Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Young Drachma]

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.

I'm just going to reserve judgment. I have my idea of where I think things will go, but given where things have gotten to this point..I'm convinced anything can happen at this point and so, we'll just sit back and watch. Because like you and others have said, we've seen groundswells of energy before that haven't bubbled to be much more than a burp come November.

So there isn't necessary any evidence that this year will be any different until we see it happen.

[path12]

I'm curious about something for those who are arguing that McCain has a good chance of prevailing in the general.

What do you make of the turnout differences so far? Record turnouts for primaries and caucuses on the Dem side, and nearly doubling the turnout on the Rep side. Both races have been competitive. You could argue that people are switching sides and voting in the Dem primaries for some sort of Machiavellian purpose of getting the weaker candidate nominated, but I don't think that explains much more than a small percentage of those numbers.

I tend to agree with Dark Cloud on this at this time, but we'll see. I'm of the opinion that the prevailing wisdom of the past 20-30 years is not going to be predictive of this election.

[JPhillips]

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.

This time next year CO is likely to have a Dem Governor and two Dem Senators. There may not be a machine, but the results are still pretty good.

[Vegas Vic]

This has the makings of a fascinating race, however it turns out. If Obama does end up winning the nomination and election, will he be the most liberal candidate to ever be elected president? I can't think of another one. LBJ perhaps, but he was actually conservative on some issues.

[Young Drachma]

This has the makings of a fascinating race, however it turns out. If Obama does end up winning the nomination and election, will he be the most liberal candidate to ever be elected president? I can't think of another one. LBJ perhaps, but he was actually conservative on some issues.

I think that's a hard statement to make, given the word liberal has morphed from the understanding of what a classical liberal is, versus the big-government modern liberal that we've come to understand it as.

And as with Supreme Court justices, people get into office and change.

GWB wasn't exactly a shining example of conservativeness IMHO.

[JPhillips]

In terms of domestic economic policy Obama doesn't hold a candle to FDR.

[Vegas Vic]

I'm curious about something for those who are arguing that McCain has a good chance of prevailing in the general.

What do you make of the turnout differences so far? Record turnouts for primaries and caucuses on the Dem side, and nearly doubling the turnout on the Rep side.

It's similar to the massive democratic turnout in the 1988 primaries with Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore and Dick Gephart. After the primaries, Dukakis had a 17 point lead in the polls over GHWB. That trend has been fairly consistent over the years. In 1984, Walter Mondale was actually ahead of Ronald Reagan at this point in the election season.

[path12]

It's similar to the massive democratic turnout in the 1988 primaries with Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore and Dick Gephart. After the primaries, Dukakis had a 17 point lead in the polls over GHWB. That trend has been fairly consistent over the years. In 1984, Walter Mondale was actually ahead of Ronald Reagan at this point in the election season.

But in both of those years there was a prohibitive Republican nominee -- in 1984 Reagan was the incumbent, and in 1988 there was little doubt that GHW Bush would be the nominee. So it makes sense that Dem turnout would be higher. That's not the case this time with both races starting fairly open.

[Vegas Vic]

But in both of those years there was a prohibitive Republican nominee -- in 1984 Reagan was the incumbent, and in 1988 there was little doubt that GHW Bush would be the nominee. So it makes sense that Dem turnout would be higher. That's not the case this time with both races starting fairly open.

That's a good point.

As for the polling that shows the democrat (Obama) with a slight lead over the republican (McCain) in the general election -- I think that's been the case with every presidential election since 1980 at this point in the election season:

1984 Mondale over Reagan (slight)
1988 Dukakis over GHWB (substantial)
1992 Clinton over GHWB (slight)
1996 Clinton over Dole (slight)
2000 Gore over Bush (slight)
2004 Kerry over Bush (slight)
2008 Obama over McCain (slight)

[Young Drachma]

It's similar to the massive democratic turnout in the 1988 primaries with Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore and Dick Gephart. After the primaries, Dukakis had a 17 point lead in the polls over GHWB. That trend has been fairly consistent over the years. In 1984, Walter Mondale was actually ahead of Ronald Reagan at this point in the election season.

The Primary Boom. (http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=FRC2008011701)

This was published on January 17th. But it still signals how significant this year's voter turnout has been and points to the fact that this primary season has yielded higher than ever voter turnouts during the primaries.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/content/images/2008IowaNHTurnout2.gif

While the huge turnouts would appear to be a big plus for the Democrats, they may not necessarily be a favorable harbinger for the party in November. The nationwide primary record for the Democrats of 23 million votes was set in 1988, a year the party went on to lose the presidential race. The primary record for the Republicans of 17.2 million votes was set in 2000, a year the GOP went on to win the White House (albeit narrowly).

In short, when it comes to presidential primaries, high voter involvement can have either a positive or a negative connotation depending on the tenor of the party's nominating campaign.

The Democrats in particular have had a number of "negative" high turnouts, where friction between various wings of the party produced substantial voter interest but a badly scarred nominee with little chance of winning the general election.

It happened in 1972, when the controversial anti-Vietnam War campaign of George McGovern barely prevailed over more moderate elements in the party. It happened again in 1984, when former Vice President Walter Mondale could not shake off primary challenges from Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson. And to a degree, it happened a third time in 1988 when Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and Jackson kept fighting weeks beyond that year's large Super Tuesday vote before Dukakis finally nailed down the Democratic nomination.

[Butter]

I wish we could talk more about the Republicans in this thread. Less Obama and Hillary, more McCain!

[mattlanta]

Barack Obama for President 2008!

[Jas_lov]

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.

Colorado:

Obama 46
McCain 39

McCain 49
Clinton 35

Missouri:

McCain 42
Obama 40

McCain 43
Clinton 42

New Hampshire:

Obama 49
McCain 36

Clinton 43
McCain 41

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

[Big Fo]

Barack Obama for President 2008!

That's the spirit.


Edit: Beaten on the polls, plus I missed the Missouri one. Still more good signs for Obama, hopefully superdelegates and elderly women don't screw it up.

[Jas_lov]

You mean they're interesting given the same exact polls given one post back!

[SteveMax58]

I think that's a hard statement to make, given the word liberal has morphed from the understanding of what a classical liberal is, versus the big-government modern liberal that we've come to understand it as.

And as with Supreme Court justices, people get into office and change.

GWB wasn't exactly a shining example of conservativeness IMHO.

+1

I think the office of Presidency moves liberals and conservatives alike to very similar decisions. I think many a candidate has made campaign promises, believing them to be true at the time, only to realize they must change those viewpoints upon receiving the full picture.

[Vegas Vic]

To put things in some perspective here on February 13, 2008, here is a poll from February 13, 2004 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/16/opinion/polls/main600505.shtml). ;)

[Fighter of Foo]

To put things in some perspective here on February 13, 2008, here is a poll from February 13, 2004 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/16/opinion/polls/main600505.shtml). ;)

Obama is going to dominate because of all the meta factors in his favor, not because of any polling done in February. Looking solely at poll numbers to draw comparisions to past candidates is pointless.

[Fighter of Foo]

This has the makings of a fascinating race, however it turns out. If Obama does end up winning the nomination and election, will he be the most liberal candidate to ever be elected president? I can't think of another one. LBJ perhaps, but he was actually conservative on some issues.

And sorry to pick on you here Vic, but could you use words other than conservative and liberal to describe what you mean?

[Young Drachma]

How the Texas primary election will work: (http://dallassouthblog.com/2008/02/07/texas-democratic-election-a-primarycaucus-hybrid-requires-and-extra-trip-to-the-polls/)

* Texas has a two step process that is open to all registered voters.

* When you cast your vote in the Texas primary, in essence it’s only 75% of a full vote.

* 126 of Texas’ 168 votes will be allocated to candidates based on the ballots cast.

* 15 minutes after the polls close (7:00 p.m.) those who voted must return to their precinct.

