Yesterday's Other Primary

A one would expect, turnout in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary was far higher than the Republican turnout.   With a handful of precincts still yet to report, we have 2,280,870 Democratic votes and only 791,205 Republican votes.  But check out the percentages:

99.34% precincts reporting.

       

McCain   72.7    
Paul     15.9    
Huckabee 11.4

Over a quarter of the Republicans who showed up voted against their certain nominee, John McCain.  Combined with the Republicans' failure to defeat Democrat Travis Childers in heavily Republican MS-01, what we see is a Republican party with some serious problems.  

Some will argue that Republican weakness means that there's no damage being done by Hillary Clinton staying in a contest she can't win.  That's not true, especially when one considers the tremendous opportunity costs being paid by not running exclusively against a weakened John McCain.  But it is heartening to see that while we're missing an opportunity to pound John McCain early and work toward exposing him to the American people as anything but a reforming "maverick," there are at least some serious weaknesses in the Republican brand, and some evident dissatisfaction among Republicans with their presumptive nominee.  

•  Ah something we can all agree

  on. Republicans will lose in November

  by givemhellHarryR on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:38:01 AM PDT

  •  Yes she will and Repubs Will Lose

    are pretty damn cocksure statements.  I've seen astrological diaries laughed out of here.  And economic predictions (I'm not talking Jerome or Bonddad) down to the month that future events WILL occur treated with deference on here for the most part being that most Americans are significantly financially illiterate.

    Just because Repubs have horrible odds does not an outcome make.  It's that kind of jumping the gun that spells out for apathy when we can impact the election.

    by Nulwee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:43:32 AM PDT

    •  Just positive thinking

      thanks for the lecture though

      by givemhellHarryR on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:54:35 AM PDT

  •  Don't take that as a given

    Watching the talking heads listen to Bill Bennett yesterday pontificate about the "ethical dilemmas" facing Oback, I had to wonder if no one's memory reached back to the brouhaha Bennett caused with some comments on race a while back or asked why a gambling addict had the moral high ground to challenge anyone's ethics.

    He looked like a tertiary or end stage alcoholic while Pat Buchanan makes McCain look and sound positively youthful but they have the MSM bullhorn at the moment.

    by entlord1 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:56:40 AM PDT

  •  Don't be so sure

    HRC will be hacking away at Obama at least until the convention.  I really don't see how he can win in November if he must run against both the GOP and the DLC wing of the democratic party.

    Alternatively, if HRC is the nominee, she will go against McCain short of the democrats' key constituency, and will be destroyed.

    If I were betting on the November election, my money would be on McCain.

    by Subterranean on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:41:37 AM PDT

•  This should be the biggest story

  DoubleTalkExpress McCain loosing 28% of republican votes.

  by Observer on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:38:31 AM PDT

  •  Not necessarily

    A lot of those Huckabee voters probably have heavy reservations about McCain.

    It might be more likely they'd sit out an election rather than vote Dem over McCain.

    by Nulwee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:44:33 AM PDT

    •  McClown doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell

      That's why the MSM is so pro Hillary.  This is the last chance for Corporatists.

      McClown doesn't even have his team behind him.  I believe they assumed HRC we be our nominee (OK by the corporatists) and ran him out to give their party some mainstream cred knowing he (nor any repug) could win this time.  The rise of Obama has squelched that and they're using both McClown and HRC to try to derail the Obama train.

      by Urizen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:24:54 AM PDT

      •  Just a side note.

        The whole McClown thing doesnt come off very well, and it detracts from any message you may have had here.

        by John Erline on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:15:09 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, looks great on the surface.

      I had the same reaction as Observer when I first saw the numbers, but realized since McCain's already got the nomination anyway, there's no use voting for him - so folks voted for who they wanted anyway.  Call it a protest vote, whatever.

