My anti-Democratic relative dropped a bombshell at the kitchen table today.

[AlinPA]

He said: "I have been a republican all my life and for the first time, I will vote for a Democrat".
This guy was never a religious fundamentalist, just rabid anti-Democratic. We didn't say anything after he said this.

His leadoff statement was "This country is so f---d up and the Iraq things is crazy" This is last thing any of us expected. If he feels that way, it must be affecting a lot of people now.

Polls don't reflect it yet though.

[Xenotime]

1. Yes! Keep them coming.

Perhaps we could do away with the whole damn party.

[Skittles]

2. I think there is more folk like that than we realize

rightwing nutjobs can scream their lies all they want but when the people actually start SEEING and FEELING the negative effects of repuke leadership, all bets are off

[patrice]

3. True Story: I heard a couple of WASP males in the heart of Red country at McDonald's

a couple of Saturdays ago, around breakfast time, talking about how the War on Iraq won't protect us from terrorism.

People NEVER talk about anything but Sports around here.

Something HAS changed.

[rockymountaindem]

4. We heard plenty of these anecdotes prior to the 2004 election

I don't see why we should rely on them for inspiration now.

[DemBones DemBones]

8. Diebold still controls the vote, right?

:shrug:

[appleannie1]

5. I have heard that from a number of lifelong

Republicans. What I have found is that it is only the super religious fanatics that listen to what is preached from their pulpits that think differently. Ordinary Republicans are as disgusted as we are. But then, if you have read the Bible, Jesus said that the day would come when some would use the word of God to do the deeds of Satan and "many would be fooled". I honestly believe, that is what is occurring today.

[wtmusic]

6. "It's the economy, stupid." nt

[Double T]

7. The GOOD NEWS is bushco and the rethugs still has 8 1/2 months left to allienate............

every single voter.

[jobycom]

9. It won't be that simple. The election won't be between parties, but candidates.

And Bush won't be one of them. I know many Republicans who routinely treat Bush like a joke and a failure. But in November they'll have a choice between a candidate who says all the stuff they've been conditioned to hate, and one who says all the stuff they've been conditioned to like. They may also be asked to choose between a candidate with zero experience at anything, and a lifelong public servant with an unquestioned history at the federal level. Or, a candidate they've been programmed (just as many Dems have been programmed lately) to hate for so long they may have trouble voting for her.

Surely many will look at the state of things and say "We can't do the same things anymore." But how many? Enough to overcome the liberals who will slide to Nader when their favorite Dem loses? Enough to overcome the Dems who turn, or stay home, when they, too, are asked to support someone with no experience, or someone they've been programmed to hate? Someone they grew to despise during the primaries? Most Dems won't act like that, but some will. Most Republicans won't turn, but some will. WHo will the media push? The Republicans, as their corporate owners want them to, as they have pushed since 1980? Or will they turn on the Republicans? The media will dictate "conventional wisdom," and the voters in the middle who decide the elections will probably follow them. Only in 92 did they not.

It will be a different universe by November. The issues that decide the election then may have no connection to what we are all debating now.

[Marr]

11. I'm amazed that you could make that argument, and arrive at

the suggestion that Hillary Clinton would be the strongest candidate.

Yes, Bush will be out of the picture. There are three potential candidates, and GOP voters already dislike one (McCain), despise another (Hillary Clinton), and seem at best confused by the third (Obama). If you're going to say Nader is a potential factor, well... I think he'd scoop up a hell of a lot more support from a last minute Hillary Clinton superdelegate win than he would from an Obama win. Do you disagree with that?

[jobycom]

12. I've reread my post, and still don't see where you get that conclusion from

I carefully stayed away from weighting it for or against either candidate. I think I summed up the shortcomings of both in a general election.

As for your last point, about superdelegates, I think you are too focused on Obama, and are missing the bigger picture, which is what I was talking about. Such a victory for Clinton probably will drive some to Nader, but that's only one scenario. Obama will cost votes, too, as independents in the middle (the ones who decide the election, and their votes count twice) get nervous about electing essentially a local politician to handle a nation in a major financial and international crisis. Just as McCain's choice will cost the Republicans votes from the far right. That's always the case. My point wasn't that any candidate would be stronger than the other, my point was that a story about a single voter changing from Republican to Democrat will be offest by the reverse story for other reasons.

Now, so you don't accuse me of waffling, I'll tell you what I think of the candidates. I don't trust Obama, and don't believe he can win, and that goes much deeper than, though it includes, his lack of experience. I do like Clinton, but I feel she has many other shortcomings, and I think she would have a lot of trouble winning, too. Which would have the most trouble comes down to nuances that I don't think we can even predict at this stage of the game, so I don't base my choice on electability. I would have probably voted for Gore over Clinton if he had run and maybe for Richardson if he had been a more serious contender. But I don't choose my candidates on what I wish had happened, I just decide which of the serious contenders could do the best job of advancing my liberal agenda. Obama doesn't have the experience to get it done, Clinton does. And their voting record is so similar it hardly merits discussion of which is the most liberal. Obama claims he was against the Iraq war, but Clinton was not for it, and Obama voted to continue the war the very first time he did get to vote on it. Neither is as clean as they claim, and neither is as dirty as their opponents claim, on Iraq or on anything else.

But none of that had anything to do with what I posted.

[TML]

10. Not surprised

I live in a very pro-GOP area and I don't see any campaign signs for McCain or for any GOP candidate running in the California primary in June.

I used to see tham all the time for Bush and Duncan Hunter. Now I see "For Sale" signs from lenders, real estate brokers, and hard-up homeowners trying to do their own short sale.