OK, now no question, I'd vote for Hillary in the general, no reservations

[© tweed]

most of those were never involved in the process, and aren't even registered to vote...

38% of registered voters in your state didn't vote in 2004. When you consider how voter registration works in the United States, that is an astonishingly high figure. That figure has been pretty stable in all three Presidential elections since 1996 and is, of course, even lower in mid-term elections.

Try again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are not going to get huge numbers of activists dropping out of a system that they have a stake in.

not quite sure why I have to "Try Again"...  did you come across the figure of the % of the VAP not registered to vote?  that's many millions of people who never were involved.  and I don't think a majority of that 38% were ever heavily involved in the system, maybe have never voted...  I know you don't think activists will every "give up," and maybe I'm a dreamer, but I think once they realize they're working for a system that doesn't work for them, they may...

[Everett]

Anyone who is honestly not bothered by the thought of 24+ years of Bushes and Clintons probably doesn't really deserve to vote.

And 'Democrats' who are willing to vote for this couple after the horrifying years of Bill Clinton's presidency either have long term memory loss or are actually hardcore conservatives.

Indeed. It's incredibly disturbing.

I am getting incredibly sick of people who petulantly attempt to justify their "support" for Hillary Clinton by throwing around the same old "BUT IISN'T SHE BETTAR THAN THE REPUBLICANZ LOLZ!!!!!11" bullsh**t. Are you merely attempting to guilt apathetic and disillusioned Democrats, former Democrats, liberal-leaning Independents, et cetera into supporting Clinton because she is a Democrat and you believe that being a Democrat automatically makes someone better than any Republican? It's so wonderful how partisanship inevitably wins regardless of what individual candidates actually stand for. No wonder nothing ever changes.

So she is supposedly a Democrat. So what? Who knows what we will get from another Clinton presidency? The Democrats don't deserve my vote if they are pathetic enough to nominate this annoying corporatist warmonger.

After a while, I fail to see any remarkable differences between Democrats and Republicans.

[JSojourner]

McCain is a disgusting murderous THUG. He's endorsed by the king of such people, Joe Lieberman. Simply being supported by this disgusting piece of human sh!t alone is enough. At this point, my burning hatred of McCain has reached greater than Bush, and possibly greater than anyone except Ralph Nader. I'd vote for Norm Coleman over McCain. I'd vote for Michele Bachmann over McCain. I'd vote for TOM COBURN over McCain.

F**K MCCAIN.

What is wrong with you?

John McCain is an American patriot.  He is a good and decent man.

I won't vote for him because, plainly put, he's too conservative for me. 

But this guy was imprisoned and tortured for almost six years.  All the bones in his arms were broken.  He was brutalized in unthinkable ways.  And whether you think the Vietnam War was just, or unjust as I believe it was, so what?  The man served with honor and courage.

He didn't use his Daddy to dodge the draft. 
He didn't hide in some state national guard unit, with friends in high places keeping him safe.
He didn't run to Canada or run around Europe.

He served.  With people like John Kerry and Tom Ridge and Max Cleland and yes, Duke Cunningham.

Say you hate McCain's policies.
Say you find the man arrogant or politically spineless.  (Though I don't think so.)
Say you think he's too old or too stubborn about Iraq.

There are a million reasons to oppose John McCain.  But don't you dare suggest he is a murderous thug. 

Man, I am just gobsmacked by your post -- totally shocked.  And I hope it was a joke.

[Joe Biden 2020]

McCain is a disgusting murderous THUG. He's endorsed by the king of such people, Joe Lieberman. Simply being supported by this disgusting piece of human sh!t alone is enough. At this point, my burning hatred of McCain has reached greater than Bush, and possibly greater than anyone except Ralph Nader. I'd vote for Norm Coleman over McCain. I'd vote for Michele Bachmann over McCain. I'd vote for TOM COBURN over McCain.

F**K MCCAIN.

What is wrong with you?

John McCain is an American patriot.  He is a good and decent man.

I won't vote for him because, plainly put, he's too conservative for me. 