      That being said, it is worth noting, if for no other reason than that it's a good indication 25% (at least) don't prefer McCain. Not that we didn't already know McCain isn't energizing the Republican base.

      by pakaal on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:40:16 AM PDT

  •  I've talked to dozens of PA Republicans

    And have met few who express anything remotely like enthusiasm for him. Those who do praise him have little more to say about McCain beyond the vaguest of generalizations. At the other end, there are more who express scathing criticism of him. Doesn't mean they won't all vote for him in November, though. I recall that Bush's percentage in the 2004 NH primary was about as low as McCain's in PA this year.

    by smintheus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:23:26 AM PDT

    •  He's really a tired act

      8 years ago there was some juice in his story, but since then he's sold out to often to have any cred for people who actually care.

      by Urizen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:26:26 AM PDT

  •  Hey! My question to

    Joe Scaboro and Pat Buchanan - why can't McCain close the deal?

    Dudes, don't concentrate on swift-boating Obama - you guys have more serious issues!!

    by griz4u on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:35:05 AM PDT

•  Are the servers being attacked by Hillbots?

  Daily Kos is EXTREMELY SLOW, and even unresponsive, today.

  by Delaware Dem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:40:10 AM PDT

  •  The Civil War

    trolls are out this morning.

    by givemhellHarryR on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:41:50 AM PDT

    •  which civil war?

      So far the war has not been civil at all.

      by entlord1 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:13:37 AM PDT

  •  I, too, am having HUGE

    problems with this site only:  keep getting kicked off, comments not loading etc.  Sorry, to go o/t, but...

    by pamelabrown on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:42:59 AM PDT

  •  Off-Site Hosts of the Servers

    Intermittent problems with them for the last few weeks.  ct is on it.

    by DHinMI on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:43:24 AM PDT

    •  Thank you.

      I thought it was just me.

      by gchaucer2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:44:27 AM PDT

      •  Nah; I get

        Connecting to 208.122.51.48, and then nuthin'

        by PhillyGal on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:14:24 AM PDT

•  In 24-10, our dorm division,

  McCain managed to edge out Ron Paul 12 votes to 8.  And 450 democrats showed up to vote also.

  by IntertubeGuy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:40:16 AM PDT

•  i'm surprised that many voted

  where there other local elections or primaries on the ballot?  

  by arogue7 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:40:52 AM PDT

  •  In some cases....

    US House Republican primaries or (like in one township near me) a major vote on school funding (the final [maybe?] vote after a protracted nasty local fight).

    by mayim on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:54:20 AM PDT

•  "Over a quarter of the Republicans who showed...

  up voted against their certain nominee...."

  While this is undoubtedly a sign of weakness, the same could be said of more than half of Democrats.

  by Osaka on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:41:04 AM PDT

  •  No, It Can't

    Because nobody spent a cent against McCain, and everyone has conceded except Paul.  Not at all an apt comparison.

    by DHinMI on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:44:30 AM PDT

•  In spite of all the obvious advantages,

  in year that could be 1932, Democrats are managing to fuck it up yet again.

  by brooklynbadboy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:41:20 AM PDT

  •  Nothing is fucked up

    its April

    by givemhellHarryR on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:42:20 AM PDT

    •  I wish Billary was a prolonged April Fools joke

      eom

      by BigBensBeermaster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:51:20 AM PDT

  •  In 32 Dems nominated a NYer

    by bten on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:42:50 AM PDT

•  Most of the Ron Paul voters

  are anti-war voters and will vote for Obama in general and many of the Huckabee voters may stay home.

  Remember that Republicans hate McCain more than Democrats hate either of their remaining two candidates.

  by Observer on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:41:42 AM PDT

  •  I don't know about "most"

    Some will grudgingly vote Republican, some will vote Libertarian.

    Many will stay home.

    Obama will pick up a few - those like myself who would have been a Paul supporter had I stayed Republican and who put more emphasis on the war and government transparency than government size issues.

    I still believe the best thing for Democrats would have been if Paul took the Libertarian nomination which was offered to him.  That would have sealed the deal.

    by CA Libertarian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:21:36 AM PDT

•  Excuse my ignorance...

  ...but is this unusual (the presumptive nominee losing 25-28% of the vote?). It'd be interesting to look at previous primaries in both parties once it was "in the bag" and see if this is truly an indicator of weakness or just par-for-the-course.

  by vince on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:41:42 AM PDT

  •  Kerry got 74% of the PA vote in 2004.

