home

The Polls - Will America Choose "Socialism?"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 07:40:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Will "Center Right" America choose Socialism? According to John McCain and the polls, they will.

Final polls:

Dkos/R2000 - Obama 51, McCain 46
ABC/WaPo - Obama 53. McCain 44
NBC/WSJ - Obama 51, McCain 43
CBS - Obama 51, McCain 42
Fox - Obama 50, McCain 43
Gallup - Obama 55, McCain 44
IBD/TIPP - Obama 52, McCain 44
CNN - Obama 53, McCain 46
Ipsos/McClatchey, Obama 53, McCain 46
Hotline - Obama 50, McCain 45
Pew, Obama 52, McCain 46
Battleground, Obama 52, McCain 46

My prediction remains the same - Obama 52.5, McCain 46.5.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Palin's Last Minute News Dump | Warmth in the Frozen North: A Good Omen? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Polls - Will America Choose "Socialism?" | 121 comments (121 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Sign me up (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by eric on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 07:44:42 AM EST
    I'll take it.  I wonder how long it will take to collectivize the farms?

    Give 'em time.... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:11:05 AM EST
    they only got started with the banks a few weeks ago...no socialist utopia was built in a day, they'll get to the farms eventually...may be waiting on recommendations from our Chinese debt holders.

    Parent
    My Prediction (none / 0) (#37)
    by gaf on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    Obama - 291
    McCain - 257


    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#43)
    by gaf on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:18:42 AM EST
    That should have been
    Obama - 291
    McCain - 247

    Parent
    I, for one, (none / 0) (#81)
    by JWeidner on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:45:26 AM EST
    welcome our new socialist overlords.

    Parent
    We are all socialists now.. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 07:46:36 AM EST
    thanks to Hanky Pank and Shrub

    Bingo.... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:49:11 AM EST
    All we know for sure is the socialist, statist, monolith government builder Bush will be out of our hair.

    And I'm confident we won't be confused with France or Sweden when 2012 rolls around.  

    Parent

    But maybe we'll have a 35-hour (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:22:31 AM EST
    work week?  And six weeks pd. vacation?

    Parent
    With all that corporate money.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:02:56 AM EST
    Obama raised?   Dream on:)

    With the economy looking as dour as it is, I'd expect us working stiffs to be working more, not less.

    Parent

    The bastion of socialism (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:10:16 AM EST
    University of Chicago Economics department.  

    That is change!!!

    Parent

    What, us worry? (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:59:17 AM EST


    Parent
    Sarkozy is taking all that away (none / 0) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:08:50 AM EST


    Parent
    He's trying. But the truckers (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:00:59 PM EST
    are pushing back.  Gift shop employee at the Dorsay informed me a strike, maybe five years ago, that closed the museum for a week, was because the museum employees, who now had a 35-hour work week, wanted more help.  

    Parent
    I expect (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:20:53 AM EST
    a 7-8 point difference and a Dukakis-type blowout.  Here's hoping.

    As a black (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by bluegal on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:33:59 AM EST
    and a young black who had parents who were shot at with rubber bullets for participating in sit-ins the fact that we can even predict that a black man will be President is just unthinkable.

    People may not agree with everything about Obama but to see this taking place as a black American is just unbelievable.

    In between making phone calls I will be crying tears of joy.

    I had tears in my eyes. . . (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:10:59 AM EST
    when my daughters and I left the voting booth this morning.  Completely unexpected coming from a cynical bastard like me.

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:19:55 AM EST
    I cried too when I voted early quite a few weeks ago.  Actually the poll worker who was setting up my machine thought I was crying because my leg hurt or something!  Alas, no, I am simply emotional.

    Today I am elated.  The long national nightmare of GW is almost over.  You can feel it clearing away.  And McCain looks like he is going to lose...Republican ideology and its intolerance of difference and disregard for civil rights is going to lose today!  Hooray!  I will feel respected, and cared for, by my government once again.

    Parent

    can you hold off on that, (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:49:36 AM EST
    In between making phone calls I will be crying tears of joy.

    long enough to vote first?

    Parent

    I voted early n/t (none / 0) (#17)
    by bluegal on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:31:27 AM EST


    Parent
    I voted for David Dinkins for mayor of NYC. (none / 0) (#16)
    by cpa1 on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:28:56 AM EST
    Even though I knew he was a horrible mayor, I couldn't vote for Giuliani the Republican. That wasn't a big deal for me.

    Voting for Obama doesn't feel as momentous as I would have suspected because I don't think of him as a black candidate.  I still have a lot of stuff I am pissed off about with Obama but his overall views are the same as mine and he is aware that "a rising tide raises all boats."  He is black and so is Michele and I even read her Princeton thesis, which could have been written by a white student as well as a black student.