* This “precinct convention” is how Texas will decide how to divide the remaining 42 delegates.

* The rules were originally put in place to insure that the Democratic hierarchy would have more say.


How the delegate count breaks out in Texas (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_QDnA56kHa3qYl41FUYT3PLHJvwD8UPMKS81)

The primary election will choose 126 of them, but it's really 31 separate elections — one in each state Senate district. Each district gets from two to eight delegates based on the Democratic turnout there in past elections.

The delegates in each state Senate district primary will be allocated proportionally among the candidates, with a minimum of 15 percent of the vote required to qualify for any delegates.

Big city districts in Houston, Dallas and Austin with large Democratic turnout in the 2004 and 2006 general election have more delegates to offer than some predominantly Hispanic districts in the Rio Grande Valley and El Paso, which could pose a problem for Hillary Rodham Clinton who has enjoyed solid Hispanic support during earlier primaries.

For instance, a state Senate district in Austin, where 30 percent of residents are Hispanic, will have eight delegates, but a state Senate district in the border city of Brownsville, where the population is 91 percent Hispanic, gets only three.

This (http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4877) explains the entire process in detail. But it's head spinning.

[Young Drachma]

Here's a NY Times story (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14delegates.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin), talking about how Hillary is already planning to challenge to get the Michigan and Florida delegates seated. And how her people are already trying to convince the superdelegates to go her way, believing her to be more electable, etc.

Seems history may again repeat itself in the Democratic Party.

[Jas_lov]

Wisconsin- Obama 47 Hillary 43

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/wi/wisconsin_democratic_primary-270.html

Ohio- Hillary 51 Obama 37

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primary-263.html

Two polls in a row that show Hillary with a big lead in Ohio and within striking distance in Wisconsin. She needs to win Ohio big so maybe a close win in Wisconsin would put her back on track.

[Young Drachma]

Wall Street Journal columnist on Obama's Wonder Land (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120295124554366927.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries).

Repeats a lot of the mantras we've heard in here (go FOFC Political Journal) about how Obama is giving speeches that once you strip them down to their core, could've been given in decades past, when times were more bleak than they are now.

The piece wonders aloud when people will get tired of hearing the same ol' thing from him.

[JPhillips]

It's hardly surprising that the WSJ op-ed page is anti-Obama. At least they aren't saying he traffics in coke or kills his colleagues yet.

[Cringer]

How the Texas primary election will work: (http://dallassouthblog.com/2008/02/07/texas-democratic-election-a-primarycaucus-hybrid-requires-and-extra-trip-to-the-polls/)



How the delegate count breaks out in Texas (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_QDnA56kHa3qYl41FUYT3PLHJvwD8UPMKS81)



This (http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4877) explains the entire process in detail. But it's head spinning.

Yes, it's a bit odd here it seems.

Still, Mrs. Clinton was down here (The Rio Grande Valley) yesterday, and is already scheduled to come back for two more events on one day in a week or so I think it is.

What really drives me nuts about politicians is the ass kissing they do. What is even worse is that people either act surprised by it or don't even notice it. She was down here yesterday with spanish versions of music playing, promising a VA Hospital down here, and just being a twat IMO. Came off as normal BS from a politician to me. I am pretty sure she will win down here though, since she has the support of a good number of the elected officials down here who are pretty popular.

Obama is supposed to come down sometime soon as well which I didn't really expect. The Valley has never had this kind of attention.

http://www.themonitor.com/articles/obama_9031___article.html/clinton_texas.html

[Jas_lov]

New Quinnipac Ohio Poll:

Hillary 55
Obama 34

Pennsylvania:

Hillary 52
Obama 36

When matched up with McCain in Florida and Ohio, McCain has slight leads over both. In Pennsylvania, Hillary was 46-40 over McCain, Obama was 42-41 over McCain.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

[albionmoonlight]

I think that, after running a very very very very poor campaign up through the D.C. area primaries, Clinton seems to be making some smart moves.

She has played Wisconsin/Hawaii smart. She let the momentum of Virginia/Maryland form the natural media narrative of "She won't win anything until March 4th." Then, after that became conventional wisdom, she started sending a ton of ads into Wisconsin and her daughter into Hawaii. No one is polling Hawaii, and Wisconsin is almost within the margin of error. If she manages to win one of these states--even by a little bit--then she has all of the positive press.

Now, most years it would be silly to talk about momentum and expectations after Super Tuesday, but I do think that momentum and expectations can matter for the next set of races--Ohio and Texas. At the least, it can't hurt. And she has managed to find the best way to try to make a win in a state with a 4 point difference in the polls seem like a Douglas Beats Tyson level upset.

And, she is going all out in Ohio and Texas--and right now the polls seem to be favoring her. She seems to have enough money. She has the support of a lot of local leaders (inc. the governor of Ohio who has been working like a dog for her).

Also, her ad spots in Wisconsin have slanted just a bit to the negative--going after Obama for refusing to debate (and then responding to his response to her first ad). I don't think that those ads are designed to help her win Wisconsin (though that would be a great side effect). I think that they are designed to see how they work. I think that a lot of research and polling will go into measuing their effect to see if it is worth going negative in Ohio/Texas.

Since Obama is the candidate of hope and change, and she is the candidate of "the name you know," it always made sense for her to go negative against him. If he responds, then he is no longer about hope; if he does not, then he is weak and the ads start to have an effect.

Their huge problem (worth about two of the "very"s listed above) was the manner in which they went negative early--Bill Clinton doing the functional equivalent of putting on war paint and screaming the N-word at the top of his lungs. That was such a stupid move that it forced them to stop all negative campaigning for a while. Now, I think that it is coming back out slowly and carefully. And it will stick. And it will work.

I'm not saying that Clinton can win after the hole she dug for herself. But I am saying that she is playing the expectations game well, has started to make the race about mud-slinging (her turf) instead of hope (his turf), and leads in the next big state races on the calendar.

Oh--and Obama really needs to start pointing out that four states are voting on March 4th--not two. Why let the media only talk about the states you are least likely to win?

[Vegas Vic]

The latest round of polls released in the past two days have Clinton up by double digits in Texas (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html),Ohio (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primary-263.html), and Pennsylvania (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html). Obama is up slightly in Wisconsin (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/wi/wisconsin_democratic_primary-270.html).

[Buccaneer]

Obama certainly has work to do in Texas and Ohio.

[Young Drachma]

I think the media is playing out of Hillary's hand at this point. They're pulling the same "Hillary is dead" stuff they did back after Iowa and she came back and pulled into a victory. The only difference is, Obama's people clearly have learned from that and given she was leading there huge not too long ago, the fact that he has a lead there at all has to be good news for those people on his side.

The real question is whether or not they can win one of the "big two" that she's already claimed are her firewall. I think she will, in the sense that she's controlling the media conversation at this point. She's got them eating out of her hand and I think if when this all settles, she'll manage to get things where she wants them.

Here's her new ad. Second negative ad in as many days in Wisconsin. No rebuttal from the Obama squad, yet. Wonder how it'll all play out.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fQKle81Rifk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fQKle81Rifk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

McCain wants him to take public financing if he's the nominee with McCain, as he promised last year back when he was still a huge underdog.

Given he's raised over $100-150 million so far, restricting himself to just $85 million in the general would be insane. Sure, he'll take a hit. But no way he can do that. Premature discussion, but he's getting it from all sides now, so it'll be interesting to see how they'll deal with it all going forward.

[SirFozzie]

.... WTF?


This can't be right.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

TX Primary

Obama 48%
Clinton 42%

[Buccaneer]

.... WTF?


This can't be right.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

TX Primary

Obama 48%
Clinton 42%

Polling is, how shall we say it, an inexact science?

