CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Democratic Pessimism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Democratic Pessimism

post #1 of 52
10/22/08 at 2:15pm
Thread Starter 
Knock it right the fuck out.
Reply
post #2 of 52
10/22/08 at 2:26pm
2000.

2004.

It's not completely unjustified.
Reply
post #3 of 52
10/22/08 at 2:27pm
I think it's more democratic paranoia than pessimism.
Reply
post #4 of 52
10/22/08 at 2:29pm
Thread Starter 
I agree that it's probably more paranoia, but being this close to the finish line, the last thing we need to be is grumpy and down about the whole process. Show a little confidence. It's out of your hands now.
Reply
post #5 of 52
10/22/08 at 2:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny View Post
It's out of your hands now.
No, it's not. It's entirely in our hands.
Reply
post #6 of 52
10/22/08 at 2:36pm
Thread Starter 
Once you vote it's out of your hands (I've voted already), I meant to say. Sure, go out and try to get as many people to vote as you can. But I think we should stop fixating on the process because I don't think it helps anything.
Reply
post #7 of 52
10/22/08 at 2:39pm
Today (in PA) I heard an Obama radio ad. It was beyond "not negative". It didn't even reference the other candidate. It was just snippets of Obama speeches ("change doesn't come from Washington, change comes TO Washington", etc.), with cheering, then instructions on where to go to vote. Ha ha.
Reply
post #8 of 52
10/22/08 at 2:45pm
This morning's paper says that the crazy Bachmann woman's opponent had a huge uptick in donations after her "let's find out who is anti-American" rant, and her vanquished primary opponent was even motivated to launch a write-in campaign. So I feel a little better about democracy today.
Reply
post #9 of 52
10/22/08 at 2:47pm
But Alan, the process is a huge part of the problem, and people only pay attention to it three times per decade at most. There is good reason to believe that Republicans will try to illicitly tamper with the vote in several battleground states, and a vigilant, aware, and mildly paranoid electorate is the best way to fight back.

Voting machines should be legendary, and there should be a non-partisan government agency which actively registers voters. If the American people can't be sold on election reform during a dysfunctional election, when?
Reply
post #10 of 52
10/22/08 at 2:48pm
AP presidential poll: All even in the homestretch

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.

The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.

Three weeks ago, an AP-GfK survey found that Obama had surged to a seven-point lead over McCain, lifted by voters who thought the Democrat was better suited to lead the nation through its sudden economic crisis.
The contest is still volatile, and the split among voters is apparent less than two weeks before Election Day.
Reply
post #11 of 52
10/22/08 at 2:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
Please explain your point.
Reply
post #12 of 52
10/22/08 at 2:53pm
My point is very simple. Some of these polls are all over the place, people shouldn't be taking out the champagne yet. What's wrong with a little bit of pessimism and lowered expectations? That ought to motivate people to vote and to encourage others to vote, getting too confident in a win (even a BIG win) is not really positive if you want your side to win.
Reply
post #13 of 52
10/22/08 at 2:53pm
I think he's giving that as a reason for Democratic pessimism.

<Polls moved to election thread>
Reply
post #14 of 52
10/22/08 at 2:55pm
Gotcha Cap. In my head the thread was more about pessimism towards the democratic process, but I see your point.
Reply
post #15 of 52
10/22/08 at 3:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
My point is very simple. Some of these polls are all over the place, people shouldn't be taking out the champagne yet. What's wrong with a little bit of pessimism and lowered expectations? That ought to motivate people to vote and to encourage others to vote, getting too confident in a win (even a BIG win) is not really positive if you want your side to win.
Cap, in all honestly, why don't you just post this in the fucking first place? Your point is simple NOW. Your knee-jerk link/quoting in every thread boggles my mind.

