Does anyone REALLY think the opinions presented here mirror the country's at large?

[Bicoastal]

I used to think so...not so sure anymore.

After awhile, everyone here seems crazy, and I include both myself and the supporters of my candidate. This is the first time in my political life I've ever thought that maybe the politicians are the normal ones, and we the people ARE just a bunch of uninformed, herd-mentality maniacs who need a tranquilizer or a placebo now and then to keep us from upsetting the water trough...

But then, this isn't real life. This is a message board--a very conscientious, well-meaning message board that has gone temporarily INSANE.

I'm off to the Lounge--don't wait up.

[thereismore]

1. VERY good question. We are a bunch of enthusiasts that project our views

on to the country at large. If you were reading DU months ago, you'd think Dennis Kucinich must have been the dem frontrunner...

[jakem]

2. more of a funhouse mirror...

not completely irrelevent, but not a direct reflection for sure!

[rucky]

3. Why is this day different from any other day?

:shrug:

[Bicoastal]

4. I dunno, but it was more fun when we were more or less on the same SIDE.

[Bluerthanblue]

15. I agree- not only more fun, but less

disturbing.

Sometimes seeing the ugly truth that 'we' can be just as nasty, petty and stupid as "them" on the flip side, is hard to deal with.

:hi:

[dmallind]

21. Just wait six months

I hope.

[IndianaJones]

5. heck no. nt.

[Wetzelbill]

6. on issues generally

Like health care. Fair taxes. The war in Iraq. Opinion of Bush etc. But as for candidates, not really. We tend to pick the more liberal people. Like DU has a much higher rate of Kucinich supporters - of which I am one - than the rest of the populace at large. I think we probably have a larger percentage of people who buy into certain conspiracies etc. It just depends really.

[rox63]

7. Not even close

We're a bunch of political junkies here. Many folks don't know when their primary is. Most people would never dream of watching C-Span for any reason.

[Wetzelbill]

18. when I was a columnist 5 years ago

one of my colleagues went around the U of AZ campus, and asked students questions about politics. He found that most people couldn't even name who the Secretary of State was. People barely knew who Dick Cheney was, many actually didn't. It's wild. And he said these were all intelligent, articulate kids too, people who you think would be better informed. I bet if you walked into a mall, or an office building and started asking people who Robert Gates or Stephen Hadley were, virtually nobody could tell you. Hell, people here can tell you which Dems voted for CAFTA, while most of the country couldn't even tell you what it is. So no, in that sense, we aren't even close to the norm at all. Most people are dangerously ill-informed.

I remember early morning on election night 2004, I woke up before the polls opened I was so excited. I walked down to Circle K to grab some coffee etc, and I heard the clerk and a customer talking about the election. The clerk was railing on about how he hated Bush but wasn't going to vote, because Kerry was so bad etc. His rationale, and he was incredulous at this, was because "Kerry wanted to bring the United Nations to the United States." He was appalled, and the customer was nodding her head, agreeing that it would be a shame to have the UN here. I was so embarrassed listening to how stupid they were I didn't even say anything. Once you're that dumb it's a little too late to tell you on the day of election that the UN is and always has been in New York. :eyes:

[Jimbo S]

24. The University of Wisconsin does this

The TA's give a standard 20-question exam to all Comm Arts 101 students.

Name one your two U.S. Senators?
Who is Mick Jagger?
etc.

This is an infamous test that has been going on for years. Maybe someone with good Google skills can find typical results online.

[Kokonoe]

8. We are but a single person enhancing our own ideas.

If we talk to others . you will find it extremely easy enhancing.

[William769]

9. Not even close.

[MaineDem]

10. Absolutely not.

This is no way representative of the "real world".

[ProSense]

11. No, but if you are here,

are you accepting responsibility for your opinions posted? Are you posting crap you don't believe in? Would your opinion be different if you were talking to your neighbor?

[dmallind]

19. These are very good questions

I can say a resounding yes, no and yes, and I hope, agree with me or not, a large ratio can do likewise. Of course according to my neighbors these identical opinions make a pinko socialist (yes I've been called those exact words) whereas here they make me a closet Republican or fascist (yep been called both too).