    Things have changed in America and I don't think we judge by color as much as we used to.  The hurdles are still there but they are lower.  Perhaps Obama could be the icing on the cake to give so many black kids and Hispanic kids a lot more self confidence.  There is nothing like good roll models and the unconditional and respectful acceptance of people like Oprah, Tiger Woods, Dr. Ben Carson the pediatric neurosurgeon at John Hopkins and so many more paved the way for Barack Obama. He will pave the way for so many others.  It's a very good day.  It just feels right.

    Parent

    Ugh (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:37:06 AM EST
    Dinkins was a good mayor.

    By what measure do you say what you say or are you just repeating the standard issue BS?

    Parent

    Roll Model (1.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:07:08 AM EST
    Unless of course if he takes a dump as President. then he won't stack up with Tiger or Oprah.

    The true measuring stick of course is not skin color, it is success. Tiger and Oprah are not who they are because of their skin color. They are who they are because of their success. And success comes from within which transcends skin color. Our brains and attitudes which leads to success knows no skin color.

    I'm so tired or hearing about first Black President. That is such lazy thinking. To say a Black President would blaze any kind of trail is ridiculous. There are many successful people both Black, Brown, and White already. The trails have been blazed. All one has to do is inspire themselves to prepare to travel that same trail that is already there, not throw a party with food and booze and celebrate someone else's success while you ignore your own.

    With what he will be inheriting the deck is stacked against Obama. He is not prepared to handle it. His success will come via the team he assembles, many of whom are former Bill Clinton team members who are already on Obama's team. The same Bill Clinton who most here trashed day after day because of the decisions that he and his team made - the same team Obama will likely have in office. The irony.

    Parent

    I'd say that arguing that an African American (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by tigercourse on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:16:22 AM EST
    President isn't trail blazing is the height of ridiculousness. You can think poorly of Obama (as I do) and still admit that this is a great moment for African Americans.

    Parent
    Especially considering... (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:33:10 AM EST
    some the folks who had the dogs sicked on 'em, some of the folks who were forced to eat at seperate lunch counters and use seperate water fountains are still walking among us.

    Even I, as a young man born after the civil rights movement, born free of the shackles of hate in our past...even I doubted we ever would see the day.  Assuming Obama pulls it off this is huge historically....huge.  And long overdue.

    Parent

    And at the end of Obama's (2.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:23:36 AM EST
    presidency there will be plenty of African Americans who will be hugely disappointed in Obama. Some already are.

    Parent
    Still walking among us.... (1.00 / 0) (#93)
    by vml68 on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:12:28 PM EST
    Actually that is one of the reasons I do not understand their support of Obama. He does not share that history. Also given the fact that he was raised by the white side of his family the only thing I see that Obama has in common with the average AA is skin color.

    Parent
    So are they only supposed to vote (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:18:40 PM EST
    for by now quite old black candidates who actively participated in the Civil Rights movement?

    Having skin color in common with the AA community is a pretty important part of it you know.  The black experience?

    Parent

    "Are they only supposed to vote (1.00 / 0) (#100)
    by vml68 on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:39:01 PM EST
     for by now quite old black candidates who actively participated in the Civil Rights movement?"  Why Not?.. :-)
    Actually like another poster mentioned while many AA's from the younger generations have not experienced slavery or the civil rights movement first hand, they have parents, grandparents or other relatives who have. It is part of their history.

    In Obama's case...what black experience? Raised his whole life by white relatives, prep school and ivy league education.
    I guess from my point of view the only thing Obama has in common with MOST (not all) aa's is skin color. I just don't see any shared experiences.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#104)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:51:25 PM EST
    I can't speak for him.  His books address that kind of thing (so I hear, I have not read them).

    Parent
    And, a great day for (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:54:40 AM EST
    Americans of all complexions.

    Parent
    A really Great moment for (none / 0) (#73)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:12:18 AM EST
    for any American, regardless of skin color, is when they empower themselves to succeed. That is the credo I live by. To expect some other persons success to empower you or to make it OK to empower yourself is for most a sign of sure personal failure. If you can't wrap your mind around that I'm sorry.

    Parent
    Not Mutually Exclusive (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by daring grace on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 02:26:56 PM EST
    You can empower yourself and, being inspired by someone else's attainments and example, empower yourself even more.

    Not at all a complex concept to get one's head around.

    Parent

    Of course it is Mutually Exclusive (none / 0) (#121)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 03:58:57 PM EST
    I was taking exclusively about empowerment and you injected inspiration into the discussion. Apples and oranges.