    But Dean, Edwards and Kucinich were also on the ballot.

    by jeepdad on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:44:31 AM PDT

    •  Speaking of Kerry's vote

      I know your are referring to the Primary election in 2004 but another interesting nugget from yesterday is that the number of voters in the 2008 PA Democratic primary was equal to 78.3% of the total Kerry vote in the 2004 PA General Election.

      This is not an isolated occurence. It has happened in many states. For example, in Texas on March 4th, the number of Democratic voters was equal to 99.5% of the vote Kerry won in the 2004 GE there. The number for Ohio was also high at 79.8%.

      Interestingly in Michigan, the number was 24% and Florida, a bit better at 47%. Looks like having a campaign in a state is generally pretty important to turnout.

      by PointGuard on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:27:24 AM PDT

      •  I think this is key...

        Getting almost 80% of the last general election's vote in a PRIMARY (or 99.5% in Texas) is amazing. And remember that while the Dems lost Texas handily in 2004 (and thus had more room for growth), they actually won in Pennsylvania.

        So, 80% of what was itself a winning margin in a mere primary...that looks like a good sign to me.

        by LearningCurve on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:51:59 AM PDT

    •  Kerry

      Most of us Dems were just as disaffected with Kerry as the Repubs seem to be with McCain.

      I believe that is why so many Dems are so excited this year, they've found candidates they actually WANT to be their next President, as opposed to having to settle for someone.

      by Sporin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:42:51 AM PDT

    •  I'm inclined to think people are reading too much

      ...into this. Pennsylvanians are used to their primary votes not counting for squat; for the Republicans in our state, this year was like any other. I know my husband and I voted for Dean in 2004 even though Kerry had long since locked it up. It didn't mean we hated Kerry - we did it in the (admittedly forlorn) hope that Dean's ideas might be given greater weight by the nominee if it looked like he had a lot of support. Okay, it's weak, but by the time April rolls around, it's usually all we've got.

      At any rate, since affirming the presumptive nominee is basically irrelevant, I think it's entirely possible that voters can be sending a positive message ("I like Huckabee's ideas too") rather than necessarily a negative one ("I hate John McCain").

      by journeywoman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:00:34 AM PDT

      •  so true

        Very true. I think having the Repub nominee locked up makes it really easy for folks to vote their conscience (call it a protest vote if you want).  

        They can feel good about "still voting for Ron Paul" with the knowledge that they aren't really screwing over their #2 choice, (their party's #1 choice).

        by Sporin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34:50 AM PDT

      •  I'd agree...

        but then -- if the nomination had already been definitely decided --I'd decided to write in Edwards (if Obama had sewn it up, to be a reminder about economic issues) or Dodd (to remind Clinton about the existence of that pesky Constitution thing-y....).

        Not that I really think that my one vote would have really influenced the candidate but I would have tried.......

        by mayim on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:12:09 AM PDT

  •  No it's not

    I don't know why anyone is making a big deal out of this. In 2004, John Kerry only got 74% of the vote in the PA primary after he had clinched the nomination.

    by semiotica on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:44:52 AM PDT

•  Mitt should've kept his name on the ballot.

  He may have actually beat McCain in PA.

  by jeepdad on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:42:03 AM PDT

  •  Mitt's got better plans

    He's pushing real hard to be picked as the VP.

    by h bridges on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:21:19 AM PDT

  •  I think Mitt is keping his options open

    for the presidential nomination in case McCain's health fails or one or more of his scandals gain profitpress traction.

    by daliscar on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:57:39 AM PDT

•  Ok, I am going to ask

  teh stoopid question: "If Huckabee has been out of the race for a couple of months -- was his name left on the ballot because it was pre-printed or were these write-in votes?"  Sorry -- I should probably know the answer --mmm, but I don't.
  Thank you.

  by gchaucer2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:42:07 AM PDT

  •  probably pre-printed

    or pre-programmed for the paperless DRE machines.

    by reahti on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:45:03 AM PDT

    •  Thanks.

