Brilliantly illustrated analysis of why Capatilism screws us.

[Anonymous]

Dont worry. This is not going to happen.

...he says from the safety of Merry Olde England...

 

[Anonymous]

That is marketing, not reporting.

And Scott, the actual articles are balanced. The editorials. are not. The problem is that all you ever hear from the right are about the editorials. You may believe you know what you are talking about, but I assure you that if you read an article and it appears to have a "liberal bias," it is because sometimes, reality has a liberal bias. Their reporters work by an oath that they, to the best of their ability, report the news, not their opinion. Their editorial writers are under no such ethic. Sorry, but if you read the paper, you would know this.

PS. BTW, how many days every week do you read the NYT to know what you are talking about?

William McGowan, Grey Lady Down.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/16/the_blindness_of_the_times_107965.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/1110/McGowan_NYT_is_Don_Draper_of_Democratic_party.html

Here's an interview that may interest you;

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gray-lady-down-an-interview-with-author-william-mcgowan/

I'm sure you will discount this;

http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/

But to answer your question... no I don't read the Times everyday. I do read the Times (online) frequently, mostly the politics page and I try to never miss a Krugman op ed.

Edit: Of the entire NY Times journalistic staff, what percentage do you think votes Democrat?

 

[The Hitch]

But to answer your question... no I don't read the Times everyday. I do read the Times (online) frequently, mostly the politics page and I try to never miss a Krugman op ed.

Which reminds me. Nyt should have done more to punish Dowd. If I get caught plagarising, even a sentence, i can get thrown out of university, a black mark and lose everything ive worked for. Her plagarism was quite serious. Really serious. Americas most high profile columnist should not be caught doing that.

...he says from the safety of Merry Olde England...

Safety?

Dude, we have the Darwin museum and a lenient attitude towards homosexuality.

If Palin becomes president we are next on the nuke list behind Berkley and Vermont.


Charlotte on the other hand, is way to close to Bob Jones University to risk it.

 

[L29205]

Safety?

Dude, we have the Darwin museum and a lenient attitude towards homosexuality.

If Palin becomes president we are next on the nuke list behind Berkley and Vermont.


Charlotte on the other hand, is way to close to Bob Jones University to risk it.

Sorry, your ahead of Vermont. Where would the Wall Street exec's go to see the fall colors??

 

[Anonymous]

William McGowan, Grey Lady Down.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/16/the_blindness_of_the_times_107965.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/1110/McGowan_NYT_is_Don_Draper_of_Democratic_party.html

Here's an interview that may interest you;

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gray-lady-down-an-interview-with-author-william-mcgowan/

I'm sure you will discount this;

http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/

But to answer your question... no I don't read the Times everyday. I do read the Times (online) frequently, mostly the politics page and I try to never miss a Krugman op ed.

Edit: Of the entire NY Times journalistic staff, what percentage do you think votes Democrat?

None of that proves a "liberal bias" by reporters.

Why don't you tell me how many vote Democrat Scott. Neither of us knows, so asking a question like that is editorial and not genuine. I want you to go to the page today, read all of the stories, and show me the imbalance IN THE ACTUAL NEWS STORIES. Not the op ed. The actual news stories from an overall perspective. You act like they are The Nation, and sorry, but I actually believe in the pursuit of journalistic integrity there. Nobody can overcome their bias completely, but I firmly believe that they, and the reporters of the WSJ try very hard to do so. I read both regularly, and the depth and information in both are unrivaled by any papers in the US. Sorry, but you are speaking of editorial content.

 

[Ferminal]

I have a sister in law who lives in Dallas ... nice house in a fancy suburb, a lot of servants (nanny, cleaners, gardeners etc) whom she pays peanuts.

She recently moved to this nice house in a nice whitebread suburb -- it's almost a gated community, I gather, a ghetto of rich, white people -- because the school district her child was previously zoned to was terrible: gun detectors at the gates, high drop out rate, big drug problems. Terrible, no way her precious child could go there.

It doesn't seem to have dawned on her that when she & her fellow fortunates pay other people peanuts for work they wouldn't deign to do themselves (let alone at the rate they pay) just because they can, then the result will be No go areas, and schools to avoid, and a host of other social problems that congeal and worsen as generations pass.

It is still the case that the most critical determinants in a person's life are where and to whom he/she is born.

**

The logic of capitalism is for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer (as has been happening for decades). Frankly, I don't see what is particularly good about this.

Our current version of capitalism has become a big ponzi scheme, just holding together until some small shift renders the whole thing a collapsed house of cards.