As for pessimism, I don't mind it. Clearly.
Reply
post #16 of 52
10/22/08 at 3:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Matchstick View Post
Cap, in all honestly, why don't you just post this in the fucking first place? Your point is simple NOW. Your knee-jerk link/quoting in every thread boggles my mind.
I'm too busy finish my post about the Obama rally. But I thought the point was clear ...
Reply
post #17 of 52
10/22/08 at 3:04pm
Well, ElCapitan has spelled out his thoughts on the AP before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
I love these AP "analysis" stories, they are all consistently wrong no matter which candidate they favor.
That combined with the fact that the article sounds preposterously exagerrative, led me to believe he posted it as an example of how even ludicrous items foster the pessimism.
Reply
post #18 of 52
10/22/08 at 3:05pm
Wow, Matchstick, you sound pretty seriously.
Reply
post #19 of 52
10/22/08 at 3:06pm
Thread Starter 
I'm not saying it's in the bag at all, Cap. What I'm saying is that people need to have a little faith in the process. If it gets fucked up on 11/5, hell yeah, go nuts. Are there voting problems? Yes, of course. Nothing is 100% foolproof. But I've read places where D's are so down on the whole thing that they're convinced that they're going to lose. I'm confident, not cocky, and I think that shit does us a disservice. Vote, smile, and be happy we live in a democracy.

I'm sure tons of you will hop in at this point and give me all sorts of useless stats that won't change my mind at all but hey, it'll sure make yourselves feel a little better. I'm saying that we're close - let's solve the big voting problems that come up if we can, but democracy still does work. I have to believe that, because if I didn't, and you don't, then it's really time to leave.
Reply
post #20 of 52
10/22/08 at 3:06pm
Really guys?
Reply
post #21 of 52
10/22/08 at 3:09pm
Not to dwell on a single poll too much, but the AP article itself provides some more context:

All respondents (1,101 sampled): 47 O, 37 M
Likely voters (800): 44 O, 43 M
Registered voters (not specified): +5 O

Five-day poll, from Thursday to Monday. Or from just after the last debate to just after Powell's endorsement. There was definitely some contraction right after the last debate, but this is not an up-to-the-minute poll. That's also a silly amount of undecideds, unless they just didn't publish 4-5% voting for Barr/Nader.
Reply
post #22 of 52
10/22/08 at 3:16pm
I like pessimism, it's far more important to be a realist than an idealist. Still, being a pessimist doesn't absolve you of civic duty. Grumble all the way to the polls and back if you must, but just go and do it.
Reply
post #23 of 52
10/22/08 at 3:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Floyd View Post
Not to dwell on a single poll too much, but the AP article itself provides some more context:

All respondents (1,101 sampled): 47 O, 37 M
Likely voters (800): 44 O, 43 M
Registered voters (not specified): +5 O

Five-day poll, from Thursday to Monday. Or from just after the last debate to just after Powell's endorsement. There was definitely some contraction right after the last debate, but this is not an up-to-the-minute poll. That's also a silly amount of undecideds, unless they just didn't publish 4-5% voting for Barr/Nader.
Any poll conducted over five days with 265 people per day and using an LV sample that shaves off 6 points in an election year with this kind of enthusiasm gap is an Outlier. Capital O.
Reply
post #24 of 52
10/22/08 at 3:37pm
This thread exemplifies the problem with obsessive daily political handicapping. I think most Democrats are feeling fairly optimistic, but maintaining their energy. It's only the folks who are paying attention to the tiny shifts in the polls from day-to-day who seem to get overwhelmed by excessive optimism and pessimism. When you analyze massive, nation-wide trends on an hourly, daily, or even weekly basis, you're going to tend to overreact.

I mean, Nordling (no offense) is now railing against pessimism, but just last week, he seemed genuinely concerned about Palin gaining credibility through her appearance on SNL. Maybe I was reading too much into his post on that, but that seemed hugely pessimistic.

In any case, how about we stay level-headed? We don't have to be overly pessimistic to stay motivated, and we don't have to be overly optimistic to feel pretty good about Obama's odds.
Reply
post #25 of 52
10/22/08 at 3:44pm
Guardedly optimistic is my outlook in life. The AP has to be viewed as an outlier, and it focuses on the one part of their poll that makes it a close race. Grain of salt, that. It's not over, and that should never be taken for granted.