But this guy was imprisoned and tortured for almost six years.  All the bones in his arms were broken.  He was brutalized in unthinkable ways.  And whether you think the Vietnam War was just, or unjust as I believe it was, so what?  The man served with honor and courage.

He didn't use his Daddy to dodge the draft. 
He didn't hide in some state national guard unit, with friends in high places keeping him safe.
He didn't run to Canada or run around Europe.

He served.  With people like John Kerry and Tom Ridge and Max Cleland and yes, Duke Cunningham.

Say you hate McCain's policies.
Say you find the man arrogant or politically spineless.  (Though I don't think so.)
Say you think he's too old or too stubborn about Iraq.

There are a million reasons to oppose John McCain.  But don't you dare suggest he is a murderous thug. 

Man, I am just gobsmacked by your post -- totally shocked.  And I hope it was a joke.

Well said.

[Person Man]

McCain is a disgusting murderous THUG. He's endorsed by the king of such people, Joe Lieberman. Simply being supported by this disgusting piece of human sh!t alone is enough. At this point, my burning hatred of McCain has reached greater than Bush, and possibly greater than anyone except Ralph Nader. I'd vote for Norm Coleman over McCain. I'd vote for Michele Bachmann over McCain. I'd vote for TOM COBURN over McCain.

F**K MCCAIN.

What is wrong with you?

John McCain is an American patriot.  He is a good and decent man.

I won't vote for him because, plainly put, he's too conservative for me. 

But this guy was imprisoned and tortured for almost six years.  All the bones in his arms were broken.  He was brutalized in unthinkable ways.  And whether you think the Vietnam War was just, or unjust as I believe it was, so what?  The man served with honor and courage.

He didn't use his Daddy to dodge the draft. 
He didn't hide in some state national guard unit, with friends in high places keeping him safe.
He didn't run to Canada or run around Europe.

He served.  With people like John Kerry and Tom Ridge and Max Cleland and yes, Duke Cunningham.

Say you hate McCain's policies.
Say you find the man arrogant or politically spineless.  (Though I don't think so.)
Say you think he's too old or too stubborn about Iraq.

There are a million reasons to oppose John McCain.  But don't you dare suggest he is a murderous thug. 

Man, I am just gobsmacked by your post -- totally shocked.  And I hope it was a joke.

Well said.

Yes. He went a bit far....but on every issue, besides guns maybe, Clinton is at least somewhat better than McCain and that's enough for me.

[JSojourner]

McCain is a disgusting murderous THUG. He's endorsed by the king of such people, Joe Lieberman. Simply being supported by this disgusting piece of human sh!t alone is enough. At this point, my burning hatred of McCain has reached greater than Bush, and possibly greater than anyone except Ralph Nader. I'd vote for Norm Coleman over McCain. I'd vote for Michele Bachmann over McCain. I'd vote for TOM COBURN over McCain.

F**K MCCAIN.

What is wrong with you?

John McCain is an American patriot.  He is a good and decent man.

I won't vote for him because, plainly put, he's too conservative for me. 

But this guy was imprisoned and tortured for almost six years.  All the bones in his arms were broken.  He was brutalized in unthinkable ways.  And whether you think the Vietnam War was just, or unjust as I believe it was, so what?  The man served with honor and courage.

He didn't use his Daddy to dodge the draft. 
He didn't hide in some state national guard unit, with friends in high places keeping him safe.
He didn't run to Canada or run around Europe.

He served.  With people like John Kerry and Tom Ridge and Max Cleland and yes, Duke Cunningham.

Say you hate McCain's policies.
Say you find the man arrogant or politically spineless.  (Though I don't think so.)
Say you think he's too old or too stubborn about Iraq.

There are a million reasons to oppose John McCain.  But don't you dare suggest he is a murderous thug. 

Man, I am just gobsmacked by your post -- totally shocked.  And I hope it was a joke.

Well said.

Yes. He went a bit far....but on every issue, besides guns maybe, Clinton is at least somewhat better than McCain and that's enough for me.