All true, but "we" are addicted to growth and don't care where it comes from, we measure income as a whole, or as an average, not the median income.

 

[Anonymous]

You might learn something if you start reading a broader spectrum:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3612
http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/LiberalMedia.htm
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/003973.php
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/003980.php

 

[Anonymous]

More:
It has been years mind you, but I took a class in which we looked at media bias not just on the level of what the stories said, but what stories were chosen to be published or aired. When you begin to look at that, the myth really starts to break down. Even if you have a "liberal' reporter, what he can get published or aired is not his choice. That decision is made by the corporate influences, so if you keep out subjects and stories because of a profit motive, the overall news is not actually biased in a liberal direction. Just watch your local news, and tell me what they cover. Do you see stories of reporters going into poor neighborhoods and digging into the issues faced by the poor? No, you see lots of mug shots of black dudes because crime sells. You are looking at this on a superficial level, but I assure you that the corporations behind the media are far from bastions of "liberal bias." If you believe they have no influence over the stories that can be reported on, you are blind to reality.

 

[Anonymous]

None of that proves a "liberal bias" by reporters.

Why don't you tell me how many vote Democrat Scott. Neither of us knows, so asking a question like that is editorial and not genuine. I want you to go to the page today, read all of the stories, and show me the imbalance IN THE ACTUAL NEWS STORIES. Not the op ed. The actual news stories from an overall perspective. You act like they are The Nation, and sorry, but I actually believe in the pursuit of journalistic integrity there. Nobody can overcome their bias completely, but I firmly believe that they, and the reporters of the WSJ try very hard to do so. I read both regularly, and the depth and information in both are unrivaled by any papers in the US. Sorry, but you are speaking of editorial content.

I don't know the answer but I'm willing to bet the actual number is overwhelmingly in favor of one party over the other.

It would be harder to spot bias if you agree with what is written, imo. McGowan disagrees with you and he worked there.

So does the former Public Editor, Daniel Okrent;

"On a topic that has produced one of the defining debates of our time, Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires. This has not occurred because of management fiat, but because getting outside one's own value system takes a great deal of self-questioning. Six years ago, the ownership of this sophisticated New York institution decided to make it a truly national paper. Today, only 50 percent of The Times's readership resides in metropolitan New York, but the paper's heart, mind and habits remain embedded here. You can take the paper out of the city, but without an effort to take the city and all its attendant provocations, experiments and attitudes out of the paper, readers with a different worldview will find The Times an alien beast. "

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B63&pagewanted=1

Again, I'm confident you will discount this, but it's either true, or untrue;

http://www.mrc.org/static/uploads/MediaBias101.pdf

It's not specific to the NY Times however there is more than enough info to develop a good idea of how the majority in the media think and vote.

 

[Anonymous]

Which reminds me. Nyt should have done more to punish Dowd. If I get caught plagarising, even a sentence, i can get thrown out of university, a black mark and lose everything ive worked for. Her plagarism was quite serious. Really serious. Americas most high profile columnist should not be caught doing that.




Safety?

Dude, we have the Darwin museum and a lenient attitude towards homosexuality.

If Palin becomes president we are next on the nuke list behind Berkley and Vermont.


Charlotte on the other hand, is way to close to Bob Jones University to risk it.

Even the NY Times board is smart enough not to mess with the angriest woman in America.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know the answer but I'm willing to bet the actual number is overwhelmingly in favor of one party over the other.

It would be harder to spot bias if you agree with what is written, imo. McGowan disagrees with you and he worked there.

So does the former Public Editor, Daniel Okrent;

"On a topic that has produced one of the defining debates of our time, Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires. This has not occurred because of management fiat, but because getting outside one's own value system takes a great deal of self-questioning. Six years ago, the ownership of this sophisticated New York institution decided to make it a truly national paper. Today, only 50 percent of The Times's readership resides in metropolitan New York, but the paper's heart, mind and habits remain embedded here. You can take the paper out of the city, but without an effort to take the city and all its attendant provocations, experiments and attitudes out of the paper, readers with a different worldview will find The Times an alien beast. "

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B63&pagewanted=1

Again, I'm confident you will discount this, but it's either true, or untrue;

http://www.mrc.org/static/uploads/MediaBias101.pdf

It's not specific to the NY Times however there is more than enough info to develop a good idea of how the majority in the media think and vote.

Again, the point you want to ignore: Almost every media outlet is owned by a corporate entity. Those entities are driven by profit motive. The failure of the 'Liberal bias" is seen most clearly in the issues they allow their reporters to report.

