Greetings from the Northland, PW and all,

I went to an antiwar protest downtown today.

It was fairly well attended (around sixty or seventy people or so) and we had several speakers talk to the crowd before the march over to the bridge to hold signs.

We heard from this lady who is in the Democratic primary next year and hopefully will win said primary so we can finally retire Don Young. She talked to us about why she was running, why it was important that we continue to protest this illegal war, and what we can and should do to help stop it.

She also said the dreaded “I” word, which word Nancy Pelosi “took off the table” back in January but which word must be spoken if we’re to truly regain our country.

Impeachment.

We’ll keep fighting the good fight here.

Lot’s of supporters of Benson here. BTW that picture of “Teamster Benson” on the website is classic and classy!!!! That could be used as a poster in just about every blues bar and road joint along the Richardson Highway! Betcha Don Young won’t even know what hit him!

Last week or so I asked that question…. how many of you personally know someone who supports Hillary as a person who speaks for them…… and the response was pretty pitiful.

Just do not get where they get the poll numbers, probably right along where they find that 30% who support the shrub

I personally know a LOT of Hillary “supporters”. Will I get attacked for saying that they are quite common in Sacramento? That being said, many support her because they think that she

a) will win the primary (self-fulfilling prophecy),

b) reminisce about how well they were doing in the Bill Clinton era,

c) don’t really know much about her positions on specifics ~ except that they hear the Republican soundbites about her and think she’s liberal (which is okay)…or moderate (if they no longer swallow what the right wing blowhards have to say).

Some of these folks swung to Bush in prior elections…but have become utterly disconcerted with their support mainly due to war and economic issues that they personally experience (the published inflation rate doesn’t include all those real necessities of life…gas, utilities, food, rents, school tuitions, insurance).

They think “if life is good for all these other people…why am I not getting there”? They tried to attain that lifestyle on credit and by getting those variable-rate mortgages. Now they are looking at their neighbors getting foreclosures and getting bankruptcys and start thinking about those new rules on bankruptcy pushed through by the Republicans.

They aren’t progressives for the most part…they care most about their own economic success and their own families. In fact, they grumble about the homeless and really do think that they work harder than other people. They really do accept the meme that “if you haven’t done anything wrong, what would you have to worry about” (while at the same time knowing that they likely have a few no-nos hidden away on their tax claims, undeclared income, or other things they wouldn’t want the neighbors to know about). Believe it or not…there are a lot of these people out there in America.

Most aren’t yet politically active, either in primary or the general campaigns. But if you ask them they say “Hillary”. No bumper-sticker or signage…they’ll put them out a week before the election and maybe send in a couple of bucks then.

That’s why Clinton is doing so well in these surveys. These are likely voters…but they are not going to be the type that go out and shout about their support.

The people we interact with on these blogs are, for the most part, a self-selected group. Many have had candidates in mind for years before now. Some are actively involved in particular campaigns. Given the general tone here I doubt that many people who do support Clinton actively would stick around. They’d drift off elsewhere. So when we talk to one another we will, of course, reinforce each others positions and it will seem that we are a lot larger (or the norm) .

I sometimes see people putting INTERNET polls on this and other sites and I think, what value do these things serve. there was one poll that used a Zogby poll of internet subscribers to the poll…in other words, it was made up of people who intentionally requested to be surveyed by the Zogby polls from VISITORS to its website. That’s gonna be a group heavily weighgted with Camapign junkies and pundits…including some that would not be averse to imputting several different requests to be polled under different handles andemail adresses.

I recall FDL supported one such survey just a couple of weeks ago. Are these exercises in trying to suggest that they are the true reflections of what the public thinks? Or are they efforts to discourage the support of other candidates?

Not sure…but maybe FDL should get into the phone polling business and start calling people at random and find out what people really think if they don’t trust the results of the polls out there in the MSM. But when you get so many, with different methods, and questions that broadly show trends…well it’s hard to explain all of that away to statistical manipulation. There is something to accepting what you see and then acting to change THAT.

Because if we go by what we see in the polls on FDL and DKos then we really don’t have to work very hard…Edwards will win the Democratic primaries by huge landslides because of the “flawed” MSM polls. Conversely, those that support Edwards, Obama, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, Biden, etc. who aren’t fooled by the internet polls and look at the MSM polls know that they will have to work very hard to change things. They will need to go after soft Clinton support and motivate people to get out. They will have to also start eliminating other progressive rivals from the campaign, without alienating the supporters of those candidates. It’s gonna be a very hard effort, folks.

