Primary Thread 3: Race to Denver

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Nubclear
So do you have any reasons, or is it just "LOL LOOK GUYZ AT HOW ANGRY I AM!!!1" internet posturing?

I thought I was fairly clear.

You don't think moderates wouldn't be a bit unhappy with "progressive" politics?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
What we need right now is someone to be competinent and to undo the evil things the Bush administration has done. I don't care one bit about inspiration.

JM

But first, we need someone who can beat the Republicans (and drag them through the streets behind their chariots, sell their children into slavery, burn their homes to the ground, and sow their fields with salt). I've never in my life voted based on "electability" (and, in fact, I've never voted in a primary for a candidate who ultimately got nominated) -- but throwing the GOP out of power before they can take us any further down the road we're on is more important to me than the particular qualities of any candidate they Dems could put forward at this point. Seriously, I'd support a second term for Jimmy Cater before I'd vote to let the GOP keep the White House for 4 more years.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You don't think moderates wouldn't be a bit unhappy with "progressive" politics?

Oh, I forgot, all moderates in the United States place the exact same weight on all of the exact same issues.

Seriously, why can't you just answer the question?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Nubclear
Seriously, why can't you just answer the question?

I thought I was fairly clear.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Are all these folks just that wrong? Why is what they appear to see in that campaign in error?

I'm not saying that they are wrong, I'm saying you are. Your suspicions of a cult of personality were ill-formed, bizarre, and lame. I haven't read "these folks" yet, of course.

They're good articles (I've read them now) - Though what struck me immediately was the fact that the sentence after your quote of Joe Klein in his essay was "That is not unprecedented." I'm inclined to say that Klein is right on - the Obama campaign has been undoubtedly about inspiration rather than substance. Klein is also correct that the "message" often has trouble reaching outside his key demographics.

All in all, it's a very good analysis of campaign strategies. Klein, however, never pulls out "cult of personality" because presumably he knows the difference between a heroic cult of infallibility and a purposefully vague and inspiration-driven campaign. He is able to do what you, so far, have not.

Look, I'd be lying if I said that it didn't creep me out a bit too. What Hillary says is essentially correct - she has been tested, he hasn't been; she is more direct on policy positions than he is. She has more experience in Washington. The comparative lack of substance bothers me too, not because I fear a cult of personality but because I am inclined to view all of this as a concerted campaign strategy that is as able to mislead as anybody else's, especially so given the campaign's reticence to discuss some issues.

The "message" of hope and change has been conflated with Obama. What "change" and "hope" did he have to offer that Edwards didn't? Saying they went after different audiences is a bit silly as well. Are you really saying that Edwards wasn't trying to get the working man African-American vote? Saying its about the message (and the mindless droning of "Yes, We Can") and not the man appears incredibly naive.

So Obama is better at donning the rhetorical mantle of "change." So what? His campaign is better? Yes, we already knew that - it's why he's in the race now and Edwards is out. "Cult of personality" does not follow.

You know as well as I that Edwards was deliberately targeting the same people that are largely on Hillary's side right now - the working class, blue collar folks who the "mill speech" appealed to. Edwards was the Union Man and Obama is decidedly not. Of course every candidate tries to get every demographic (save perhaps Hillary and black people, as it seems she's resigned to losing that battle), but it's pretty clear that the Obama and Edwards campaigns and speeches targeted very different groups, even though some overlap always exists.

To attribute this group of folks who are enamored with Obama, thinks he can do no wrong, and the rest of us are misguided folk, as the same as every other campaign is a bit silly. You'd think that people would be speaking out about similar folks on the Clinton side or the McCain side. There is hero worship by a few in every campaign, but the Obama hero worship has gotten the press. There is a reason for that. Because it appears that unlike the other campaigns, it is more than few people in that campaign that are following in the cult of personality. I mean, what, do you want to poll every single Obama supporter to validate an opinion that a number of folks have?

Again, you're jumping to "cult of personality" and "hero worship" in an unprecedented manner. More people seem to be excited about Obama than Hillary. I made phone calls for Obama in the days leading up to the CA primary; a Republican I talked to told me that she had been impressed by the fact that she had met and heard from so many volunteers for Obama, where her only contact with Clinton had been automated Hillary voice messages. Supporters in the primaries understandably want to talk about their candidate's strengths, not his/her weaknesses. If Obama candidates are more excited and more vocal, you'll end up hearing more of that "accentuate the positive" message. What exactly is so different or unusual about that?

After all, it seems the assertion that the right's worship of Reagan is a cult of personality has gone unchallenged. Perhaps his partisans were/are simply more numerous and enthusiastic?

It's always easier to call a cult of personality in hindsight. Reagan has a long record, and one can point to stark inconsistencies between that record and conservative ideals, even though modern conservatives hail him as essentially the perfect arch-republican. Reagan's not running for election; his supporters are under no pressure to be "on message" in support of their candidate like Obama's are right now. Even with the man six feet under, however, he is venerated despite these problematic differences, because he "made America feel good about itself again." More importantly, however, his name is conservatism; when McCain wanted to paint himself as a solid conservative he put out ads that called him a "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution." It wasn't about his support for conservative issues or his conservative voting record, it was about his proximity and loyalty to Reagan, as if that alone was enough to secure him a place in Reagan's conservative pantheon. The differences between that and Obama's campaign should be fairly clear.

Or perhaps, your cheering for Obama has somewhat blinded you to it. Or perhaps you also engage in hero worship, who knows?

I was a Hillary supporter early in this campaign; I still have reservations about Obama. I, however, have not accused you of being a shill, just wrong, and I'd appreciate if you extended the same courtesy to me.

[Tassadar500]

Imran, you are an awful person and should stop posting immediately.