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=table_header align=middle height=20>Polling Data</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle><TABLE class=poll_table cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width=110 bgColor=#cccc99>Poll</TD><TD align=middle width=80 bgColor=#cccc99>Date</TD><TD align=middle width=50 bgColor=#cccc99>Sample</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#cccc99>Clinton</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#cccc99>Obama</TD><TD align=middle width=110 bgColor=#cccc99>Spread</TD><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#ffff00>RCP Average</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffff00>02/11 - 02/14</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffff00>-</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffff00>50.3</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffff00>40.0</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffff00>Clinton +10.3</TD></TR></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#ffffff>Rasmussen (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/texas/texas_democratic_presidential_primary)</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffffff>02/14 - 02/14</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffffff>577 LV</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffffff>54</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffffff>38</TD><TD align=middle>Clinton +16.0</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#ffffff>InsiderAdvantage (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html)</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffffff>02/14 - 02/14</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffffff>403 LV</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffffff>48</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffffff>41</TD><TD align=middle>Clinton +7.0</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#ffffff>TCUL/Hamilton (http://www.tcul.coop/sites/25043ee8-a7e7-4aeb-8304-a91b5e7553c9/uploads/Texas_Credit_Union_League_Primary_Poll_2008.pdf)</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffffff>02/11 - 02/13</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffffff>400 LV</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffffff>49</TD><TD align=middle bgColor=#ffffff>41</TD><TD align=middle>Clinton +8.0</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle colSpan=6>See All Texas Democratic Primary Polling Data (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html#polls)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[path12]

I actually think Hillary is backed into a corner here. She's got Ohio by 20 points and Texas by 8. If Obama comes closer (especially once he starts campaigning in the states) and loses both by say 10 and 4, the narrative is that Hillary is not winning by enough. It's hard to see those margins widening before those primaries.

[tarcone]

I voted for Bush the last two elections, but am now looking at Obama in a serious light.
I would have some serious thinking if its McCain-Obama.
If its McCain-Clinton its a no-brainer. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.

[SackAttack]

Agree with all of the above there, tarcone.

New York Times, after endorsing Hillary, has a story today about some discrepancies in the New York primary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyregion/16vote.html

Apparently there were something like 80 districts where the "official" vote count had 0 for Obama, including districts in Harlem and Brooklyn. It's not going to change who "won" the state, but it might have a minor impact on the delegates Obama gets from the state. Current count is 139-93 for Senator Clinton, but that might end up changing somewhat.

[JPhillips]

To be fair it appears that there were also a few districts that had zero votes for Clinton. It doesn't seem like there is any conspiracy. From what I've read it looks like a one or two delegate pickup for Obama.

[SackAttack]

To be fair it appears that there were also a few districts that had zero votes for Clinton. It doesn't seem like there is any conspiracy. From what I've read it looks like a one or two delegate pickup for Obama.

Yeah, not calling it a conspiracy. It's just a funny happenstance.

And I don't expect it to have a major impact, but in a race as close as this, picking up even a couple of delegates is a boost.

[Toddzilla]

I voted for Bush the last two elections, but am now looking at Obama in a serious light.
I would have some serious thinking if its McCain-Obama.
If its McCain-Clinton its a no-brainer. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.And this is why Obama *has* to be the democratic nominee. The DNC - are you listening Howard Dean? - must realize that there is a small yet steadfasty percentage of voters out there who will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstance. Doesn't really matter what this is based on - sexism, Clinton-weariness, astrology - it is real and must be respected.

[st.cronin]

And this is why Obama *has* to be the democratic nominee. The DNC - are you listening Howard Dean? - must realize that there is a small yet steadfasty percentage of voters out there who will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstance. Doesn't really matter what this is based on - sexism, Clinton-weariness, astrology - it is real and must be respected.

# of people who could never be convinced to vote for Clinton < # of people who could never be convinced to vote for Obama. Its just that the former group has been around longer, and you're more familiar with their arguments. There's also a large group of people who would never vote for, say, Russ Feingold - but why would anybody express that opinion? Obama is still new to the national scene, so the opposition to him hasn't coalesced.

[JPhillips]

Do you have any evidence to support that? Most polls show the opposite. Obama has done far better with independents than Clinton and has much lower negatives. He's also done very well with first time voters and donors.

[Fighter of Foo]

# of people who could never be convinced to vote for Clinton < # of people who could never be convinced to vote for Obama.

Oh hell no. http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/21/obama-the-electable.aspx

"...Hillary Clinton is a highly unpopular figure. In the last Gallup survey, 50% of respondents have a favorable view of her, and 46% negative. Sometimes her averages goes higher, but sometimes it veers into negative territory. Obama has very high ratings (http://pollingreport.com/l-o.htm#Obama). In the most recent poll, 59% view him favorably, 32% negatively. The difference between plus 4 and plus 27 is enormous--a Detroit Lions v. New England Patriots-size gap.

On top of that, independents who vote in the primaries and caucuses have shown a very strong preference for Obama over Clinton. That is the closest available approximation of a swing voter."

[Buccaneer]

Clinton's negatives have not budged since the beginning of the primary campaign. In other words, despite all of her/his campaigning over the past 8 months, no one (generally speaking) have gained a more favorable impression of her that was originally negative. Now I know that it includes all types of voters but you would think that with all those tens of millions of dollars, it would make some difference?

[st.cronin]

Do you have any evidence to support that? Most polls show the opposite. Obama has done far better with independents than Clinton and has much lower negatives. He's also done very well with first time voters and donors.

None whatsoever, its just my gut based on the reading I've done of him. He's going to get torn to bits by the GOP, unless this country has moved WAY left in the last four years, always a possibility I guess.

[Young Drachma]

People in both threads are severely underestimating what sort of media frenzy will occur when Hillary or Barack wins the nomination. Throw all of your 'past' information out, because no matter what you think...nothing is going to stop history from happening.

And I didn't feel that way before, but I'm convinced now that the stakes are too high for people who want to see something happen like this and this is going to be the year for it.

John McCain is just the perfect backdrop for them to run against. War hero or not, soundbyte America will just turn him into an old white guy and "everything that is wrong with America" or part of the "good old boys" club.

Whether it's true or not, won't matter. Obama isn't that liberal. He might vote that way for his Chicago district, but no guy who open courts Republicans and refuses to be a populist in a Democratic race that would call for it is that at all.

Voter turnout is higher right now than it's been at any other point in history during the primaries. If that's not the clarion call that "things are different" this year, nothing is.

Especially with no credible third party candidate to steal enough votes to be formidable, the bottom line is, the media is going to beat the history drum before it's all said and done and that'll be the end of that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ouchie, nasty bit of headlining done to Obama by AP at the moment (and despite my feelings about him, it's not the first time I've seen him really get the worst end of something from them.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080216/D8URN8EO0.html
Headline reads:
Obama Wears Iraqi Soldier's Bracelet

Of course, the story is actually about a wristband given to him by the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq.

But damn, AP's anti-Obama bias is getting pretty obvious even to me.

[Bubba Wheels]

Many Republicans are already supporting Obama. They are called 'Obamacans." http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476

[Young Drachma]

Many Republicans are already supporting Obama. They are called 'Obamacans." http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476

They're not influential people, it's folks with last names we might recognize or folks like Lincoln Chafee who have defected from the party anyway.

I'm sure he gets some crossover votes, but none of that matters right now. I think the percentage will stay the same if he were in the general. His wild card is keeping turnout high and keeping the folks who have been key to his ground game activated and engaged through November.

[JPhillips]

Cronin: I think you're putting too much credit into "policy". It's a likability contest and Obama has likability by the bucket load.

While nothing is certain, there are some trends that seem to benefit Obama.

1) The previously mentioned likability. Since FDR (and mass media) the most likable candidate has won the general.

2) Surveys show 30-40% saying they wouldn't consider voting for someone 72+ years of age. Way more than racial, gender or religious categories of any flavor.

3) Only once since Eisenhower was elected has one party held the White House more than 2 consecutive terms.

[st.cronin]

Cronin: I think you're putting too much credit into "policy". It's a likability contest and Obama has likability by the bucket load.

While nothing is certain, there are some trends that seem to benefit Obama.

1) The previously mentioned likability. Since FDR (and mass media) the most likable candidate has won the general.

2) Surveys show 30-40% saying they wouldn't consider voting for someone 72+ years of age. Way more than racial, gender or religious categories of any flavor.

3) Only once since Eisenhower was elected has one party held the White House more than 2 consecutive terms.

"Likability" sounds like post facto analysis. If Obama wins, its because he's "likable." If he loses, he wasn't "likable" enough.

But, you might be right, I just have a feeling that Obama would get absolutely destroyed in a GE. At this point nobody really knows.

[Vegas Vic]

Throw all of your 'past' information out, because no matter what you think...nothing is going to stop history from happening.

Do you have any opinion as to why Obama is barely ahead of McCain in head to head polls at this time? Given the voter dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, he should be at least 20 points ahead. Historically, the potential Democrat nominee is well ahead of the potential Republican nominee at this point, and that tends to change drastically during the summer and fall.

[ISiddiqui]

That is the very good question. For all the talk about voter dissatisfaction and Obama being the head of an unstoppable movement, He isn't leading McCain all that much in the head-to-heads. And that's before McCain and the right wing start attacking Obama on being too liberal (something that they are pretty good at doing).

Any talk of "history" is premature. It'll be hard fought battle.

[Vegas Vic]

And that's before McCain and the right wing start attacking Obama on being too liberal (something that they are pretty good at doing).

I'm not going to get into personal attacks, but the candidates' positions on the issues are going to be under an intense spotlight during the general election. His voting record in congress is slightly to the left of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. If his inspirational speeches can make enough moderates forget about his voting record, he could conceivably get to 270 electoral votes, but that's going to be an enormous challenge on his part.

[Fighter of Foo]

Do you have any opinion as to why Obama is barely ahead of McCain in head to head polls at this time? Given the voter dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, he should be at least 20 points ahead. Historically, the potential Democrat nominee is well ahead of the potential Republican nominee at this point, and that tends to change drastically during the summer and fall.

The answer is in the poll I think you're citing.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2008/02/11/daily28.html

"The effect of Bush's job performance had a small impact on the prospect of voting for McCain. Only 23 percent of voters said Bush's performance made them less likely to vote for McCain, while 63 percent said it didn't make a difference. In a similar poll, only 23 percent of voters said they were so angry with Bush that they wouldn't vote for McCain."

Super interesting IMHO. The higher that number goes, the better Obama will do vs. McCain

[ISiddiqui]

And the question becomes why would that number be higher? McCain's media status as a "maverick" has obviously done what no one thought could be done, and that is having the Republican nominee NOT be tied to the failed Presidency of George W. Bush. McCain was enough of a thorn in President Bush's side that he escapes a lot of the brunt for it.

And I think his reported struggles to court the conservatives in his party only help in that view of McCain.

[Young Drachma]

Do you have any opinion as to why Obama is barely ahead of McCain in head to head polls at this time? Given the voter dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, he should be at least 20 points ahead. Historically, the potential Democrat nominee is well ahead of the potential Republican nominee at this point, and that tends to change drastically during the summer and fall.

Head-to-head polls in February mean nothing. You know that already.

We're all just armchair prognosticators and as we get new information, our ideas about what might happen will change. Because surely no one saw things being how they are right now, conventional wisdom be damned. At least on the Democratic side anyway.

With all of that said, I'm throwing out convention and the past and I'm saying that historically the two main candidates in the general election were usually cut from the same cloth, making it easier to compare them to each other relatively equally.

Polling isn't as random as one would suggest and because of the demographics of the Democratic race, the Bradley effect can be thrown out of the equation. People aren't going to vote for McCain because they think he can be a better President than Hillary or Obama.

The GOP used depressed voter turnout of the Democratic base to fuel their victory in 2004. That's not going to happen this year unless someone plans to go kill a few million people or perhaps, some other world altering situation happens to change the complexion of this race.

But I'll go ahead and put all of this out here so that when I'm wrong, we can bump this part of the thread and all of the fortune tellers among us can point to how history taught us so much. I'll be impressed if that's the case, too. Not because I mind being wrong in this case, because I wouldn't.

Personal feelings aside, I'm thinking solely about the outcome and in the end, I think that 'history' of a different sort will be the trump card in this race.

But again...there is a long road ahead, a lot can happen and we shall see it all unfold.

[JPhillips]

DC: I don't think it was depressed D turnout as much as an energized R turnout. I remember hearing that there were 4000000 extra R votes in that election.

Cronin: Maybe so, but they have been polling likability for a while now and that number has been the best predictor of victory. For me it makes sense because the swing voters that decide elections don't pay much attention to the issues and vote more on likability than anything else. Issues, generally, are only important to people who've already made up their mind.

Vic: Obama's votes aren't that simple. He's missed a lot of votes over th past couple of years and that "most liberal" label is based on a percentage, not aggregate votes. There also just haven't been a lot of "liberal" causes to vote on. He'll get beat up on some surveillance votes, but what liberal votes does he really have? But of course I don't think those votes will matter to swing voters anyway.

[Vegas Vic]

Vic: Obama's votes aren't that simple. He's missed a lot of votes over th past couple of years and that "most liberal" label is based on a percentage, not aggregate votes.

It's based on the actual votes that he has cast in the senate, and the National Journal's 2007 Ratings (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/) have him listed as the most liberal senator in 2007.

I do agree that he will probably be able to continue to mask a lot of his senate votes and positions on the issues though his abstract campaign speeches on "hope" and "change". Two 25 year old women in my office are cult followers, although one of them doesn't know what his stand is on any of the issues, and the other one only knows that "he's going to end the war in Iraq." They are probably a good representation of the most politically illiterate generation in American history. Are there enough of them to put him over the top? I guess we'll find out.

[Young Drachma]

They are probably a good representation of the most politically illiterate generation in American history.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Young Drachma]

I know a ton of people who are Obama fans who are driving me nuts with their talk about him and surely hearing someone on television be asked, "Why are you voting for him" and have them say "because he inspires me" is irritating.

But, the most political illiterate generation in history? Let's not get carried away, Father Time.

[JPhillips]

Vic: I know it's based on actual votes, but what I'm saying is that the methodology is flawed in that it tracks percentages without accounting for raw number of votes. If you look at Nation Journal's data Hillary actually voted the liberal position more often than Obama, but her total votes was much higher so her percentage was lower. Does this make her more or less liberal than Obama?

The other flaw in the data is that while campaigning Senators tend to be most likely to show up when the vote is the most partisan. Obama could miss a 65-35 vote, but the pressure from party leaders would intense for him to come back for a close party line vote.

This isn't to say Obama isn't a liberal, but I think his 10-15th most ranking average from the prior two years is more in line with reality.

I'd also argue that the youth of today aren't any more detached than other generations. Most people don't have any idea what the issues even are, never mind actually have a position on them.

[JPhillips]

dola

There's also some questionable uses of liberal and conservative. The first economic vote is:

Establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity to handle ethics complaints against senators. January 18. (27-71) C-1

Clinton voted no, the conservative position, and Obama voted yea.

As I further looked at the votes the difference between Hillary, the 16th most liberal and Obama comes down to two votes where they voted opposite each other(Hillary the conservative position) and two votes where Hillary voted the conservative position and Obama didn't vote. I'd say the real story is that Hillary and Obama are voted almost identically.

[Young Drachma]

Right slams Obama as 'shady Chicago socialist' (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3382313.ece)

As a sidenote, he was endorsed by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and the Houston Chronicle for Sunday's paper.

[Greyroofoo]

I've been away from this for far too long.

[ISiddiqui]

Right slams Obama as 'shady Chicago socialist' (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3382313.ece)


As alluded to. It has already begun.

[Big Fo]

On the other hand, the left don't need to slam McCain, all they have to do is watch a stuttering old man talk about staying in Iraq for another hundred years.

[Vegas Vic]

On the other hand, the left don't need to slam McCain, all they have to do is watch a stuttering old man talk about staying in Iraq for another hundred years.

That is already losing a lot of steam, as McCain isn't allowing his statement to be taken out of context anymore. In his interview with Larry King, McCain noted that we have now had troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea for over 50 years. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

[Phototropic]

That is already losing a lot of steam, as McCain isn't allowing his statement to be taken out of context anymore. In his interview with Larry King, McCain noted that we have now had troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea for over 50 years. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."
I wonder what he's going to do when we create the next terrorist training ground and have to station there as well?

[Butter]

That is already losing a lot of steam, as McCain isn't allowing his statement to be taken out of context anymore. In his interview with Larry King, McCain noted that we have now had troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea for over 50 years. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

That's right, just keep talking Johnny Straight-talk. Just keep talking.

[Dutch]

I wonder what he's going to do when we create the next terrorist training ground and have to station there as well?

What's Obama gonna do?

[mrsimperless]

At this point I am still an Obama supporter. However my hatred of McCain has declined somewhat. I still don't trust him, but I think he's less inherently evil than I at first suspected.

[Butter]

What's Obama gonna do?

I don't know, but I bet I know what YOU think he's going to do. And that's coddle all his Muslim pals. Right?

Is it possible we could get a thread about the general election and get all the nail-biting GOP'ers who know they have a crap candidate into their own thread without continually crapping on this one? Kthx.

[Dutch]

On the other hand, the left don't need to slam McCain, all they have to do is watch a stuttering old man talk about staying in Iraq for another hundred years.

Plus I seriously doubt any liberals (with a name or not) would ever say anything that could be suggested to be an attack against McCain. Because if they did, the timesonline.co.uk would surely report it. Surely they would.

[Dutch]

I don't know, but I bet I know what YOU think he's going to do. And that's coddle all his Muslim pals. Right?

Is it possible we could get a thread about the general election and get all the nail-biting GOP'ers who know they have a crap candidate into their own thread without continually crapping on this one? Kthx.

So you can launch personal remarks towards me, but you cannot answer a question that was in no way personal towards you?

Additionally, since we already all know that Obama is likely to be the next President, wouldn't it be better to know what he's going to do vs what McCain is going to do?

[Big Fo]

Plus I seriously doubt any liberals (with a name or not) would ever say anything that could be suggested to be an attack against McCain. Because if they did, the timesonline.co.uk would surely report it. Surely they would.

Um, what?

So you're saying that liberals don't need to resort to swift boat-like attacks against McCain because his numerous faults say everything we need to know? Or that conservatives have finally given up the myth of liberal media bias in our country and are now busy getting their panties in a twist over the London Times' coverage of our election? Literally baffled trying to figure out what point you're trying to make here.

[Dutch]

Um, what?

So you're saying that liberals don't need to resort to swift boat-like attacks against McCain because his numerous faults say everything we need to know? Or that conservatives have finally given up the myth of liberal media bias in our country and are now busy getting their panties in a twist over the London Times' coverage of our election? Literally baffled trying to figure out what point you're trying to make here.

The point is that conservatives attack liberals and liberals attack conservatives. Always have, always will. Whether it's covered that way or not is another story. No pun intended.

[Scoobz0202]

Anybody know of a good place to check for where Obama will be speaking and whatnot in Ohio? I checked his site but couldn't find a good list of events where he will be attending.

[Butter]

So you can launch personal remarks towards me, but you cannot answer a question that was in no way personal towards you?

Yes and no.

[Young Drachma]

Anybody know of a good place to check for where Obama will be speaking and whatnot in Ohio? I checked his site but couldn't find a good list of events where he will be attending.

I think that a lot of these visits are shotgun deals (no pun intended) where they make the plans early, but release the specifics at the last minute. I think it gives more flexibility for pulling last minute deviations.

His web site is probably the best place to look and to stay attended to. I'm sure he'll be visiting there again as it gets closer, but the secret service probably doesn't want him releasing his moves super far in advance either.

[Ryan S]

Or that conservatives have finally given up the myth of liberal media bias in our country and are now busy getting their panties in a twist over the London Times' coverage of our election? Literally baffled trying to figure out what point you're trying to make here.

I am a little confused here as well, especially since the London Times is one of the more conservative UK papers, though it tends to be much more balanced than the Telegraph (very conservative) and the Independent (very liberal).

[flere-imsaho]

They're not influential people, it's folks with last names we might recognize or folks like Lincoln Chafee who have defected from the party anyway.

Well, there's also Susan Eisenhower. You may have heard of her grandfather. ;)

[Jas_lov]

The two newest Texas polls have Obama down by just 5% and 2%.

[Izulde]

Holy heck, it was cold out hiking to the polls today.

But I voted nonetheless, for Hillary.

[lungs]

Holy heck, it was cold out hiking to the polls today.

But I voted nonetheless, for Hillary.

I also braved the cold to go out and vote for Mr. Obama. I figured it'd be pretty sad if I donated money to him and didn't even vote.

Too bad the tavern next to the polling place wasn't open.

[st.cronin]

You know why Wisconsin gets such good cell phone service? More bars in more places.

[ISiddiqui]

Very nice.

[lungs]

You know why Wisconsin gets such good cell phone service? More bars in more places.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure I heard that my town has the most bars per capita in the nation. We might've lost that title as the town is growing but the bar concentration is shrinking.

Although an unincorporated town about 5 miles from me has two bars for about 10 people.

[Jas_lov]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Wisconsin_exits.html

They're saying Obama won big in Wisconsin, chipping into Hillary's normal demographic strongholds.

[Vegas Vic]

They're saying Obama won big in Wisconsin, chipping into Hillary's normal demographic strongholds.

Don't forget, Kerry won huge in the 2004 exit polls in an electoral college landslide over GWB, taking down Ohio and Florida by surprising margins.

[Warhammer]

Well, there's also Susan Eisenhower. You may have heard of her grandfather. ;)

And that means what to me? My great-great grandfather was head of the 4th ward of Chicago and was the financial alderman of the city during much of the early 20th century. He helped build the Chicago machine and was a staunch democrat. Yet, his grandson and the rest of the family since then has been republican.

My point is that names don't mean much unless they are leaders of the party. Lest we forget Obama and Cheney are related and they are on opposite sides of everything.

[Jas_lov]

I haven't forgotten. I was just reporting what I read. There were a couple exit polls that were off this year as well. A California exit poll on Drudge had Obama winning. Hillary won California.

[Young Drachma]

CNN projects Wisconsin for Obama.

[Young Drachma]

9-0 sure is a bitch. He'll win Hawaii to give him 10-0, so...geez. Gotta love spending all money they're making on new signs just for Texas for Obama. lol...hope the GOP is sharpening their knives, 'cuz he held serve in his first chance at the helm in the race.

We'll see what happens. I'm tired of hearing about superdelegates. Let's wait until Denver to hear about that.

[Vegas Vic]

It appears that McCain's advisors have already told him to forget about Huckabee and Clinton and start campaigning against Obama. Here's a quote from his victory speech tonight:

"I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change."

[Buccaneer]

9-0 (10-0) is certainly an impressive feat in a close race.

[Vegas Vic]

Didn't Bill Clinton lose nine primaries in a row in 1992?

[Logan]

Allow me to ask a really stupid question: how can you possibly predict a winner with 3% of precincts reporting? Obviously I'm missing a basic element of how polling and these elections work, so please enlighten me.