Since I live in a red neighborhood (technically I moved this week and probably no longer true - speaking from permanent address experience) and DU tends to the far left of the party, I'm vindicated in the opinion that it really makes me a moderate centrist Democrat, which is how I identify.

[Connie_Corleone]

12. No way.

GD: Politics always goes insane during primary season.

[2rth2pwr]

13. You did not actually think that DU mirrored the rest of the country!

[killbotfactory]

14. I hope not

Well, for some things I hope so, for all the partisan cut-throat bickering I hope not.

[dmallind]

16. God I hope not.

If so there are some seriously groupthinked people around.

[Big Blue Marble]

22. Sadly don't you think groupthink is the norm everywhere?

Different groups, different think, but there is too much running with the herd in this county.
Few people really know how to think for themselves in our country.

[dmallind]

23. Surely

It's the same on FR - they think EVERYONE but a few weirdos and hippies are raving neocon wingnuts, and that that's the mark of a normal, respectable person.

When we have a sizeable contingent stating things like a Senator with a 95% liberal voting record and 100% or close ratings from a who's who of respctable civil rights, anti-poverty, gay rights, and women's groups is barely distiunguishable from Bush, and that Obama is a corporate tool who will crush us all at their behest, how the distinction is drawn is beyond me.

[Big Blue Marble]

25. I can be as partisan as anyone.

Yet I do think we can ill afford to bicker among ourselves as well as tear apart those on the right anymore.
We have to find the commonality of citizenry of this great country in order to save ourselves and the planet.

That is the main reason I have supported Obama's candidacy. He seems to genuinely recognize this urgency and
wants us to find a way out of these fractious and dangerous schisms that have torn this country asunder.
Even around here, that message is lost in the infighting. And I am deeply saddened by that. Only when we
are able to redefine ourselves as citizens of one country, dare I say of one world, will we have access to the creative
resources to move forward. We fight with each other, when we should be fighting together to solve the fierce
challenges of our time.

[dmallind]

28. But can he follow through?

It's a serious question. Even if he is incredibly skilled and charismatic beyond all sane expectations, he needs people of at least comparable merit on the other side to reach out TO, or any hand outstretched in friendship will be bitten off and spat back at him covered in bile.

I'm not saying it's impossible that any Republican could ever be like that - but now and on the horizon I don;t see how and who. Maybe if the Snowes and Chaffees had any influence (or in his case even a seat) we could get somewhere, but there is no Republican leader or serious challenger for it close to that mold.

It's that pragmatist idealist thing again. Sure it would be wonderful - especially speaking from a moderate/centrist POV, to see more efforts to work together and really confront the hard issues for the benefit of the people first and party 451st, but it would take not just a president who's a far better person than I could hope to be to do it (if his appeal can keep its luster and if he can follow through on his words he would certainly qualify), but an opposition leader or several who is also. I don;t think I'm too rosy eyed about myself, and I'm pretty damn sure I'm a better pragmatic compromise and change agent than Mitch McConnell.

[Big Blue Marble]

29. You are wise to be concerned.

I am too. I am willing to take the risk because no one else is even talking about this issue.
I compare this time to the early thirties during the depression. FDR gave Americans the hope
to continue to believe in the power of democracy at a time when many were turning for the solutions
of communism. He was a brilliant orator and pulled the people together during the depression
and during the war. He understood that the power to change was not in the government but in the people.
Barack Obama is the first politician of this time that speaks to that power.

FDR did not rely only on his oratorical skills and it is unfair to say that Obama will either. FDR's popularity and
appeal to the people gave him a congress that supported his policies turned them in to legislation that brought
this country out of economic chaos. He delivered because he had the people with him.

And still it was a fractious time. There were many that hated him with the passion that we reserve for Bush today.
But there was nothing they could do about it.

If Obama is elected as a popular president with voters of all dimensions supporting him, he will bring this people
power to Washington. The president will no longer be speaking for the partisan left or the partisan right.
He will be demanding change for a strong coalition of people who call themselves Americans first. That is
why even moderate Republicans who do think for themselves like Andrew Sullivan are Obama supporters.

