Too True
by KTKSeptember 17th, 2008
Nate Silver of 538:
“Democrats are like Cubs fans — they assume that something will go wrong until proven otherwise.”
But, he thinks, there’s good news at hand, too. So do I.
Palin’s a flash in the pan - when the novelty wears off, the GOP is going to find itself stuck with . . . well, with Palin, and McCain, and all the rest of their own crap they finally get to stew in. The Democrats have finally been handed a pooch so big and so fully pre-screwed that even they can’t mess this up.
Categories: General, News & Current Events, Politics |
The Democrats have finally been handed a pooch so big and so fully pre-screwed that even they can’t mess this up.
Never say never. I would have thought the same thing in 2004…
At the same time, if you’re Barack Obama, don’t you at least consider the possibility of intentionally throwing the game? Whoever winds up winning inherits a serious CF…
if you’re Barack Obama, don’t you at least consider the possibility of intentionally throwing the game?
You’re not serious? Nobody at that level ever considers not winning. And if he loses this one - handed to him right on the platter - Hillary will have him stuffed, roasted, and trussed up with an apple in his mouth in 2012.
It used to be that losing Presidential candidates got another shot (that’s how we wound up with Nixon - and William Jennings Bryan ran three times on the Democratic ticket [though a creationist, he wasn't as bad as history remembers him]). Today, you lose at that level and you’re done for. Obama is young enough that it’s just possible he could get another chance - but not in 2012. And after that, who knows what could happen? No - he jumped the gun by running this year, but he can’t go back now and start over.
Of course I’m kidding. I would have said the same thing if it were Hillary vs. McCain. The larger point is that whoever wins inherits a shit show, and I don’t envy the winner, whoever that turns out to be.
(Although, some cynics say the 2012 gambit is why Clinton supporters like de Rothschild are coming out for McCain — they know 2016 will be too late for Hillary, so the only way she gets to be president is if Obama loses.)
Anyway, setting aside conservative whining about the so-called “liberal media,” the political/media deck is currently very much stacked against Democrats, to the extent that the only way they have a shot at winning is when the GOP royally screws things up (as they have recently), and even then it’s not a sure bet. This despite the fact that the majority of Americans prefer liberal policies (even as they dislike the term “liberal”). But I digress…
I especially love that liberal policies are popular as long as you don’t call them ‘liberal’ while at the same time libertarianism gets praised for being pro-liberty while opposing liberal policies.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Libertarians are just anarchists who lack commitment.
actually, i generally think of them as liberals who don’t think of others as people.
Nah, they’re generally social liberals, but they’re decidedly economic conservatives.
You know what was a pretty libertarian environment? The A train, circa ‘86. For some reason, the rich white guys who espouse everyman for himself didn’t love it so much…
Never say never. I would have thought the same thing in 2004…
No, no, TG. Bartman was ‘03.
“even they can’t mess this up.”
Wanna bet?