    But speaking about inspiration, given the decades and centuries of inspirational figures of all colors that there are, if someone now needs a Black President to be inspired they are basically un-inspirable to empower themselves.

    There are plenty of inspired people in this world who remain un-empowered their entire lives. Inspiration is but a seed that the individual has to take responsibility to plant within themselves and constantly water and feed it. Most people don't do that.

    Again you are talking about two different things and trying to equate it to the one important and tangible thing I was discussing. Apples and oranges.

    Parent

    "The trails have been blazed" (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:18:02 AM EST
    HAH

    That's all.

    Oh and "The same Bill Clinton who most here trashed day after day" - Have you ever actually read anything from BTD?

    Parent

    I realy don't understand (none / 0) (#47)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:23:09 AM EST
    what you are tying to say in the first part of your post. If you care to expalin please do.

    As for BTD, I didn't mention him so what is your point? If you are trying to insinuate that posters here and all over the lefty blogs didn't pile on with Obama and trash Bill then you are living in a fantasy world of denial.

    Parent

    You clearly were not here during the primary (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:25:05 AM EST
    And the first part of my post I thought was very clear.

    Parent
    the first part of your post (none / 0) (#59)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:37:16 AM EST
    is still unclear to me as you failed to expand on what you said. No big deal to me if you want to remain unclear.

    I said many things in my post and whatever you were responding to was probably the least important of what I said anyway.

    Parent

    CST clearly meant that the trail has not (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by tigercourse on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:40:31 AM EST
    been blazed for an African American President. Until today.

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#69)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:56:22 AM EST
    because in your view you are not giving credit to those many who went before Obama in politics - i.e. mayors, governors, senators, business men, doctors scientists,etc who blazed the trail he is walking today. It is just a difference in perspective.

    And again I think the whole trail blazing thing is ridiculous anyway. Success is an individual pursuit that one prepares 'themselves' for and no one else, or no amount of trailblazing can do it for them in today's society.

    Parent

    Yes... (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:40:33 PM EST
    it is an individual pursuit, but some individuals face more obstacles than others....racism, sexism, bad luck, bad health.

    My skin is white, I know it gets me some breaks a dark-skinned person would not get when it comes to employment and how law enforcement treats you...isn't this obvious?  Better today than 1960, sure, and hopefully better in 2048 than today.

    Parent

    The majority (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:25:07 AM EST
    of commenters here like Bill Clinton, I would say.  Jeralyn and BTD do.  TChris hasn't written much about him.

    I think you are way off on this.

    Parent

    The lefty blogs (1.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:45:40 AM EST
    were ablaze of Bill bashing and if you want to call it a minority who participated in that here fine, but there were still some. Mostly Obama bots I'm sure but they existed.

    Parent
    Lefty Blogs? (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by eric on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:58:06 AM EST
    Blogs were barely invented, and certainly not popular when Bill was President.  Blogger, for example, was created in August of 1999.

    You are just making stuff up.

    Parent

    are you suggesting (none / 0) (#66)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:52:48 AM EST
    that any dissent of the overall high opinion of BC around here is unacceptable to you?  BTD IIRC calls him the best pol of his generation...and did so as late as yesterday.

    It is totally unfair to lump this blog in with others on the subjects of MSNBC and the Clintons.  

    Parent

    MSNBC? BTD? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:04:09 AM EST
    I never said a thing about either. Are you having a conversation with yourself because you certainly are not addressing what I said when you bring those two things into the conversation.

    Parent
    You said (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:06:40 AM EST
    MOST people HERE trashed Bill Clinton. (emphasis mine)

    That is patently false.  Maybe a select few did.  But the overwhelming majority, front pagers included, did not, and continue to admire Bill Clinton.

    Parent

    I already said (none / 0) (#74)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:17:09 AM EST
    to another poster above"

    "if you want to call it a minority who participated in that here fine,".

    End of story.

    Parent

    I'm just trying to respond (none / 0) (#77)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:25:36 AM EST
    to your erroneous assertion above -

    The same Bill Clinton who most here trashed day after day because of the decisions that he and his team made - the same team Obama will likely have in office. The irony.

    An assertion that you have now walked back.  


    Parent

    I walked nothing back (none / 0) (#80)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:40:51 AM EST
    Someone corrected me and I stood corrected which is something that far too many here are incapable of.

    Parent
    Ok then. (none / 0) (#85)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:50:09 AM EST
    Peace!

    Parent
    The Latino kids at tutoring last (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:39:40 AM EST
    night were all loudly supporting Obama, even though their parents may not be eligible to vote or, according to the kids, won't vote today.  

