February 5, 2008

Psssst. Who'd you vote for and why?

Since this is a perfect forum to discuss who you voted for and why, I thought I'd throw it out there.

I'm particularly curious about how others came to the conclusion of whom they voted for.

Many no doubt had their minds made up long ago (likely for local boy Obama), but for the rest of you who, like me, were faced with two nearly equally appealing candidates, both with cause to support them and cause to have slight misgivings, how did you finally arrive at picking just one?

What was the process you went through to arrive at your choice of Clinton or Obama?

Did you go back and forth several times? Did you only make up your mind once you got in the voting booth? Yesterday? A week ago?

What event or events served to sway your vote one way or another? What moments in the campaign affected you one way or another?

How did the issues of race and gender affect your choice if at all? Were they easy to ignore and come to a choice without either playing a role?

Or as a woman, did you feel a certain obligation to vote for Hillary? If a person supported Hillary and happened to be African-American, did they struggle with the same feeling that they were obligated to support the first African-American with a real shot at becoming president?

And if you are an African American woman.... you really had a lot on your plate, though you couldn't really go wrong I guess.

Did the debates serve to firm up your choice? Were you influenced by ads?

You get the picture. Draw us a mental map of your journey to arriving at either Clinton or Obama. I think it would be fascinating to hear how various people made up their minds, if they flip-flopped back and forth, when, and what influenced their decision.

As for myself, I find the choice incredibly difficult. I've flipped back and forth many times since Edwards withdrew, sometimes a couple times in a day.

It's truly fortunate that just when it most needs them, the country is provided with two such highly qualified candidates, both with a healthy vision for the country's future, but it sure makes for a lot of work and serious thought to try to choose between the two.

But I believe I'm at least firmly leaning in one direction and can cast my vote with confidence, even though the fact that Obama has a lock on Illinois makes one able to cast a vote either way without affecting the outcome, though since Dem primaries are proportional, the actual percentage of votes cast for each will determine the allocation of delegates. (except the super-delegates and bonus delegates, which I won't dare try to explain here, though you can learn a bit about it here.)

Share how you arrived at your choice today and compare it to other's experiences.

44 Comments:

At 2/05/2008 12:34 PM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Interesting Journey for me. WJC is a dear and old friend. We were partners in a business. I was an area coordinator for his first ever political campaign. I traveled to watch him sworn in as Attorney General in 1976. In January of 1980, I traveled to Little Rock again, this time to tell him he was gonna get beat if he didn't "win" the upcoming legislative session. He didn't listen and he didn't win.

But, through it all, we've been friends 35 years. There's no thrill like having the president's private number come up in your caller id.

Everybody around here thought that friendship made me an automatic Hillary supporter. For me, it didn't work that way. I've also known her for 35 years but not with the same level of warmth as her husband.

I dithered all Spring and Summer about whether to support her. Was she too process-bound? Did the New York address make her too much of a Hawk? Frankly, could she dumb herself down enough to communicate with the primary electorate?

Complicating this is a long time friendship with Joe Biden and about six years of valued friendship with BObama.

Biden had no chance and will be a fine Secretary of State or Defense, so I gave myself that out.

The answer came to me in Obama's rhetoric. "Change" "Washington doesn't work" "Lobbyists are evil" "I'm not of Washington".

This is not my first rodeo. Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas may have left the building but the Washington process is there and it is hopefully permanent. Democracy here really hasn't been doing a bad job. What we really need is someone who is good at the process, not somebody who is going to ignore it. The process is like the ocean. Whether you believe in it or not, if you step in, you'll still get wet. Better to have a mastery of it than disdain for and damnation of it.

The other thing that tipped me is that, while I know BObama to be a decent, moral man, his rhetoric is the same as McflightSuit, the candidate. Much more elegant, indeed, but the same. Do I want another president who doesn't tell us where his cult of personality will lead us?

Finally, the vote for military force was just not a barrier for me. She was the Senator from Freaking New York. She had no choice. Her current position is responsible, perhaps more responsible than his.

Since the time I made my decision, I wavered once. When she drank Eliot Spitzer's KoolAid on the alien DL's for about a day, I worried. She not only got her mind right but persuaded Eliot that he was on crack.

So I'm leaving now to vote for Hillary Clinton as soon as I post this. If I were hiring somebody to fly a plane, I'd want the most skilled pilot and not the person who said that flying should be discontinued. There will be a political system in Washington on January 20, 2009. I am voting for the person who best knows how to fly it to a destination I hope to find desirable.

But then, you knew that.

 
At 2/05/2008 1:24 PM, Anonymous Union Proud said...

Obama - Hillary is no the answer.

Boland - Always supported him.

Jacobs - Supports my union.

Yes to Niabi.

 
At 2/05/2008 2:51 PM, Anonymous Razorback said...

A lifelong Republican, I pulled a Dem ballot (it almost killed me). I voted for Hillary, simply because I think that she can be beat in November and Obama cannot be.

Knowing that the Republican nomination is pretty well determined, I thought that a vote for Hillary (who would lose in November) was the best vote that I could cast.

 
At 2/05/2008 2:51 PM, Blogger Scott said...

Since I live in Springfield for school, I voted early. For today, I was able to return to help with the local campaigns. I've been knocking doors for a few candidates, and hopefully they will all have a good night tonight.

To answer your question:

I have supported Barack Obama since the draft campaign. I was very happy and proud to finally be able to back up that support with my vote. I also voted for all five of the Obama delegates.

As for the other races, I voted for Lack and Jacobs. Mike Boland has served us well, but we need someone who is willing to make big moves in Springfield to let us be heard. Boland doesn't seem to do that. I did not vote for Rumler; because, I have not seen a reason to. Mike Jacobs has done a good job in Springfield, and Rumler hasn't given me any reason to change that position.

Is anyone else intrigued that the most competitive race is the one for Coroner?

 
At 2/05/2008 3:25 PM, Anonymous QC Examiner said...

Lead the way Dope! I did early voting on January 22 and blogged about the experience, who I voted for and why.

What's with the "show me yours and I'll show you mine" bit?

Let's see "yours".

 
At 2/05/2008 4:44 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

After Rudy's candidacy imploded, I really had to think about my vote. I supported McCain 8 years ago when nobody else did. Now I like Mitt because he looks presidential and I believe him to be clean as a whistle. I listen to a lot of talk radio where McCain has taken a beating in recent days. HOWEVER...

In the end, I voted for McCain because of his experience and foreign policy credentials and because he is tough and he has the courage to take a stand, even when it is politically un-popular. Also, he would run the best in November.

We live in a dangerous world and I don't want to hand it off to another governor who needs "on the job" training and certainly not to an amateur like Obama. People talk about "change" -We are going to have "change" anyway simply because Bush cannot run for a third term. "Change" just for the sake of change is foolish.

 
At 2/05/2008 4:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

who why
___________________________________
Obama- Hope
Jacobs- Rumler has no experience
Boland- Lack has done nothing
Gustafson- he was chief deputy
No to the Niabi Zoo tax- Im poor
all the Obama delegates
no to all the uncontested demos in ri county
glen evans for alderperson- deserves a shot, hard working
glen evans for alternate delegate- see above

 
At 2/05/2008 4:59 PM, Blogger Craig said...

Hillary can not beat John McCain, and I don't want to be in Iraq for 100 years... the choice was easy. I hate when people don't back up their assertions... So, she can't win because her negatives are through the roof. Independents and young people (like me) will stay home if she is on the top of the ticket. That would kill down ticket races everywhere. She has zero crossover appeal to Republicans.

I also feel Obama is better on health care. I for one, am looking at a huge health care expense in the next few years. I may not be able to afford a government subsidized health care system. Hillary believes those that can not afford should be fined, I don't feel that is the best approach to universal health care. On education, I love the idea of a $4000 tuition credit for those willing to go into public service after school. I would love that opportunity, but unfortunately will be out of school when President Obama can get it passed.

Now, I know you have known where I stand for a long time Dope. It was no surprise that I voted for the home team on this one. My mind was made up standing in front of the Old State Capital on a crazy cold day, February 10th, 2007.

** Fun Fact - My entire life (1986-2008) there has been two families in the White House, Bushs and Clintons. It is time for a change Dope.

 
At 2/05/2008 6:15 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Thanks Scott.

A couple of thoughts. Interesting that they're using optical scan (paper ballots where you blacken the oval) rather than touch screen voting.

What's up with that switch?

And I was still disappointed to not get some sort of printed record of my vote, though at least there's a paper ballot to serve as a tangible evidence of the vote and to allow recounts if needed.

I also find it interesting that Obama has been performing so well among white males in southern states, a demographic that I would have assumed wouldn't be that strong for him.

Turnout, based on anecdotal evidence, seems to be high.

 
At 2/05/2008 6:51 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Good responses from all! And UMR, excellent, as usual.

QCI, if you want to let it all hang out, be my guest. If I revealed whom I voted for, it would turn this into the usual slew of attacks against me, and that holds true no matter who I chose.

I'm not so much interested in WHO someone voted for as hearing what process they went through and what brought them to arrive at that choice.

What events made a difference in their decision? Did they support one candidate but then change their minds? Did they change their minds several times? Did they change their support after a debate? Did they change their minds or perhaps confirm their choice after seeing an ad? After watching the crowd at a rally?
How did they balance the emotional appeal vs. the more practical matters such as electability, experience, etc?
Did celebrity or political endorsements figure into their choice?

The questions are endless, and to me, hearing how people come to arrive at their choices is far more interesting than what that choice was.

That said, I HAD written up several paragraphs outlining how I've gone back and forth and why. Then realizing that I get beat to shit every time I write something lengthy I decided to cut it.

If I'd left it in, the usual a-holes would write in their lame attampts to take cuts at me and no doubt someone would ask how dare I think anyone gives a damn about how I made my choice.

 
At 2/06/2008 3:19 AM, Anonymous nooncat said...

I went with Obama. My top two choices, Kucinich and Edwards, had regrettably dropped out of the race before Super Tuesday. And Clinton appears to me more a political opportunist than a candidate with genuine convictions. I'm not entirely sold on Obama, but I have more trust in him than I do in Clinton as someone who's the real McCoy in terms of espoused principles. Clinton, to me, is really more interested in getting a "promotion," as it were, from management to executive status. In short, IMO Obama in his ambition to enter the White House is more idealistically sincere.

 
At 2/06/2008 8:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So a little birdie told me...

Last night Rumler calls Jacobs to offer congratulations and in his typical classy way Jacobs, "Well I guess at the end of the day your still a fu*$ing loser Paul."

By the way....this was on the speaker phone and it was being recorded by WQAD when he made the call.

Ladies and Gents our Senator...Mike Jacobs.

 
At 2/06/2008 10:23 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 8:43.

I caution all readers to realize that the comment above is completely unconfirmed and can only be regarded as rumor at the moment.

Can anyone else confirm this?

It's a bit hard to believe, but....

 
At 2/06/2008 2:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was at Rumler's campaign party and I was for Paul but Paul was telling Jacobs that he was going to be following him and making sure that he did what he should and he needed to change his ways. It was on tape and Jacobs did tell Paul to take a leap but I can't say that I blame Jacobs. I thought calling Jacobs in public was disrespectful and playing it on his speakerphone was classles. I was disapponted at Paul's behavior.

 
At 2/06/2008 3:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its only about a quarter of the story Dope. I'm sure that the Rumler camp wouldn't want the rest of it known. I would think they'd be feeling a tad foolish for letting it out that they recorded and put a private phone call on speakerphone with one of the party's knowlege.

 
At 2/06/2008 4:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

what did Rumler say on the phone call? He initiated it, Mike responded. Neither one handled it well, from what I heard. takes two to fight here folks

 
At 2/06/2008 6:48 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I have no idea what happened, but from these comments it appears that Rumler called Jacobs to concede and Jacobs had no class and came off like an asshole... and now you're saying shame on Rumler because he allowed others to hear what an asshole Jacobs is/was?

OK.

Not letting Jacobs know it wasn't a private conversation wasn't a good move and can't be excused. But what is that saying?

True character is what you do when you think no one is looking (listening)?

 
At 2/06/2008 7:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No No No dope, Rumler did not call and offer a congratulations, that is the part you missed, He called up and told Mike off, telling him he better do this, he better do that,or he will be waiting for him again and then some goon from Rumlers family actually went to Jacobs campaign HQ to threaten Mike. Now, who disputes that? Did Mike tell him to stick on the phone call? sure did! did Rumler act like a spoiled little child once he found out he lost? absolutefriggenlutely...get over it rumler, lose 2x, your done, move back to mass with your career choices...

 
At 2/06/2008 7:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He was telling Jacobs what he better do, how he'd be watching him. It was condescending and arrogant. Threatening in nature. It was embarrassing.

 
At 2/06/2008 7:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I forgot to say that if Paul had called to concede instead of looking for a verbal fight, taping it, on speaker phone, showing his friends how cute he was and how commanding he was it would have been a different story. You don't call and threaten people when you should say "good race" or "I'll get you next time".

 
At 2/06/2008 8:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 2:13, you were not at Rumler's party. I promise. I was there. I heard what Rumler said. I was standing right there. He said nothing out of line, and certainly didn't use any colorful language like Jacobs. He didn't instigate anything.

It's pretty sad that our Senator is on this blog taking on pseudonyms (Mike, I'll wait while you get your dictionary) trying to act like he didn't do anything wrong. Dope, your instincts were right on. Jacobs acted like and @sshole. As it turns out so did Denny (according to the Dispatch).

 
At 2/06/2008 9:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard that it is not a good idea to come to an East Moline tavern to play rough is a bad idea.
The Rumler's should be so proud.

 
At 2/06/2008 9:57 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 7:14

So now you're suggesting that Rumler called Jacobs and had it all on speakerphone with media recording it... and RUMLER then acted out of line and rude.

I see. Sure, makes sense. Why not invite the media to cover you being rude in your post-election call. That makes perfect sense. NOT!

That just doesn't hold water.

And of course, I can't help noticing that while you're suggesting it was Rumler who was somehow rude or obnoxious, you couldn't help showing exactly the kind of no-class ungracious ugliness that Jacobs is accused of displaying.

 
At 2/06/2008 10:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't want to go out on a limb here, but could there have been alcohol involved in Jacobs' disgraceful behavior?

 
At 2/06/2008 10:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Drinking LEGAL

Taping a phone conversation
ILLEGAL

 
At 2/06/2008 11:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Acting like an asshole to your opponent after you defeat them:

PRICELESS

 
At 2/06/2008 11:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think this is one of those deals where the Jacobs scream that something is illegal, and it might technically be, who knows? But the only thing for sure is that they'll never dare press charges.

How could they? That would give Rumler the chance to present evidence and expose Jacobs comments and behavior to the world.

Aint' gonna happen. Not a chance

 
At 2/07/2008 10:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At least Rumler made a courtesy call to concede, that's better than Lack who simply pouted to the camera and didn't bother to call Boland at all.

Typical for machine arrogance.

 
At 2/07/2008 12:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Rumler family should be proud of the wonderful display of STUPID their uncle portrayed election night. Maybe they should ask him about it and then insert foot in mouth!

and FYI anon 11:29 It is illegal.
Illinois requires prior consent of all participants to monitor or record a
phone conversation. Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch. 38, Sec. 14-2.
If Rumler and WQAD taped Senator Jacobs without his consent, they could face up to three years imprisonment and fines of more that $10,000.

oops.

 
At 2/07/2008 1:17 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I think anon 11:29 is right.

Rumler or WQAD doesn't need to lose any sleep worrying about Jacobs raising this issue they say is a clear violation of law.

They'll let it go and ignore it to avoid the discovery process at trial that would reveal exactly what was said, and I imagine he'd come out looking shabby to say the least.

Rumler, after all, was the one who apparently invited scrutiny of the conversation, and it makes no sense that he'd then behave badly or say nasty and boorish things when he was aware it was all being documented.

So the idea that Rumler somehow was out of line is a bit suspect.

I'd imagine that he simply knew how easy it was to get Jacobs to make an ass out of himself, figured there might be alcohol involved, and was vindictive enough to invite the press to document it all.

Rumler likely knew that all he'd have to say is anything that would remotely touch Jacobs ego at that time and Jacobs would predictibly errupt and say something disgusting.

Apparently, it worked like a charm.

I only wish someone would actually reveal the evidence and show what was actually said by the parties involved.

Otherwise, of course, it's all speculation.

 
At 2/07/2008 5:33 PM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Uh, 1214,

I don't know how to break this to you, but we haven't had Ill. Rev. Statutes in Illinois since 1993.

Hint: You can go onto the Illinois Legislative Reference Bureau site and search the freebie Illinois Compiled Statutes.

Second Hint: Illinois Case Law is clear that a speakerphone is not an eavesdropping device.

I have no side in the dispute you're arguing but I just very respectfully request you use valid information to make your points.

 
At 2/07/2008 5:40 PM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Anything that varies from this template is trouble:

(Loser Places call) Congratulations, Tom/Joe/Dick/Harry, you ran a great race and I wish you the best in the future!

(Winner, building bridges) Thanks a lot, Tom/Joe/Dick/Harry. You were a worthy and tough opponent. Good luck in your future endeavors.
(Only if it's a primary)When we both get settled back into our post-election lives, I'd like to sit down with you and work on things we have in common. I want to earn your support in the General. Thanks for Calling.

(Loser) I appreciate your kind words. I'll look forward to it.

My next book will be on graceless concession calls. The stories are myriad. People just can't get out of the campaign mode in time to get back to the "human" mode. It's a common problem.

 
At 2/07/2008 6:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, let me get this straight. Supposedly a TV station recorded a call on speakerphone? If you've ever dealt with speakerphone you know that it's very difficult to hear, and would never be possible in a noisy restaurant/bar.

And dope, you're right, if the call was recorded you could be sure that Rumler wouldn't instigate anything.

 
At 2/07/2008 10:16 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

UMR, thanks for setting these jokers straight. Of course your words are like pearls before swine unfortunately.

I've found that when it comes to making charges against their perceieved enemies, the truth is their last concern and the audacity of their smears are only limited by their boundless imaginations and seemingly bottomless supply of mean-spirited vindictiveness.

Almost seems like they've practiced so long and hard at trumping up false smears that they've lost the ability to react to anything in a more intelligent way.

They immediately resort to searching for the smallest, tiniest little nugget of half truth that they think they can fan into a smear.

Step two is to then set out to twist this tiny sliver they've chosen into an incredible construction that inflates it and distorts it beyond recognition in a way they feel will fool the foolish into thinking it's a great scandal, counting on the hope that people are stupid enough to not immediately see it for what it is, a desperate attempt to get attention away from their latest screw up. It's the old, "Don't look here, look over there!" tactic.

Needless to say, this is an insult to the people they are attempting to fool, and shows plainly that they think voters are incredibly stupid and will swallow this stuff whole. (and sadly, many do.)

It's incredibly lazy in a way. Lie and smear, lie and smear. So predictable that it's boring as hell. You wish they had another play in their playbook.

Every time they show their asses in public, or an unflattering truth is reported, they react with ever more preposterous and exagerated smears. You can count on it.

The only recourse is to at least set the record straight. Thanks for doing so.

 
At 2/07/2008 11:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I may expound a bit on a notion you touched on TID; is it likely that Jacobs is trying to play up these two angles (phone call, Boland donation), in an attempt to distract people from what really happened here? He nearly lost to Rumler, when he clearly had more resources, more name recognition, more Denny. Rock Island County was virtually a toss-up. If that's not an indictment of a faltering incumbent than I don't know what is. While Jacobs will contend that he's "very popular in the rural communities", it's clear that it is incredibly difficult to reach those voters while on a limited budget. Hence the reason that incumbents always make hay there.

When Jacobs won in 2006, with a56/44 margin he tried to pretend that it was a "landslide". Now that Rumler was able to get nearly 47% what will he say? A look inside the numbers suggests that these new voters might have voted for change at the Presidential level - but they did not at the state level. Take a look at the Lack/Boland race. It had a similar dynamic to Rumler/Jacobs I. Unpopular incumbent, qualified challenger. But Lack had more support, more endorsements, and greater relative dollars. It should stand to reason then that Lack would fare better than Rumler 06. That didn't happen. Rumler 06 put up bigger numbers than Lack in every shared district. That leads me to believe that "change" may have been the issue nationally, but locally voters had a hard time steering their sharpies away from the name they recognized. It also leads me to surmise that Rumler 08 might have actually won the popular vote among those that voted in 2006. The new voters, however, kept Jacobs afloat.

Now, one would think that this might be a wake up call for an incumbent. But I am of the opinion that Jacobs’ ego is shaped like an umbrella...and as such, he doesn't know that it's raining.

 
At 2/08/2008 2:24 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 11:09

I think your observations and analysis are spot on as well as important to consider.

As I'd mentioned, I wonder if Jacobs and Co. will again make it a practice to try to strut and crow about this result the way they did the last election, when, as you point out so well, he should have been able to anihilate Rumler, but won with a damn small margin, considering his overwhelming advantage in every area except ideas and policy positions.

The margin in RI county was shockingly thin for Jacobs Tuesday (less than 100O votes) and we both point out the obvious, namely that with such an enormous money advantage, superior name recogition, with corporate PAC money up the wazoo, every party hack from top to bottom either blindly supporting him or too afraid, meek, spineless, concerned about their own political or financial futures not to, by all rights, this should have been the landslide they pretended they got two years ago, and then some.

There's simply no explanation for why Rumler consistently is able to perform the way he does other than the fact that Jacobs support is a mile wide and an inch deep.

Rumler shouldn't even have been able to make it close. Which makes Jacobs shabby and graceless comments supposedly calling Rumler a "loser" all the more gross and apalling.

No one's yet stated the clear implication from the facts as they stand, and that is that if Rumler and Jacobs had anything approaching a level playing field, even if Jacobs had a great advantage, rather than a completely overwhelming one, say 5 times the money of Rumler rather than 10 times, that in all liklihood, Sen. Jacobs wouldn't be Sen. Jacobs anymore.

Like the elephant in the room, we can all point to the facts, but so far no one has dared say what they clearly imply... that without outspending Rumler 10 to 1 or better, without the familiar name, without the party machine, without everyone pulling every string possible for him, in other words, on a level playing field, Jacobs would be toast.

That fact has got to be a pretty tough pill to swallow. But it's impossible to avoid.

Of course, they'd argue that Jacobs earned all those advantages, and therefore deserved to have the upper hand. This is a valid point, though one could argue about how much of it was earned and how much fell into his lap by virtue of his name and Denny's connections.

I don't know if they've finally wised up and realized that I won't roll over in the face of their foolishness here, and that acting like drunken 12 year olds doesn't reflect well on the Senator, or if they're justifiably humble, but thankfully, there hasn't been the constant over-the-top boasting and juvenile "in your face" false bravado that polluted comments here after the prior election.

One can only hope that's a sign that they're finally forced to be justifiably humble, even in triumph.

There are a few small signs that Sen. Mike may be growing up, and perhap he's gradually able to shed the disturbing need to loudly proclaim that everyone loves him and exagerated every claim at every opportunity, which he did with such frequency a couple years ago that it was hard to avoid concluding that there was some really big insecurity at play.

Another troubling habit was what I felt was his penchant for feeling that he needed to grossly exagerating his accomplishments, even when most people didn't expect him to be the world's most effective legislator right out of the box and would have gladly cut him slack for not performing miracles... if only he'd stop for one second trying to convince us he was and had.

In a very hopeful sign, and to either his or his staff's credit, Jacobs' campaign style this time around featured far less blowviating and wasn't characterized as much by constant near frantic attempts to oversell himself evident in the prior race. This is a good sign that someone has finally gotten through to him.

Now if someone would kindly remind him that he's a Democrat, and if he could stop himself from gleefully being seduced by corporate money and interests working directly against Democratic principles and policy goals... (Either that or just go ahead and switch parties and get it over with...) he might turn out OK after all.

But that's just my humble opinion.

 
At 2/08/2008 7:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rich Miller made a similar case on his blog as the anonymous commentor above. He pointed out that the increase in "new" voters actually helped incumbents at the state level. Seems counterintuitive, but seems true.

I think one reason that Jacobs campaign didn't come off as bad as last time was because local blog activity was much less. I think blog owners got sick of dealing with Jacobs spewing venom every time they posted an issue, that they just gave up (or put it in a sidebar like this blog). I find it hard to believe that any growing up has gone one in their camp. Denny's quote in the dispatch and Mike's continued threat to the governor (WQAD on election night) seems to indicate that the status quo remains.

 
At 2/08/2008 4:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rumler spent over $60,000. Lack spent nowhere near this. Rumler had Mike Boland on his side pulling the strings.
Rumler had the powerful UAW endorsement as well as the 309 and teamsters. Rumler also drew first on the ballot which is worth 2 points in itself. Rumler picked up 3 point from the last election wich is good but he lost by 2,500 votes. This is and was a good win for Jacobs with all the new voters and change the word of the day.

 
At 2/08/2008 5:35 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 4:25,

Thanks for the official spin.

And unless and until you can provide a source for your spending figures, readers should assume you're pulling them out of your ass.

If you're Jacobs or his campaign, say so.

No spending reports detailing expenditures during this year have been filed, so where are you getting these figures you're so busy throwing around? It would be helpful to know, otherwise they're complete garbage.

That's not too honest.

Just sayin'.

 
At 2/09/2008 8:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, Jacobs and his supporters miss the point. The argument wasn't about comparing Rumler to Lack in 2008. It was comparing the Rumler 2006 race to Lack's race in 2008. The inference was that the new voters actually helped the incumbents.

Not surprising that they missed the point. Jacobs and logic are like oil and water.

 
At 2/09/2008 8:48 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Jacobs and/or supporters leave the hands down stupidest, most ridiculous and vile comments here by far. Second place isn't even close.

Readers don't even see 99% of them because they're beyond stupid and appear to be little more than drunken brain farts most of the time.

Lame attempts at personal attacks, threats, attempts to try to "scare" or intimidate me or others by typing unhinged "information" they supposedly have dug up, despite their being so off the mark that they're laughable, truly loony attempts to bash and disparage this blog and suggest no one reads it, repeated demands that I quit doing the blog, or even more bizarre and in a fit of demented arrrogance, demands that I hand it over to someone they think would do a better job (unnamed of course, but obviously one of their stooges), and even saying they'd allow me to write a post every now and then. (Gee. Thanks.) It never stops.

They act literally like 8 year olds. (or worse) I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it hundreds upon hundreds of times with my own eyes. Reading them actually makes you dumber.

Preposterous lies, smears, attacks, made up rumors, and on and on.

And all of it taken together clearly shows a really disturbing character and attitude. One that has absolutely zero respect for the people of the area or readers of this blog and an arrogance that clearly shows they think they can do anything they want, push anyoen around, bully, theaten, or even bribe them into doing what they want. And if they don't, as I haven't, they have an absolute tantrum.

They truly must think that people are as dumb as stumps and will somehow believe the utter nonsense they spew.

NOTHING is too outrageous or cruel that they won't try to spread it.

Every time Jacobs does or says something really stupid, the flood of idiotic comments from that direction begins. And it's not just a few, it sometimes makes me wonder where they get so much free time, as they get so frenzied and obsessed that they clearly spend more time dreaming up and writing the garbage than I do writing the entire blog. Don't these people have jobs?

If anything remotely negative .. well, anything that doesn't praise Jacobs appears here, they attack me for mentioning it, (always accusing me of jealousy or hatred. What a joke.) they attack their opponents, they attack anyone and everyone, usually by inventing stuff out of thin air, throwing it out, and seeing if it sticks.

I wouldn't be responsible if I allowed that sort of stuff to be published, and besides, it only encourages more of the same.

After the first thousand or so, it's easy to spot their stuff a mile away and it's far too disgusting and libelous to print.

Yet even though this mental sewage is never published, they keep it up as though they're psycho, as though they get real satisfaction from cranking out the most ugly lies immaginable.

It's disturbing that not only do they write this stuff (poorly) but that they actually think it up to begin with. The fact that they're brains work like that is what's truly spooky.

I mean, maybe ONCE in a while they might resort to such idiocy, but ALL the time? The thing that frustrates me the most is that they don't have a plan B. This is the ONLY way they know how to handle things.

This evidently is their true colors, because perhaps the saddest part of all of it is that THEY NEVER CHANGE.

They just don't know how to address anything in a mature or even remotely honest way. It's simply impossible for them judging by years of evidence here.

They've never written simple, honest, thoughtful responses that I'm aware of. Only wild and dishonest attacks, smear attempts, and pathetic attempts at intimidation.

Talk about being stuck in a rut!

I've had the distinct displeasure of being a witness to thousands and thousands of their handiwork, and trust me, it's disturbing. Not only do they immediately go strait into the gutter, but they seem almost anxious to do it in public.

They're so dim that they think no one will put two and two together and figure out where it's coming from.

Apparently to them, it's well worth the chance that I might publish one of their twisted yelps for the chance that they could at least get some made-up dirt out about their opponent or perceived enemies.

Maybe they think that it will scare me into never writing anything negative. Yet despite the fact that such behavior only makes it more likely that negative things will appear, they never seem to realize that constantly harassing, insulting, and threatening someone you want to write favorable things about you isn't, well, too smart, now is it?

And continuing this for years is positively moronic. What's that thing they say about drunks, about insanity being doing the same things over and over and expecting different results?

Words can't describe how juvenile and just plain stupid it's all been.

And bear in mind that the vast majority are so ridiculous that they can't be published.

People accuse me of having some big hatred of the Jacobs. The fact is that nothing could be further from the truth.

If I seem to be unwilling to give him the benefit of the doubt on his performance in office, keep in mind that they've been attacking and threatening and trying their best to intimidate me for years now, and in the most vile, dishonest ways immaginable.

If readers had any idea of even a fraction of the endless shit that comes from that direction, including seriously disturbed personal threats, then perhaps my attitude would seem positively restrained when it comes to the Senator.

My attitude towards these fine folks didn't appear out of thin air. Far from it. I tried long and hard in every way possible to gently steer them back into reality. But they simply didn't think they needed to listen.

The more I respectfully told them they were out of line, the more they kept it up.

So if anyone reading this thinks I have some sort of unreasoned grudge or negative attitude towards this crowd, I do. And I've just told you why.

 
At 2/09/2008 9:09 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Hey! The usual suspects have responded to my comment, and within minutes.

And they couldn't have written a more classic example of what I just told you.

I just recieved the following (name omitted because the person has nothing to do with anything, but they think it's who I am. Yes, they're THAT stupid.)

----
"Xxxx Xxxxx is gay and this is why he supported Paul Rumler and his pro man on man marige."
-----

You'll recognize of course, the semi-literate misspellings that are a hallmark of such pearls of wisdom from these deep thinkers, as well as the classic grade-school attempt to smear/intimidate me.

How nice of them to send along such a classic example of their unique brand of political argument.

Don't you just feel better that these are the people in positions of authority?

Kind of a funny way to promote a politician, isn't it? Showing that you're a moron in public?

 
At 2/13/2008 11:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Jacobs family all have college degrees - do you really think that none of them can spell? Wow is all I can say...

 
At 2/14/2008 12:42 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 11:52.

I think they should demand a tuition refund.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home