      I was kind of hoping it was write-ins which would seem more significant.

      by gchaucer2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:53:30 AM PDT

•  stop giving money to Dem primary

  I've given money to Obama this cycle and have not given any to Clinton.

  But I am not giving more money to any Presidential candidate until the general election.  They have enough to beat up on each other through June. Enough is enough. Even for Obama.

  I urge all to give money to Democrats in close races for the House, Senate, and even state & local races. This is where the money is needed. The endless primary fight between Obama and Clinton, with its ridiculous spending, is sucking money away from these other important races.  

  Imagine how many more Congressional races we could win, if half the money being spent on the Democratic presidential primary race was spent strategically for key Democratic House & Senate races.

  Most of us have a limited amount of disposable income to donate to political candidates. Let's invest more strategically!

  by DrSteveB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:42:33 AM PDT

  •  exactly right

    The focus now should be on McCain.  I'd give money to Progressive Media USA, but their Web site isn't working.

    by lawprofessor on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:53:29 AM PDT

  •  No way is the D*C getting any $$ from me!

    Not until Obama is the nom.

    I wont support the party of Hillary.  I'll be part of the majority that feels no one represents them.  I'll stay home in fall.

    I might leave my name on mailing lists so I can berate Hillary staffers, but I hope it wont have to come to that...

    by BigBensBeermaster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:54:15 AM PDT

    •  stupid...

      this is stupid Naderite speech.
      Clinton is less bad then McCain.

      by DrSteveB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:45:13 AM PDT

  •  Hear! Hear!

    by daliscar on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:58:31 AM PDT

•  MS-01 - Best news of the day

  The Democrat leading in a +10R district!  WOW!!!  and the republicans dropped over double what the dems spent!  just imagine what they will spend over the next ten days on this race.  we should organize a money bomb for Childers!

  by arogue7 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:43:11 AM PDT

•  Geez. I haven't been paying attention to the GOP

  I had no idea people were still casting protest votes against McCain. Damn.

  by droogie6655321 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:44:13 AM PDT

•  Progressive Media USA: get your act together!

  Far and away the most urgent task right now is to stop McCain and the MSM from defining him as a straight-talking maverick war hero -- if that's even possible.  If Progressive Media USA were set up to take donations, I'd have emptied my pockets by now.  They barely have a functional Web site.  Find me another organization that is focusing on going after McCain right now, and I'll get out my checkbook.

  by lawprofessor on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:44:37 AM PDT

•  that's the worst part of all of this

  We could be slamming McCain on everything from the war to the economy, make him run a loooooong campaign, exposing him. now he's sitting with his feet up & a big smile. he's the happiest guy in the world.

  by brocktunestudios on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:44:44 AM PDT

  •  Thank you Hillary *spits* -nt-

    by BigBensBeermaster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:55:01 AM PDT

•  The Repubs are gloating this morning

  about the "chaos" in the Democratic party. Barack ALONE
  won more than all three Repubs. Rub it in, boys.

  by Wildthumb on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:45:08 AM PDT

•  Obama should go

  He should gracefully bow out.  He can't beat McCain.  The only way many of us will vote for him is as Hillary's running mate.

  by sehinct on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:45:22 AM PDT

  •  Interesting How Many of These Comments...

    ...come from people newly registered to Daily Kos.

    by DHinMI on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:53:32 AM PDT

    •  Mark Penn

      Nice of Him To Post On Kos... :-) ... Now Has a lot of free time...

      by enflow on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:25:29 PM PDT

  •  In other news

    The Detroit Red Wings should drop out of the NHL playoffs.  They only won their first round series 4 games to 2! Any supposedly #1 seeded team that loses a third of their games to a #8 seed is obviously too weak to continue into the next round.  No, they simply must bow out now.

    by SLKRR on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:15:36 AM PDT

    •  So should the first place Montreal Canadiens ...