    Parent
    Poignant. Thank you. (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:05:38 AM EST


    Parent
    Bill Clinton this morning after voting: (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:48:27 AM EST
    here:
    "It's got a lot of parallels to 1992, in the sense that the economy is in trouble and all that, but the difference is that's it's coming after eight years, six of which had the republicans in control of both the White House and the Congress," he said. "I think most people understand this is not just a choice between candidates - it's a choice between philosophies."

    "That's going to be the fundamental significance, and our party tomorrow will wake up with an enormous opportunity, but a profound responsibility," he said.
    Is this yet another example (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:06:40 AM EST
    of Bill Clinton's failure to whole-heartedly support Obama?  <snk>

    Parent
    Actually it is not whole-hearted (2.00 / 0) (#106)
    by AF on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 01:24:19 PM EST
    Clinton said it was about the philosophy not the candidate when for many people, it is about the candidate.

    I don't begrudge Clinton his lack of whole-heartedness.  He has every right to have mixed feelings.  And he has done a good job campaigning for Barack.  

    It is a little bit unfortunate that the honorary first black president can't take a little more joy that we are about to have an actual black president, but it is what it is.

    Parent

    Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 02:10:50 PM EST
    Does he have to accept Obama as his lord and savior?

    It is unfair and Matthews-esque to speculate on Clinton's levels of joy or lack thereof.  

    Based on what BC said on Jon Stewart's show a while ago, I think he actually sees this type of support for Obama as important in its own right.  He is trying to reach out to the people that may not be moved by Obama the guy.

    God.  Guess you'll be watching MSNBC tonight huh.

    Parent

    Bee in your bonnet? (none / 0) (#119)
    by AF on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 03:07:56 PM EST
    I said that Bill has done a good job on the campaign trail.  And it seems you agree that Bill "may not be moved by Obama the guy," which is another way of saying he has mixed feelings.  So I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#120)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 03:27:47 PM EST
    that is not "another way of saying he has mixed feelings."  If Bill Clinton does not want to talk about hope and optimism when endorsing Obama, why should he?  That doesn't mean he doesn't "wholeheartedly" support Obama.  

    For instance, this is fine and dandy, but to me useless:

    "A lot of people talk about his ability to give a great speech. And there's no question that he is truly gifted by God with an ability to speak to people in a way that touches them," Ms. McCaskill said. "To me, that is the whip cream in the cherry. To me, this is a man who has incredible intellectual heft, he's a very smart guy with a wide soul who is not afraid to figure out a new and different way to tackle problems."

    Ladeefrickingdah!  I can tell, McCaskill is wholeheartedly into Obama.  But that type of endorsement is not really persuasive.  Are you going to run over to the neigbhor and talk about how McCaskill thinks Obama has a "wide soul?"  Which was BC's stated goal:

    ...and what I tried to do and what Hillary tried to do in Denver was to say, "Listen: this isn't about people's personal feelings, this is about which President is on your side, who is in there for you and your family and your children and your future, who is going to restore the American Dream at home, who is going to restore our country's position for peace and prosperity and harmony throughout the world."

    and

    Clinton: [grabs Stewart's elbow] No, not "jerk," no, not "jerk," but let's get real here. The purpose of this election is to win. We need to do what gets votes. We've already got all the people that love us on this side; we gotta get some others. We gotta love them, not expect them to love us.

    But you want to say too bad Clinton isn't joyful enough?

    Parent

    What reasons (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:12:18 AM EST
    did Obama give him to whole-heartedly support him? I don't remember any. In fact Obama publicly gave Bill many reasons not to support him.

    Parent
    Once again, BC is right on the money (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:26:35 AM EST
    If it's about a person, we won't get anywhere. We have to make it be about the policies and the ideology.

    Parent
    Let's hope (none / 0) (#23)
    by OldCity on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:53:27 AM EST
    that Obama takes away from the Clinton Presidency some lessins that will help avoid another "Contract with America" or the like.  

    I hope he works aggressively on healthcare.  I hope that members of Congress and members of his party are realistic about what can be done from an overall agenda standpoint.  If he governs center-left, we could be in for a long and relatively happy ride.  

    Oh, and BTD...Dinkins was horrible.  I lived through that debacle.

    Parent

    Again (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:18:17 AM EST
    what specifically would you call horrible? closing a 3 billion dollar deficit inherited from Koch? Cutting the crime rate? Putting 10,000 more cops on the street?

    Please tell me, what did Dinkins do that you found "horrible?"