 

[Spare Tyre]

All true, but "we" are addicted to growth and don't care where it comes from, we measure income as a whole, or as an average, not the median income.

Yeah, the system depends on growth, which to me is a very unfortunate organising principle given the problems of this century. We need an economic system built on sustainability. Spending/growth in the recent past has been fuelled by government debt, corporate debt and, in more recent times, household debt. It's difficult for me to see how this can be perpetuated and there aren't any more debt-free sectors available to be the new injectors into the system.

I try to envisage how it can all continue, I know there is a lot beyond my ken, and I know that capital and power will do all it can to create new markets and to continue colonizing everything possible, but I still can't see how it can continue the kind of growth it had in the twentieth century and without that there will be misery for a lot of people. And that, in the end, affects everyone. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, etc.

Western society is unfortunately oriented to the short-term. All our social/political and economic systems are built on short-term decision-making and rewards. We are always kicking the buck down the road. Future generations will suffer for it.

 

[Anonymous]

And as far as a Palin presidency, here is how it happens: Obama is challenged for the nomination in 2012, which splits the Democratic party. Obama loses the nomination. The African American vote does not show up at the polls on election day.

Palin starts out making a showing (not winning, but coming in 2nd or maybe 3rd at worst) in the first two primaries, and the Iowa caucus. Then comes the day that shoves her into the leading position: Saturday 21 January 2012 where she wins South Carolina (almost a lock at this point considering Nikki Haley won because of Palin's endorsement) and Nevada (Sharon Angel almost won a general election there, and she is not only a teabagger, she is ****ing insane). Then the party starts to see a ground swell of support for Palin (she wins Louisiana, loses Maine, but wins Florida the next week because there are enough complete ****ing morons in the panhandle to give her the edge), and news outlets begin to take her more seriously. Palin is smart enough (barely) to stay out of interviews with anyone but Fox News because of the supposed "liberal media bias," and is able to control her public image like no other politician before her. As the support snowballs because, while she is dumber than a bag of d!cks, she can make a good speech, her candidacy begins to mirror that of Obama's in '08 becoming too powerful and organized to defeat. She wins the nomination.

Your wild card may be Bloomberg/Scarborough, which has a bigger draw from the Democratic side than Republican, and Palin takes the win.

I am telling you, she will be the next president of the United States. It is going to happen, and we have people spewing stupidity such as "Obama is a socialist" (ask any real socialist, and they will laugh at the idea), and saying that he is purposefully trying to destroy America because he secretly hates all we stand for (millions of idiots hear it every day on Limbaugh) to thank for it.

Palin will destroy our country as we know it. She terrifies me. Her religious views, and her determination to implement them are the most frightening development thing about her. Imagine that we suffer another major terrorist attack by Muslim terrorists just prior to Nov 2012 or just after she wins, and our fate as a nation is sealed.

 

[The Hitch]

And as far as a Palin presidency, here is how it happens: Obama is challenged for the nomination in 2012, which splits the Democratic party. Obama loses the nomination. The African American vote does not show up at the polls on election day.

Palin starts out making a showing (not winning, but coming in 2nd or maybe 3rd at worst) in the first two primaries, and the Iowa caucus. Then comes the day that shoves her into the leading position: Saturday 21 January 2012 where she wins South Carolina (almost a lock at this point considering Nikki Haley won because of Palin's endorsement) and Nevada (Sharon Angel almost won a general election there, and she is not only a teabagger, she is ****ing insane). Then the party starts to see a ground swell of support for Palin (she wins Louisiana, loses Maine, but wins Florida the next week because there are enough complete ****ing morons in the panhandle to give her the edge), and news outlets begin to take her more seriously. Palin is smart enough (barely) to stay out of interviews with anyone but Fox News because of the supposed "liberal media bias," and is able to control her public image like no other politician before her. As the support snowballs because, while she is dumber than a bag of d!cks, she can make a good speech, her candidacy begins to mirror that of Obama's in '08 becoming too powerful and organized to defeat. She wins the nomination.

Your wild card may be Bloomberg/Scarborough, which has a bigger draw from the Democratic side than Republican, and Palin takes the win.

I am telling you, she will be the next president of the United States. It is going to happen.

First of all, arent the GOP bringing in a new system, where key states like Ohio have more of a say?
2nd of all, New Hampshire is never going to vote Palin
3rd of all no one will challenge Obama. Not a chance.
4thly, GOP higher ups, important people have seen what happens when you put Odonnell or Angle types into elections you are favoured to win. Any nobdoy could have won Nevada and Delware. But these 2 Palin like nuts lost. Thats a mistake that wont be repeated.