A perfectly reasonable, sane response.  I pretty much agree. I just don't know how anyone could call McCain a murdering thug.  I don't think Carl, our resident McCain-hater-in-chief, would go that far.

[Person Man]

I am also concerned about John McCain. There's JM1.0 from 2000, JM2.0 from 2007 and JM3.0 from 2008. Straight Talk, my ass!   Also, he ignores the big issues, on health care, he just wants to give everyone a $5000 dollar welfare check. He's about hand outs, not hand ups. Hillary is the person I feel will give me a hand up, despite the fact she gives SOME hand outs. I kind of respect Huckabee for being a good christian and being concerned about hand outs that are not hand ups.

[NHPolitico]

Not me.  I'm done w/ them.  The way they (especially Bill) has manipulated Barack's words throughout this campaign has completely turned me off to them.

The fact that the Clintons can try to suggest with a straight face that Obama is a Reaganite should cause any level-headed Democrat to scorn them.  Barack Obama, arch conservative! Who believes this crap?

[Person Man]

Not me.  I'm done w/ them.  The way they (especially Bill) has manipulated Barack's words throughout this campaign has completely turned me off to them.

The fact that the Clintons can try to suggest with a straight face that Obama is a Reaganite should cause any level-headed Democrat to scorn them.  Barack Obama, arch conservative! Who believes this crap?

Well, Obama should just say that tactics are different from ideology and that he can deliver an ass whoopin with those tactics.

[NHPolitico]

Not me.  I'm done w/ them.  The way they (especially Bill) has manipulated Barack's words throughout this campaign has completely turned me off to them.

The fact that the Clintons can try to suggest with a straight face that Obama is a Reaganite should cause any level-headed Democrat to scorn them.  Barack Obama, arch conservative! Who believes this crap?

Well, Obama should just say that tactics are different from ideology and that he can deliver an ass whoopin with those tactics.

I'm not sure any of us appreciated how Bill was going to be used by Hillary. It's the classic VP role of attacking the opponent and playing bad cop and keeping the person at the top of the ticket nice and clean.  Obama should find a VP of his own so the fight is fair. They are ganging up on him and all these Clinton supporters who act like they care about fairness and equality are just full of hot air when fairness and equality don't line up with their quest for power.

[Keystone Phil]

Soon, there could be no minimium wage or minority rights.

The drama.

...and how are you not an arch-conservative?

Uh, how does that prove that I am an arch conservative? I'm saying it's dramatic to think that those things would happen.

[MarkWarner08]

Why judicial nominations matter: The Clean Air and Water Acts could be weakened. The Endangered Species Act could be overturned. Gun control laws could be overturned. Workplace protections of women and minorities will be further weakened.  Much of the precedent from the Warren Court is at stake. SCOTUS does matter.

None of that will happen.  Sorry.

Actually, it's already happening.

Just look at these recent cases decided by the Roberts Court:
Rapanos v. United States
Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers
Rancho Viejo v. Norton.
National Association of Home Builders et al. V. Defenders of Wildlife et al.

[Person Man]

Soon, there could be no minimium wage or minority rights.

The drama.

...and how are you not an arch-conservative?

Uh, how does that prove that I am an arch conservative? I'm saying it's dramatic to think that those things would happen.

They could... Hopefully, the democratic congress will grow nutz.

Why judicial nominations matter: The Clean Air and Water Acts could be weakened. The Endangered Species Act could be overturned. Gun control laws could be overturned. Workplace protections of women and minorities will be further weakened.  Much of the precedent from the Warren Court is at stake. SCOTUS does matter.

None of that will happen.  Sorry.

Actually, it's already happening.

Just look at these recent cases decided by the Roberts Court:
Rapanos v. United States
Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers
Rancho Viejo v. Norton.
National Association of Home Builders et al. V. Defenders of Wildlife et al.

Yeah...and replacing Ginny and Stevens with Luttig and an another federalist could cause some problens.

[Gabu]

What is wrong with you?