[dmallind]

30. I recognize the irony of the word but I hope you are right.

Obama has an upside that is incomparable, but I'm afraid I see it as improbable. I saw him briefly at a rally for a Senate candidate in mid 2006. He's a special kind of crowd-stirrer. Again the comparison to the "other" Clinton is inescapable. Those guys come along only once or twice in a generation. King had it. Clinton had it. Obama's got it. I've heard people say RFK had it too but before my time and not someone I have studied greatly. We all know it when we see it, and even detractors admit it. He's that good.

But I'm a coldly rational guy and I look at this like forecasting a product launch or judging location options for the next facility in business terms. If you have 2 choices looking like this:

A - 30% chance of outcome rated 1 on a scale of 1 to 10 - higher the better
65% chance of outcome rated 6 on a scale of 1 to 10
5% chance of outcome rated 10

B - 10% chance of outcome rated 1
90% chance of outcome rated 6
0% chance of outcome rated 10

The math's pretty simple. You have .3x1 plus .65x6 plus .05x10 = 4.7 against .1x1 plus .9x6 = 5.5

If Obama can notch that 5% higher he wins the votes of cold rationalist me and doubtless a few others, plus many more who have the same worries but simply from an informal non-numbered POV.

EDIT - just to explain the numbers I consider the 1 to be "candidate blows it and Republicans win", 6 to be "Candidate wins the GE and we get a good solid Democratic WH who I'm going to agree with more often than not making steady if slow progress with a divided filibuster-possible Congress." and 10 to be "Combination of FDR socially and Clinton economically with the added ability to sway teh hearts and minds of the people and even the opposition sufficiently to render the hardcore opponents impotent". I'm not completely immune to the Obama effect. I gave him a 1 in 20 shot.

And for anyone wondering why I like Edwards over Clinton speaking as a Blue Dog, do your own math on the same criteria. It should work out.

[Big Blue Marble]

33. I know what you are saying.

Obama's message speaks the idealist, the visionary in me. He dreams the possible if not the probable future.
I think that all great politicians do. Churchill, FDR, JFK, Clinton and even (though I never got it) for many Reagan
Most like Hillary are more pragmatic. Their message is often a cluster of campaign promises combined with
a fear-based message that takes us back to our basic survival instincts. And it works, but at what price.
Are we meant to soar or just survive? Oh there is my idealist talking. LOL

Anyway that is how I see this election playing out. Will we settle for the same right-left fear-based politics
that just cycles us down while the powerful steal our democracy, our wealth, and the greatness of the dream
that our founders envisioned? Or will we see a greater vision of who we really are? If it's the latter, then Obama's
our man.

I think Hillary is such a pragmatist that she probably would have been a Tory.

[dmallind]

34. Nah - too savvy

She'd have stayed out of it as far as possible, seeking alternatives and progress where possible until the outcome was more certain.

And I say that not as an insult. I would have tried, with less skill than she has but I suspect more than enough, to do the same. It's not like that was a rare goal at the time either. Idealists often lose, and rarely accomplish much, but do great things rarely. Pragmatists get more done, but more slowly and less than people of great passion want. You need both. Home run hitters who bat .150 and bloop singlers who hit .390 win it all every time over a one dimensional team.

[Big Blue Marble]

36. Idealists do often lose.

But when they win, they win big. Like those guys that founded these United States.
I agree we need both. The idealists are the engine that moves us forward.
The pragmatists are the gyroscopes, that keep us centered and on track.

We have been through a period of pragmatist ascendancy. In my opinion, it has run its course.
It's time to hit the accelerator. Take some risks. And change our course.

[Barack_America]

17. Bush's reelection--wouldn't this have shown you just how different DU's

opinion's are than those of the rest of the country?

[dmallind]

20. Good point. Even Diebold ain't THAT crooked. 100-0 exit polls are tough to hack. NT

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Not really.

In MY world, My cirlce, most everybody supports Kucinich and Edwards. A few for Obama. One for Hillary. Mom still like Biden.

It's a microcosm that is not reflected in either DU polls or polls at large.

But I'm happy, here.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

27. nope. eom

eom

[MonkeyFunk]

31. Not in the slightest

[hughee99]

32. Maybe in the Sports forum, but not in GD or GDP. n/t

[frogmarch]

35. DUers seem much better informed

about the candidates and the issues than most of the people I encounter in my everyday life. I like that, and although some posts are bizarre, for the most part I get a lot out of reading here.