    Parent

    You have to admit. . . (none / 0) (#58)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:36:20 AM EST
    some of his lower level staffing choices were a bit out there.  :-)

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:43:17 AM EST
    Well I never worked in the Administration.

    Parent
    Clearly (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:44:03 AM EST
    The number one problem :)

    Parent
    No? (none / 0) (#79)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:33:49 AM EST
    Somehow I got the impression that you did -- weren't you the deputy mayor in charge of mandate creation or something?

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:46:11 AM EST
    Nope I was an assistant to the Finance chairman for the 93 campaign.

    Parent
    I must say, this discussion is (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:52:37 AM EST
    a lot more interesting than more Palin-bashing.

    Parent
    BTD worked for Dinkins IIRC (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:54:49 AM EST
    I wouldn't press that too hard. . .

    Parent
    No one ever (none / 0) (#42)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:18:20 AM EST
    worked for a boss who did a terrible before? FYI voicing ones opionion on Dinkin's is hardly a slam on BTD.

    Parent
    Voicing ill informed and empty ones (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:21:24 AM EST
    at least about the Dinkins mayoralty will earn a challenge from me.

    I hate when people repeat ignorant GOP talking pointds

    Parent

    With any politician (none / 0) (#55)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:33:03 AM EST
    there are going to be constituents that have issues with what they did whether those issues are right or wrong. I was just saying that those feelings expressed are no reflection on other individuals, in this case yourself.

    Parent
    It's hard to argue (none / 0) (#45)
    by OldCity on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:20:31 AM EST
    that the city was hugely improved by the Guliani administration.  I'm absolutely not saying that the guy wasn't a loon, nor that he didn't trample all over civil rights, or that he failed to discourage a fair amount of corruption.  And, at the end, he kind of lost his mind.

    But, the city got better.  Cleaner.  Safer.  We argue top-down all the time w/r/t the current administration; I think it's fair to note that there's no comparison between the climate of the city during the two administrations.  

    And, yeah, I know, there's all sorts of other factors.  But, since I wasn't invested in Dinkins, I feel a bit more comfortable assessing the tangible differences in the city...it was just better under Rudy.  And yeah, he did benefit from some Dinkins initiatives.

    What was it Dave said?  "I didn't commit a crime, I just failed to comply with the law..."  

    Anyway...I digress.  

    Socialism appears to be making a comeback.

    Parent

    Excuse me (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:26:45 AM EST
    When your revenues triple for no other reason than a Clinton economic boom coming to Wall Street, then you have all the money in the world.

    Rudy reaped the hard work Dinkins had done - on money for cops from Albany, on making the hard choices on the budget. On raising taxes.

    As I suspected, you really had no conception of what was going on. You are the epitome of the old koch adage, if a pigeon craps on you in central Park, it is the Mayor's fault.

    Argue for Bloomberg if you like, he did not have a huge revenue gusher the way Rudy did - but to argue that Giuliani's 8 years were not wasted is precisely the type of crap that pisses me off no end. Rudy was a horrible Mayor and you were happy because the pigeons did not crap on you.

    Parent

    A little harsh... (none / 0) (#67)
    by OldCity on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:53:41 AM EST
    I had all sorts of information available.  I know what Dinkins did re: taxes and the police , both.  I know Rudy benefited from an economic boom.

    If you want to be for your guy, fine...we walk the same side of the ideological street, after all.  But it's hard to argue that Dinkins was a great administrator or evaluator of talent.  It's hard to justify his own ethical or legal lapses or his responses to questions about them. Sure, you can easily argue that my perspective is skewed, but so what?  It is mine, after all, and clearly remembered.  

    The quality of life in the city...not financial, but social improved.  The change in attitude (which I virulently resisted, btw) in policing had hugely beneficial effects.  I think I was pretty clear on what I considered Rudy's issue to be, above, but that doesn't mean that he didn't do some things that worked out.  

    Dinkins, in my opinion, was an ok politician, but not a great executive.  He had his challenges, to be sure, but I think I'm entitled to find fault with how he handled them.    

    Parent

    Specifics would be welcome (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:05:59 AM EST
    You wrote "we walk the same side of the ideological street, after all." I amnot at all convinced that is true.

    "But it's hard to argue that Dinkins was a great administrator or evaluator of talent." You are arguing he was a horrible administrator and evaluator of talent.

    "It's hard to justify his own ethical or legal lapses or his responses to questions about them."

    Which ethical or legal lapses as Mayor? There were none. Are you sure you are not a Republican? Because your description sure sounds like what the NYPost would write.

    "Sure, you can easily argue that my perspective is skewed, but so what?  It is mine, after all, and clearly remembered."

    Not very clearly remembered as you seem incapable of mentioning one specific item in your breif against Dinkins.  

