system and multitrillion-dollar debts left to our children and grandchildren. In reality the program can pay all scheduled benefits long past the boomers' retirement. According to the Social Security trustees report, it can pay full benefits through the year 2042 with no changes whatsoever. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office puts the date at 2052. And even after those dates, Social Security will always be able to pay a higher benefit (adjusted for inflation) than what retirees receive today. Those scary multitrillion-dollar debts translate into a deficit equal to 0.7 percent of future income--presented in very precise form in the Social Security trustees report for those who care to look.

I don't like the idea of raising the cap on payroll taxes because it opens up a Pandora's box. If President Obama proposes lifting the cap on payroll taxes, then Republicans & "responsible" Democrats will counter with regressive proposals like raising the retirement age & cutting SS benefits. There's also the danger of revitalizing the movement for SS privatization.

If you want to restore progressivity to the overall tax system, do it by raising top marginal income tax rates and taxing capital gains as regular income.

NCSteve wrote on January 6, 2008 5:04 PM:

Even taking Baker's analysis as gospel, I probably think its more of a problem than some of you because I expect to be retired and collecting, and likely needing, social security in 2042. If you expect to be dead by then, your analysis may be different.

2042 is only twenty four years from now. A problem twenty four years from now is not, repeat not, the same thing as no problem at all. If you think 24 years is a long time, it means you are either ridiculously, enviably young or you have one foot in the grave. If you're that young, it also means you're totally screwed if we don't do something. And, if you're that old, not to be cold, but frankly your opinions on this mean nothing to me. You have no stake.

So we can choose between a relatively painless fix now (or postponement of the problem to a time when I'm more likely to be dead, and thus have no stake in the problem, which is all the same to me) or face the certainty of a much more painful fix later, perhaps one so painful that it is impossible to do.

It has to be done, and if not in 2009, when we will have control of Congress and the White House and the agenda, when? It's just like any retirement planning issue, except bigger--if you don't do it decades ahead of time, you'll never be able to do it at all.

And if that relatively painless fix happens to set a precedent for adding progressivity to the tax code and buys us the political capital and credibility to advance our agenda, how can it possibly be a bad thing?

This whole storm of protest over this issue only makes sense to me if a) you're just latching onto it because you're a partisan looking to score a few points or an ideologue substituting dogma for thought or, b) you are so traumatized by the 90s that you have come to attribute dark supernatural powers to the Republicans that they will use to destroy us if we give them the smallest opening.

If it's the former, stop wasting my time. If it's the latter, its time to get out of that defensive crouch and take ownership of the future.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 6, 2008 7:16 PM:

Anybody but a fool has to be able to see that we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg so far in what kind of pre-emptive compromises Obama is willing to make with progressive policies.

I can see why you might think that; after so many years of being beaten by the reactionaries, it is understandable that one should become somewhat shaken and suspicious. Do not worry, however. When Obama becomes president and ushers in one of the greatest eras of progressive government since the New Deal of FDR, we Obama supporters will not tease you too badly for so grossly misreading the situation.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)