      ... who took seven games to defeat eigth seeded Boston Bruins.

      by jim bow on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:27:54 AM PDT

      •  Yes, you're right

        In fact, they should let the Bruins take their place in the second round!  The Bruins are obviously the stronger team because they made Montreal have to go to game 7 in order to win.

        by SLKRR on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:32:58 AM PDT

    •  As an Avalanche fan

      I wouldn't mind an extra week or so till the next series.  C'mon Red Wings.  Do the right thing!

      by ColoTim on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:44:21 AM PDT

  •  Looking At Those GOP Numbers/Ratios, It's Likely

    that the 25% of Clinton supporters who (now) say they will switch to McCain would not be enough to defeat the Democrats/Obama in November.

    by majcmb1 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:15:48 AM PDT

  •  Obama should go because he's what? Winning

    more races, more delegates, more votes?  Because he "can't beat" McInsane???  That's really funny.  The moment the public sees Barack Obama standing next to that old, old man who can't seem to get his story straight, this entire Rethuglican nightmare we've all lived through for almost 8 (gasp!) years will come to a screeching halt.  Barack Obama will give Old Man McInsane some civics lessons that will give that poor, flip-flopping torture survivor even more white hair.

    GOBAMA!!!

    by Little Lulu on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:26:52 AM PDT

•  Thank You!

  I've been wanting to point out those numbers all morning, but I usually try to stay out of "C" discussions.

  It isn't just PA either. I've been seeing similar huge number gaps throughout this thing.

  by Pariah Dog on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:54:13 AM PDT

•  Ron Paul's supporters

  I think they will mostly back Obama, I was one of them for a while until his campaign became completely non viable.  When you look at how BO and RP view civil liberties and the war on Iraq (arguably in the top 3 most important issues) their views are quite similar.

  by msc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:56:52 AM PDT

•  Good news!

  Obama has some coattails doesn't he?

  One of the best arguments against Clinton I can think of is the difference each will have on the down ticket races.

  If Clinton's nominated we can forget seeing things like this in red or purple states in November.

  She just can't fuel a victory like this.

  by baltogeek on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:00:02 AM PDT

•  Somebody should tell the news spokes-models...

  ...that Cinton needs to have numbers basically like McCain had in Pennsylvania for the rest of the primary season in order to overtake Obama.  Maybe they'd get it if we related to their buddy, McCain.

  But probably not even then.

  Matt

  by Matt Jordan on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:00:07 AM PDT

•  Can't wait to get to McCain...

  Unify these themes, then point out to the MSM/any GOoper:

  McCain is running unopposed, yet only averaging ~75% of the GOP vote.

  4 years ago, McCain lost the GOP primary to GWB, handily.

  What has McCain done over the past 4 years that makes him now any better than the worst president in polling history?

  (sit back, evade the sputtering)

  by OWCH on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:10:43 AM PDT

  •  8 years

    And he has spent those 8 years sucking up to the right wing instead of being any sort of maverick.

    by Sir Walter Raleigh on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:26:19 AM PDT

    •  oops

      Good point.

      by OWCH on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:28:44 AM PDT

•  irony

  Almost 60% of democrats voted against their almost certain nominee... must be a PA thing...

  by Nathan in MN on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:15:02 AM PDT

•  Is it Republican weakness

  when 700k people show up to vote in an election that has already been decided?  Is it really surprising that those who did take the time to show up are disproportionately protest votes?

  by Reframing the Debate on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:17:34 AM PDT

  •  Or more likely...

    ...they showed up to vote on state/local races.

    by Sir Walter Raleigh on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:28:42 AM PDT

    •  Right

      but either way (your way being more likely), my point remains that this should not be taken as indicative of Republican weakness.

      by Reframing the Debate on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:11:30 PM PDT

•  BREAKING!

  

  by voila on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:17:37 AM PDT

•  All the more reason to consider

  that McCain might not be the nominee coming out of the Republican Convention, which is held AFTER the Dems are finished with theirs.
  It's not inconceivable that McCain might be "incapacitated."  Or, perhaps he's a stalking horse, an understudy for the try-outs in the boonies.