    "The quality of life in the city...not financial, but social improved.  The change in attitude (which I virulently resisted, btw) in policing had hugely beneficial effects."

    Yes, during the Dinkins years when this started it was becoming clear. Ity seems you think it started with Rudy.

    "I think I was pretty clear on what I considered Rudy's issue to be, above, but that doesn't mean that he didn't do some things that worked out."

    What did Rudy do that worked out? Name on thing that HE did (as opposed to what Dinkins did and Rudy continued.  

    "Dinkins, in my opinion, was an ok politician, but not a great executive.  He had his challenges, to be sure, but I think I'm I'm entitled to find fault with how he handled them."

    You are entitle to say anything you like within the rules of this site. That you actually have said nothing specific about anything and clearly have nothing to offer in that way makes your pronouncements empty imo.

    And I am entitled to say that.

    Parent

    Sigh... (none / 0) (#92)
    by OldCity on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:09:36 PM EST
    I disagree with you, so I'm a Republican?  Weak, and not particularly intellectually honest, either.  I was a city resident and worked there.  I was a Democrat then, too.

    Brooklyn.  The parking enforcement thing.  The "gorgeous mosaic". (see: failure of)

    Democrats can suck.  They can really suck when they're running large cities.  Put simply, Dinkins could have gotten more cooperation and been more productive if he understood the importance of coalition building from within as well as without; that's city politics.  Sure, minorities were underrepresented, but, as we saw with Clinton and later with Bush...it's how you implement your agenda that matters.  His budgetary decisions were laudable, in that he had the courage to make them.  His beefing up of the police force was good, too.  

    But, he lost.  And he didn't lose because he was great.  And he didn't lose because the voters were racist (they did, after all, vote him in, first).  He lost because he was a lousy communicator, because he was serially indecisive and because he just didn't convey the impression of a leader.  

    You can love or hate my answer.  You can alibi the guy all you want.  But he failed in the secondary aspect of any political job...he did not inspire confidence.  

    There's a book out there I've always wanted to read...can't remember the name.  It's supposed to be the definitive work on the Dinkins administration, much the way "Rizzo" by Paolantonio was.  

     

    Parent

    Sheesh (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:47:14 PM EST
    IO do not mind disagreement, I mind empty GOP tlaking point disagreement - here is your brief against Dinkins in toto

    "Brooklyn.  The parking enforcement thing.  The "gorgeous mosaic". (see: failure of)"

    Well, that shut me up.

    Brooklyn presumably means the Crown Heights incident. What particularly did you disapprove of? Do you know what the professional police in NYC recommended to Dinkins at the time? Of course not.

    The "parking enforcement thing?" I have no idea what you mean. Perhaps you are even thinking of the Manes/Lindenauer scandal. But what you probably do not remember is that that was during the Koch Administration.

    As for the failure of the "gorgeous mosaic" what on earth are you talking about? The failure of a political slogan? That is REALLY all you have to say against Dinkins? REALLY?? Hell, I could have presented a better case.

    This is precisely the NYPost view of the world that you have exhibited and I call you on. You clearly have nothing to back up your "Dinkins was horrible" statement so you stutter your way into pretending I am asking for blind Dem loyalty (rather ironic if you have followed my writings.)

    Why don't you instead admit what we all know now - your statement was not thought through and you were just talking without really thinking it through.

    Parent

    Don't read the Post (none / 0) (#107)
    by OldCity on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 01:27:09 PM EST
    never have.  Lousy paper.

    Look, the only thing I could write that would win any agreement from you whatsoever is to agree that Dinkins was the be-all and end-all and that he got screwed by circumstance.

    And that isn't right, couldn't be right.  That  slogan?  That was a way of governing for Dinkins, a philosophy.  His ideas of how to govern, how to create a working coalition weren't practical.    

    You seem to be hard at work trying to convince me that I didn't feel the way that I felt, and that the New Yorkers who had similar impressions were also wrong-headed.    

    Let's draw a parallel...you think that the McCain campaign is completely crazy for blaming the media for his (we presume) loss.  You think he's a lousy choice, that his judgement is suspect; you don't view him as a capable leader.

    Well, BTD, I felt the same way about Dinkins.  (BTW...I know that the advice he was given was to "let them go...")  He didn't inspire feelings of confidence or competence; I felt he'd be at war with his own bureaucracy and city government for his next term.  I was truly disgusted by his response to the tax questions and by his manipulation of his finances (I like transparency in that regard.  And it wasn't trumped up.  He either paid or he didn't pay.  Paying well after the fact doesn't forgive the original sin.)  You want me to quote you chapter and verse from 15 years ago, I'm not gonna do it.  But I don't now and didn't vote then in a frivolous manner.  