Mitt Romney has this all under control. He has about £70 million to spend. Last time he was picked as the best Gop candidate by all the "conservative" kings and queens. This despite the fact that he didnt offer that much to them. Just towed the line on abortion and what not.

Most importantly he has stayed behind the scenes all this time. The election is 2 years out. There is a reccession. Behind the scenes is the best place to be. He already has all the groundwork. The grassroots movements in key states. He wont be expected to win Iowa but has everything in place from last time. Same everywhere. He has the conservative action comittee or whatever set up. Hes a good liar and will say what hes supposed to when hes supposed to.
Being from Massachustes and with no moderate in sight he will easily win New Hampshire.

Romney v Obama, that will be an interesting election.

Obama as the incumbent will be the favourite. He will also have a better economy hence higher approval ratings.

On the other hand looking at the election map i can see Romney taking this. The Gops convention is in Florida. Looking at the way Rubio crushed it, Id say they have Florida in the bag (unless its a obama landslide). They will also easily take back North Carolina and Virginia. Indiana im not sure. THey should take COlorado and Nevada.

THis means they can focus everything on Ohio/ Pennsylvania. Probably Ohio but maybe Pen. If michigan is still in big economic trouble maybe that too, but its probably too blue.

And in Ohio i favour GOp for 3 reasons

1 The governor will be John Kasich. A republican. in ohio having the governor is important
2 ohio is decided not by HOW people vote, but by WHO votes. Fact, obama got less votes in ohio than kerry, but won while kerry lost. The religious crowd wasnt motivated to vote. Mccain had crap organisation there. I expect these people will more likely vote for Romney. Especially with the evangelicalish vp he will pick. I dont like jumping on bandwagons and am not as impressed by rubio as others, but he is the safe choice for them atm. THey might pick someone from ohio on the other hand.
3 the fact that obama got less votes than Kerry shows that hes weak there. Ohio decreased in pop slightly and will have 1 or 2 less electoral votes next time, but it was a very favourable year for Dems. Obama was said to be weaker in states like Ohio than other democrats would be and i think this is true. His advantage over other democrats was in states like Virginia- NC, and Colorado - Nevada- Arizona. Next time round he wont win Virginia or NC and will struggle with the others. Meanwhile, the places where he is weaker than other dems are becoming toss ups - Florida, Ohio, Pens.

however i think most of the democrats who are "disilusioned" with obama will vote for him. And the black vote WILL come out for him.

If the economy bounces back to a certain level he will be favourite. Higher than that and the GOP has no chance. But lower than that its a close call, and looking at the electoral map, Gop have the right advantages.

 

[Anonymous]

First of all, arent the GOP bringing in a new system, where key states like Ohio have more of a say?
2nd of all, New Hampshire is never going to vote Palin
3rd of all no one will challenge Obama. Not a chance.
4thly, GOP higher ups, important people have seen what happens when you put Odonnell or Angle types into elections you are favoured to win. Any nobdoy could have won Nevada and Delware. But these 2 Palin like nuts lost. Thats a mistake that wont be repeated.

Mitt Romney has this all under control. He has about £70 million to spend. Last time he was picked as the best Gop candidate by all the "conservative" kings and queens. This despite the fact that he didnt offer that much to them. Just towed the line on abortion and what not.

Most importantly he has stayed behind the scenes all this time. The election is 2 years out. There is a reccession. Behind the scenes is the best place to be. He already has all the groundwork. The grassroots movements in key states. He wont be expected to win Iowa but has everything in place from last time. Same everywhere. He has the conservative action comittee or whatever set up. Hes a good liar and will say what hes supposed to when hes supposed to.
Being from Massachustes and with no moderate in sight he will easily win New Hampshire.

Romney v Obama, that will be an interesting election.

Obama as the incumbent will be the favourite. He will also have a better economy hence higher approval ratings.

On the other hand looking at the election map i can see Romney taking this. The Gops convention is in Florida. Looking at the way Rubio crushed it, Id say they have Florida in the bag (unless its a obama landslide). They will also easily take back North Carolina and Virginia. Indiana im not sure. THey should take COlorado and Nevada.

THis means they can focus everything on Ohio/ Pennsylvania. Probably Ohio but maybe Pen. If michigan is still in big economic trouble maybe that too, but its probably too blue.