GordonM @ 76

Hillary is going for the Republican Women vote (interesting).

that may explain alot.

… could we please have D candidates who go for the D vote?

This is the basic problem of trying to look at “microtrends” and tinker with policy objectives to obtain those voters. By doing so you are likely to lose hard-core supporters in your other “microtrend” populations. In the past one could pull off such pandering, because people might not learn what you were saying in a dinner speech to that targeted audience.

Today, that speech is likely to get out and backfire on you.

And triangulation doesn’t satisfy any of these groups….although it’s the natural outcome of following pollsters who suddenly find some anomalous “group” of “voters” based upon shared demographic variables.

Here’s the problem with this approach. Those “groups” may not be “exclusive” to participation in other groups. Thus one may already be speaking to the values of the majority of that group, and the others, despite their demographics being shared with that “target” group, may actually be quite resistant to any appeal since they belong to other groups whom they identify with quite strongly.

Thus a “soccer mom” who is also from a Southern, Pentacostal church and military family with a long history of unflagging conservative voting…isn’t gonna likely change for an election.The “soccer mom” status is ephemeral…she has kids who play soccer. Big deal. And most of those “soccer moms” might support you without any major push IF you support the issues that speaks to their other “identities”.

But one has to really appear to be championing these issues and groups, simply because shifting from a CORE philosophy will sem insincere and manipulative….pandering.

Folks like Penn are “packagers” of image. We really need to have candidates who speak from their basic philosophies and agendas and let US sort them out.

Remember when McCain said “the Vietnam war is over, we don’t need to re-fight it?” That doesn’t include his snide bullshit about Woodstock and him being “tied up”. Fuck a bunch of officers, plenty of us on the ground were as pharmaceutical as anyone at Woodstock. Don’t be surprised at anything he does.

McCain wasn’t even present to vote on the legislation regarding this. It obviously wasn’t so important that he “HAD TO” return to vote against it. But now hes all hot under the collar about it?

It’s also well known that amphetamines were regular given to pilots in Vietnam to keep up their “edge”. I would bet that McCain had them available to him. Never heard him raising THAT issue about “pharmaceuticals” being used before.

And somehow $1 million in funds that would generate lots of local profits and tax revenues for the area (and keep people from trudging around on peoples private property) seems a lot better an application of this money than $2.5 TRILLION in a wasted war in Iraq. And McCain wants to get us into a war with an even LARGER military that will cost vastly more.

…………..$1,000,000 vs.
$2,000,000,000,000.

Lets talk about waste, Senator McCain. Let’s talk about corruption.

McCain sponsored add-ons. Like a huge amount of land to “extend and airforce base that, mysteriously, wasn’t even requested by the military for such an extension. Just who was benefittng from THAT purchase Senator McCain? Why was it included covertly in the spending bill?

Or like the $10 MILLION Center to honor a man that …ahem..was also abusing pharmaceuticals while you were “tied-up”. That man was Chief Justice Rehnquist.

http://www.slate.com/id/2125906/

And certainly such a Center has value…but you didn’t make any snarky comment about his drug abuse in that context. Or what about the benefits that have poured into Memphis regarding Elvis.

The fact that some people used drugs at (or IN…a la Vietnam) a major event in American history, should not block the expenditure of funds to provide a center to explain that events role in history. Especially if such a center/museum will generate far greater benefits to the local economy than the support provided.

(If you need me, I’ll be hiding under the bed.
:o) )

Elliott @ 81

and Woe is US.

There was a guest post for Greenwald on Salon that argued that since we are dealing with a completely immortal/criminal regime, the only moral response is complete non-cooperation. I have a lot of sympathy for that position.

me too

…..though epu’d…..

[and flu’d]

Ann in AZ @ 161

On Chris Matthews show this afternoon some of his guests offered the opinion that progressives don’t seem to have as much power in the party as was thought.

and just who WERE these guests?

Katty Kay, David Gregory, David Ignatius, Jennifer Loven.

Maddy @ 228

Yes, and now something really important to my stomach’s pleasure.
madmommy @ 205 do you have a recipe for really good gumbo that you could share

See my #222. If you want to go really native,
http://www.foodnetwork.com/foo…..67,00.html

Thanks, oh boy tomorrow night gumbo

And let it be Lindsay Graham or Mitch McConnell that Flynt is going to out!