    So, we have some divergence of opinion.    

       

    Parent

    You have nothng to say (none / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 01:55:57 PM EST
    So you just make up what I ma going to say.

    Look, you talked out of your A** and I was here to challenge your BS.

    You STILL have nothing of substance or specifics to say about it.

    Which I what I expected. It is clear you were just talking and really have nothing of substance to actually say about the Dinkins tenure. Again, as I expected.

    Parent

    "optimistically nauseous" (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:33:53 AM EST
    From Politico

    Sounds about right to me.

    I wish Dems would push back on socialism (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Exeter on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:38:16 AM EST
    Public schools, postal service, police, fire, roads, national defense, municipal parks and swimming pools, Amtrack and airports, water and sewer, garbage collection, and on and on... these things are all "socialism"

    I know that the word has other Marxist implications, but the second a Democrat promotes a progressive tax scheme or any type of government program and is called a "socialist," they shutter and retreat to re-fitted GOP talking points.  As Lincoln said: "The legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they cannot, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves." Socialism.

    Is it socialism (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:22:44 AM EST
    To spend 455 billion on "defense" and not provide higher education to your people, healthcare and a progressive tax system?

    Is it really better to build weapons instead of brains?

    Is it really better to spend 1 billion dollars on a single stealth airplane than to send 25,000 kids to college at an average of 40k tuition?

    If socialism means equal access to healthcare, providing advanced education to all citizens and changing our belief that we are the world policeforce, than I am all for it.

    Damn, for some odd reason I momentarily (none / 0) (#84)
    by easilydistracted on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM EST
    had the urge to dig out my love beads and throw Age of Aquarius on the turntable. This talk is so reminiscent of talk and strong convictions four decades ago -- and then reality smacked us right between the eyes.        

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#109)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 01:54:13 PM EST
    I hope it doesn't break anything when it hits me square in the face in a few years.  I felt the same about Bill C and was disappointed socially but the country wasn't quite ready for universal health.  I hope we are now.

    Parent
    And, BTW... (none / 0) (#115)
    by easilydistracted on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 02:39:51 PM EST
    I apologize if my remark seemed disrespectful, as that was not my intent.  I'm just so damned cynical today, and, I didn't sleep a wink last night.  I'll not relax until this thing is over.  

    Parent
    Don't worry about American socialism (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by caramel on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    It's not about to happen anytime soon and particularly not with Obama. Seen from Europe, the word "socialist" associated to any politicians in the US is giving us a very good laugh. McCarthy is never far it seems.

    Nonetheless it's a great day today and in this optimistic mood, I'd like to see Obama break the 300 votes mark and give the GOP the massive spanking it so richly deserves...

    The world is watching and holding its breath!!

    Rock the vote America!

    BREAKING NEWS (1.00 / 0) (#94)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:14:54 PM EST
    Due to the massive voter turnout, the states of FL, PA, OH, and VA will have the Republicans vote today and the Democrats vote tomorrow.

    Tell all your friends.

    Not funny (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:19:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Stuff like that goes on too much (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:29:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Matter of opinion. (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:38:42 PM EST


    Parent
    funny (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 01:59:41 PM EST
    see I know Sarc at least the online version, and I know that he is fair, compassionate and fiscally conservative.  I know SUO "online" and after 4 years or so of dialogue, I read this as him being tongue in cheek and saying "my guy lost".

    All a matter of conext and "knowing" the person who said it.  

    SUO, I appreciate your humor and for using it to signal concession.  thanks for the years of argument, here's to 4 more......

    Parent

    Yep, my guy lost... (none / 0) (#116)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 02:43:37 PM EST
    ...but at least my Giants keep winning!

    Another 4 years bloviating here on TL?! Not sure if that's such a good thing, but, hey, the next 4 sure will be interesting!

    Parent

    Im starting to (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 02:58:20 PM EST
    wish I was more of a Giants fan and less of a Bills fan. That's a helluva team you've got there, su, though they're gonna have a real test this week; that one promises to be a real old fashioned black and blue affair with a possible high body count.

    Parent
    Yep, and I'll be on a flight for the whole game. (none / 0) (#118)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 03:05:23 PM EST
    Hopefully the pilot will give us updates.

    Parent
    Good, BTD (none / 0) (#2)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 07:45:20 AM EST
    don't beat around the bush (har), come right out and say it.

    Polls are Polls (none / 0) (#4)
    by Saul on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 07:51:45 AM EST
    You can make them come out how you want them depending on who is asking the questions and when they are asking the questions.  The only thing that will make an actual difference is  if people vote.  We will see what we will see.