  Do Republicans ever make much of a showing in the primaries?

  by hannah on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:17:47 AM PDT

•  Still a lot of disaffected Republican voters

  Paul support is still holding up - numbers are firming if anything.

  by CA Libertarian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:18:16 AM PDT

•  I find it very disturbing that a major

  publication like the LA TIMES would omit any reference to the numbers of voters in both races.  I believe these numbers should be at the forefront of every discussion.  There are millions MORE Dem voters than Rethuglicans in these primaries.  Let's keep repeating that fact so the public gets the message that the Rethuglican party is limping along with the 28% who still stand by their wildly unpopular "man."

  The LA TIMES today also characterized the wildly screaming crowds of thousands for Obama in an arena in Indiana last night as "subdued."  And described his face as "tight" while talking about Clinton's "terrific race" in PA.  Talk about spinning.  I call it boldface LYING.  So, so, so tired of the propaganda ruining this country.

  LONG LIVE BARACK OBAMA who's OBVIOUSLY winning the race for the nomination of the Democratic party.

  by Little Lulu on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:18:51 AM PDT

  •  They probably printed

    Before hard numbers were in.

    by iowabosox on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:22:40 AM PDT

    •  Riiiiight. n/t

      by Little Lulu on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:30:36 AM PDT

•  displeasure

  PA showed that many (most?) Pennsylvanians are not happy with their prospective candidates.  One problem might be the proportional allocation of delegates on the Dem side.  Primaries should run parallel to the general election--Hillary should have a chance to overtake barack if that's the last minute sentiment.  
  I don't care who wins--just want the one better positioned to defeat the evils. 2012 should have a nationwide primary--run as is the general--all in on one day.  It's like going to the dentist--get it done right and done quickly.  I prefer scotch to novacaine.

  by melvynny on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:23:05 AM PDT

•  Let's see...

  25% turned out to vote against the certain nominee of the Republican Party...

  And 55% turned out to vote against the certain nominee(according to you), of the Democratic Party...

  What does that say about Obama's weakness?

  by sonofkenny on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:28:41 AM PDT

•  Maverick ad idea

  As I remember my grade school US history, a maverick was an unbranded cow in the old west -- I think they were owned by a family named Maverick who didn't believe in branding.

  How 'bout an ad showing a maverick cow morphing into one with brands for interests/companies McC is allied with, along with a big ol' "More of Bush's Iraq War" billboarded on the ribs?

  And if not, hey, I'm just a wonk -- what do I know about messages and spinning. ;<)</p>

  by MaryCh on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:28:42 AM PDT

  •  That's too good

    Out take from some old western depicting branding- "In the old West, one ranacher didn't believe in branding, his name was "Maverick" and it came to pass his name would come to mean "independent" and "going against the grain". John McCain likes to think of himself as a "Maverick" or so he'd have you believe. . . (cut to a cartoon cow bellowing in pain every time a corporate brand is applied) McCain took X amount of dollars from- insert corporate thief name here as brand is applied, cow bellows, repeat several times.

    At end, voice over

    "Some Maverick, just the same old bad politics that has America in the mess we're in".

    Zoom in on bewildered cow, cut to black- "Vote Democratic this November because America can't afford another 4 years of the same old brands."

    Great idea!

    by Dave925 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:42:14 AM PDT

    •  Much better!

      I guess zooming to a steaming pie -- results of all the branding McC is taking on -- would be too graphic, tho...

      by MaryCh on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:47:00 AM PDT

      •  hahahah

        I like the pie idea.

        by Dave925 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:12:47 PM PDT

•  2004 v. 2008

  More than a quarter voted against John Kerry in PA in 2004.

  Don't know if we've progressed or regressed.

  by wanderindiana on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:29:09 AM PDT

  •  number of Dem votes, 2004

    789,882. Less than the number of GOP votes in 2008.

    There were three times that many Dem votes this year.

    However, I can't help but to think about where that energy would be directed if we had a clear-cut candidate today.

    by wanderindiana on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:42:13 AM PDT

•  Opportunity costs my *&&

  It's April.  The GE is in November.  The opportunity costs involved here won't buy a gallon of milk or gasoline.