That said, in 2000 the attitude was - at the time - eh. We didn't know how bad Bush would be. 2004 was different, but - honestly - most Dems were not that enthused about Kerry. Kerry was the date you took to the party not because you wanted to go with them, but because you didn't want to go alone.
Reply
post #26 of 52
10/22/08 at 3:44pm
Go yell at Chris Rock, Nordling:

Quote:
Originally Posted by me paraphrasing Chris Rock
Obama acts like he thinks he's gonna win fair and square...they're gonna tell him with a straight face, "congrats on getting the most votes. Too bad ya lost...yeah, we don't really do it like that anymore..."
Reply
post #27 of 52
10/22/08 at 3:44pm
Thread Starter 
That wasn't hugely pessimistic, and in retrospect, a little silly, considering it seemed like she was completely out of her element there. I rode the rollercoaster just like everyone else. I guess that since I've voted now, I feel a little better about things, especially since even here in Texas I'm sensing some kind of difference. Our newspaper endorsed Obama, and Rick Noriega for Senate (both Ds) against McCain and John Cornyn, respectively, and this is a paper who never met a Republican they didn't fall in love with. So maybe I'm feeling a bit better these days. Not enough to lower any vigilance, but better.
Reply
post #28 of 52
10/22/08 at 3:51pm
Quick question and this seems the place to ask it....

Does anyone here recall another election in their lifetime that had as many people in all the various areas of your lives so concerned with the outcome?

I ask only as it seems with the stakes so high and the choices so starkly defined, I'm seeing (and hearing!) a massively larger volume of thoughts, concerns, fears and hopes this year than in any other including the first election I was fully conscious of(1980).
Reply
post #29 of 52
10/22/08 at 5:08pm
When Reagan got elected, it was pretty bizarre. And although 2000 was stolen, it wasn't as much of a shock as 2004 was. I think people got way over-confident in 2004, and, as Obama says, "snatched failure from the jaws of victory" through complacency and battered wife syndrome.

Considering the millions of voters who are being cast off the rolls and a probable battery of dirty tricks rolling out over the next two weeks, I wouldn't call this feeling pessimism. More like cautious optimism tempered with a willingness to not let your guard down until it's over. Also:

*keep tabs on local voting shenanigans in your state and call your board of elections or secretary of state to complain; and

*if you have time on election day, volunteer to be a poll watcher or driver.
Reply
post #30 of 52
10/22/08 at 5:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
Quick question and this seems the place to ask it....

Does anyone here recall another election in their lifetime that had as many people in all the various areas of your lives so concerned with the outcome?

I ask only as it seems with the stakes so high and the choices so starkly defined, I'm seeing (and hearing!) a massively larger volume of thoughts, concerns, fears and hopes this year than in any other including the first election I was fully conscious of(1980).
2004.
Reply
post #31 of 52
10/22/08 at 5:25pm
I work better when I'm feeling defeated. Meaning, I donate more money and am more passionate in defending my candidate in debates and discussion if he's being portrayed as the underdog, or the longshot.

I've voted three times in my life. Clinton's last two years as President were marred with scandal and controversy, and made me a bit ashamed of the party. And then of course, 2000 and 2004 were just devastating blows--2000 in particular, because it was hard belonging to a party who refused to fight and take it to the mattresses.

Barack Obama succeeding seems too good to be true, and the Jimmy Carter comparisons are making me anxious. I want him to win, but I don't want him to be a one term President, or a laughing stock, or to turn the country against Democrats for a decade.

Too soon?
Reply
post #32 of 52
10/22/08 at 5:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny View Post
That wasn't hugely pessimistic, and in retrospect, a little silly, considering it seemed like she was completely out of her element there. I rode the rollercoaster just like everyone else. I guess that since I've voted now, I feel a little better about things, especially since even here in Texas I'm sensing some kind of difference. Our newspaper endorsed Obama, and Rick Noriega for Senate (both Ds) against McCain and John Cornyn, respectively, and this is a paper who never met a Republican they didn't fall in love with. So maybe I'm feeling a bit better these days. Not enough to lower any vigilance, but better.
Come on Nordling, The Houston Chronicle has loved many a Democrat. Give them a little credit.
Reply
post #33 of 52
10/22/08 at 5:44pm
No, I think it's healthy to be paranoid and/or pessimistic at this point, as long as it's not resignation. Panic is good. I like to think Obama's people are on top of the fears about vote tampering, and that the margin is too strong for them to steal it, but it's going to require a lot of work and vigilance from a lot of people to make sure everything runs smoothly. And it's much, much better to catch this crap NOW instead of rioting on Nov 5th--even if that makes a difference and the election is awarded to Obama thanks to legal action, the narrative will forever be "DEMOCRATS STOLE THE ELECTION!!!!" Hell, the GOP are already laying the groundwork for it in the event of a landslide, which is so brazen it would almost be funny if...well, you know.