Oh, I ask that question most every day.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Why judicial nominations matter: The Clean Air and Water Acts could be weakened. The Endangered Species Act could be overturned. Gun control laws could be overturned. Workplace protections of women and minorities will be further weakened.  Much of the precedent from the Warren Court is at stake. SCOTUS does matter.

None of that will happen.  Sorry.

Actually, it's already happening.

Just look at these recent cases decided by the Roberts Court:
Rapanos v. United States
Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers
Rancho Viejo v. Norton.
National Association of Home Builders et al. V. Defenders of Wildlife et al.

You seem to be predicting a massive attack on Warren precedents, but it will not happen.  They might be slightly weakened, but the precedents shall remain in place.  The SCOTUS would not dare overrule Brown completely, likewise with Miranda, Mapp, and others.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Anyone who is honestly not bothered by the thought of 24+ years of Bushes and Clintons probably doesn't really deserve to vote.

Oh sure that's bothering me. But that doesn't mean I want Bushes, Clintons and McCains.

And 'Democrats' who are willing to vote for this couple after the horrifying years of Bill Clinton's presidency either have long term memory loss or are actually hardcore conservatives.

Not all that great, but compared to the last 8 years are hardly "horrifying".

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Honestly, is anyone here saying that in a Hillary vs. McCain matchup I should vote for Ralph Nader?

If so that's rather amusing. I thought it'd be obvious that trying to get me to vote for Nader would be like trying to convert opebo to Christianity.

[MarkWarner08]

Why judicial nominations matter: The Clean Air and Water Acts could be weakened. The Endangered Species Act could be overturned. Gun control laws could be overturned. Workplace protections of women and minorities will be further weakened.  Much of the precedent from the Warren Court is at stake. SCOTUS does matter.

None of that will happen.  Sorry.

Actually, it's already happening.

Just look at these recent cases decided by the Roberts Court:
Rapanos v. United States
Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers
Rancho Viejo v. Norton.
National Association of Home Builders et al. V. Defenders of Wildlife et al.

You seem to be predicting a massive attack on Warren precedents, but it will not happen.  They might be slightly weakened, but the precedents shall remain in place.  The SCOTUS would not dare overrule Brown completely, likewise with Miranda, Mapp, and others.

Did you look at the list of recent cases decided by the Roberts Court? They all involved a narrow majority 9 comprised of Justices appointed by Reagan/Bush 1 or Bush 2) siding with those who sough to weaken the Clear Water and Endangered Species Act. The threat to the environmental reforms of the late '60s and early '70s is real.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

did you come across the figure of the % of the VAP not registered to vote?

About 23% in 2004. Figure is for the whole U.S. A little lower than that in New York IIRC.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Turnout data (% registered voters) for New York 1960-2004:

1960: 89%
1964: 85%
1968: 84%
1972: 78%
1976: 80%
1980: 79%
1984: 75%
1988: 76%
1992: 74%
1996: 63%
2000: 61%
2004: 62%

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What you don't understand is that the system does work for them. To a limited extent in most cases, but that's (more than) good enough.

[© tweed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What you don't understand is that the system does work for them. To a limited extent in most cases, but that's (more than) good enough.

I don't see how, besides psychologically, being a part of something and doing your "civic duty" and all that.  but if you have some concrete example of how it does work for them, outside of their backstage passes at the national conventions and whatnot, I'd love to hear it.

and the %ages are interesting.  people are dropping out of the process, that would seem to indicate.  either it has to happen in much larger numbers to matter, or it just simply doesn't, who knows.

[Person Man]

Do you think this loss of voting interest has created a state with less accountability?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't see how, besides psychologically, being a part of something and doing your "civic duty" and all that.  but if you have some concrete example of how it does work for them, outside of their backstage passes at the national conventions and whatnot, I'd love to hear it.

It gives them power and influence, or at least the illusion/possibility of power and influence. And American politics being what it is, there's always the possibility of very real, if technically illegal, financial benefits. You forget that the Democratic and Republican parties are, to a great extent, effectively branches of the State rather than being political parties in a normal sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What you don't appear to understand, I don't understand why you don't understand, is that there is no reason for the political establishment to worry about low turnouts. Turnout in mid-term elections, which unlike most other countries matter a hell of a lot in the U.S, is comical (or tragic; depends on your perspective) and has been for years.

