Slog - Comments on The Morning After: Michigan

Comment by Tlazolteotl

Tlazolteotl — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:56:48 -0800

You mean, "in your pants."

Comment by NapoleonXIV

NapoleonXIV — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:00:49 -0800

Republican on Republican violence is funny because it's mean.....

Comment by R. Jackson, Versatile Intern

R. Jackson, Versatile Intern — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:04:18 -0800

You don't know the depths of my (electoral) passion for that man.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:11:27 -0800

So what's with the MSM still not interviewing Ron Paul when he's beaten both Guilani and Thompson multiple times ... and they interview them when they lose ...

Just saying. Personally, I think Ron Paul is a loon.

Comment by elganador

elganador — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:50:36 -0800

I'd feel better about the R's shredding themselves into tiny little factions if the D's weren't kinda doing the same thing.

It's only three of them, but the longer they harp at each other, the more entrenched Clinton, Obama, and Edwards partisans seem to get.

Comment by Reality Check

Reality Check — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:57:53 -0800

I assume the stranger is going to give equal debate SLOG'ing time to the Rebuplican debates?

Is there going to be another live chat session during the next scheduled Republican debate here on the SLOG?

Just curious...

Comment by Cascadian

Cascadian — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:51:13 -0800

This election is fascinating because of how clearly the dividing lines of both parties are on display. On the Democratic side, you have women, African Americans, working class/pocketbook voters, and ideological and particularly anti-war leftists as the main constituencies, and (ignoring the quasi-campaign of Gravel) anybody paying any attention to the election could easily associate those factions with Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Kucinich respectively. On the other side, it's people afraid of terrorism (Giuliani), conservative members of the military (McCain), rich assholes (Romney), Christian lunatics (Huckabee), loonball libertarians (Paul), anti-immigrant racists (Tancredo), and general idiots (Thompson). You also have Hunter, who doesn't fit cleanly into any category and so isn't gaining any traction.

The difference, I think, is that while personal animosity is high on the Democratic side, the constituencies themselves are ready to rally around the winner. The only exception to that is a vocal subset of Obama supporters who simultaneously embrace his unifying rhetoric at the same time as they proclaim that they will never vote for Hillary Clinton even if she's the nominee. Yet these people do not seem to be part of any key constituency in the party, but rather just a roving band of leader-hungry personality cultists. It's weird and I don't know what to do about it, because the options seem to be to vote for Obama and let some of these people into the decision-making apparatus of government, or vote against Obama and risk pissing them off and losing the election to the Republicans.