Fret now. Celebrate on the 5th. Just imagine how much better it'll feel then.
Reply
post #34 of 52
10/22/08 at 5:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CocoaSugarbaker View Post
Too soon?
Too soon. Relax.
Reply
post #35 of 52
10/22/08 at 5:50pm
2000 was stolen.

2004 was having a bad nominee.
Reply
post #36 of 52
10/22/08 at 6:01pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HBarr View Post
Come on Nordling, The Houston Chronicle has loved many a Democrat. Give them a little credit.
It's the first time the Chronicle has supported a Democrat for President since 1964. As far as senators go, I can't remember the last time they supported a Democrat, although I'm sure they've done it. They also supported the Democratic nominee for Sheriff this year and the paper's hawkish as hell when it comes to law enforcement. It's a bit of a sea change for them.
Reply
post #37 of 52
10/22/08 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic Boom View Post
2000 was stolen.

2004 was having a bad nominee.
AND having the lection stolen. Ever heard of a fellow named Kenneth Blackwell?
Reply
post #38 of 52
10/23/08 at 9:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny View Post
It's the first time the Chronicle has supported a Democrat for President since 1964. As far as senators go, I can't remember the last time they supported a Democrat, although I'm sure they've done it. They also supported the Democratic nominee for Sheriff this year and the paper's hawkish as hell when it comes to law enforcement. It's a bit of a sea change for them.

Let's be fair here. How many of those years was a Bush on the ticket? We both know the Bushs have an unhealthy amount of support in Texas. The Chronicle has supported many a Democratic candidate on a local and state level (which quite frankly has more of an impact on citizens).
Reply
post #39 of 52
10/23/08 at 10:50am
Bush on the ticket 80, 84, 88, 92, 00, 04

No Bush on the ticket in 68, 72, 76, 96

60/40 split.
Reply
post #40 of 52
10/23/08 at 10:59am
Another interesting factoid;

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...h_no_bush.html

1928: Last GOP win with no Bush, Nixon

1928.
The last time the Republicans won an election for the White House without a George Bush or Richard Nixon on the party's ticket.
Credit Chris Matthews and the Hardball crew at MSNBC for this statement of the obvious, which draws an 80-year span of elections dominated by just a couple of names in GOP politics.
(OK, Nixon had a little help from Dwight D. Eishenhower in the 50s. And yes, the former President Bush's vice presidency had an awful lot to do with that top of the ticket fellow, Ronald Reagan. But facts are facts.)
Reply
post #41 of 52
10/23/08 at 11:10am
Unless you are at least 50 years old, you have never voted in a presidential election without a Bush or a Cinton on the ticket. Until this year.
Reply
post #42 of 52
10/28/08 at 10:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny View Post
Knock it right the fuck out.
Bumped for all you negative nancies on the mega thread.
Reply
post #43 of 52
10/28/08 at 10:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post
Bumped for all you negative nancies on the mega thread.
Optimism isn't in my nature. It's a shitty way to go through life.
Reply
post #44 of 52
10/28/08 at 11:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew S. View Post
Optimism isn't in my nature. It's a shitty way to go through life.
At least we're never disappointed.
Reply
post #45 of 52
10/28/08 at 11:59pm
I can tell ya reading Drudge does not help things.
Reply
post #46 of 52
10/29/08 at 12:07am
I've been catching myself being overly optimistic all week. On the 4th, I'll be up late drinking. If we win, I'll end the night with a celebration. If we lose, I might not stop.

There's a big difference between being pessimistic and realistic.
Reply
post #47 of 52
10/29/08 at 12:08am
Fuckers can't have this thread without me....


I've already called off for Nov 5 to lick my wounds, or celebrate.

We should have a "call a chewer" thread so we can cheer "AYYYYYYY!" or cry "BOLLOCKS!"
Reply
post #48 of 52
10/29/08 at 12:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
I can tell ya reading Drudge does not help things.
Reading Drudge doesn't help anybody.
Reply
post #49 of 52
10/29/08 at 12:40am
Reading Drudge harms America.
Reply
post #50 of 52
10/29/08 at 1:28pm
Reading Drudge harms kittens.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Democratic Pessimism