Wonder How Many There Are?

Wonder How Many There Are?

You mean, how many McCain supporters who pose as Democrats to make lame, last-ditch efforts to sow division? Lots, probably.

You guys will have to think of a better way to solve this problem. Or better yet, don't solve it.

You mean, how many McCain supporters who pose as Democrats to make lame, last-ditch efforts to sow division? Lots, probably.

Whatever paranoid fantasies give you comfort, Jim.

"You guys will have to think of a better way to solve this problem. Or better yet, don't solve it."

My polls are always accurate! Thats why Mondale, Gore, Dukakis and Kerry became president!

There's no paranoia or fantasy in it. The first poster that you linked to more or less admitted that he or she --- I would guess a she from the writing style --- doesn't even like the Clintons, and does like McCain. Nor is it any kind of threat. It doesn't fool anybody, other than maybe some smug Republicans, and Republican equivalents, who want to be fooled. The poster even tipped her hand, throwing in media bias slogans while bashing Obama and not praising Clinton.

Now the addendum to your post could point to some real trouble for the Obama campaign. If it's actually true, that is. It's all too easy for anonymous sources to mix fact with fiction.

But even if Obama will have to cope with Bill Clinton's bruised ego, "Operation Chaos" has been an undemocratic and unsound Republican strategy. Given a choice between vanilla, chocolate, and blueberry, you won't get people to pick vanilla by fomenting strife between chocolate and blueberry. Gloating won't persuade people either. People have to actually want vanilla, but according to the polls, they're tired of it.

The first poster that you linked to more or less admitted that he or she --- I would guess a she from the writing style --- doesn't even like the Clintons, and does like McCain.

I guess that's what happens when one has a short attention span, and doesn't get past the first post.

But just keep whistling past that graveyard, Jim.

My polls are always accurate!

It's not just Newsweek's polls, it's all of them. (Okay, Gallup is an outlier that shows them tied.) But it's true that polls aren't any kind of promise. They're just a measurement, like taking your temperature. You're free to argue that there isn't really any problem to solve. You could say that the thermometer was in the wrong place, or that even if it looks bad today, it says nothing about tomorrow. These explanations are sometimes correct, too.

If this is how McCain wants to respond to the polls, great!

Again, I certainly don't promise that Obama will win. I hope that he understands that he needs to analyze his apparent lead very carefully and do a lot of work to maintain it. It would be relief if he won, but I wouldn't promise it just because I prefer it, or because the polls and Intrade both tilt in his favor.

I guess that's what happens when one has a short attention span, and doesn't get past the first post.

I focussed on the post because you quoted it. As for the rest of the thread, it would be non-trivial and not all that rewarding to sort out Republican trojans from sincere, if empty-headed, Hillary supporters. What is true is that there are venomous comments about the DNC and Obama up and down the entire thread, a lot of sympathy for McCain and no "lesser evil" argument, and to boot a citation to Sean Hannity. I did click on one commenter called "4Hillary". That blog started in late May and has had nothing positive to say about Hillary.

Yeah, right. Certainly there are ways for Obama to lose, but this is not one of them.

I focussed on the post because you quoted it.

The post I quoted was the tenth one, not the first one. Reading comprehension problems?

"Either way, this isn't going to help heal the rift."

Awwwwwwww. Ain't that just too bad.

A pox on both their houses.

The post I quoted was the tenth one, not the first one.

Fine, you quoted a comment with the same tone as the original post, and I misattributed it. I concede the point.

Still, the thread that you linked is inflated with silicone implants. It's just not natural. Again, it's also a distraction from what the Republicans would have to do to win. You can see that Operation Chaos would be a tempting refuge for conservative grouches who don't really like McCain either. But you can't grouch your way to victory.

Still, the thread that you linked is inflated with silicone implants. It's just not natural.

You just keep fooling yourself, Jim. We love it.

Fine, since you think that the quote from the commenter Tania is a revelation, here is a self-description from the web site: "I was never democrat. I switched from repubs to dems. this year exclusively for Hillary."

This Tania also hates Carter, Pelosi, CNN, and the MSM. But for some strange reason she loves Hillary.

The Obama campaign faces many important challenges between now and November. Pleading with Tania to ditch her silicone implants is not one of them.

My take is that there'll be a lot more disaffected going for Nadar than crossing party to vote for McCain. And that's kind of the strange thing about this post. Why vote for the enemy when you can vote for someone you like (be it Nadar, Green party, or similar liberal candidates of which there will be many)? It could well be some sort of twisted troll. Not that we ever have those on the internet.

Polls don't mean a thing at this point. This race starts after the first debate.

...other than maybe some smug Republicans...

Jim, you're slipping, and you're being redundant. You've always given me the impression that you consider all Republicans smug.

But you fail to mention all the people, Joe and Jane Average, who said on camera during the Primaries, that they would vote for the Republican against Obama if he beat Hitlary. That was fodder for the leftist MSM before McCain was close to winning. It was being said, by voters in Democrat Primaries and Caucuses, since the beginning of the cycle, that regardless of who the Republican was, they'd not support Obama.

If you didn't see or hear that before now, you are just not watching.

You've always given me the impression that you consider all Republicans smug.

That impression certainly would be very foolish. There are lots of Republicans who aren't smug, in particular, McCain himself. He takes Obama seriously, because he'd be sunk if he didn't, and he also never much bought into the "Operation Chaos" gambit. That came from Rush Limbaugh, who is smug as all hell and not much of a friend of McCain either.

But you fail to mention all the people, Joe and Jane Average, who said on camera during the Primaries, that they would vote for the Republican against Obama if he beat Hitlary.

Yeah, I'm sure, just as when Clinton was ahead there was the rising tide of people who vowed to vote Republican if Clinton beat Obama. And many of them were the same people. Of course, it's just a standard cliche of politics that whoever gets the nomination in the enemy camp is the worst choice or otherwise a ruinous choice. "Bzzzt, wrong, you shoulda chosen the other one!" is always available as campaign talk. It's pretty obvious and pretty smug too.

It's interesting that it's hard for the Democrats to say this about McCain. He can't be called worse than Bush, or worse than the Republican candidates that he beat. The honest truth is that he was the best of a bad lot. The Democrats can only accuse him of being the same as Bush, which is not entirely fair. Although it's also not entirely unfair, given how much McCain has had to triangulate to get nominated.