    BTD, did you do an EV prediction (none / 0) (#5)
    by joanneleon on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:03:57 AM EST
    and a House/Senate prediction?

    I'm guessing 332/206 Obama, but I'm hoping for better.  I think we'll end up with some really, really close races in at least 4 states.

    I'm still undecided on some of the Senate races, but gad would I love to get a supermajority.  I have fingers and toes crossed that McConnell and Chambliss get the boot.

    House -- I have no idea, except that I'm kind of hoping my Dem "Congressman for life" in one of the the bluest districts in the nation gets shaken up a bit (NJ-1) and for good reason.  He's a prime example of needing better Dems in Congress.

    I do I do! (none / 0) (#6)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:16:44 AM EST
    I finally got to cast my vote this morning!  I chose the straight "socialist" (aka Dem) ticket.  In and out in like 5 minutes, paper ballot, right around the corner.  I've got the best voting spot.

    Some places the "straight Dem" votes (none / 0) (#50)
    by sallywally on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:25:46 AM EST
    if the vote is cast with a "straight party" vote option, the machines are switching the votes. Hope this was not the case for you, CST!

    Parent
    No machines (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:28:00 AM EST
    Paper ballot.  And my "straight party" vote consisted of me filling out each circle individually since there is no other option here.  I am actually pretty confident that my ballot will be counted correctly.

    Parent
    Democratic socialism. . . (none / 0) (#8)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:33:50 AM EST
    or Republican anti-socialism.

    more like (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:48:10 AM EST
    or Republican anti-socialism.

    republican fascism; the perfect melding of gov't and corporate into one.

    Parent

    Corporate fascism... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:51:10 AM EST
    another bingo...though I fear that is what both McCain and Obama are selling...Obama didn't raise more corporate money than McCain based on his good looks.

    Parent
    Rubin had an op-ed vaguely dissing SS... (none / 0) (#54)
    by sallywally on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    essentially talking about privatizing. Not good.

    It will be terribly distressing if we end up with Bush lite when the opportunity is so great now....

    Parent

    Beware (none / 0) (#14)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:11:56 AM EST
    My gut tells me that we will see a lot of government outsourcing to the corporate private sector under Obama. One didn't have to listen to him too closely to pick-up on that. He is no socialist, nor is he even a progressive as we all know.

    Parent
    Fairness (none / 0) (#18)
    by cpa1 on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:32:02 AM EST
    Or "a rising tide raises all boatists?

    Parent
    Yup; decisive victory (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:44:49 AM EST
    Get ready for it.

    Could this possibly mean (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:02:09 AM EST
    you've stopped worrying?  

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:04:21 AM EST
    So maybe that means you should worry. . .

    Parent
    No problem. Worry is me. (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:05:00 AM EST


    Parent
    Good. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Fabian on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:51:19 AM EST
    I'm glad.  I have my own, selfish reasons for a decisive victory.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#36)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:11:20 AM EST
    The graph at RCP is a thing of beauty.  Just about every poll spiked for Obama and McCain is still down at 44.

    Battleground (none / 0) (#62)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:41:36 AM EST
    That one is actually 49-44 (one of the bigger leads Obama had in that one). But in their projection, they allocate undecideds to McCain at about a 4:1 ration and make it 50-48. Huh?

    Oh well, there had to be one outlier poll, and they get that honor.

    I'm rounding up the kids (none / 0) (#83)
    by Fabian on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:48:45 AM EST
    and going to vote soon.  I'll check to see if the Socialists managed to get on the ballot.

    No Socialists. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Fabian on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 01:34:58 PM EST
    But there were four or five other P/VP ballots available not including the [write in] candidate.

    Parent
    All pigs are equal on the Socialist farm, (none / 0) (#90)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:00:04 PM EST
    even those with lipstick.

    BTD, .5? (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:32:42 PM EST
    Looks like BTD took Ras and just added .5--to differentiate himself...

    Poblano says BTD is a little off (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:40:18 PM EST
    Poblano has it 52.3 to 46.2.....

    Parent
    I think they're the same guy. n/t (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:57:19 PM EST


    Parent
    If America chooses socialism... (none / 0) (#113)
    by pluege on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 02:20:31 PM EST
    will the 30% bush/cheney/republican conservative deadenders leave the country, and for good?

    one can only dream, one can only dream.

    (I know if America doesn't choose socialism today, and actually implement it on 20-Jan-09, I'll soon be long gone)

    The Polls - Will America Choose "Socialism?" | 121 comments (121 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment