Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? [Archive] - Page 3

Buccaneer

02-04-2008, 08:18 PM

Interesting points from my favorite columnist, Roland Martin

1. Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/hillary.clinton.html) will not be overshadowed by an underling. Clinton is hugely popular in Democratic circles, but truth be told, that pales in comparison to the love and affection showered on Obama. This is a guy who brings people to tears just by speaking, and attracts folks on the left, right and the disenfranchised.

When you have the children of elected officials putting pressure on their parents (Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill is one example.) to support this guy, you know he is touching people in a place others haven't in 40 years. The role of a VP is to be supportive of a presidential candidate, not someone who overshadows them.

2. Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html) would not want to carry Clinton baggage. He has offered a vision of change, and having to answer to the years of strife under the Clintons would be too much. It would make sense to have a fresh face serving as his vice president who doesn't engender anger among some in the Democratic Party, and definitely the GOP. An Obama run would be about going after Republicans and independents, and Clinton being on the ticket would make that very difficult.

3. Way too much bad blood between these two during this campaign. A lot of folks say that George H.W. Bush rankled Ronald Reagan by declaring his economic plan "voodoo economics." That didn't keep Reagan from adding Bush to the ticket. But Bush was one of these loyal guys who would have done anything for the party ... and himself. I don't see that for Clinton and Obama.

Sure, their attacks on one another are what you expect in a campaign, but it has gotten very personal. Obama says she is a return to the "politics of old," and that doesn't bring a smile to her face. The race-baiting Southern Strategy used by former President Bill Clinton and the surrogates of Sen. Clinton have absolutely angered Obama's camp. There is too much blood on the floor, and you just don't forget that.

4. Being No. 2 is unthinkable for Clinton. She went through the behind-the-scenes battles with Al Gore when he was her husband's vice president. She's not interested in second fiddle and doesn't want to have to fight to be on the stage. For her, it's all or nothing. She's also 60, and being VP to Obama means that if he wins two terms, she'll be 68 running for the highest office in the land. It's not outside the realm of possibility, but she'll have to confront the skeptics who are snipping at the heels of Sen. John McCain (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/john.mccain.html), claiming he's too old.

5. Obama doesn't want to be an LBJ. When Lyndon Baines Johnson was the vice president under President John F. Kennedy, he was ostracized and marginalized because of the influence of Robert F. Kennedy. With Bill Clinton serving as consigliere to a President Hillary Clinton, Obama would be on the outside looking in. He knows the likelihood of him doing anything of substance and having influence in a Clinton administration.

JPhillips

02-04-2008, 09:41 PM

Obama would certainly fill a void for Clinton, but I never have understood what Clinton would bring to the ticket as VP for Obama.

Tyrith

02-04-2008, 09:55 PM

Why on earth would Barack Obama risk being associated with Hillary Clinton when he's going to win the primary in 4 or 8 years anyway? It's all downside risk.

Young Drachma

02-04-2008, 09:56 PM

Why on earth would Barack Obama risk being associated with Hillary Clinton when he's going to win the primary in 4 or 8 years anyway? It's all downside risk.

+1

Galaxy

02-04-2008, 10:09 PM

Hillary's 60? I knew she was old, but that surprised me for some reason.

Young Drachma

02-04-2008, 10:21 PM

Hillary's 60? I knew she was old, but that surprised me for some reason.

Yeah, me too. I read it a bit ago, but...it's still surprising but it's almost been 20 years since they burst onto the scene.

GrantDawg

02-05-2008, 07:20 PM

She's held up well for 60.

Buccaneer

02-05-2008, 07:47 PM

I haven't followed Tennessee at all, so what happened there and why such a margin?

RPI-Fan

02-05-2008, 07:51 PM

I haven't followed Tennessee at all, so what happened there and why such a margin?

The latest poll had Hillary +20, so not sure what the surprise is?

Buccaneer

02-05-2008, 07:53 PM

The latest poll had Hillary +20, so not sure what the surprise is?

I didn't say it was a surprise, I'm asking about the demographics and issues why they would significantly favor Clinton?

GrantDawg

02-05-2008, 08:35 PM

I didn't say it was a surprise, I'm asking about the demographics and issues why they would significantly favor Clinton?

I've been wondering the same thing.

JonInMiddleGA

02-05-2008, 09:49 PM

I didn't say it was a surprise, I'm asking about the demographics and issues why they would significantly favor Clinton?

-- The state is over 80% white.
-- Obama did not seem to have the appeal to women there that he has shown in other places as of the WSMV poll on 1/22, he trailed Clinton 37-19 with women)
-- Obama also had not shown as strongly with black voters in Tennessee, managing only a 40-22 edge with 36% undecided at that point. By comparison, exit polls in Georgia being quoted locally on radio tonight showed Obama at 90% of black voters, which made up half of the Democratic voters in the state.

Now, fastforward to tonight's exit polling results.
-- Obama ended up with 78% of the black vote, which basically looks like he got all of the undecideds there
-- Hillary killed him with women, 56-35
-- Hillary beat him solidly in the suburbs (56-37) and clobbered him in the small towns & rural areas (as much as 79-15 in towns of 10k-50k pop)
-- She beat him in every income bracket except $100k+
-- She beat him in all five self-identified political categories (very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, very conservative), with at least 50% of the vote in all five.
-- She won voters over 35, he won voters under 35 but by smaller margins.

Truth is, I don't see one thing here, she seems to have beaten him on virtually every measurable stat except race.

Buccaneer

02-05-2008, 09:54 PM

Thanks Jon, that is exactly what I was looking for.

JPhillips

02-05-2008, 09:57 PM

TN was so far out of reach when Obama took off that he invested very little in the state. He put his resources into GA and AL where he had a better shot and skipped AK and TN.

JonInMiddleGA

02-05-2008, 10:03 PM

TN was so far out of reach when Obama took off that he invested very little in the state. He put his resources into GA and AL where he had a better shot and skipped AK and TN.

He had Georgia locked up for weeks and they both knew it. Almost as certain was Alabama. When you're pulling 80%+ of at least half of one of the two voting demographics, it's pretty tough to lose as long as they show up to vote.

That last bit isn't a gimme in all cases of course, and credit to him/his organization for getting the voters to the polls but for him to have lost in Georgia one of been one of the biggest political surprises of my lifetime.

JPhillips

02-05-2008, 10:42 PM

I agree, but he did make some appearances there and did some advertising. He all but conceded AK and TN weeks ago.

JonInMiddleGA

02-05-2008, 10:49 PM

I agree, but he did make some appearances there and did some advertising. He all but conceded AK and TN weeks ago.

Just FWIW, he didn't just do "some" advertising in Georgia, he went whole hog on radio for more than a week on pretty much every station in every format.
In spite of the obvious "why on earth would he do that", the strategy was reasonably sound since he had plenty of money to do it with & was believed to be trying to lure Clinton into wasting some of her money there.

BishopMVP

02-06-2008, 06:45 PM

Just FWIW, he didn't just do "some" advertising in Georgia, he went whole hog on radio for more than a week on pretty much every station in every format.
In spite of the obvious "why on earth would he do that", the strategy was reasonably sound since he had plenty of money to do it with & was believed to be trying to lure Clinton into wasting some of her money there.Or because the Democratic primaries assign their delegates on a proportional basis and dominant wins in Illinois and Georgia can balance out losses in all those small states and even minimalize the impact of a Cali victory.

JPhillips

02-06-2008, 09:57 PM

This is just nuts. Playing off of the story that Hillary loaned her campaign five million dollars, Obama has raise over 5.6 million on line in the last 24 hours. I wouldn't be surprised to see him raise forty or fifty million in February.

edit 5 minutes later: Hit refresh and now it's over 5.7 million.

Buccaneer

02-06-2008, 10:04 PM

That is truly phenomenal. Wonder what it'll mean though, if anything.

JPhillips

02-06-2008, 10:07 PM

Good question. I can't be sure it will change things, but especially now that the tempo has slowed it seems that much ad money would have to be an advantage.

If he wins the nomination he'll also have one hell of a donor database to use for general election funds.

Buccaneer

02-06-2008, 10:13 PM

If he wins the nomination

I keep seeing that and my thought is that it would be far more preferable for an unknown entity than the known entity of the Clintons, esp. for those that truly remembers all the shit in the 1990s.

-apoc-

02-06-2008, 11:12 PM

He broke 6 mil just before midnight EST. Clinton claiming they beat their 3 mil for thier 24 hours and are now going for 6 mil in 72 hours.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/sincefeb5_email/graphic

flere-imsaho

02-07-2008, 07:29 PM

Posting the following for no other reason than I'm a partisan:

Obama: The Shock of the Red
Take a look at what happened on Tuesday in the nearly all-white counties of Idaho, a place where the Aryan Nations once placed a boot print of hate — “the international headquarters of the white race,” as they called it.
The neo-Nazis are long gone. But in Kootenai County, where the extremists were holed up for several decades, a record number of Democrats trudged through heavy snow on Super Duper Tuesday to help pick the next president. Guess what: Senator Barack Obama took 81 percent of Kootenai County caucus voters, matching his landslide across the state. He won all but a single county.

The runaway victory came after a visit by Obama last Saturday, when 14,169 people filled the Taco Bell Arena in Boise to hear him speak – the largest crowd ever to fill the space, for any event. It was the biggest political rally the state has seen in more than 50 years.

“And they told me there were no Democrats in Idaho,” Obama said.

Okay, so Idaho is the prime rib of Red America. Ditto Utah, where Obama beat Senator Hillary Clinton 56 percent to 39 percent on Tuesday, including a 2-1 win in arguably the most Republican community in America – Provo and suburbs, a holdout of Bush dead-enders. These states would never vote Democratic in a general election.
But those numbers, and exit polling across the nation, make a case for Obama’s electability and the inroads he has made into places where Democrats are harder to find than a decent bagel. Yes, Hillary-hatred is part of it. But something much bigger is going on among independents and white males, something that can’t all be attributed to fear of a powerful woman in a pantsuit.

Having gone through their Hope versus Experience argument, Democrats are moving on to the numbers phase, looking for advantages in the fall. If they want to parse the Geography of Hope, they can do no better than study what happened in red counties on Tuesday.

Overall, Obama won some big, general election swing states: Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota, and a tie in New Mexico, where they may still be counting votes from the 2004 election. All will be crucial in deciding the next president.

His victory in Colorado, by a 2-1 margin, defied most predictions. Four times as many Democrats turned out as were expected, typical of the passion level elsewhere. In Anchorage, Alaska, for example, traffic was backed for nearly a mile from people trying to get into a middle school to become part of an Obama avalanche.
But back to Colorado. Obama won the liberal enclaves, as expected, but then he nearly ran the table in the western part of the state – ranch and mining country — and he did it with more than Ralph Lauren Democrats. In booming, energy-rich Garfield County, for instance, Obama beat Clinton 72 percent to 27 percent.
“We won in places nobody thought we could win,” an exultant Federico Pena, the former Denver mayor, told a victory crowd on Tuesday night. Obama’s audience a few days earlier – more than 18,000 — was so big that thousands who couldn’t get in huddled on a frozen lacrosse field to hear him.

Now broaden the picture and look at the vote among white males, traditionally the hardest sell for a Democrat. While losing California, Obama won white men in the Golden State, 55 to 35, according to exit polls, and white men in New Mexico, 59-38.

Looking ahead to Saturday, when Washington State, Nebraska, and Louisiana hold contests, Obama should add another three states to the 13 he won on Tuesday. They’re all caucus states, each with distinct advantages for Obama.

His problem – and it’s a big one – is among Latino voters, and older women. He got crushed by Hillary among Hispanics in California and New Mexico. To win the West, Latinos have to be in your camp.
Only slothful thinkers still view Democrats in the West as Prius-driving latte-sippers along the Left Coast. The larger story is about home-grown identity. Eight of the 11 Western States have Democratic governors. The Democrats picked up two Senate seats in the West in the last two national elections, and are poised to pick up two more this year, in Colorado and New Mexico.

Early on, Obama took a chance on the West, sending paid staffers to places like Boise, Idaho and Wenatchee, Washington. And the Alaska office for Obama – that was a knee-slapper at the time, but no one’s laughing now. He won the Last Frontier state by a 3-1 margin Tuesday.

Obama has made cynics wilt, and stirred the heart of long-dead politicos in places where Democrats haven’t had a pulse in years. Cecil Andrus, the eagle-headed eminence of Idaho, a former governor and Democratic cabinet member, nearly lost his voice introducing Obama in Boise on Saturday. He recalled a time when he was a young lumberjack who drove down the Clearwater Valley to see Jack Kennedy speak in Lewiston, a day that changed his life.

“I’m older now, some would suggest in the twilight of a mediocre political career,” Andrus said. “I, like you, can still be inspired. I can still hope.”

This kicked off the second biggest political rally in Idaho history. And the first? That was when President Dwight Eisenhower came to visit. Last week his granddaughter, Susan Eisenhower, made a small bit of family history on her own. She said that if Obama is the nominee, “this lifelong Republican will work to get him elected.”

Source (http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/obama-the-shock-of-the-red/?em&ex=1202533200&en=4d2d77f7e9253688&ei=5070)

mrsimperless

02-07-2008, 10:14 PM

Here is one of the many reasons why I love Obama. Its an excerpt from a campaign email I got today. Yes it's an overly simplified and optimistic view of things, but it's things like this that make me excited and want to be involved.

One of the things I'm most proud of about our campaign is not the amount of money we've raised, but the number of people giving it.

As of this afternoon, more than 300,000 people have given in 2008 alone, taking ownership of this campaign by making a donation of whatever they can afford.

This has never happened before. No one has ever built a campaign involving so many Americans as true stakeholders.

It speaks volumes not only about the kind of campaign we're running, but also about how we want politics to be.

So many of us have been waiting so long for the time when we could finally expect more from our politics, when we could give more of ourselves and feel truly invested in something bigger than a particular candidate or cause.

This is it. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.

chesapeake

02-08-2008, 09:52 AM

For the few states that article addresses, Flere, maybe there's something there. But it doesn't apply very well outside of the mountain west and west coast. The NYT has a facinating interactive map that breaks down each state's votes to the county level. In the southern states, even in ones he won, Obama's lead in urban areas beat Clinton's dominance in rural counties. Heck, in MO, Obama won only 5 counties. But dominating in St. Loius was enough to score a narrow win.

I think his success in Idaho and other western states is just as much attributable to the fact that he ran campaigns there and made appearances to anything else. Which gets to a point that I think may enable him to come from behind and win. If he and Hillary spend an equal amount of time campaigning in a state, he usually comes out ahead. Voters respond better to him personally. Now that the remaining primaries are spread out a little, I think he will be able to press that advantage.

albionmoonlight

02-08-2008, 11:17 AM

Basically, it is impossible in the remaining races for either candidate to gain enough pledged delegates without the kind of scandal/collapse on the part of the other candidate that would effectively end the race anyway.

This ends with one candidate being able to swing the superdelegates--either through getting enough of a lead to tip the balance or through whatever back channels each campaign is no doubt furiously working right now.

I don't think that this goes until August, though. The superdelegates will make up their minds by then in order to avoid an embarassing convention.

st.cronin

02-08-2008, 11:29 AM

I have actually changed my mind about which of Hillary/Obama is the more electable candidate. I formerly thought Obama would have a better chance, but now I think it is Hillary. Hillary vs. McCain: Hillary can neutralize some of McCain's strengths (she's one of the most hawkish Dems, for example). Obama vs. McCain: McCain can effectively paint Obama as a Howard Dean type liberal.

That's how I see it right now.

Butter

02-08-2008, 11:32 AM

Hillary = mobilizes the GOP base to vote against her

Obama = the GOP base stays home and lets McCain get trounced

Obama is more electable.

Jas_lov

02-08-2008, 11:33 AM

I hope it comes down to the superdelegates and someone gets screwed. Another Mondale over Hart 1984 type scenario would be interesting. The upcoming schedule favors Obama, but the day Hillary could cement herself is March 4th. Texas and Ohio are the big states on that day and with Hillary's advantage among latinos and blue collar workers, she may win them both. Rhode Island and Vermont are also on that day so it could be the turning point. Until then she should put a lot into Wisconsin, Virginia and Maine. The rest leading up to March 4th probably go to Obama easy. She just needs to keep some momentum going into March 4th.

st.cronin

02-08-2008, 11:34 AM

Hillary = mobilizes the GOP base to vote against her

Obama = the GOP base stays home and lets McCain get trounced

Obama is more electable.

I know that's the CW. But I think the reality is that in a GE, Obama will seriously, seriously motivate conservatives to vote against him. The dislike for Hillary is all personality/name. I think a campaign against Obama would be more effective.

Just my uneducated opinion.

Butter

02-08-2008, 11:41 AM

I know that's the CW. But I think the reality is that in a GE, Obama will seriously, seriously motivate conservatives to vote against him. The dislike for Hillary is all personality/name. I think a campaign against Obama would be more effective.

Just my uneducated opinion.

I think the reality is that Obama will win independents over McCain, so no matter how many "conservatives" come out to vote they will not be able to beat him. If it is Hillary, McCain would take those independents.

I could be wrong too though. The GE is a long way off.

Malificent

02-08-2008, 11:45 AM

Time poll says that Obama is much more electable vs McCain.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1711123,00.html?xid=rss-nation

Of course, things can certainly change once McCain is starting the negative campaigning up full scale.

st.cronin

02-08-2008, 11:47 AM

Of course, things can certainly change once McCain is starting the negative campaigning up full scale.

Exactly what I'm talking about. I think negative campaigning by the GOP will have tremendous impact on Obama's electability. So far they've basically said nothing about him.

ISiddiqui

02-08-2008, 12:08 PM

Exactly what I'm talking about. I think negative campaigning by the GOP will have tremendous impact on Obama's electability. So far they've basically said nothing about him.

True dat. Obama is pretty progressive on a lot of issues. I wonder how he'll get "unity" with the Republicans when he pushes some of his ideals like national health care and expanded federal programs.

Fighter of Foo

02-08-2008, 12:36 PM

True dat. Obama is pretty progressive on a lot of issues. I wonder how he'll get "unity" with the Republicans when he pushes some of his ideals like national health care and expanded federal programs.

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/01/thoughts_on_obama.php

"Looking further out, I think it's probably the case that Obama is, in fact, the candidate that Republicans least want to run against. In fact, I think that it's actually the case that where Obama is concerned, conservatives lack much of the gut-level animus that drives them to really hate HRC, Kerry and Gore. All of these Dems represented what conservatives most hate about liberals--they all represent a liberal style (as apart from substance) that looks down on and dismisses conservatives. Obama, by contrast, comes from a generation of folks who, while certainly not conservative, have actually engaged seriously with them. Obama taught at U. of Chicago law school, and so he knows that conservatives are driven by a respectable set of ideas. He disagrees with those ideas, but I sense that he knows at least some conservatives who he believes are respectable interlocutors. And I think conservatives know this."

Now read the anecdote on the link below and tell me if you could ever, EVER, imagine this happening regarding Hillary.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/the-right-and-o.html

ISiddiqui

02-08-2008, 12:41 PM

Like we are pointing out, it's very, very early and Obama hasn't been hit by the right yet. He will be. I realize his worshippers think that he has this mythical power to bridge the divide, but let's get honest here. He'll be slammed for his liberal policies not because he "looks down on conservatives" (like Bill Clinton ever really did that).

JonInMiddleGA

02-08-2008, 12:59 PM

Not sure if anyone posted this already or not, so just in case, here's a brief explanation of the caucus-or-primary confusion we had here about New Mexico.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080208/D8UMA0Q01.html
New Mexico Democrats call their contest a caucus, but it's not like Iowa's caucuses where voters gather in gyms, churches or meeting rooms, divide into groups for each candidate, try to attract more support from other groups, and then count each group. Rather it more closely resembles a "firehall primary" - a primary with shorter voting hours and fewer voting sites than would be found in traditional state primaries.

Fighter of Foo

02-08-2008, 01:00 PM

Young Drachma

02-08-2008, 01:07 PM

True dat. Obama is pretty progressive on a lot of issues. I wonder how he'll get "unity" with the Republicans when he pushes some of his ideals like national health care and expanded federal programs.

His health care plan doesn't have mandates. Some columnist in the NY Times, saying that if you're really a progressive, you have to force people to take government health care. Obama is smart enough to realize that's not going to win him any fans on the right.

Hillarycare has mandates.

Bubba Wheels

02-08-2008, 01:13 PM

Bubba Wheels

02-08-2008, 01:14 PM

BTW, Michigan is considering a new caucus as a 'do-over.' For the Dems.

ISiddiqui

02-08-2008, 01:23 PM

And the point I'm making is that:

1) There's no R hatred for Obama like there was/is for Gore, Hillary and Kerry. I hope that's obvious.
2) R's are indifferent toward McCain anyway. I hope that's obvious too.

As a sidenote, of course Bill Clinton looked down upon conservatives! Are you f'ing kidding? Every time he talked about some Republican leader you could practically feel the comtempt through the television.

What R hatred was there for Kerry before the general? He was the most liberal Senator, but Obama holds that one this time around.

R's may be indifferent towards McCain, but as the prospects of as many as three pro-abortion judges be put on the Supreme Court comes up, they'll rally around him.

And Republicans thought Bill Clinton looked down on them (probably because he outmanuvered them), but it was almost entirely a fabrication.

Jas_lov

02-08-2008, 01:32 PM

So how does everyone see tomorrow's contests going? Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska. Obama sweep?

path12

02-08-2008, 01:37 PM

I'll be very surprised if he doesn't win Washington handily. Hillary got 5,000 people last night, Obama is likely going to fill Key Arena (17,000) today. Traffic is horrible around here this morning (I work fairly close to the Key). Last poll I heard he was up double digits here also....

Butter

02-08-2008, 01:37 PM

What R hatred was there for Kerry before the general? He was the most liberal Senator, but Obama holds that one this time around.

You know Kerry's still in the Senate, right? And so is Ted Kennedy? I can't imagine Obama is the most liberal Senator.

Butter

02-08-2008, 01:38 PM

So how does everyone see tomorrow's contests going? Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska. Obama sweep?

Pretty much. Obama has done well in the South, and in traditionally red states so far. No reason to think the trend won't continue.

path12

02-08-2008, 01:40 PM

You know Kerry's still in the Senate, right? And so is Ted Kennedy? I can't imagine Obama is the most liberal Senator.

The same outfit that named Kerry most liberal last time around named Obama this time around. It sounds good, but there is dispute about which votes they classify as "liberal".

Butter

02-08-2008, 01:45 PM

The same outfit that named Kerry most liberal last time around named Obama this time around. It sounds good, but there is dispute about which votes they classify as "liberal".

Oh, so you're telling me it might be biased? No way!!!!

I'm surprised they have enough voting data on Obama to put something like that together, frankly.

ISiddiqui

02-08-2008, 01:52 PM

It takes the votes of the different bills and arranges the Senators by their percentage of votes cast that were "liberal" and "conservative".

JonInMiddleGA

02-08-2008, 01:53 PM

So how does everyone see tomorrow's contests going? Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska. Obama sweep?

I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

Fighter of Foo

02-08-2008, 02:36 PM

And Republicans thought Bill Clinton looked down on them (probably because he outmanuvered them), but it was almost entirely a fabrication.

LOL. To you. Perception is reality.

rkmsuf

02-08-2008, 02:37 PM

LOL. To you. Perception is reality.

Wouldn't perception be perceived reality?

path12

02-08-2008, 02:46 PM

Depends on how you see it I guess.

ISiddiqui

02-08-2008, 02:49 PM

albionmoonlight

02-08-2008, 02:50 PM

So how does everyone see tomorrow's contests going? Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska. Obama sweep?

I think that the story right now (though Ohio-Texas) is:

Maine, Texas, Ohio: Clinton

Virginia: Toss-up

Everything Else: Obama

I would say that if any states suprise and break from this narrative, it would be a huge boost to the winning candidate.

JPhillips

02-08-2008, 02:55 PM

In the two recent polls I've seen Obama is up 20% in Virginia.

-apoc-

02-08-2008, 03:10 PM

albionmoonlight

02-08-2008, 03:46 PM

Id move Vir to Obama as JP said and Maine is probably closer to a toss up. Hillary was up a good amount there as of the last poll but that was in december I believe plus it is a caucus which BO has swept so far. If BO doesnt win everything but one state heading into March 4th I think it would be viewed as a huge disappontment to him though maybe not in the media.

I agree with both of you that this is what the polling is saying, but I also remember the New Hampshire polls and the Super Tuesday polls in MA, NJ, and CA.

I think that the pollsters are having a hard time figuring out Obamamentum and seem to overestimate it after his really good showings. So I am being cautious and assuming that they are overestimating his support after a good Super Tuesday.

As for Maine, it is a caucus state, but it is an older working-class white state with a very small in-state college population. I think that Clinton takes it easily.

JPhillips

02-08-2008, 03:52 PM

But the polls basically got Obama's support in NH correct, it just turned out that undecideds broke very heavily for Clinton. The same thing happended in SC except undecideds broke heavily for Obama. In VA there aren't enough undecideds to swing it to Clinton. I'd bet good money that as of today she needs to steal voters from Obama in the next few days if she's going to win.

Young Drachma

02-09-2008, 12:34 AM

Democrats Divided, even at dinner table (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/08/ST2008020804064.html?hpid=topnews)

Young Drachma

02-09-2008, 12:41 AM

And I just read another site suggesting Harold Ford as Hillary's front running VP choice if she were to win the nomination. I don't know how I forgot him, but..that's an interesting idea and one that doesn't sound too crazy to me.

Galaxy

02-09-2008, 08:38 PM

Looks like Obama won Nebraska and Washington by a nice margin.

Jas_lov

02-09-2008, 09:05 PM

And now Louisiana.

rowech

02-09-2008, 09:56 PM

For the first time, I'm starting to think Obama could actually win the nomination. Momentum is really kicking for him right now.

Young Drachma

02-09-2008, 10:05 PM

More policy-laden infusions in his victory speeches. Trying to be more Presidential again. The momentum is a new thing for him and being the guy on top is hard to do, when you're always the underdog. So it's a whole new game. He was really brave by attacking her the way he did tonight in that speech, going after McCain too for the first time in such a high profile situation.

I think he's going for the death blow and that's probably smart to make people think "what if this guy can pull this off?"

But..I still can't believe the Clintons will let it go this easily. I feel like they have something up their sleeve to kill him off or at least, to injure him going forward. I almost feel like they'd rather see McCain in the White House than him, though obviously they'd never say that.

FOX News is really trying to sell their viewership on him being the "black candidate". But the title doesn't stick, but man..they're funny on how they try to heap praise on him, but throw that tag on him. CNN brought it up, but Roland Martin debunked that notion earlier.

JonInMiddleGA

02-09-2008, 10:15 PM

But the title doesn't stick

LOL

Sorry DC but claiming he's anything but that is genuinely funny.

(That's true in more ways in just the obviously comical one, but I decided I'd just go with the humorous one here, screw the political commentary)

JonInMiddleGA

02-09-2008, 10:20 PM

Jas_lov

02-09-2008, 10:24 PM

Rudy Giuliani was once the consensus frontrunner and he wasn't even competitive, anywhere so he's a colossal failure.

Racer

02-09-2008, 10:27 PM

Sidebar here.

If Hillary does eventually lose, is it the biggest failure in U.S. political history?

I don't follow politics all that much, but if Obama wins, I think it's more of a attribute of Obama's determination and resilience then any failure on Hilary's part. Giuliani being a complete non-factor in the Republican primary seems like it would be a bigger failure to me.

Vegas Vic

02-09-2008, 10:27 PM

If Hillary does eventually lose, is it the biggest failure in U.S. political history?

I'd say that Thomas Dewey's collapse against Harry Truman in 1948 would still rank as the biggest failure in U.S. political history. Going into the election season, Truman's approval rating was at 36%, and he was nearly universally regarded as incapable of winning the 1948 election.

flere-imsaho

02-09-2008, 10:29 PM

Jas_lov

02-09-2008, 10:32 PM

I think Rudy ended up with 1 delegate, same as Duncan Hunter got and 3 less than Ron Paul had when Rudy dropped out. Hillary losing is a pretty big failure though, but at least she's been competitive and is still in the race.

Vegas Vic

02-09-2008, 10:32 PM

Rudy Giuliani was once the consensus frontrunner and he wasn't even competitive, anywhere so he's a colossal failure.

The only thing that surprises me about Giuliani is how anyone ever seriously thought that a pro abortion, pro gun control, pro gay marriage, public adulterer was ever going to win the Republican nomination. Say what you want to about McCain's lack of conservative credentials, but he makes Giuliani look like Ted Kennedy.

Racer

02-09-2008, 10:44 PM

JonInMiddleGA

02-09-2008, 10:44 PM

Yeah, ever since 2002 we've seen Giuliani as a big potential GOP candidate for post-Bush. All of last year he's the front-runner and prohibitive favorite. And in the end I'm not sure he got a delegate.

Pretty much what VV said on that, Giuliani's backing was all shadow not substance (and his tactical ability was obviously as bad as anyone in the history of politics as we now know).

Compare that to how long Hillary has been a presumptive Presidential candidate (pretty much from the day Bill left office) and the presumptive favorite. Plus the organization was certainly in place (although I'd say it has let her down in the earlier stages) the funding was there & had a huge headstart. You add it all up, I'd have to think this is one of the most disappointing showings at least in my lifetime, a coronation instead of a race would seem like the expected outcome.

edit: As much as I loathe Hillary, I'm actually starting to look forward to reading the insider accounts of where & how things went so wrong (assuming she does end up managing to lose). It should be some fascinating stuff, and that's not the sort of thing I usually enjoy reading for people I can't stand (as I'm too turned off by them to be able to tolerate their p.o.v. in the explanations).

Jas_lov

02-09-2008, 10:45 PM

The only thing that surprises me about Giuliani is how anyone ever seriously thought that a pro abortion, pro gun control, pro gay marriage, public adulterer was ever going to win the Republican nomination. Say what you want to about McCain's lack of conservative credentials, but he makes Giuliani look like Ted Kennedy.

No idea. The guy was such a failure that he wasn't even going to win his home state according to the polls. Hillary, Obama, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee all managed to do that fairly easily.

Young Drachma

02-09-2008, 10:45 PM

Sidebar here.

If Hillary does eventually lose, is it the biggest failure in U.S. political history?

Off-hand, and admittedly I'm working from recent memory not looking up historical context, I can't think of a bigger flop in terms of expectations versus outcome.
+1

She's had eight years -- at least -- to prepare. She raised $100 million against a nominal candidate for her Senate race in 2004 and she ended up with just $10 million after it was over. What? So much for her warchest for this race.

Even with that, she was the establishment candidate and presumptive frontrunner since 2000. All anyone in 2004 could talk about was whether she'd get in the race or not, be VP or whatever and she just beat the drum of "I'm a Senate, yadda..."

She has to win this thing. She's been preparing for it and Bill has been behind the scenes behaving and trying to repair the Clinton legacy to make sure people maybe didn't think as much about how they hated them and instead, about 'making history'.

But then Obama shows up and crashes the party. It's far from over and I feel the Clintons will do almost anything to win this thing, even if it means killing off a party superstar in the process, because in their minds, they are proxy for "What's good for America." Akin to the parent who tells you to take bitter medicine because it'll "make you feel better".

I'm just not convinced they'll let it go and that's the thing that makes me really reluctant to see any path to how he'll eventually get elected.

But then, I never saw him making it this far.

Jas_lov

02-09-2008, 10:50 PM

I think this thing may be far from over by the way. Hillary should do very well on March 4th. Hillary was up 42 percent to 19 percent when Ohio was last polled at the end of January. There haven't been any recent polls in Texas but I'd bet Hillary wins that state since Obama hasn't faired well with Hispanics.

That being said, I'm voting for Obama on or before May 6th if it looks like Indiana might matter.

I think March 4th is key as well. Texas and Ohio favor her as well as the other two states on that day, Vermont and Rhode Island. She can sweep that day and take all of the momentum away, or Obama can steal Ohio and keep it somewhat close in Texas. We'll have to wait and see how Obama winning all of the states leading up to that factors into the voters decisions.

JonInMiddleGA

02-09-2008, 10:53 PM

But then, I never saw him making it this far.

That's the thing that I think will make such an interesting thing to read the insider views on after it's all over. If she wins, of course, those won't be written for a long time if ever but if she loses I have to think some people will be willing to talk about how they let it happen.

I suspect she got some bad advice from "experts" who weren't part of her original enclave, as she seemed to regain momentum for a while once she brought back in some of her old clique but now that seems to have stalled too.

My instinct is that the rifts inside her campaign have been significant and they ended up pulling her in too many directions trying to be everything to everybody (that she figured might eventually vote for her). She's also been running to beat McCain IMO, and overlooked the fact that she had to win the nomination first.

Young Drachma

02-09-2008, 10:56 PM

They just underestimated him. Of all of the people in the race, no one saw him as the formidable opponent. They didn't think he could out-Dean what Howard Dean did starting off in Iowa in '04, by using the internet to build a grassroots movement of people allied towards winning the big dance.

Obama's ground game is nuts and he's smart by getting Governors to endorse him, because that only helps things on primary/caucus days. Say what you want about "experience" or whatever, but as CEO of his campaign, he's done a heck of a job starting from absolute scratch and if that's any indication of what he can do as a national leader, well...let's just say those opposed to him better get out of the hose and douse this fire quick before it consumes everything in sight.

JonInMiddleGA

02-09-2008, 11:03 PM

Don't know how much polls are worth at this point, but here's last week's Columbus Dispatch on Ohio.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/02/03/poll.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Shows Hillary winning easily there, with McCain over Romney by 6 points (but only 3 points ahead of "Undecided")

Young Drachma

02-09-2008, 11:09 PM

She'll win Ohio, but Texas is in play and he's been gaining there for weeks now. And the Hispanics there aren't the same sort of voting bloc like you have in California, so that'll play out interestingly for them going forward, seeing as she needs a sweep on that day to keep the whole "I win the big states that matter" argument moving on.

Vegas Vic

02-09-2008, 11:15 PM

Snd the Hispanics there aren't the same sort of voting bloc like you have in California, so that'll play out interestingly for them going forward, seeing as she needs a sweep on that day to keep the whole "I win the big states that matter" argument moving on.

That's a very good point. Much of the Hispanic support for Clinton in southern California was also tied into union endorsements. Texas is a "right to work" state, and the Hispanic percentage of support is much less certain for Clinton in Texas than it was in California.

st.cronin

02-09-2008, 11:19 PM

I would've thought Ohio would be Obama territory. Shows what I know.

Young Drachma

02-09-2008, 11:48 PM

Young Drachma

02-09-2008, 11:59 PM

1988 Democratic Primary Results

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/1988DemocraticPresidentialPrimaries.gif

Galaril

02-10-2008, 12:01 AM

I think going through the remaining twenty states that are still left for the dems and a conservative calculation is Obama getting over 1900 delegates not including the Super Delegates. So, as long as he can get aportion of the Supers he should win the nomination even if Hilary wins out in Tx and OH as well as Pennsylvania. Since on like the Republicans the Dems have delegates broken up based on districts.
1550 delegates
current totals:Clinton:1100 Obama: 1075
Primaries/caucuses left and delgates left:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/index.html

molson

02-10-2008, 01:24 AM

1988 Democratic Primary Results

It's always amazing to me in retrospect that Jackson won 9 states.

Vegas Vic

02-10-2008, 02:55 AM

It's always amazing to me in retrospect that Jackson won 9 states.

It's also amazing that Al Gore was a pro-life, pro 2nd amendment, pro prayer in pubic schools, conservative democrat in 1988. Quite a change from the Al Gore of 2000. In 1988 he got obliterated by the ultra-liberal Dukakis in the primaries.

Dutch

02-10-2008, 03:26 AM

It's always amazing to me in retrospect that Jackson won 9 states.

What's up with the Alutian Islands?

Abe Sargent

02-10-2008, 03:58 AM

BishopMVP

02-10-2008, 04:04 AM

I'd say that Thomas Dewey's collapse against Harry Truman in 1948 would still rank as the biggest failure in U.S. political history. Going into the election season, Truman's approval rating was at 36%, and he was nearly universally regarded as incapable of winning the 1948 election.In addition to the Rudy thing, I would throw George Bush losing to Clinton up there. His approval rating was like 70% a year in advance.

My one hope left is that Obama wins more delegates and Hillary gets the nomination because of super-delegates. Clearly Obama is the most inspirational candidate, but I'm a PoliSci major and there are just so many examples of charismatic, inexperienced speakers winning elections - none of which end well. Shucks, we've got a very similar governor here in Deval Patrick, and to put it nicely, he hasn't exactly fulfilled the promise he showed on the campaign trail.

rowech

02-10-2008, 05:59 AM

That's the thing that I think will make such an interesting thing to read the insider views on after it's all over. If she wins, of course, those won't be written for a long time if ever but if she loses I have to think some people will be willing to talk about how they let it happen.

I suspect she got some bad advice from "experts" who weren't part of her original enclave, as she seemed to regain momentum for a while once she brought back in some of her old clique but now that seems to have stalled too.

My instinct is that the rifts inside her campaign have been significant and they ended up pulling her in too many directions trying to be everything to everybody (that she figured might eventually vote for her). She's also been running to beat McCain IMO, and overlooked the fact that she had to win the nomination first.

If she loses, it'll be because she's a threatening, manipulative, and scary woman.

Malificent

02-10-2008, 06:47 AM

In addition to the Rudy thing, I would throw George Bush losing to Clinton up there. His approval rating was like 70% a year in advance.

My one hope left is that Obama wins more delegates and Hillary gets the nomination because of super-delegates. Clearly Obama is the most inspirational candidate, but I'm a PoliSci major and there are just so many examples of charismatic, inexperienced speakers winning elections - none of which end well. Shucks, we've got a very similar governor here in Deval Patrick, and to put it nicely, he hasn't exactly fulfilled the promise he showed on the campaign trail.

Heh, if Obama wins the most regular delegates from the states and Hillary wins because the "insider" superdelegates give her the win, there might be rioting in the streets. Not completely serious, obviously. But nothing like a populist movement derailed by politics as usual to get the outrage flowing.

Toddzilla

02-10-2008, 07:29 AM

I think Rudy's collapse would be far greater than Hillary's, at least in terms of expectations. Wasn't Rudy the clear leader in terms of polling as recently as a year ago? And didn't he lead all leading Democratic candidates in head-to-head matchups?

Yet here we are in 2008, and Rudy didn't only not even get nominated, he wasn't ever even close to sniffing 2nd place in any primary, and then he had to quit.

So he went from president to be to hopeful nominee to loser, ex-mayo, quitter, all within 6 months.

At least if Hillary loses the nomination, she put up an inkling of a fight.

QuikSand

02-10-2008, 08:15 AM

flere-imsaho

02-10-2008, 09:10 AM

Agreed with QS. Democratic primaries & caucuses are showing record turnout this year, and I'll bet good money it's inspired by Obama more than Hillary. A lot of these people will be disappointed if she gets the nod over Obama on regular delegates, but if she wins the nomination through the use of what people are going to see as "backroom tactics", I think it could be a detriment, on the balance, for her.

Dutch

02-10-2008, 09:24 AM

If the Democrats used the winner take all method (like the Republicans), would that swing the balance more decidedly towards Obama?

Racer

02-10-2008, 09:26 AM

In addition to the Rudy thing, I would throw George Bush losing to Clinton up there. His approval rating was like 70% a year in advance.

My one hope left is that Obama wins more delegates and Hillary gets the nomination because of super-delegates. Clearly Obama is the most inspirational candidate, but I'm a PoliSci major and there are just so many examples of charismatic, inexperienced speakers winning elections - none of which end well. Shucks, we've got a very similar governor here in Deval Patrick, and to put it nicely, he hasn't exactly fulfilled the promise he showed on the campaign trail.

I think Hillary has little chance of winning the regular election if that happens. I think that would piss off and turn away voters in November who had voted in the primaries for Obama that probably would have otherwise voted for Hillary if she won under normal circumstances.

Racer

02-10-2008, 09:28 AM

Dola, I don't think there is anything that could make the Republicans more happy then to see the Democrat presidential primary be decided by super delegates.

Toddzilla

02-10-2008, 09:39 AM

Dola, I don't think there is anything that could make the Republicans more happy then to see the Democrat presidential primary be decided by super delegates.And seeing as how the thing that could make the Democrats the most happy by seeing a GOP-outsider and party-reviled candidate sew up the Republican nomination has already come to pass, it makes for a most interesting election.

With Clinton v McCain, we may set a new low in voter turnout.

path12

02-10-2008, 10:21 AM

From the Washington caucuses today:

Precinct 702 in Port Townsend, WA

Obama (http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/DavidJFaber/DSC00231.jpg?t=1202593667) v. Hillary (http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/DavidJFaber/DSC00230.jpg?t=1202593668)

There were three times the number of people at my caucus this time over the one in 2004. And our precinct went 80%-20% Obama.

path12

02-10-2008, 10:24 AM

If she loses, it'll be because she's a threatening, manipulative, and scary woman.

I think it's just unfortunate timing more than anything else if she loses. People are frustrated and tired of the uber-partisan shit of the past 16 years.

Edit: That's a little simplistic, but it's early and I don't have the mindset to articulate better right now.

digamma

02-10-2008, 10:42 AM

I agree this is the most compelling plotline that may be developing. Especially considering the nature of the situation... where quite a lot of people have come from out of the political realm to get involved for Obama, getting genuinely inspired by a politician... and then to have their hopes dashed by the establishment. Could be very rough, both for those particular voters, and definitely for the party.

It also plays right into a pretty compelling Republican narrative for the general. "We've always said a liberal government does what it thinks is best for you, rather than enabling you to do what you think is best for you. Now they've gone so far as to pick the candidate they think is best for you..."

Young Drachma

02-10-2008, 10:47 AM

Heh, if Obama wins the most regular delegates from the states and Hillary wins because the "insider" superdelegates give her the win, there might be rioting in the streets. Not completely serious, obviously. But nothing like a populist movement derailed by politics as usual to get the outrage flowing.

Agreed on the rioting or at least, some crazy chaos. The Dems know that and as Obama continues to pick people off, you're going to see massive defections if he manages to get closer. There won't be a backroom deal here, the holdouts are the black leaders and people beholden to the Clintons from the past. Once it seems clear they can leave them behind because the "new guy" wins, they'll defect or start to commit to him, since the superdelegates don't have to vote until that actual day.

They're just going to want a seat at the table with Obama and wants he starts to give them some of that, they'll be okay with him, in the same way McCain has to appease the social conservatives of the GOP.

My one hope left is that Obama wins more delegates and Hillary gets the nomination because of super-delegates. Clearly Obama is the most inspirational candidate, but I'm a PoliSci major and there are just so many examples of charismatic, inexperienced speakers winning elections - none of which end well. Shucks, we've got a very similar governor here in Deval Patrick, and to put it nicely, he hasn't exactly fulfilled the promise he showed on the campaign trail.

Other than race, the Obama and Patrick have nothing in common. Deval Patrick had previously never served in elected office before now.

I don't think Obama is just platitudes. He can bore you on tax policy if you want him, it's just not conducive to crowds of 15,000+ to start talking about the intricacies of substantive policy issues. Those folks are coming to hear a rock star talk and they want to be 'inspired' to leave and do his bidding in the streets.

Typical of a movement with disaffected kids who haven't lived much or do much? Sure thing. But it's what's working for him and giving him his momentum, so he can't go against that to make the pundits happy.

Though he is addressing the criticism leveled at him a lot more in speeches now, so clearly someone on his team is listening and is having him address it head on. I don't know if the attack dog mentality will have an appreciable effect on his lasting prospects, but...it's at least evidence that he has the ability to do something more than "inspire hope".

He can fight with the best of them, too.

Calis

02-10-2008, 10:50 AM

Pardon my ignorance here, but I know absolutely nothing about super delegates.

Why is it such a certainty that they'll vote for Hillary? Guess I need to read up on it.

Buccaneer

02-10-2008, 10:52 AM

DC, thank you for posting that map from 1988. I think that map would be appropriate to post in the Rep thread since a similar scenario is happening there.

Galaril

02-10-2008, 10:58 AM

I think Hillary has little chance of winning the regular election if that happens. I think that would piss off and turn away voters in November who had voted in the primaries for Obama that probably would have otherwise voted for Hillary if she won under normal circumstances.

I agree. I am a moderate Democrat and if that happened I would vote for McCain.

Young Drachma

02-10-2008, 12:09 PM

Pardon my ignorance here, but I know absolutely nothing about super delegates.

Why is it such a certainty that they'll vote for Hillary? Guess I need to read up on it.

Super delegates in the words of Donna Brazile, "Don't wear capes and you wouldn't want to see them in spandex."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/

Voters don’t choose the 842 unpledged “super-delegates” who comprise nearly 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.

The Republicans do not have a similar super-delegate system.

The category includes Democratic governors and members of Congress, former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, retired congressional leaders such as Dick Gephardt, and all Democratic National Committee members, some of whom are appointed by party chairman Howard Dean.

These super-delegates don’t have superhuman powers, but unlike rank-and-file Democrats, they do automatically get to cast a vote at the convention to decide who the party’s nominee will be.

Although dubbed “unpledged” in Democratic Party lingo, the super-delegates are free to come out before their state’s primary and pledge to support one of the presidential contenders.

Why did the party adopt this partly undemocratic system?

Super-delegates were supposed to supply some Establishment stability to the nominating process.

Before 1972, party elders, such as Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Charlie Buckley, the boss of The Bronx who helped John Kennedy clinch the 1960 nomination, wielded inordinate power.

But in early 1970’s, the party’s rules were reformed to open the process to grass-roots activists, women, and ethnic minorities.

Sen. George McGovern, the leading anti-Vietnam war liberal, won the 1972 nomination. McGovern turned out to be a disaster as a presidential candidate, winning only one state and the District of Columbia.

So without reverting to the days of party bosses like Buckley, the Democrats decided to guarantee that elected officials would have a bigger voice in the nomination.

Young Drachma

02-10-2008, 12:38 PM

I'll say this. Hillary on the stump is a smart strategy, because she understands how the media works. The media only shows Obama singing platitudes and talking about hope a lot. When you see her on the stump, it's all about the issues. She might tell a story or three, but it's all about the issues.

We'll see how he contrasts today when he gives his speech in Alexandria.

flere-imsaho

02-10-2008, 01:34 PM

Of course, at the end of the day, how important are the issues? Virtually all presidents come to power and instead of implementing a slate of clear-cut changes based on "issues", make incremental steps, if any, towards changes that reflect a general philosophy.

That's not including stuff they just lie about.

BishopMVP

02-10-2008, 02:16 PM

If the Democrats used the winner take all method (like the Republicans), would that swing the balance more decidedly towards Obama?Off a quick look, it would almost certainly help Hillary. Obama's winning states by a large margin - winner take all in IL/GA/MN would only give him 99 more delegates. Cali alone would give Hillary 163, and NY would be another 93.Other than race, the Obama and Patrick have nothing in common. Deval Patrick had previously never served in elected office before now.

I don't think Obama is just platitudes. He can bore you on tax policy if you want him, it's just not conducive to crowds of 15,000+ to start talking about the intricacies of substantive policy issues. Those folks are coming to hear a rock star talk and they want to be 'inspired' to leave and do his bidding in the streets.

Typical of a movement with disaffected kids who haven't lived much or do much? Sure thing. But it's what's working for him and giving him his momentum, so he can't go against that to make the pundits happy.

Though he is addressing the criticism leveled at him a lot more in speeches now, so clearly someone on his team is listening and is having him address it head on. I don't know if the attack dog mentality will have an appreciable effect on his lasting prospects, but...it's at least evidence that he has the ability to do something more than "inspire hope".

He can fight with the best of them, too.Yeah, the race thing probably has a little to do with my impression, but I disagree that's where the similarities end. Having seen Deval give numerous speeches out here the way they speak to the way their people on the ground operate is very similar.

Obama may have won elected office, but his record in the Senate isn't too deep. I don't know how he performed in the Illinois state house, but from what I've read of his time in Washington it's been more about keeping his head down and preparing himself for bigger things than trying to pass policy. He is a freshman senator though, so that's not all on him.

It doesn't help that I'm philosophically opposed to his Iraq strategy, but I just don't even see how he could fully enact it. His economic policies and health care stance also seem fairly untenable. People are going to be massively disappointed with his actual performance once he's in office.

rowech

02-10-2008, 02:42 PM

I agree. I am a moderate Democrat and if that happened I would vote for McCain.

I think this is exactly what would happen as well. If Obama gets the nod, I think he has a chance. If Hilary gets the nod, I think McCain wins because many of those who are voting for Obama are going to vote for McCain instead.

Young Drachma

02-10-2008, 03:04 PM

Hillary's campaign manager is stepping down to become a "senior adviser", apparently.

BishopMVP

02-10-2008, 03:13 PM

The new rumor is that the Clinton campaign is going to try and get the 366 delegates from Florida and Michigan (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) votes at the convention.

Young Drachma

02-10-2008, 03:18 PM

It doesn't help that I'm philosophically opposed to his Iraq strategy, but I just don't even see how he could fully enact it. His economic policies and health care stance also seem fairly untenable. People are going to be massively disappointed with his actual performance once he's in office.

Hillarycare contains mandates. It'll never pass Congress. Never. Americans will never settle for health care policy shoved down their throats. And GOP will skewer her on that point.

And all of her "ideas" are nice and dandy (if you're a modern liberal who is into that) but she says nothing about paying for them.

Young Drachma

02-10-2008, 03:20 PM

The new rumor is that the Clinton campaign is going to try and get the 366 delegates from Florida and Michigan (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) votes at the convention.

They will have to hold a caucus to do it. Primaries are too expensive and they won't put those votes back in play based on that beauty contest held a few weeks ago. They'll have to seat those people in some manner, but only after a fair fight is staged.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/will-2-states-vote-again/

BishopMVP

02-10-2008, 03:29 PM

Hillarycare contains mandates. It'll never pass Congress. Never. Americans will never settle for health care policy shoved down their throats. And GOP will skewer her on that point.

And all of her "ideas" are nice and dandy (if you're a modern liberal who is into that) but she says nothing about paying for them.Oh, don't take my pessimism regarding Obama as me supporting Hillary over him in any way. After looking over the candidates, I was going to give Ron Paul a protest vote until I saw the racist stuff come out, so I wrote in Colbert.
They will have to hold a caucus to do it. Primaries are too expensive and they won't put those votes back in play based on that beauty contest held a few weeks ago. They'll have to seat those people in some manner, but only after a fair fight is staged.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/will-2-states-vote-again/
Under the current rules, there are only two ways Michigan and Florida could get convention delegates. The states could resubmit a selection plan that is consistent with DNC rules. That could include holding another primary or a party-run caucus, for example.
The states could also appeal to a DNC panel that deals with convention credentials. Neither state has done so, DNC spokesman Damien LaVera said. Depending on who's on that DNC panel, there is potential for shenanigans.

Young Drachma

02-10-2008, 03:33 PM

Oh, don't take my pessimism regarding Obama as me supporting Hillary over him in any way. After looking over the candidates, I was going to give Ron Paul a protest vote until I saw the racist stuff come out, so I wrote in Colbert.
Depending on who's on that DNC panel, there is potential for shenanigans.

I didn't. I was just putting it out there. I'm not a fan of any of them either, I was just saying it.

And in other news, John Edwards apparently met with both campaigns about a possible endorsement. The conventional wisdom was clearly for him to back Obama, but...I don't think it'll be that easy, though his stock isn't what it was a few weeks ago in terms of an ability to help.

I could see Hillary wanting it more and promising everything but the moon to him if she backs him and I could see him taking the bait. But I guess we'll find out once he decides.

Young Drachma

02-10-2008, 03:35 PM

Veepstakes speculating (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxVW-aUPQsPkU0JKEleSPNCyxSsAD8UNILTO4) from the AP

Young Drachma

02-10-2008, 04:21 PM

57-42% in Maine for Obama with 44% of the precincts reporting.

Vegas Vic

02-10-2008, 04:27 PM

In addition to the Rudy thing, I would throw George Bush losing to Clinton up there. His approval rating was like 70% a year in advance.

Yes, but when the primary season actually began in 1992, Bush did not have what was deemed to be an insurmountable lead. Dewey's collapse against Truman occurred after the start of the presidential campaign in 1948.

Vegas Vic

02-10-2008, 04:33 PM

Al Gore in 2000 would be massively bigger.

Al Gore never had more than a single digit lead over Bush during any polling cycle during the 2000 campaign, and most of his "leads" in the summer were within the margin of error. In fact, Gore trailed Bush in the polls for a majority of the 2000 campaign.

Grammaticus

02-10-2008, 06:19 PM

It is interesting to see how Hillary's campaign manager, Pattie Solis Doyle quitting in the middle of a critical time in the campaign will affect things.

She is a hispanic member of Hillary's team and in the most senior or key role. Obviously the campaign has hit a massive hurdle with Obama and they are not doing well. Whether she was sacked or just threw in the towel, it doesn't seem like it will help.

Young Drachma

02-10-2008, 07:09 PM

Hillary and Barack are both on 60 minutes tonight.

Young Drachma

02-10-2008, 07:24 PM

Galaxy

02-10-2008, 08:22 PM

Katie Couric: The Ryan Leaf of Media.

Galaril

02-10-2008, 10:20 PM

Katie Couric: The Ryan Leaf of Media.

:D

Young Drachma

02-10-2008, 10:35 PM

Galaxy

02-10-2008, 11:23 PM

I think people are starting to see through Hillary, looking at Obama's impressive showing in the last few days.

Young Drachma

02-10-2008, 11:43 PM

sterlingice

02-11-2008, 12:50 AM

Some background on Hillary's new campaign manager:

American Spectator (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12726)

Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/who-is-maggie-williams_b_85909.html)

Washington Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010803378.html) about her from 1994.

Obama better watch his back. She's going for blood.

I'm not doubting what you're saying but are there any credible sources out there from later than 1994. I mean, Ariana Huffington and a story that leads its second paragraph with the sentence "Yes, there is an ethnic component here, as Maggie is an African American, which makes her, in the inane Democrat worldview, the answer to Obama."

These aren't exactly something I would trust a whole lot. I'm not saying Clinton isn't above a smear manager. I just would like to get my facts filtered from someone a bit less biased.

SI

Young Drachma

02-11-2008, 07:52 AM

I'm not doubting what you're saying but are there any credible sources out there from later than 1994. I mean, Ariana Huffington and a story that leads its second paragraph with the sentence "Yes, there is an ethnic component here, as Maggie is an African American, which makes her, in the inane Democrat worldview, the answer to Obama."

These aren't exactly something I would trust a whole lot. I'm not saying Clinton isn't above a smear manager. I just would like to get my facts filtered from someone a bit less biased.

SI

I know, it's all internet gossip. American Spectator is a useless rag especially. I wanted to post it anyway. At this point, is there anything credible out there?

I do think it's interesting that she was so closely related to the Clintons from back in the day, though. But that's par for the course when you've been in Washington that long.

It just seemed to contrast her drum-beating that she's a big change from the current status quo. Not just that, but even what the pundits are starting to talk about, related to them.

Just makes me think they are licking their chops to start spinning against them.

Young Drachma

02-11-2008, 08:03 AM

Dola --

I ran a search of the NY Times from 1994 to 1999 (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?frow=0&n=10&srcht=a&query=%22maggie+williams%22&srchst=nyt&submit.x=27&submit.y=11&submit=sub&hdlquery=&bylquery=&daterange=period&mon1=01&day1=01&year1=1994&mon2=02&day2=11&year2=2000) and most of the articles are related to Whitewater. Yeah, that's all come and gone. But the sheer fact that we're going back in time and that she's that intertwined with them. And there are a few stories about Maggie Williams and accepting $50,000 for her legal fees from Johnny Chung, a Democratic fundraiser. Ordinary people don't care about this and the media's already gotten one spin cycle out of it.

I just seems like more of the same related to her past and all of the places where her fingers have been linked doesn't exactly give me the belief that she was only brought in as a loyal Clinton confidante. She is that, but she's also a proven PR spin doctor who is a veteran of Washington.

The Clintons might feel like it's their "duty" to take out Obama now, rather than let the Republicans do it. They might believe that sure, he'll be sullied a bit now, but that it would be better to have it happen now and the sooner people can start to forget and he has a shot after they 'remake America' to run in eight years as they keep imploring him to do.

I can't see why that would be a good idea for him, thinking it would be far wiser for him to give it this go now and be done with it win or lose...but, there is enough evidence out there if one wants to find it coupled with enough punditry from more reputable sources than internet blog trash to indicate that the Clintons are indeed stepping up their game, have pulled out their clubs and D.C. insiders know that if they're not going in for the kill now, that they'll never do it.

That's just what it looks like, but I guess we'll see whether it's true or not when this dust settles.

Dutch

02-11-2008, 03:51 PM

"Do you like Barack Obama?" Katie Couric is really throwing her some questions that are seemingly aimed at that "womanly touch" or something. The interview isn't as serious as Obama's was for Mike Wallace or whoever it was that was on interviewing him. Asking her about whether she drinks coffee or tea, what sort of hand lotion she uses or some stuff. What the hell?

But, both of them seemingly got what they wanted out of this deal, but she's coming out of this looking strong. I wonder how much this will run on cable news, because as it stands right now, the sound bites she's getting here are making her look human and likable.

That said, Katie Couric is really annoying. "What kind of girl were you in high school?" "Your dad was really mean to you growing up? How did you handle that?"

Are you kidding me?

:)

Seriously, Republicans have been complaining about this shit forever, but of course, for them, it's even worse. At least she will speak with Obama.

Katie Couric: Welcome to today's show! I have two guests, one's Democrat...nice hair...tee-hee, and one's Republican.

Democrat: Hiya, Katie!

Republican: Hi.

Katie Couric: Okay, now let's get to the journalistic part of the show where I ask investigative questions, k?

Democrat: Ok.

Republican: Sure.

Katie Couric: Okay, first a question for the Democrat. What is your favorite TV show?

Democrat: Oh, I just love the West Wing!

Katie Couric: Tee-hee, that's lovely, me too! Well, that's all the time we have for today's show. Bye!

Buccaneer

02-11-2008, 06:47 PM

Frank Rich in the NY Times: Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?hp)

He too, mentions the idea that the Clintons don't care about collateral damage. They're gonna give America what "they need" whether they like it or not.

It won't surprise me a bit (about the coming civil war and the Clintons forcing the issue). Through most of tht 1990s, we had endure the charade of a President that "cared" about African-American concerns where he was only using them for his personal political gains.

So far we have had the ghetto card, the Jesse Jackson card and the black mam card. What will we see in Texas?

Raiders Army

02-11-2008, 07:01 PM

Hillary's campaign manager is stepping down to become a "senior adviser", apparently.

Did she step down or was she fired? I keep hearing both, depending on what channel you watch.

Jas_lov

02-11-2008, 08:17 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/11/sources-gore-wont-endorse/

CNN is reporting that the only Democrat endorsement left that could actually mean something will not happen. Al Gore will support whoever wins the nomination.

Swaggs

02-11-2008, 10:19 PM

Has Jimmy Carter given an endorsement yet?

Young Drachma

02-11-2008, 10:35 PM

Did she step down or was she fired? I keep hearing both, depending on what channel you watch.

She stepped down, officially. But c'mon. You don't quit in the middle of political campaign, at this phase of the game unless 1) there is a major family emergency or 2) you're asked to make a change or 3) assess that it's time for you to go.

Given Hillary had a replacement fired up and ready to go after a few hours, it's clear it was a planned move.

Either way, it is not a good situation to have to do this.

Young Drachma

02-11-2008, 10:40 PM

It won't surprise me a bit (about the coming civil war and the Clintons forcing the issue). Through most of tht 1990s, we had endure the charade of a President that "cared" about African-American concerns where he was only using them for his personal political gains.

So far we have had the ghetto card, the Jesse Jackson card and the black mam card. What will we see in Texas?

They've taken to ignoring black folks again, now that they're voting for Obama in droves. They're focusing hard on trying to maintain their constituency of white men, older white women and Hispanics. Texas and Ohio will be about trying to maintain that grip on those groups.

Texas is going to be a big surprise for her, though. Especially if Obama keeps getting wins. The momentum is going to be a tide for him, if he can keep it up and the snowball effect might be too much for her, if she's essentially trying a Guiliani strategy of focusing on events a few weeks away, rather than trying to find some edge to fight in upcoming places she can win. Naturally, Ohio and Texas would put her back in play and would return the veneer of "the presumptive nominee" back to her camp.

Being the underdog isn't fun or good, but...given he hasn't had much heat, maybe she wants him to enjoy this next week or two in the frontrunner spot, just to see how he handles it. I'm afraid that might be another miscalculation.

I'm waiting for them to break some kneecaps of someone, somewhere though.

Young Drachma

02-11-2008, 10:42 PM

Has Jimmy Carter given an endorsement yet?

He's been quoted as saying Obama's campaign is "extraordinary." He stopped short of endorsing him, though.

Here's the story. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080130/ts_alt_afp/usvote2008democratscarter)

Young Drachma

02-11-2008, 11:17 PM

Michelle Obama on Larry King tonight. They're smart to get her out more, because people don't know her.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pyBc33UjvDU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pyBc33UjvDU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

chesapeake

02-12-2008, 11:58 AM

I am told by an old colleague on the Clinton campaign that Solis Doyle's departure really gets back to her spending strategy, which saw most of the money go out the door on or before Super Tuesday. It didn't work as well as was hoped, so her head rolled.

For the last couple of weeks, the Clinton campaign has been a two-headed monster, with Solis Doyle and Williams as co-equals. As anyone who has been on an intense campaign can tell you, that just won't work. There isn't enough time to consult on all the decisions, and sooner or later both end up pissed at each other. One or the other had to move along, and it ended up being Solis Doyle.

On the topic of superdelegates, don't be so sure that they will go for Hillary if there is still a race going into the convention. Many, if not most, superdelegates are elected officials. If Obama goes into the convention with a plurality of pledged delegates, a lot of superdelegates will be inclined to support the perceived will of the people. Also, Obama has done very well in the urban areas where a huge number of elected Democrats come from. Are they really going to want to buck the expressed sentiments of their own constituents?

Barkeep49

02-12-2008, 02:04 PM

I agreee with chesapeake that the Super delegates aren't going to break strictly towards Hilary. In addition to the point he makes, there is also the question Democrats in red states will ask themselves of who they'd rather have on the ticket: Hilary or Barack. That said from what I"ve read Hillary has done a much better job of outreach to the super delegates so that's certainly a big plus in her favor.

albionmoonlight

02-12-2008, 02:27 PM

yacovfb

02-12-2008, 03:00 PM

From what I am seeing on the nets, Obama's supporters are acting like they have already won.

Not good for a campaign that still has a long way to go and depends on energy and momentum and organizing.

This isn't over by a long shot. Here's one person's (biased) opinion:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/12/9144/59412

I agree it's not over...but that article was horrible. Biased is an understatement of that opinion. It calculates in the Florida/Michigan delegates into the counts, and refers to Obama's campaign as merely being "afloat". The poll at the end seals the deal for me on any validity the article had.

Jas_lov

02-12-2008, 03:09 PM

It's far from over. Today isn't even that big of a day. Obama is going to sweep easily. March 4th is where Hillary makes her stand, possibly her last. A Survey USA poll released today has Hillary up 56-39 over Obama in Ohio. We'll see if Obama can close the gap as he continues to gain more and more momentum leading up to the 4th.

Jas_lov

02-12-2008, 03:26 PM

http://www.pollster.com/08-WI-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Obama is up 50-39 in the latest Wisconsin poll.

Kodos

02-12-2008, 03:32 PM

"Mr. Obama, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?"

"Ooh, a tough question but a fair one. There's no single answer. Some voters respond to my integrity, others are more impressed with my incorruptibility. Still others buy my determination to lower taxes. And the bureaucrats in the state capital can put that in their pipes and smoke it!"

Young Drachma

02-12-2008, 04:35 PM

Good Times with Obamacans (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011872.php)

After watching them talk about it a bit on CNN and reading a few sites about it, the notion of course is mostly bluster (only 3% of registered GOPers voted in Dem primaries and among those he does have a majority, but..), but I thought it was interesting to see what a liberal blogger thought.

Raiders Army

02-12-2008, 04:37 PM

We were talking today and I guess in England they have 30 days to declare and campaign. I'd think that would be a great thing for this country since a lot of money is spent over the span of (I believe) two years to be elected President.

Then again, 30 days isn't long enough to get to know someone. On the other hand, it's not like we really know the candidates now. What would be a good length of time so that so much money wouldn't be "wasted" on a campaign?

Barkeep49

02-12-2008, 08:08 PM

A parliamentary system is a whole different ball of wax Raiders.

Raiders Army

02-12-2008, 08:50 PM

But couldn't we shorten the length of time campaigning?

JonInMiddleGA

02-12-2008, 08:55 PM

But couldn't we shorten the length of time campaigning?

Umm ... wouldn't that get into freedom of speech territory? I mean, there's a lot of campaigning done in the run-up that doesn't involved paid advertising (there's fairly little of that until we hit primary season really), so off the top of my head I'm having a hard time seeing where there's any ability to put any meaningful limitations.

flere-imsaho

02-12-2008, 08:59 PM

But couldn't we shorten the length of time campaigning?

Barkeep's point is that you'd have to change the way our government work. The reason why the election in England only lasts 30 days is that the sitting government can call an election at any time (or after 5 years have elapsed) and the election happens a month after they call it.

We don't have a similar mechanism.

But I agree, having lived in both countries, I prefer the 30-day version.

Raiders Army

02-12-2008, 09:18 PM

gotcha

GrantDawg

02-12-2008, 09:37 PM

No surprise in the sweep tonight by the O-man, but the big news is that he won the Hispanic vote, and he won the female vote by 21%. That has got to hurt.

JPhillips

02-12-2008, 09:39 PM

The only thing Hillary can hope for tonight is that she stays within thirty points in Maryland. Who came up with this post- Super Tuesday strategy of hers, Rudy Giuliani?

JonInMiddleGA

02-12-2008, 09:50 PM

Young Drachma

02-12-2008, 10:09 PM

Clinton says we should raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour. Yeah, that's gonna work.

I do love watching the 'victory' speeches or whatever, where the people in the back are always awkward and never know when they're supposed to cheer and usually someone next to them admonishes them to hush because it's not time to cheer yet.

Big Fo

02-12-2008, 10:33 PM

Obama up 1078-969 without superdelegates.

lungs

02-12-2008, 10:43 PM

Semi-rhetorical question but if Hillary were outspending Obama by a 7-to-1 margin, wouldn't we be hearing some grumbling about how the establishment candidate was buying the nomination away from the underdog?

Kind of along these lines, but how different is fundraising than in years past? Now it's so easy to just go online and type in your credit card #, check a few boxes that say your not a corporation, and you've made your donation.

Didn't Howard Dean get that rolling a bit back in '04? Obviously didn't help him (yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooooow! didn't help either), but it could've set a precedent for Obama to take advantage of. Couple that with the relatively speaking new campaign finance rules.

Is Hillary's fund raising machine antiquated? Or did she just spend it too soon? I haven't even looked at any of the numbers. For all I know she's raised tons more money than Obama but blew it too soon.

I for one donated to Obama today when I never would've gotten the motivation to donate in the past. Or perhaps it's Obama who motivated me, not the ease of donating :)

Probably both.

Young Drachma

02-12-2008, 10:44 PM

Donna Brazile on CNN really HATES Amy Holmes whenever she starts quoting stuff from past elections, since Donna has been around since Jackson's first campaign and she roasted her against tonight on a so-called factual point that Amy made relating the 1988 election with Dukakis to now (Related to voter turnout) as if that would have ANYTHING to do with this election season or now.

She's really uninformed and it's a mystery -- though not that surprising I guess -- that they have her on there. Maybe JC Watts didn't want to bother.

Young Drachma

02-12-2008, 10:57 PM

They have that 21-year old superdelegate from Wisconsin on CNN right now.
(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4273078&page=1)

I wonder if he tried to see how far Chelsea would go to get his vote for her mom...

Cringer

02-12-2008, 10:58 PM

So Mrs. Clinton will be down here on the border of south Texas tomorrow. I find it interesting because as I understand the Texas delegate system, this area isn't too important. We had crap for voter turnout the last two major elections, which means the number of delegates that can be won in this area of the state is reduced.

She needs any delegates she can get though I guess, and this area is 90% hispanic which the media says love her. I still haven't seen one of our local democratic leaders who lives down the street from me put up a Clinton '08 sign yet though, so I am hoping she won't win down here.

Jas_lov

02-12-2008, 11:11 PM

cschex

02-12-2008, 11:21 PM

Young Drachma

02-12-2008, 11:23 PM

For the first time (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#VADEM), Obama beat her tonight amongst blacks, whites and Hispanics. He won almost all of the exit poll measurables. Hillary kept her base of whites over the age of 45 or 50 or whatever the threshold is, but she's losing air faster than a balloon at a children's party.

Tyrith

02-12-2008, 11:35 PM

The two are scheduled to debate here at UT a week from Thursday (i'm hoping to possibly snag tickets). Austin will be pretty key, imo, because of the large democratic base here. I have been seeing a lot more Obama signs and stcikers around town. It is nice to have a relevant primary for once.

I've been telling everyone I know to stay at home that day because I fully my Obama-crazy UT peers to be rioting in the streets or something crazy :P

Vegas Vic

02-12-2008, 11:45 PM

She almost does have to run up the score in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to even have a chance. Hillary is about 100 delegates behind already, she'll lose Hawaii 3 to 1, and is at risk of losing Wisconsin by a decent margin. The crowd at Obama's speech tonight was huge. It'll be interesting to see some polling numbers from Ohio and Texas in the next couple weeks.

The only "fresh" poll from those states is a SurveyUSA poll from Ohio released today, where Clinton has a 17 point lead. (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d557457d-00cb-4628-9549-16029e76b808)

I think that Texas also bodes well for Clinton, because even though it is a republican lock in the general election, the Democrat minority tends to be more of the "lunch pail", lower income demographic, where she performs best. Also, the substantial Hispanic electorate in Texas should favor Hillary.

Jas_lov

02-12-2008, 11:51 PM

I think she'll win both of those states as they set up well for her, but we're starting to get to the point where she has to win them by a lot to gain enough delegates. Unless the superdelegates step in and go a different way than the popular vote and the elected delegates, but that would be a disaster. Obama has a week now to secure Wisconsin and go 10-0 since Super Tuesday, then he has 2 weeks to appeal to Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island. 55/45 in those states for Hillary may not get it done anymore.

Young Drachma

02-12-2008, 11:52 PM

I think that Texas also bodes well for Clinton, because even though it is a republican lock in the general election, the Democrat minority tends to be more of the "lunch pail", lower income demographic, where she performs best.

Until today in Virginia where she lost that demographic.

Galaril

02-13-2008, 12:06 AM

path12

02-13-2008, 12:16 AM

path12

02-13-2008, 12:17 AM

Dola, hotter may not be the right word, since I'm not sure Amy Holmes is hot so much as cute. Cuter definitely is.

st.cronin

02-13-2008, 12:21 AM

It is looking like Obama is going to win 35 of the 50 states in the end (approx). As for Hillary what is there strategy longterm? Can a Democrat be any kind of threat against the Republicans in the general election caring just NE and a few large states half of which are Red states anyways?

Keep in mind that Florida and Michigan, both of which Clinton would probably have done well in, will matter in the GE, but not in the primary. Those are big states.

Anyway, winning a Democratic primary /= winning a state in a GE. If the question is who is more electable, you look at states like Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, etc. It doesn't matter that Obama is more popular among Democrats in Oklahoma than Clinton - neither one is carrying that state in the GE.

path12

02-13-2008, 12:24 AM

Keep in mind that Florida and Michigan, both of which Clinton would probably have done well in, will matter in the GE, but not in the primary. Those are big states.

Anyway, winning a Democratic primary /= winning a state in a GE. If the question is who is more electable, you look at states like Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, etc. It doesn't matter that Obama is more popular among Democrats in Oklahoma than Clinton - neither one is carrying that state in the GE.

Along those same lines, even though Hillary won California and New York, if Obama is the nominee he'll take those in the GE also regardless of what happened in the primaries.

Vegas Vic

02-13-2008, 12:35 AM

As for Hillary what is there strategy longterm? Can a Democrat be any kind of threat against the Republicans in the general election caring just NE and a few large states half of which are Red states anyways?

I’m not quite sure what your point is, because so far the only “blue” states that Obama has won are Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. Virtually all of the other states that he’s won in the Democratic primaries aren’t even in play in the general election.

Galaril

02-13-2008, 01:51 AM

I’m not quite sure what your point is, because so far the only “blue” states that Obama has won are Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. Virtually all of the other states that he’s won in the Democratic primaries aren’t even in play in the general election.

My point is she has become the Dukakis of this election. She has won almost no states other than home state and the states around it and ARK. Obama has won double the number of states. Also, I love the way Pubs all talk about how so called red states aren't in play:rolleyes: Who really knows considering how screwed up this election is looking.

Galaril

02-13-2008, 01:53 AM

SackAttack

02-13-2008, 02:34 AM

That goes both ways. The republicans won't carry most of the Blue states that they are winning now either.

So if McCain is winning mostly blue states and Obama is winning mostly red states, and their respective parties can't count on carrying those states in the general election...what happens if the nominees are Obama and McCain? :D

albionmoonlight

02-13-2008, 06:42 AM

Re: Jon's point. I think that the money/outspending issue is not being played in the media because (1) the fact that the Clintons don't have/are choosing not to use superior resources is more of a suprise and therefore more of a story than the fact that they are being outspent, and (2) because so much of Obama's money comes from small donations, he is not "buying" the election as a surrogate for huge corporate bundlers.

On another note, if the two candidates' situations were reversed, Democrats would be calling Obama a traitor right now for not dropping out "for the good of the party."

Finally, Obama will not/may not win a lot of the states that he is carrying right now (i.e. will not win Nebraska, may not win Virginia). But one has to consider the downticket effect. If he gets people to the polls in red, purple, and blue states, then that might end up being a couple of governorships, a couple of House seats, a possible Senate seat, and a handful of state legistative seats that he gives to the Democrats.

Clinton, by bragging about how she didn't even campaign in the smaller states, has indicated that she is going to play the "John Kerry + 40,001 more votes in Ohio" strategy. And I think that will really hurt downticket Dems in the general.

ISiddiqui

02-13-2008, 06:59 AM

My point is she has become the Dukakis of this election. She has won almost no states other than home state and the states around it and ARK. Obama has won double the number of states. Also, I love the way Pubs all talk about how so called red states aren't in play:rolleyes: Who really knows considering how screwed up this election is looking.

Huh? Clinton has won that big state, you know, California, as well. If this were a winner take all primary like the Republican one, you wouldn't be really hearing about this Obamamentum, because Clinton would be very far ahead winning the big states like New York and California. Definately not a Dukakis situation.

Barkeep49

02-13-2008, 07:34 AM

I think all of this talk about Obama having won Hispanics is rather silly considering what a low % of the electorate Hispanics were yesterday.

At the same time, Hispanics won't make as big of a difference as people have been stating in Texas. Areas that are heavily Hispanic have less delegates than areas that are heavily African American.

I don't think things are looking good for Clinton. Between March 4th and April 22 there are 573 delegates up for grabs. Clinton would have to win approximately 60% of them, or the margin she won in New York, to even things up. She could win Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas, and still lag Obama.

Warhammer

02-13-2008, 08:06 AM

Huh? Clinton has won that big state, you know, California, as well. If this were a winner take all primary like the Republican one, you wouldn't be really hearing about this Obamamentum, because Clinton would be very far ahead winning the big states like New York and California. Definately not a Dukakis situation.

But that's the problem, she is not accounting for the rules and what she needs to do to win. "Winning" a state 50-49 is not a big deal in the Democrat primary system. Obama has been obliterating her in many states in the Red states. If you look at things objectively, the states Hillary is winning are going Blue no matter what, with the possible exception of California (according to some talking heads, I don't see it though). What Obama does is get those Blue states and he puts some other states into play that otherwise would not be, states like Virginia, Tennessee, Colorado, etc.

The Democrats need to come up with a strategy other than 40,000 more votes in Ohio. They can win more states because McCain loses all his advantages in a campaign against Obama. If Obama's people realize this, he wins this election in a walk. That is the only way I see a Democrat win in November. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only way to save the Republican party is for Hillary to be the nominee.

ISiddiqui

02-13-2008, 08:11 AM

But that's the problem, she is not accounting for the rules and what she needs to do to win. "Winning" a state 50-49 is not a big deal in the Democrat primary system. Obama has been obliterating her in many states in the Red states. If you look at things objectively, the states Hillary is winning are going Blue no matter what, with the possible exception of California (according to some talking heads, I don't see it though). What Obama does is get those Blue states and he puts some other states into play that otherwise would not be, states like Virginia, Tennessee, Colorado, etc.

The Democrats need to come up with a strategy other than 40,000 more votes in Ohio. They can win more states because McCain loses all his advantages in a campaign against Obama. If Obama's people realize this, he wins this election in a walk. That is the only way I see a Democrat win in November. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only way to save the Republican party is for Hillary to be the nominee.

The Dukakis comparison is silly... and so is "saving the Republican party" stuff. Once McCain starts pointing out Obama's positions (something he hasn't really gotten that much into), you'll see Republicans rallying. I mean Obama actually IS a progressive. He's not a triangulator. He's not trying to take the best of the left and best of the right. He can actually be called a far left politician. I don't think that the Republicans are just going to sit back and allow someone like that to be President without a fight.

Just because Obama is winning the Democratic primaries in the Red States doesn't necessarily mean he'll win them or make them competitive in the general election. In every red state there is a Democrat vote. No red state has gone 100% for the Republicans. Winning the Democratic vote tells you nothing by itself.

It is funny you mention Tennessee, btw... because Clinton won big there ;).

PilotMan

02-13-2008, 08:16 AM

Just curious, what happens if they go to the convention with no candidate having enough delagates to win the nomination?

Toddzilla

02-13-2008, 08:19 AM

Just curious, what happens if they go to the convention with no candidate having enough delagates to win the nomination?The only way that can happen is if the 3rd place candidates (and the 4th, 5th, etc.) have delegates, too. In that case, the 3rd place candidate usually brokers a deal with one of the front-runners to exchange their delegates for some sort of favor - a position on the ticket, in the cabinet, a case of Schlitz, etc.

albionmoonlight

02-13-2008, 08:23 AM

Just curious, what happens if they go to the convention with no candidate having enough delagates to win the nomination?

It probably won't happen because it would almost certainly be party suicide for two reasons: (1) it would be impossible to have the two candidates fight for that long without going negative (or having their surrogates go negative); (2) without a nominee presumptive, the convention would be an actual convention as opposed to a multi-day infomercial for the Democrats; (3) whoever wins after a fight that goes into August will be dead tired and broke--right before they have to have a ton of money and energy to start a general election campaign.

That said, if it does go to the convention, then they would keep taking votes and lobbying each other like rabid wolves in order to secure enough delegates for someone. Or, in the most radical sceniaro, someone like Al Gore or John Edwards comes in and says "you all vote for me and end this madness." And they do.

Fighter of Foo

02-13-2008, 08:45 AM

The Dukakis comparison is silly... and so is "saving the Republican party" stuff. Once McCain starts pointing out Obama's positions (something he hasn't really gotten that much into), you'll see Republicans rallying. I mean Obama actually IS a progressive. He's not a triangulator. He's not trying to take the best of the left and best of the right. He can actually be called a far left politician. I don't think that the Republicans are just going to sit back and allow someone like that to be President without a fight.

Just because Obama is winning the Democratic primaries in the Red States doesn't necessarily mean he'll win them or make them competitive in the general election. In every red state there is a Democrat vote. No red state has gone 100% for the Republicans. Winning the Democratic vote tells you nothing by itself.

It is funny you mention Tennessee, btw... because Clinton won big there ;).

Dems aren't going to exactly sit around either. McCain actually has a spotty, flip-flopping record a lot like Romney, despite his media rep. Obama I'm sure will be happy to point this out over the next 8 months.

More importantly, if you read some of the anecdotes circulating about Obama, many of them are uplifting and damn near spiritual-like. Look as far as you want, but there's absolutely nothing of the sort that's similar going around for Hillary and McCain. It's a big reason why barring some unforseen event Obama is going to win.

Also, he may be further ahead among Dems than the polls suggest:

"My wife and I have never voted for anything left of Republican, frequently voting on the Conservative party line when available. Yet today, we both voted for Hillary in the VA primary. Why? Because it seems McCain has it wrapped up, so why waste our vote on the Republican side; she is a lot less scary than Obama in many ways (better the Devil you know), and I think she is more easily beaten with her high negatives and lack of charisma. So we were part of the high Dem turn out today which I am sure you will hear about. And there is no way we will ever vote Dem in November.

We live in a highly conservative precinct (Eric Cantor is our Congressman). I saw many folks today picking up the Democratic ballot also. I think my wife and I were far from alone in our thinking."

ISiddiqui

02-13-2008, 08:56 AM

Dems aren't going to exactly sit around either.

True, but what does that have to do with Republicans coming out to the polls? I doubt that even with the cult of personality around Obama, Republicans are going to decide not to come out simply because it isn't Hillary Clinton on the other side.

Warhammer

02-13-2008, 09:16 AM

The Dukakis comparison is silly... and so is "saving the Republican party" stuff. Once McCain starts pointing out Obama's positions (something he hasn't really gotten that much into), you'll see Republicans rallying. I mean Obama actually IS a progressive. He's not a triangulator. He's not trying to take the best of the left and best of the right. He can actually be called a far left politician. I don't think that the Republicans are just going to sit back and allow someone like that to be President without a fight.

Just because Obama is winning the Democratic primaries in the Red States doesn't necessarily mean he'll win them or make them competitive in the general election. In every red state there is a Democrat vote. No red state has gone 100% for the Republicans. Winning the Democratic vote tells you nothing by itself.

It is funny you mention Tennessee, btw... because Clinton won big there ;).

I'm not saying anything about Dukakis.

I'll say this, I know plenty of people that are conservatives that are not on board with McCain. Many feel that if we are going to get "Hillary-lite" in McCain, better to let the Democrats have the White House and clean the mess up in 2012 when we have a better candidate.

The problem is that the Republican base is not motivated. We've been screwed by the current generation of Republican leaders. Since Newt (say what you will about him), there has not been a great conservative leader.

My point about Obama is that he has seen some HUGE mobs greet him at rallies in the red states. Hillary hasn't pulled those numbers to see her speak. If Obama gets the nod, he'll get the blue states anyway. Those states are voting blue for Obama or for Hillary. Obama puts some red states into play.

Regarding Clinton, she won Tennessee big because the blacks down here consider Bill to be the first black president. They got out and voted in the primaries. In the general election, without another southerner on the ticket Hillary gets trounced. Bill was tolerable to a lot of people down here, Hillary is not. She won the primary, but she gets killed in a general election. However, Obama will still pull the black votes, and I know plenty of Republicans here that are buying his message. If Obama wins the nomination, I think Tennessee falls in the blue column.

The big thing you are missing is that McCain is not motivating the right. Without Hillary in the fight, they are going to stay home. You're not going to see a massive turnout like you did in 2004 where much of the vote was to keep Kerry out of office. Obama is not nearly as threatening to the right as Hillary. The fact that we don't know everything about Obama is working to his advantage right now and will continue to do so.

If the campaign comes down to issues, I'm still not sure if it changes much. You'll have the anti-war vote come out against McCain, and you'll have the lower taxes guys come out against Obama. But, I don't think that will change much, if anything, when the votes are tallied.

If Obama gets the nomination, he wins in a landslide not seen since Reagan v. Mondale.

Warhammer

02-13-2008, 09:18 AM

True, but what does that have to do with Republicans coming out to the polls? I doubt that even with the cult of personality around Obama, Republicans are going to decide not to come out simply because it isn't Hillary Clinton on the other side.

I don't think you fully understand the hatred that the right has for Hillary. It rivals the hate that the left has for Newt.

Fighter of Foo

02-13-2008, 09:20 AM

True, but what does that have to do with Republicans coming out to the polls? I doubt that even with the cult of personality around Obama, Republicans are going to decide not to come out simply because it isn't Hillary Clinton on the other side.

As I'm sure I've mentioned before:

1) Right now, there are more self-identified D's than self-identified R's. Any R will have to pick up around 6 points to get back to level. If it's against Hillary, sure I'll buy that argument. Against Obama this is not going to happen.

2) Any candidate with an 'R' next to their name is going to have a difficult time winning anything. They have to run on Bush's record and their voting for it, as well as being part of the incumbent party while the economy is in the toilet.

3) If it's not obvious by now, the religious right and McCain don't get along. Mediocre candidates depress voter turnout.

Fighter of Foo

02-13-2008, 09:22 AM

If Obama gets the nomination, he wins in a landslide not seen since Reagan v. Mondale.

+1

ISiddiqui

02-13-2008, 09:30 AM

The big thing you are missing is that McCain is not motivating the right. Without Hillary in the fight, they are going to stay home. You're not going to see a massive turnout like you did in 2004 where much of the vote was to keep Kerry out of office. Obama is not nearly as threatening to the right as Hillary. The fact that we don't know everything about Obama is working to his advantage right now and will continue to do so.

Yes, of course that we don't know everything about Obama is working to his advantage! That's my point! McCain isn't going to let that continue. He can slam Obama for being too liberal without hurting himself (as Clinton would if she tried the same). As you stated, in 2004, the Republicans came out to get Kerry out. When Obama's positions become well known, I'm doubting that the Republicans will sit on their hands. They may not like McCain all that much, but they'll come out to vote AGAINST perhaps the most liberal candidate since George McGovern.

Clinton, btw, won in Tennessee because of white voters. The African American population isn't all that big in TN and isn't really that much of a turning point. I'm really not sure how Clinton would lose TN big in the general election, but Obama would win it, especially since Clinton trounced him in the primary there. It makes little sense.

If Obama gets the nomination, he wins in a landslide not seen since Reagan v. Mondale.

I think you'd dipped into the Kool-Aide too much. Obama ain't winning in a landslide. And definately not of Reagan/Mondale proportions.

McCain's head to head numbers with Obama show that.

Many feel that if we are going to get "Hillary-lite" in McCain, better to let the Democrats have the White House and clean the mess up in 2012 when we have a better candidate.

Not when McCain points out that the next President may be in the position to appoint 3 new justices to the Supreme Court (if not more). The one thing Conservatives can point to that was a huge success during the Bush Administration is Roberts & Alito.

ISiddiqui

02-13-2008, 09:31 AM

I don't think you fully understand the hatred that the right has for Hillary. It rivals the hate that the left has for Newt.

Which is funny, because the hate for left has for Newt Gingrich seems incredibly subdued and lukewarm. Though maybe I don't see it that much because I don't mind Newt?

Vegas Vic

02-13-2008, 09:32 AM

Obama puts some red states into play.

Which ones?

bob

02-13-2008, 09:34 AM

better to let the Democrats have the White House and clean the mess up in 2012 when we have a better candidate.

That's a risky move with several potential supreme court openings coming up.

ISiddiqui

02-13-2008, 09:37 AM

That's a risky move with several potential supreme court openings coming up.

Yep, exactly. The one thing the Religious Right is REALLY smart about is that if the politicians are just playing lip service, the one place where they can get real change is in the Supreme Court. Bush didn't do anything, really, about abortion through legislation, but he really helped them out greatly by appointing Roberts and Alito to the bench.

McCain has never, IIRC, been attacked for his stance on abortion. He really does have a conservative social outlook on things.

Fighter of Foo

02-13-2008, 09:39 AM

Which ones?

Well VA if you count that as a red state, TN, CO, ID, AR. NC, SC and GA if you want to be optimistic. Not sure if IN and IA are red states, but I don't see a reason Obama can't do well there.

And ISiddiqui, if you want to make a friendly margin of victory wager assuming Obama gets nominated I'm all ears. :D

ISiddiqui

02-13-2008, 09:46 AM

And ISiddiqui, if you want to make a friendly margin of victory wager assuming Obama gets nominated I'm all ears. :D

Reagan beat Mondale by 512 electoral votes. In 1988, Bush beat Dukakis by 315.

So what you are saying is that Obama will win by more than 315 Electoral votes. Is that the bet you want to make?

Vegas Vic

02-13-2008, 09:50 AM

McCain has never, IIRC, been attacked for his stance on abortion. He really does have a conservative social outlook on things.

McCain has an 80 rating from the American Conservative Union, a score comparable to those of numerous other Senate conservatives, including Sens. Charles Grassley, Lamar Alexander, Bob Bennett and former Sen. Rick Santorum. For comparison, Barbara Boxer has a 12, Clinton has a 12 and Obama has an 8. McCain also has a 4 percent lifetime rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League, voting pro-life 123 times out of 128.

Once the general campaign begins, this stuff will be brought up ad nauseum by the republicans.

Vegas Vic

02-13-2008, 09:55 AM

Well VA if you count that as a red state, TN, CO, ID, AR. NC, SC and GA if you want to be optimistic. Not sure if IN and IA are red states, but I don't see a reason Obama can't do well there.

I'm going to bookmark this thread and come back on November 5. The Democratic nominee will not win any of those states, and the margin won't even be within 5 points except in Virginia, Colorado and Arkansas. In Idaho, McCain will carry the state by at least 25 points.

Buccaneer

02-13-2008, 10:30 AM

I'm going to bookmark this thread and come back on November 5. The Democratic nominee will not win any of those states, and the margin won't even be within 5 points except in Virginia, Colorado and Arkansas. In Idaho, McCain will carry the state by at least 25 points.

+1

Very much so.

From the beginning, Squiddy has downplayed the hatred for Hillary or the anti-Clinton sentiments because he supported her. It really does mean something.

It's amazing to read how those on both extremities think there will be a massive red/blue state shift. As it stands right now, no way. Kerry + 40,000 Ohio makes a lot of sense but I still predict that California will not be automatic.

JPhillips

02-13-2008, 10:33 AM

A lot of conservatives don't think McCain would appoint the right kind of justice, less Scalia and more Souter. If you believe that what's it matter if McCain is appointing judges? At least with a Dem as president you can actively work against liberal nominees. How would a minority Republican Senate fight against nominees of a Republican president?

I read a fairly compelling argument recently on why conservatives should stay home in November. It was the first such column I'd read that wasn't just a slam of McCain. It boiled down to the argument that McCain losing will result in the shortest time until a real conservative can be president. If he wins he'll either be popular and win again in 2012 or be unpopular and lose to a Dem in 2012. If a Dem is in office they could again win in 2016 and if McCain wins two terms it's highly unlikely that one party would win five contests in a row. It may be 2020 before a real conservative can win the White House.

However, if a Dem wins this year and gets stuck with a bad economy, a polarizing Iraq withdrawal, and a minority as hostile as the 90's maybe a real conservative can win in 2012. I think that's a fairly good argument if your concerns are about a specific set of policies as opposed to a comprimised winner.

Jas_lov

02-13-2008, 10:35 AM

Red state/Blue state talk is ridiculous. It'll come down to the same swing states it always does. Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Iowa, New Mexico, and others. Just because McCain wins the N.Y. Republican Primary doesn't mean he'll win there in November. Someone has to win the damn state for the Republicans. Obama or Clinton, it doesn't matter, they'll carry N.Y. easily.

JPhillips

02-13-2008, 10:42 AM

I'm going to bookmark this thread and come back on November 5. The Democratic nominee will not win any of those states, and the margin won't even be within 5 points except in Virginia, Colorado and Arkansas. In Idaho, McCain will carry the state by at least 25 points.

In general I agree, with the caveat that I think CO could go to Obama. They have a strong Senate Candidate in an open seat and the state is adding more traditionally Dem voters. It may be another cycle before a Dem wins, but it wouldn't be a surprise this year.

edit: And a Dem Governor which means a built in infrastructure.

Young Drachma

02-13-2008, 10:45 AM

If you can't win your own base, you can't win an election. The fact that he has to convince people to vote for him that ought to be automatic, is never a good sign for McCain.

Obama will get people who don't vote and who haven't factored in other elections engaged. There is no amount of smearing, lying and anything that's going to dissuade a 'movement'. For better or worse. Slander won't work either, so they're going to need a strategy fast to get to him and frankly, the only way it'll work is to go negative early and often.

But go too negative and people won't like it and the backlash will result in something crazy.

I do find it funny that some of the bloggers are trying to paint Obama as a lightweight like W. Obama isn't an intellectual lightweight and while he might bumble or stumble out of the gate, I can't see how anyone could possibly think those two have anything in common. Just given how unlikely it is for him to be in the situation he's in right now.

Buccaneer

02-13-2008, 10:50 AM

In general I agree, with the caveat that I think CO could go to Obama. They have a strong Senate Candidate in an open seat and the state is adding more traditionally Dem voters. It may be another cycle before a Dem wins, but it wouldn't be a surprise this year.

edit: And a Dem Governor which means a built in infrastructure.

Except for one things, Gov. Ritter is closer to McCain politically than to Obama. I would hope by now we have moved away from (R) or (D) next to their names.

Warhammer

02-13-2008, 10:57 AM

Dark Cloud is probably closest in thought to me regarding Obama. Obama is a movement, and movements are not measured well by polls and pollsters.

Buccaneer

02-13-2008, 11:02 AM

DC, you and others talk about the "base" as one entity. It is not. Just like with the Dems, there are multiple "bases" or segmentations. The Southern/Midwestern evangelical base is one thing but the evangelical base in the West is another thing (Huckabee barely registered here in the Evangelical Capital of the World). Then there's the fiscal/anti-tax base, the libertarian base (the Dems have one too but it's a different animal), the war on terror base, the pro-military base (which comes in play in CA, CO and VA), etc.

Vegas Vic

02-13-2008, 11:06 AM

Obama will get people who don't vote and who haven't factored in other elections engaged.

I haven't heard him say it during this election cycle yet, but James Carville has a funny quote that I've heard several times before. "What do you call a candidate who is relying on first time voters?" "A loser."

There is no amount of smearing, lying and anything that's going to dissuade a 'movement'. For better or worse. Slander won't work either, so they're going to need a strategy fast to get to him and frankly, the only way it'll work is to go negative early and often.

The republicans won't have to resort to smear tactics. They'll heavily publicize his voting record, which as noted before, is to the left of Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton. That's going to be a very hard sell for Obama to the small percentage of voters who decide presidential elections, regardless of his wonderful and inspiring oratory skills.

Warhammer

02-13-2008, 11:06 AM

McCain will have issues in the south. He isn't widely liked here. However, when given the choice between a westerner and a yankee, we go west...

Fighter of Foo

02-13-2008, 11:09 AM

Reagan beat Mondale by 512 electoral votes. In 1988, Bush beat Dukakis by 315.

So what you are saying is that Obama will win by more than 315 Electoral votes. Is that the bet you want to make?

Winning by 315 might be a stretch, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility. The R's were comprehensively beaten in the mid-terms, failing to pick up a single seat and haven't shown me any reason to think that trend won't continue this year. Today I would not make that bet but check back in September. ;)

Thinking some more, whoever mentioned Idaho going R is almost certainly right, but the other four (VA, CO, TN and AR) will all end up D or very close to it.

Fighter of Foo

02-13-2008, 11:13 AM

The republicans won't have to resort to smear tactics. They'll heavily publicize his voting record, which as noted before, is to the left of Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton. That's going to be a very hard sell for Obama to the small percentage of voters who decide presidential elections, regardless of his wonderful and inspiring oratory skills.

And that's somehow a harder sell than McCain's voting record(equal to 31% approval rating Bush in every meaningful way)? That's ridiculous.

Young Drachma

02-13-2008, 11:14 AM

I haven't heard him say it during this election cycle yet, but James Carville has a funny quote that I've heard several times before. "What do you call a candidate who is relying on first time voters?" "A loser."

The republicans won't have to resort to smear tactics. They'll heavily publicize his voting record, which as noted before, is to the left of Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton. That's going to be a very hard sell for Obama to the small percentage of voters who decide presidential elections, regardless of his wonderful and inspiring oratory skills.

I think people are miscalculating the voter frustration. This election is going to be studied for a long time as evidence of people who missed the point and didn't see the trees in the wider forest, because they were too busy heading towards the valley outside of it.

As for the whole first-time voter thing, I said in the GOP thread that the major if is that he's staking his campaign on the 18-29 year olds. But they're not enough of the electorate to do anything other than tip the scales.

I think he's relying far more on his ability to capture independents, figuring that the base will come along with him in the end anyway. All of that math would point to a victory for him.

People are severely underestimating his ground game and how ridiculous it is that he's even in this situation. He's a first-term Senator from Illinois with all of these things that could be scrutinized and attacked. But it seems that because he's so likable, no one wants to say anything too swarmy about him and the obvious skeletons that anyone would want to dig up and throw out have been scoured for and the whispers haven't scared anyone off yet except people who weren't going to vote for him to begin with.

The bottom line is, if this guy gets into the general election..he's going to present the right with something they haven't seen before. He's not George McGovern. He's not JFK. But he's galvanized an entire generation and gets new converts every day who don't care that he's a modern liberal who doesn't tell you how he's going to pay for anything, that he's got too many ideas that relate to what government "ought to do for people" and all of that.

What they want, is a chance to believe again. And he's speaking to that. Warmongering, scaring people into believing he's a Muslim and even talking about race incessantly isn't going to be enough to beat him.

It's going to take... ::gasp:: innovation and creativity. Maybe even a little inspiration.

It's not rocket science, but maybe this is what the old guard needs to realize that the game isn't as monochromatic as it used to be.

Buccaneer

02-13-2008, 11:17 AM

And that's somehow a harder sell than McCain's voting record(equal to 31% approval rating Bush in every meaningful way)? That's ridiculous.

Mix metaphors much? Might was well throw in Congress 24% rating and prevent anyone from there running.

Fighter of Foo

02-13-2008, 11:20 AM

Mix metaphors much? Might was well throw in Congress 24% rating and prevent anyone from there running.

Congress has a lower rating becuase D's hate Congress as much as R's and I's even though their party is in charge. I can dig up that polling data if you really care.

Buccaneer

02-13-2008, 11:20 AM

DC, a "New Hope" is what they said in 1992, 1988, 1976 and 1972 as well.

Buccaneer

02-13-2008, 11:22 AM

Congress has a lower rating becuase D's hate Congress as much as R's and I's even though their party is in charge. I can dig up that polling data if you really care.

I know where that number comes from and that's my point. McCain will not run on Bush's record (he's a maverick, remember?), just as neither should run on being associated with this Congress, for whicever reasons.

Vegas Vic

02-13-2008, 11:23 AM

He's not George McGovern. He's not JFK.

As an orator, the comparisons to JFK are appropriate, but that's where the comparisons end. Politically, Obama is much closer on the issues to George McGovern than he is to JFK. JKF was a proponent of tax cuts, individual responsibility and a strong national defense. McCain and JFK are closer on most of the issues than Obama and JFK.

Young Drachma

02-13-2008, 11:29 AM

As an orator, the comparisons to JFK are appropriate, but that's where the comparisons end. Politically, Obama is much closer on the issues to George McGovern than he is to JFK. JKF was a proponent of tax cuts, individual responsibility and a strong national defense. McCain and JFK are closer on most of the issues than Obama and JFK.

That's not my point. But I'm just going to reserve judgment for a while. It's easier that way.

Buccaneer

02-13-2008, 11:33 AM

DC, but Vegas Vic is right even if you were trying to bring up JFK for another reason.

st.cronin

02-13-2008, 11:36 AM

McGovern strikes me as an almost perfect comp for Obama. But the differences between JFK and McGovern are almost all external - switch them in time, and McGovern is probably president, and JFK not.

Jas_lov

02-13-2008, 11:37 AM

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4281404&page=1

As he weighs a possible endorsement in the Democratic race, former Sen. John Edwards is as split as the party he once hoped to lead — and is seriously considering supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite the sharp criticism he leveled at her on the campaign trail, according to former aides and advisers.

Several people close to the former North Carolina senator say he may ultimately stay neutral in the race, joining former Vice President Al Gore on the sidelines of the tightest Democratic race in decades.

Looks like Edwards will support Clinton or nobody.

Fighter of Foo

02-13-2008, 11:38 AM

I know where that number comes from and that's my point. McCain will not run on Bush's record (he's a maverick, remember?), just as neither should run on being associated with this Congress, for whicever reasons.

McCain can't get rid of the 'R' next to his name. And my point is Obama's going to bring it up early and often.

EDIT: Here's how McCain wins: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZlYTczNzQ5ZmFlMmQ4ZTlkZGJlMWU1NDdlM2I1ZmM=

"For McCain to win in this current anti-incumbent, anti-Republican climate of war and economic uncertainty, everything will have to break right — the base will have to make a choice for the better, not the best, alternative and soon cool the rhetoric; the VP choice will have to be inspired; independents and moderates will have to be convinced that McCain’s unique life-story and national security fides trump all else; and he will have to wage an effective campaign, hope his opponents don’t, and trust that Iraq will continue to improve while the economy is stabilized."

Buccaneer

02-13-2008, 11:54 AM

Like why Hillary Clinton has the only health care plan that covers every American

Why is this a selling point? Shouldn't it be a health care plan that covers those that are without coverage?

JPhillips

02-13-2008, 11:59 AM

Except for one things, Gov. Ritter is closer to McCain politically than to Obama. I would hope by now we have moved away from (R) or (D) next to their names.

Come on Buc. You know that Ritter will work for Obama or Clinton come the fall. There's no way in hell he supports McCain regardless of stands on the issues. Ritter owes his job in large part to the support of the party(as does any Gov) and he'll repay that support in the general election unless he wants to be abandoned come time for federal appointments and/or his re-election campaign. That's the way party politics works.

edit: I should also add he'd love to have the recognition and potential authority of being the guy that turned CO blue.

Vegas Vic

02-13-2008, 11:59 AM

McCain can't get rid of the 'R' next to his name. And my point is Obama's going to bring it up early and often.

Well, they also can't get rid of the fact that McCain went against his own party and blasted the Bush administration on the handling of the Iraq war, and that he was largely responsible for Rumsfeld's ouster. They also can't get rid of the fact that McCain has publicly humiliated some of his "R" colleagues on the senate floor for pork added to spending bills.

That won't matter to some people, but to some it will be a sign of political courage.

Buccaneer

02-13-2008, 12:04 PM

Come on Buc. You know that Ritter will work for Obama or Clinton come the fall. There's no way in hell he supports McCain regardless of stands on the issues. Ritter owes his job in large part to the support of the party(as does any Gov) and he'll repay that support in the general election unless he wants to be abandoned come time for federal appointments and/or his re-election campaign. That's the way party politics works.

I'm not saying one way or the other, just sayin' that Ritter is a moderate Dem in a very politically independent state. Not every governor enthusiastically supported their party's nomination (depending where on the spectrum either falls). There is no Dem machine here in Colorado. Hickenlooper and Denver are moderates (it'll be 55/45 Dem), Boulder and Ft Collins are too small to counter the effect of the Colorado Springs, the Western Slope and the Plains.

BrianD

02-13-2008, 12:08 PM

Why is this a selling point? Shouldn't it be a health care plan that covers those that are without coverage?

A healthcare plan that covers everybody sounds like a socialist plan. A plan that just covers those without coverage sounds like the rich paying for the poor. While neither plan would be an easy sell, I think the socialist plan would be easier.

ISiddiqui

02-13-2008, 12:17 PM

Winning by 315 might be a stretch, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility. The R's were comprehensively beaten in the mid-terms, failing to pick up a single seat and haven't shown me any reason to think that trend won't continue this year. Today I would not make that bet but check back in September. ;)

I will :p. By then, we'll basically know how close it'll be, I'm sure. I think Obama, if he wins the Dem nomination can get to a 150 EC votes above McCain, but not much more than that.

And DC, I think Obama fans are drastically overestimating the level of voter frustration. He does have a great ground game, but I think it'd be folly to underestimate the Republican machine. Hell, these people got Dubya re-elected. That's incredible.

Young Drachma

02-13-2008, 12:34 PM

And DC, I think Obama fans are drastically overestimating the level of voter frustration. He does have a great ground game, but I think it'd be folly to underestimate the Republican machine. Hell, these people got Dubya re-elected. That's incredible.

That might be, but McCain is no Dubya.

I don't think Obama fans are the ones who overestimate voter frustration. It's been a bully pulpit the Dems have beaten since they took back both houses of Congress, all the while with FOX and GOPers saying that things aren't as bad as people say they are.

I'm excited to find out who is right, mostly because I think it'll be a signal of where America is headed. Because the voter turnout and the results of this race will be a canary in the mine for what people are really thinking.

Young Drachma

02-13-2008, 12:38 PM

EDIT: Here's how McCain wins: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZlYTczNzQ5ZmFlMmQ4ZTlkZGJlMWU1NDdlM2I1ZmM=

"For McCain to win in this current anti-incumbent, anti-Republican climate of war and economic uncertainty, everything will have to break right — the base will have to make a choice for the better, not the best, alternative and soon cool the rhetoric; the VP choice will have to be inspired; independents and moderates will have to be convinced that McCain’s unique life-story and national security fides trump all else; and he will have to wage an effective campaign, hope his opponents don’t, and trust that Iraq will continue to improve while the economy is stabilized."

That's akin to being 8-8 and hoping your opponents lose so you can make the playoffs, hoping the teams ahead of you all lose their best starters and flop on the way to you making the Super Bowl.

I mean, just because you can win the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer doesn't mean you ought to do it if you can help it. But if you have to, you better make damn sure the other parts of your team are sound.

ISiddiqui

02-13-2008, 12:39 PM

That might be, but McCain is no Dubya.

I don't think Obama fans are the ones who overestimate voter frustration. It's been a bully pulpit the Dems have beaten since they took back both houses of Congress, all the while with FOX and GOPers saying that things aren't as bad as people say they are.

I'm excited to find out who is right, mostly because I think it'll be a signal of where America is headed. Because the voter turnout and the results of this race will be a canary in the mine for what people are really thinking.

I know McCain isn't Dubya, he's a FAR, FAR more attractive candidate.

Ok, maybe it isn't just Obama fans, but I think the Dems who keep hammering voter frustration are being a bit silly. They said the same thing in 2004 about Kerry. Even though Kerry had a crap campaign and was a boring candidate they said that President Bush was so disliked and voters were so frustrated it wouldn't matter. Now, clearly, Obama and Clinton are FAR better candidates, but I don't think the voter frustration is going to play the role that those people think it will.

Especially when you have McCain, who, for better or worse, has been imprinted in the public's mind as a "maverick", something the media still harps on.