Apathy is not a Revolutionary stance.

[Person Man]

I don't see how, besides psychologically, being a part of something and doing your "civic duty" and all that.  but if you have some concrete example of how it does work for them, outside of their backstage passes at the national conventions and whatnot, I'd love to hear it.

It gives them power and influence, or at least the illusion/possibility of power and influence. And American politics being what it is, there's always the possibility of very real, if technically illegal, financial benefits. You forget that the Democratic and Republican parties are, to a great extent, effectively branches of the State rather than being political parties in a normal sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What you don't appear to understand, I don't understand why you don't understand, is that there is no reason for the political establishment to worry about low turnouts. Turnout in mid-term elections, which unlike most other countries matter a hell of a lot in the U.S, is comical (or tragic; depends on your perspective) and has been for years.

Apathy is not a Revolutionary stance.

[© tweed]

I don't see how, besides psychologically, being a part of something and doing your "civic duty" and all that.  but if you have some concrete example of how it does work for them, outside of their backstage passes at the national conventions and whatnot, I'd love to hear it.

It gives them power and influence, or at least the illusion/possibility of power and influence. And American politics being what it is, there's always the possibility of very real, if technically illegal, financial benefits. You forget that the Democratic and Republican parties are, to a great extent, effectively branches of the State rather than being political parties in a normal sense.

your first sentence is just a mimic of what I said about the psychological benefits of being active in the process.  and the second part, I simply don't buy - when I volunteered for Steve Israel in 2004, I (unfortunately) receive no bribe and I'm 100% sure nobody around me did, either...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't doubt that 50% VAP turnout is no reason for them to worry, but perhaps 15% or 10% or 5% would be.  either the trend will accelerate, and we'll see, or it won't and we won't.

[Nym90]

Anyone who is honestly not bothered by the thought of 24+ years of Bushes and Clintons probably doesn't really deserve to vote.

And 'Democrats' who are willing to vote for this couple after the horrifying years of Bill Clinton's presidency either have long term memory loss or are actually hardcore conservatives.

Indeed. It's incredibly disturbing.

I am getting incredibly sick of people who petulantly attempt to justify their "support" for Hillary Clinton by throwing around the same old "BUT IISN'T SHE BETTAR THAN THE REPUBLICANZ LOLZ!!!!!11" bullsh**t. Are you merely attempting to guilt apathetic and disillusioned Democrats, former Democrats, liberal-leaning Independents, et cetera into supporting Clinton because she is a Democrat and you believe that being a Democrat automatically makes someone better than any Republican? It's so wonderful how partisanship inevitably wins regardless of what individual candidates actually stand for. No wonder nothing ever changes.

So she is supposedly a Democrat. So what? Who knows what we will get from another Clinton presidency? The Democrats don't deserve my vote if they are pathetic enough to nominate this annoying corporatist warmonger.

After a while, I fail to see any remarkable differences between Democrats and Republicans.

Obviously supporting her simply because she is a Democrat would be senseless. But she pretty much toes the party line on almost every issue, so if you believe as I do that the Democratic platform is overall superior to the Republicans, then that alone makes her better, yes.

I do agree the Democrats and especially the Clintons are way too corporate. No argument from me there. But I still think Clinton would overall be a good President, far less good than Obama to be sure, but still far better than McCain or any Republican. It's not just that I support her for being slightly better, I do see big differences between her and McCain on pretty much every issue.

So while I will do whatever I reasonably can to convince my party to nominate Obama, in the end I will still vote for Clinton because she still will be far better than Bush or McCain.

I'm not trying to guilt anyone. If you honestly believe Clinton was just as bad a President as Bush, and that Mrs. Clinton would be just as bad as McCain, you should vote your convictions. I'm just trying to point out there are substantive differences, and while Clinton is far from my first choice, she will, if nominated, still be by far the best available choice.