  In 1976, Gerald Ford came back from 30% down to almost beat Jimmy Carter, after he had been pounded down by Ronald Reagan.  Ford might have won if he didn't have his "Poland not dominated by the Soviets" moment in the debate.

  If a political pipsqueak like Ford could come back from 30% down, Obama will be fine.

  Stop pre-blaming Clinton for Obama's fearfully predicted November loss.  He's got plenty of time to hypothetically lose that election all by himself.

  by h bridges on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:36:57 AM PDT

•  Indeed

  I do not buy into the idea that the extended race is such a negative for the Democrats. I think the numbers you quote are evidence of this. McSame may not be getting hammered that hard yet, but neither is he getting much attention. The news today is all Obama/Clinton, all the time.
  Generally I doubt that most people who are not political junkies, which is after all the majority of voters, pay much attention to the presidential race until late summer. What attention they are paying is because the Clinton/Obama race is getting so much coverage.
  The grass roots organizations being set up in all the states for the primary will still be there to use in November, and with McSames early victory the Republicans are not getting the advantage of creating experienced, energized ground campaigns everywhere.
  What does worry me is the possibilty of a real split in the Democratic party. The hard feelings between Obama and Clinton supporters are running very high right now. Paradoxically I think the best way to heal this split is for the race to continue.
  HRC's supporters will never come back to the Democratic fold if they feel their candidate was forced out prematurely. You can argue all you want that since there's no chance for her to win then it's not premature, but it's perception that counts here and her supporters find the continual calls for her to drop out insulting.
  I'm with Howard Dean in calling for the Supers to decide by the time the last vote is cast. I do believe that a convention fight would be very harmful, but early July is enough time to go after Bush's doppleganger.
  If we let the process play out, I feel we can be certain that Obama will be the nominee, and that he will mop the floor with the Senator from Az.

  by fat old man on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:41:57 AM PDT

•  "And people like him better!"

  "And he wasn't even IN the senate when I voted for the war!"

  It's so unfair.  HRC's a shitty candidate who argues that the fact that Obama is only beating her by x amount means that he's shitty too.

  by Inland on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:43:48 AM PDT

•  i hope this isn't against the rules

  but I actually posted a diary about this last night (link)after noticing it too

  And I agree that this is a serious probelm for McCain especially because PA is already leaning dem

  by drache on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:48:19 AM PDT

•  A good part of the OR Rs don't like him either

  No shock honestly.  I know out here the racist wing of the Oregon Republican Party really really really doesn't like McSame.  Which is why putting Obama up is a good thing because they hate the Clintons evne more.

  by skywaker9 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:57:36 AM PDT

•  Opportunity knocks.

  If I'm not mistaken, Bob Barr will be running as the Libertarian Party candidate and Alan Keyes as the [undermine-the-] Constitution Party nominee.  Last night's Repub results suggest a golden opportunity to peel votes from McCain.

  Let's hope some big Dem donors slip these two "parties" enough dough to do a "Nader" on McCain.

  by deepeco on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:23:10 AM PDT

•  One problem were all the attacks from McCain

  on McCain.   And then again he didn't really campaign much either.

  It must be really hard for the republicans to vote for him when he keeps attacking himself like that.

  He really should go easier on himself.

  by toys on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:27:03 AM PDT

•  And this isn't just passive dislike from a poll

  These are R's who went out to a polling station to vote against Mccain and for candidates who not only can't win, but who have withdrawn from the race (Paul formally withdrew, right?).  Its hard for me to imagine any such voter then turning around to vote for McCain in the general election.  And these primary voters are the hard core republicans.  The base, who the party relies on for organizing and fnudraising etc.  25% of them seems to hate the party's nominee.  w00t!  

  by kahner on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:44:26 AM PDT

•  Can we keep to the subject ???

  Why are people not discussing the POINT of this thread. That a race in mississippi was very close to turning Dem, and still can.

  How about supporting HIM, and not arguing O v C...at least in this thread.

  Here's his website...

  http://www.childersforcongress.com/...

  by squirecam on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:56:14 AM PDT

  •  my bad

    meant for childers thread, got accidently posted here..

    by squirecam on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:57:14 AM PDT