[Nubclear]

Did Obama rape your mother or something? The fact that you are seemingly unable to articulate anything beyond "im a moderate -_-" is somewhat bizarre for a man who says that advocacy regarding a candidate based on pure emotion is bad.

Again, I extend an invitation for you to begin talking about things that actually matter rather than hiding behind meaningless labels

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Nubclear
Did Obama rape your mother or something? The fact that you are seemingly unable to articulate anything beyond "im a moderate -_-" is somewhat bizarre for a man who says that advocacy regarding a candidate based on pure emotion is bad.

Again, I extend an invitation for you to begin talking about things that actually matter rather than hiding behind meaningless labels

Racial politics are not uncommon for Imran's kind

See: Darfur

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Why all the hate for Imran?

I think his position on Hillary vs. Obama is perfectly reasonable. Obama is untested, untried, and running as a bit of an empty vessel into which everyone can pour their hope for change. That bothers some people more than others (it bothers my wife more than it bothers me, for example), but it's not an unreasonable criticism.

I do think it's foolish to suggest that Obama has more of a "cult of personality" than Hillary does, or that Obama supporters are bigger "haters." I think there's no evidence of that, and plenty of evidence to the contrary (the contrary being that a small subset of their supporters are equally bad in this regard).

I also think it's foolish to see Edwards' defeat as a sign of an Obama cult, rather than what it was -- a sign that even people who largely agreed with his platform (e.g., me and my whole extended family) considered him an untrustworthy douchebag who's Senate record (what little there is of it, given that he rarely bothered to show up) was totally at odds with the snake oil he was trying to sell this year.

But I don't see the need to pile on Imran, who's a much needed voice of reason around here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
They're good articles (I've read them now) - Though what struck me immediately was the fact that the sentence after your quote of Joe Klein in his essay was "That is not unprecedented." I'm inclined to say that Klein is right on - the Obama campaign has been undoubtedly about inspiration rather than substance.

So instead of substance it is about his inspirational personality? What exactly is style (as opposed to substance) when you speak of a politician?

Klein, however, never pulls out "cult of personality" because presumably he knows the difference between a heroic cult of infallibility and a purposefully vague and inspiration-driven campaign. He is able to do what you, so far, have not.

You mean saying "mass messianism" doesn't indicate a heroic cult? Messiah doesn't go as far as it once did, eh?

So Obama is better at donning the rhetorical mantle of "change." So what? His campaign is better? Yes, we already knew that - it's why he's in the race now and Edwards is out. "Cult of personality" does not follow.

It seems to follow that mindless slogans for "change" (especially the "Yes we can" junk) follow from a cult of personality.

You know as well as I that Edwards was deliberately targeting the same people that are largely on Hillary's side right now - the working class, blue collar folks who the "mill speech" appealed to.

If you don't think Edwards tried to appeal to black working men as he did to white working men, you weren't paying attention.

It's always easier to call a cult of personality in hindsight. Reagan has a long record, and one can point to stark inconsistencies between that record and conservative ideals, even though modern conservatives hail him as essentially the perfect arch-republican. Reagan's not running for election; his supporters are under no pressure to be "on message" in support of their candidate like Obama's are right now. Even with the man six feet under, however, he is venerated despite these problematic differences, because he "made America feel good about itself again." More importantly, however, his name is conservatism; when McCain wanted to paint himself as a solid conservative he put out ads that called him a "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution." It wasn't about his support for conservative issues or his conservative voting record, it was about his proximity and loyalty to Reagan, as if that alone was enough to secure him a place in Reagan's conservative pantheon. The differences between that and Obama's campaign should be fairly clear.

It appears (I wasn't there) that during his 1980 campaign and prior to that, in 1976, it was quite obvious that a cult of personality was growing around Reagan. You didn't need hindsight to see that. His 1984 campaign commericals about and speeches about a "City on the Hill" seem to attest to the type of hero worship his supporters saw in him.

I, however, have not accused you of being a shill, just wrong, and I'd appreciate if you extended the same courtesy to me.

I just though that the whole " At times you don't even seem to know what a cult of personality is." seemed to indicate "shill", so I was giving some same medicine.

[q=Nubclear]The fact that you are seemingly unable to articulate anything beyond "im a moderate -_-" is somewhat bizarre for a man who says that advocacy regarding a candidate based on pure emotion is bad. [/q]

If someone claimed they were a moderate Republican in response to why they don't like the Religious Right, would you be so confused as to why they didn't like the RR?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Why all the hate for Imran?

It's the Obama cultists in action

[Ramo]

Apparently the Obama cult now comprises almost 2/3 of the VA Dem electorate. He's statistically tied among white people (down by 1%) and up by 10% among Latinos. This is a brutal stomping. Let's see how ridiculous the DC results will be.

[GePap]

Brook's latest column in the Times is a good piece about what any democratic president will face, and what worries me is that the progrssive part of the Dem. party doesn;t seem to get that democrats won't be able to 'change' much of anything, unless there is a huge Democratic congressional sweep come November.

When a possible President Obama faces the music and has to cut deals, the people who put him up there from the progressive side will explode..... The same would not happen with Hillary, since the progressives already think she will sell them out, which will have to be done anyways.

[GePap]

While McCain beats Huck in Virginia, Huck got over 40% of the vote.....

Also, Republican turnout is vastly smaller than Democratic turnout, and this is Virginia...

[Impaler[WrG]]

It appears that Huck is consolidating all remaining Anti-McCain voters, this is surprising because fiscal conservatives don't like him (he committed sin of raising taxes) and had placed all their hopes on Romney, with him out I had thought they would admit defeat.

A truly brutal stomping in D.C. would be 80/20, a total blowout would keep Hillary below the viability threshold of 15% giving Obama all delegates but thats almost certainly not going to happen.