And in Ohio i favour GOp for 3 reasons

1 The governor will be John Kasich. A republican. in ohio having the governor is important
2 ohio is decided not by HOW people vote, but by WHO votes. Fact, obama got less votes in ohio than kerry, but won while kerry lost. The religious crowd wasnt motivated to vote. Mccain had crap organisation there. I expect these people will more likely vote for Romney. Especially with the evangelicalish vp he will pick. I dont like jumping on bandwagons and am not as impressed by rubio as others, but he is the safe choice for them atm. THey might pick someone from ohio on the other hand.
3 the fact that obama got less votes than Kerry shows that hes weak there. Ohio decreased in pop slightly and will have 1 or 2 less electoral votes next time, but it was a very favourable year for Dems. Obama was said to be weaker in states like Ohio than other democrats would be and i think this is true. His advantage over other democrats was in states like Virginia- NC, and Colorado - Nevada- Arizona. Next time round he wont win Virginia or NC and will struggle with the others. Meanwhile, the places where he is weaker than other dems are becoming toss ups - Florida, Ohio, Pens.

however i think most of the democrats who are "disilusioned" with obama will vote for him. And the black vote WILL come out for him.

If the economy bounces back to a certain level he will be favourite. Higher than that and the GOP has no chance. But lower than that its a close call, and looking at the electoral map, Gop have the right advantages.

Romney will not win for this simple reason: He is a Mormon and cannot carry the south. A social conservative/Fundamentalist Christian versus a Mormon in the south is no contest. I live here, and have for my entire life. Trust me, she is being portrayed as having no shot, and that is an error in my estimation.

As to Obama, he is dangerously close to causing open revolt in the Deomcratic party. Soros is making threatening remarks in regards to funding Obama today, and that is just the first salvo. The Democratic party today elected Pelosi as minority leader of the House. Stupid move. Moderates in the party are going to grow more and more contentious with her and Obama. He could very well see a challenge by a moderate Democrat that succeeds.

 

[The Hitch]

Romney will not win for this simple reason: He is a Mormon and cannot carry the south. A social conservative/Fundamentalist Christian versus a Mormon in the south is no contest. I live here, and have for my entire life. Trust me, she is being portrayed as having no shot, and that is an error in my estimation.

In Florida primary Mccain carried the democrat parts - Miami, Tampa, the south, while Romney carried the panhandle, the religious parts. Against Obama he will carry the SOuth. Republicans win southern states by huge percentages. We are talking about 20% in some cases. Even if his LDS membership were to give him a 10% hit he would still carry these states. Republicans are too well organised there. And if it was a problem, the veep would solve it. But i dont see how it would. Best case scenario for dems in the south, they get within 4% of Georgia. Still does no favours on electoral map.

As for Pelosi, who should they have chosen?

 

[usedtobefast]

Its not just that. Id say theres something wrong with having a newspaper boast that its showing "all the news fit to print"

i agree. The New York Times are part of the problem. left? not so much.
maybe what's left. they have some writers and things but they are not much better than the rest of the mainstream.

 

[Spare Tyre]

<snipped>
I am telling you, she will be the next president of the United States. It is going to happen, and we have people spewing stupidity such as "Obama is a socialist" (ask any real socialist, and they will laugh at the idea), and saying that he is purposefully trying to destroy America because he secretly hates all we stand for (millions of idiots hear it every day on Limbaugh) to thank for it.

Palin will destroy our country as we know it. She terrifies me. Her religious views, and her determination to implement them are the most frightening development thing about her. Imagine that we suffer another major terrorist attack by Muslim terrorists just prior to Nov 2012 or just after she wins, and our fate as a nation is sealed.

IMO, the fact that she isn't being laughed into oblivion shows the country is in dire straits anyway.

 

[Anonymous]

Q

In Florida primary Mccain carried the democrat parts - Miami, Tampa, the south, while Romney carried the panhandle, the religious parts. Against Obama he will carry the SOuth. Republicans win southern states by huge percentages. We are talking about 20% in some cases. Even if his LDS membership were to give him a 10% hit he would still carry these states. Republicans are too well organised there. And if it was a problem, the veep would solve it. But i dont see how it would. Best case scenario for dems in the south, they get within 4% of Georgia. Still does no favours on electoral map.

As for Pelosi, who should they have chosen?

He won't win the nomination I don't believe. He couldn't do it last time, and he won't do it again. He doesn't have enough Tea in his blood for one thing, and he just cannot win the south in primary season in my estimation. You also cannot discount the snowball effect of primaries. You can weight them to an extent, but once someone starts to gain momentum, it is hard to stop, and like I said, she has her own personal media outlet, and it has more viewers than any other single media outlet. Limbaugh loves her. Hannity loves her. All she has to do is stay away from reporters with real questions, and let Fox sell her story. Trust me, she has a serious chance. I would call her the favorite.

As for Pelosi. They should have chosen anyone else. She presided over a historic loss of House seats, and her picture was used in as many Republican campaign ads as Obama. I agree with the Republicans and Heath Shuler on this one, the Democrats read this one wrong. I will also freely admit that I cannot stand the woman. She is a partisan hack who would rather make a rhetorical point than do anything substantive. So, you should take my opinion into account when I make statements about her. I am not objective.

 

[Anonymous]

IMO, the fact that she isn't being laughed into oblivion shows the country is in dire straits anyway.

I cannot counter that in any way. There are however plenty of people who see her for what she is, and are not as ignorant as those who support her. We are not all rubes.

But her not being laughed back to Alaska lends credence to my point. I think she will be the next president, and honestly believe it is the surest sign that we are a nation with a malignant growth that is going to end us.

 

[buckwheat]

I cannot counter that in any way. There are however plenty of people who see her for what she is, and are not as ignorant as those who support her. We are not all rubes.

But her not being laughed back to Alaska lends credence to my point. I think she will be the next president, and honestly believe it is the surest sign that we are a nation with a malignant growth that is going to end us.

Take a look at how she's portrayed in the upcoming NYT Sunday Mag.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/magazine/21palin-t.html?ref=magazine

There's so much nonsense in there it's incredible.

Did you know Palin works 20 hours a day?

 

[Anonymous]

Romney will not win for this simple reason: He is a Mormon and cannot carry the south. A social conservative/Fundamentalist Christian versus a Mormon in the south is no contest. I live here, and have for my entire life. Trust me, she is being portrayed as having no shot, and that is an error in my estimation.

As to Obama, he is dangerously close to causing open revolt in the Deomcratic party. Soros is making threatening remarks in regards to funding Obama today, and that is just the first salvo. The Democratic party today elected Pelosi as minority leader of the House. Stupid move. Moderates in the party are going to grow more and more contentious with her and Obama. He could very well see a challenge by a moderate Democrat that succeeds.

Agreed. Watching how far the Dems have fallen since 2008 is nothing short of remarkable. Stunning, in fact.

 

[buckwheat]

In Florida primary Mccain carried the democrat parts - Miami, Tampa, the south, while Romney carried the panhandle, the religious parts. Against Obama he will carry the SOuth. Republicans win southern states by huge percentages. We are talking about 20% in some cases. Even if his LDS membership were to give him a 10% hit he would still carry these states. Republicans are too well organised there. And if it was a problem, the veep would solve it. But i dont see how it would. Best case scenario for dems in the south, they get within 4% of Georgia. Still does no favours on electoral map.

As for Pelosi, who should they have chosen?

It's "Democratic" not democrat.

That's a recent passive aggressive invention of the weak chinned, conservative screwballs. Please stop or I'm going to look at it as a provocation.

 

[buckwheat]

Romney will not win for this simple reason: He is a Mormon and cannot carry the south. A social conservative/Fundamentalist Christian versus a Mormon in the south is no contest. I live here, and have for my entire life. Trust me, she is being portrayed as having no shot, and that is an error in my estimation.

As to Obama, he is dangerously close to causing open revolt in the Deomcratic party. Soros is making threatening remarks in regards to funding Obama today, and that is just the first salvo. The Democratic party today elected Pelosi as minority leader of the House. Stupid move. Moderates in the party are going to grow more and more contentious with her and Obama. He could very well see a challenge by a moderate Democrat that succeeds.

I don't know if you noticed but the blue dogs got hammered. Almost all the liberals except 5 out of 79 in the house won.

Obama is in the Republican party himself. The challenge will never come from the right. It will be from the left if there is one, which I doubt.

Palin doesn't have a prayer btw.

The Republican primaries will force her to provide so much material it will have comedians going for years. If she's the nominee Obama will destroy her.

The republican nominee is Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. Both could win...

 

[knewcleardaze]

ThoughtForFood, you are now beginning to scare me. I would hope the folks that even bother to vote can see through Palin's schtick. To me she appears a caricature, almost a cartoon, if not a charlatan. God Almighty forbid she is a nominee for the presidency. I've more than on one occasion thought, imagine Mcain/Palin following G. Bush.