[Young Drachma]

Hillary probably isn't going to address her losses in this speech in Ohio right now. Love the new signs, "We've Got Your Back, Hillary!"

She won't even address him by name. Just "my opponent." Love the "avoid him, let's talk about us" theory of this. Her people have to be scrambling and they need to stop the bleeding, but man...if they can pull it off, they'll prove their mettle that's for sure.

[Young Drachma]

Allow me to ask a really stupid question: how can you possibly predict a winner with 3% of precincts reporting? Obviously I'm missing a basic element of how polling and these elections work, so please enlighten me.

They poll people after they leave the polls, to ask them how they voted. If those people lie, then the exit polls are wrong. But provided those folks are right, you can capture a pretty good idea of how the voting is going to go. Not just media companies conduct exit polls, but campaigns do too.

It's not a stupid question, though. And the news networks do an awful job of explaining this stuff. They're like ESPN, but with matters of the nation rather than just talking NBA trades.

[Young Drachma]

Didn't Bill Clinton lose nine primaries in a row in 1992?

He lost seven of the first nine (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/01/is_1992_the_model_1.html).

February 10, 1992: Iowa senator Tom Harkin wins his state's caucus. No surprise here. No candidate was challenging him.

February 18, 1992: Former Massachusetts senator Paul Tsongas wins New Hampshire. Clinton finishes second and brands himself the "comeback kid."

February 25, 1992: Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey wins South Dakota.

March 3, 1992: Mini-Super Tuesday. Clinton wins Georgia. Former California governor Jerry Brown wins Colorado. Tsongas wins Maryland. Harkin wins the Minnesota and Idaho caucuses.

March 7, 1992: Clinton wins South Carolina.

March 10, 1992: Super Tuesday. Clinton wins six southern states: Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas. Tsongas wins Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

March 17, 1992: Clinton essentially ends the contest with a win in Illinois (though Brown would briefly reemerge with a victory in Connecticut one week later).

[Young Drachma]

I think they're both purposely speaking over each other today. Swapped to FOX to watch it, because I knew they wouldn't show Hillary for that long, giving a stump speech.

Damn, that's a pretty big crowd he's got in Houston.

[Galaril]

Wow, where did all the talk this week about Clinton pulling close and only a slim lead in Wisconsin? Obama looks to win soundly there at least from poll results? I don't see Clinton thrashing Obama enough in Ohio or TX most likely something like 55-45. This is over.

[Young Drachma]

Wow, where did all the talk this week about Clinton pulling close and onlya slim lead in Wisconsin? Obama in a landslide in Wisconsin? I don't see Clinton thrashing Obama enough in Ohio or TX most likely something like 55-45. This is over.

The exit polls that came around 1pm were saying it was going to be a landslide in Wisconsin for him.

It'll be interesting to hear about his speech tonight, because he's been pretty much repeating the same victory speech for a few weeks now.

[Buccaneer]

I don't quite think so, DC. Each precinct/district has a distinct demographics (in my field, it's called market segmentation). Based on previous votes (not polls), they already have a model for how the vote should go. When results come in for a precinct/district, they can match actuals against predicted and notice any deviations from the norm. If, for example, early precincts/districts model a slight advantage for Clinton but the votes show a solid Obama win, then you would predict him to be the winner because the model would already show him winning what he was supposed to win and will likely do so because he won what he wasn't supposed to win. Makes sense?

[Young Drachma]

I don't quite think so, DC. Each precinct/district has a distinct demographics (in my field, it's called market segmentation). Based on previous votes (not polls), they already have a model for how the vote should go. When results come in for a precinct/district, they can match actuals against predicted and notice any deviations from the norm. If, for example, early precincts/districts model a slight advantage for Clinton but the votes show a solid Obama win, then you would predict him to be the winner because the model would already show him winning what he was supposed to win and will likely do so because he won what he wasn't supposed to win. Makes sense?

Thanks for spelling it out.

[Big Fo]

Nine in a row, I'm trying not to get too optimisitc but it's getting harder and harder...

Is Texas the only state to have this combination of primary and caucus?

[Buccaneer]

He lost seven of the first nine (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/01/is_1992_the_model_1.html).

I know it's irrelevant, but if the primaries schedule were a little more balanaced geographically, it would have been over sooner. The southern states didn't come into play until later, unlike this year , I perceive.

[Galaril]

I think they're both purposely speaking over each other today. Swapped to FOX to watch it, because I knew they wouldn't show Hillary for that long, giving a stump speech.

Damn, that's a pretty big crowd he's got in Houston.

Hilary's "gang of thugs" political advisors must of hated when the networks cut right in the middle of her speech to go to Obama's:D

[Young Drachma]

Hilary's "gang of thugs" political advisors must of hated when the networks cut right in the middle of her speech to go to Obama's:D

Oh God, Begala probably beat Wolf Blitzer up.

[Young Drachma]

This stump speech is generally the same speech over and over. I guess he has to do that. He throws some stuff in there for the folks who say he doesn't address new themes, but my guess is that if you watch him read off the paper..he's awful at it.

As someone who isn't voting for him, it's tiring to hear the same thing over and over. But from a marketing perspective, it's fun to watch people eating it up. Because man..it's zombies at work, but the zombies are so fervent.

So I think he probably just goes with what works and is saving his "good stuff" for the general, because it's clear to me that he must have some other material that he can work in. But I think all of the polling that proves people don't know him that well, but as he moves into their territory and they get to know him, they like him more. So...I think he's going that way more and more.

It's smart that they're going in for the kill now, because if they don't beat her now or if they breathe life into her campaign, that she'll come roar back and kill them off.

Should be interesting...

[Young Drachma]

His health care plan sounds almost as ridiculous as Hillary telling people that "everyone who wants to work hard should have a job" and "we should increase the minimum wage to $9.15 an hour."

Shit, just promise them cars like Oprah. At least that's easier to deliver on.

[miked]

It's all the same. Hillary isn't bringing new material either. I think it's funny that she's saying she's all action and he's all talk. At this point, what does it say about the action when so many people are getting behind "talk". I voted for Obama because I'm not concerned with what he's stumping for, I'm concerned that Hillary and McCain are more of the same and I don't really want that.

[Young Drachma]

I wish he'd found a way to incorporate "Houston, we have a problem" into his stump speech. That would've been awesome.

[Buccaneer]

This stump speech is generally the same speech over and over. I guess he has to do that. He throws some stuff in there for the folks who say he doesn't address new themes, but my guess is that if you watch him read off the paper..he's awful at it.

As someone who isn't voting for him, it's tiring to hear the same thing over and over. But from a marketing perspective, it's fun to watch people eating it up. Because man..it's zombies at work, but the zombies are so fervent.

So I think he probably just goes with what works and is saving his "good stuff" for the general, because it's clear to me that he must have some other material that he can work in. But I think all of the polling that proves people don't know him that well, but as he moves into their territory and they get to know him, they like him more. So...I think he's going that way more and more.

It's smart that they're going in for the kill now, because if they don't beat her now or if they breathe life into her campaign, that she'll come roar back and kill them off.

Should be interesting...

DC, I would agree with you. I know this has become a cliche of late but "experience" does mean something. If all you have campaigned for is a local office and a Senate that fell into his lap, he doesn't have much political experience to draw from. But he is getting the support out and that says a lot considering that he is going up against a hardcore political machine in the Clintons.

[Vegas Vic]

As someone who isn't voting for him, it's tiring to hear the same thing over and over. But from a marketing perspective, it's fun to watch people eating it up. Because man..it's zombies at work, but the zombies are so fervent.

I'm not voting for him either, and longtime members in the political threads on this board know that I voted for WJC twice, Al Gore and John Kerry. If Obama was running for game show host, he'd get my vote, but not for President. FWIW, I wouldn't vote for Hillary against McCain, either.

Obama is going to have to come up with some new material for the general election. "Yes we can" and "in the face of change, I believe in hope" isn't going to cut it.

[Logan]

Thanks for the explanation DC.

[Buccaneer]

I have been following the primaries game too closely and do not know if there are any Congressional races this year. Would it be true that Congress would still be Dems-controlled in 2009?

[Groundhog]

Obama is going to have to come up with some new material for the general election. "Yes we can" and "in the face of change, I believe in hope" isn't going to cut it.

Meh. I'm sure his speech writers are just as good as coming up with presidential rhetoric rubbish as every other politician's speech writers.

[st.cronin]

I have been following the primaries game too closely and do not know if there are any Congressional races this year. Would it be true that Congress would still be Dems-controlled in 2009?

There is a Senate seat up in New Mexico. The Republican Senator is retiring.

[Buccaneer]

So I think he probably just goes with what works and is saving his "good stuff" for the general, because it's clear to me that he must have some other material that he can work in. But I think all of the polling that proves people don't know him that well, but as he moves into their territory and they get to know him, they like him more. So...I think he's going that way more and more.


I would predict that the shit will start hitting the fan when he would be asked about Russia, China, Palestine, Gaza, etc. and have to say more than "I will make nice with everyone". Obama has already acknowledged McCain's foreign policy experience so the economy has to be his selling point, unless he plays the class warfare card.

[Young Drachma]

DC, I would agree with you. I know this has become a cliche of late but "experience" does mean something. If all you have campaigned for is a local office and a Senate that fell into his lap, he doesn't have much political experience to draw from. But he is getting the support out and that says a lot considering that he is going up against a hardcore political machine in the Clintons.

True. But I think the fundamental premise of his campaign -- whether we buy it or not, is irrelevant -- is that the sort of experience that McCain, Clinton and that ilk have is not what America needs and not what Americans want. That the fundamental idea behind government ought to be to help the people who need it most and to provide the country with stability and an atmosphere to thrive and innovate.

I don't think what he proposes is really the blueprint for that, but...you have to admit that if nothing else, the people who are backing him in droves understand this message. They assume that all politicians are fundamentally crooked and flawed people who don't care about them. They feel that Obama cares about them and that he's essentially one of them and that he's "called" to do this thing.

That's where they are, how they feel about it and well....I think it speaks volumes that they've turned this guy from an afterthought to an insurgent candidate. Whether it's all bluster or not isn't really an issue, because if we're being honest..Clinton and McCain aren't much different, it's just their rhetoric isn't the same.

It's been a fascinating year to watch all of this unfold though and I almost want to fast-forward, just to see how it ends, because it's pretty evident (I'm guessing) to all of us that no amount of punditry will really be able to determine the outcome of all of this.

[Buccaneer]

"It is going to take more than big rallies. It is going to require more than rousing speeches ... it is going to require something more because the problem that we face in America today is not the lack of good ideas. It's that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die," he said

This can be interpreted at least a couple of different ways.

[Swaggs]

I have been following the primaries game too closely and do not know if there are any Congressional races this year. Would it be true that Congress would still be Dems-controlled in 2009?

Here is a link to a brief runthrough (from a familiar site to many): http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/Maps/Feb19-s.html

The Dems have a huge financial advantage at present and have to defend 12 seats, while the Repubs have to defend 23.

I would guess (and he has suggested) that McCain may resign from the Senate to fully concentrate on running for the presidency, even though he is not up for election. I would doubt that Obama or Clinton will resign theirs.

[Logan]

I don't watch many speeches...are they always that long?

[Young Drachma]

I would predict that the shit will start hitting the fan when he would be asked about Russia, China, Palestine, Gaza, etc. and have to say more than "I will make nice with everyone". Obama has already acknowledged McCain's foreign policy experience so the economy has to be his selling point, unless he plays the class warfare card.

I think he'll recruit people on his team to brief him on that stuff. To some degree, I feel like they've come this far that they're not going to fall flat at this stage. If they were gonna fail, they would've a long time ago.

Isn't to say that they can't get real-world curveballs or whatever. But...I think they'll prove formidable and as a former law professor, he has enough understanding of how to get information down, that he can be okay in a head-to-head on big issues like that.

I don't think he intends to try to beat McCain on his own turf or to try to create his own brand of what McCain is selling to get voters to sign onto him. I think he's just going to keep it consistent and do what he's done up to now, with maybe some new twists on it.

He could solve world peace and pull of a rabbit out of his ears and the fact that he wants to raise the capital gains tax makes him a non-starter to me, let alone how he intends to pay for ALL of the shit he wants to do. But my suspicion is that his economic people figure that pulling us out of Iraq and repealing the GWB tax cuts and raising capital gains will give them all of the money they need to "help people".

[Young Drachma]

I don't watch many speeches...are they always that long?

They've gotten a lot longer. It's free airtime and the channels won't pull away from them and so they've gone from mere victory speeches to faux stump speeches.

[Galaril]

Did Obama say "I love you" at the end of that speech. It's not that there is anything wrong with that just I don't think I have ever heard a politician running for president say it. The guy does come across as sincere and believe s what he says, it's too bad Sauron's Republicans are going to crush him in the general in all likelihood.

[Swaggs]

Man... I think it was JiMGa that said it first, but Obama's voice and the Rock's voice are damn near identical. Now, everytime I hear him speak, I am holding out hope that he says, "Can you smell what Ba-rock is cooking?!?!"

[SackAttack]

That's where they are, how they feel about it and well....I think it speaks volumes that they've turned this guy from an afterthought to an insurgent candidate. Whether it's all bluster or not isn't really an issue, because if we're being honest..Clinton and McCain aren't much different, it's just their rhetoric isn't the same.

Puts the whole "words mean things" bit in a little more perspective when, after 6 years or so of the media referring to the guerillas in Iraq as 'insurgents,' I had to think twice about what you were actually saying there.

[Buccaneer]

True. But I think the fundamental premise of his campaign -- whether we buy it or not, is irrelevant -- is that the sort of experience that McCain, Clinton and that ilk have is not what America needs and not what Americans want. That the fundamental idea behind government ought to be to help the people who need it most and to provide the country with stability and an atmosphere to thrive and innovate.

I don't think what he proposes is really the blueprint for that, but...you have to admit that if nothing else, the people who are backing him in droves understand this message. They assume that all politicians are fundamentally crooked and flawed people who don't care about them. They feel that Obama cares about them and that he's essentially one of them and that he's "called" to do this thing.

That's where they are, how they feel about it and well....I think it speaks volumes that they've turned this guy from an afterthought to an insurgent candidate. Whether it's all bluster or not isn't really an issue, because if we're being honest..Clinton and McCain aren't much different, it's just their rhetoric isn't the same.

It's been a fascinating year to watch all of this unfold though and I almost want to fast-forward, just to see how it ends, because it's pretty evident (I'm guessing) to all of us that no amount of punditry will really be able to determine the outcome of all of this.

Again, I am agreeing with you.

[rhetorically-speaking]There are those that expect nothing good to come out of Washington, those that expect bad things to happen only to them and those that can't name Washington DC as the nation's capital. If only someone would say something that shows they care about ME. Clinton1 made a lot of political hay out of pretending he cared but really didn't. It doesn't matter though, maybe I can start feeling better about myself because someone said that they will do things that will make my life better. If they don't, then we'll blame the opposition.

[Young Drachma]

Did Obama say "I love you" at the end of that speech. It's not that there is anything wrong with that just I don't think I have ever heard a politician running for president say it. The guy does come across as sincere and believe s what he says, it's too bad Sauron's Republicans are going to crush him in the general in all likelihood.

I think it's because his people are always saying "I love you!" in the audience when he speaks and he often will say "I love you back."

[Logan]

They've gotten a lot longer. It's free airtime and the channels won't pull away from them...

...unless it's Hillary :).

[Young Drachma]

Puts the whole "words mean things" bit in a little more perspective when, after 6 years or so of the media referring to the guerillas in Iraq as 'insurgents,' I had to think twice about what you were actually saying there.

Yeah, I thought of using a different word, but figured I'd try to bring it back to its original context before it got bastardized. :)

[Young Drachma]

...unless it's Hillary :).

Well, she was the loser. If it'd been the other way around, they would've done it to him too.

[Young Drachma]

They're showing the part of her speech we missed. I didn't realize she went on that damn long. Maybe it was a purposeful tactic intended to get them to do just this, to give her seeming "double coverage".

She was trumping labour there at the end of that speech and so, I think that's a play back to the Edwards base. I wonder when he'll come out and endorse Obama. He can't endorse Clinton. He won't attach his cart to the loser and given all of the supporters and unions of his that went to Obama, he really only has two choices. Sit it out and endorse no one or endorse Obama and be the one that hammers the nail they're beginning to drive in that coffin Hillary's getting fitted for.

Not that I think if he did go the other way (or even for Obama, honestly) that it'll have an appreciable impact.

I enjoy the whole "not giving up, because America didn't give up on me" angle Clinton is taking despite the licking she's taking. I think Obama will win Texas, which isn't a big surprise given how the numbers continued to close after his wins last week or whenever. But...Ohio is really where I think Hillary has to put up or shutup. I think she looks like a disparate candidate on stage right now.

Her enthusiasm seems artificial (I know, big shocker) and I really wonder what her people are thinking of doing. I've heard for a week or so now that they need a big meltdown and they need to win big the rest of the way out...but it seems more and more than no matter how much engineering they do, their horse is pulling up going down the stretch rather than coming on strong.

I'd be okay with being wrong though, just for the entertainment value of it all.

[BishopMVP]

I have been following the primaries game too closely and do not know if there are any Congressional races this year. Would it be true that Congress would still be Dems-controlled in 2009?I haven't looked at house races too closely, but in the Senate if anything, by more of a majority. Top 10 races to watch - http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1671706_1671713_1671716,00.html

[Buccaneer]

Thank you.

[ISiddiqui]

It appears that McCain's advisors have already told him to forget about Huckabee and Clinton and start campaigning against Obama. Here's a quote from his victory speech tonight:

"I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change."

Which is a damned nice line... and one that'll probably resonate with plenty. After all, McCain was railing for change in Washington when Obama was a state Senator.

[JPhillips]

Bucc: The Republicans also have around fifteen percent of their House caucus retiring and an investigation into improper handling of funds at the RCCC.

On the experience thing, I really don't think it matters. I used to think experience was more important, but over time I've come to believe that judgment is really what's paramount. Since 1960 I think you could credibly argue that the most experienced Presidents have been the biggest failures (LBJ and Nixon certainly, maybe GHWB) It's not that experience is a negative, but experience can too often be seen as a substitute for good judgment.

Any President is going to be surrounded by experience, but what they do with that experience is what's important. Lord knows I'm no GWB fan, but I don't think the problem has been a lack of experience. His advisers had plenty of experience, but IMO his judgment was the problem. If Obama or Clinton or McCain is going to have difficulties in the White House I'd bet that experience won't be much of an issue.

[ISiddiqui]

Since 1960 I think you could credibly argue that the most experienced Presidents have been the biggest failures (LBJ and Nixon certainly, maybe GHWB)

Say what? LBJ was alright, but Vietnam sunk him (as it probably would have to any). Nixon was a very good President, who got caught doing dirty tricks that I'm sure every campaign was engaged in at the time, and George HW Bush was actually a good President who got blamed for a recession that was in recovery during the election year.

Not saying they were the best, but the least experienced Presidents since 1960 were worse (Kennedy, Carter).

[JPhillips]

But Vietnam didn't just happen. LBJ made policy decisions that sunk his presidency and embroiled the U.S. in a failed war.

Nixon made disastrous economic decisions, never had a clear policy in regards to Vietnam, hid Kissinger's actions from his own cabinet members and engaged in crimes while in office. He may have had a good side, but the decisions he made led to his resignation. Again, these things didn't just happen.

GHWB is a tougher case as I don't put him in the same category as LBJ or Nixon, but he and Carter are the only two presidents over that time span to only serve a single term. In some sense, even if only politically, he was a failure.

I'll give you Carter as a failure. Kennedy made some good economic decisions and played the Cuban Missle Crisis very well. It's hard to judge him, though, when his term was so short.

[ISiddiqui]

But Vietnam didn't just happen. LBJ made policy decisions that sunk his presidency and embroiled the U.S. in a failed war.

Nixon made disastrous economic decisions, never had a clear policy in regards to Vietnam, hid Kissinger's actions from his own cabinet members and engaged in crimes while in office. He may have had a good side, but the decisions he made led to his resignation. Again, these things didn't just happen.

GHWB is a tougher case as I don't put him in the same category as LBJ or Nixon, but he and Carter are the only two presidents over that time span to only serve a single term. In some sense, even if only politically, he was a failure.

I'll give you Carter as a failure. Kennedy made some good economic decisions and played the Cuban Missle Crisis very well. It's hard to judge him, though, when his term was so short.

When Kennedy started Vietnam, it was hard for any President to back out. No one wanted to be the first President who lost a war. LBJ couldn't back out without seeming weak on Communism. His hands really were tied.

Nixon's economic policies weren't that horrid. Sure he made a few blunders in dealing with the oil shocks, but he did take the US off the gold standard, which was major. Ironically enough, he called for a universal health care plan back in the 70s which didn't go anywhere. Besides, he was mostly uninterested in domestic politics. He was a foreign policy wonk, who opened up China and negotiated SALT I. Two historic actions.

GHWB only served one term because he was decent enough to realize that his campaign promise to not raise any more taxes wasn't going to work if he wanted to control the deficit.

And Kennedy was HORRIBLE during the Cuban Missile Crisis! A complete failure of diplomacy. Instead of making a simple phone call to the Kremlin as Ike would have done, the moron decided to escalate it by telling everyone in the US about things!

[Klinglerware]

I don't quite think so, DC. Each precinct/district has a distinct demographics (in my field, it's called market segmentation). Based on previous votes (not polls), they already have a model for how the vote should go. When results come in for a precinct/district, they can match actuals against predicted and notice any deviations from the norm. If, for example, early precincts/districts model a slight advantage for Clinton but the votes show a solid Obama win, then you would predict him to be the winner because the model would already show him winning what he was supposed to win and will likely do so because he won what he wasn't supposed to win. Makes sense?

Actually, this is not completely right either.

You are right to imply that when an early projection of an election result is made, it is usually not due to the raw results from exit polling. It is a misconception that a projected call without the benefit of much of the actual vote must be the result of exit poll numbers. Some of the modeling does incorporate exit poll numbers, but it is actually quite rare that races are called due to exit polling alone. The technique you are describing is used, but doesn't often yield reliable results until closer to the tail end, where a significant percentage of the precincts have already reported. In the early stages, you can't really project a winner based on actual votes on the few precincts that are in, since (a) you can't be assured that the precincts that are in are representative of the state as a whole and (b) even if you know the demographic/past voting profile of the missing precincts, it is very risky to make call based on past voting on so many precincts. Now, the models are continually updated as more of the vote comes in, so in time, it does become less risky when fewer precincts need to be projected.

But, to get back to the original question--what is the basis for an early call when there is little actual vote in? A significant, but rarely talked about, source of information are actual votes taken from a pre-selected sample of precincts. The precincts in the sample were selected to be representative of the state both in terms of demographics and prior voting record. What makes this sample of votes more projectible than an early raw vote total is the nature of the representative of the sample (or at least the assumption of representativeness) present in the precinct sample that cannot be guaranteed in an early raw vote total.

One other thing to note here is that multiple models are being run concurrently--some creating estimates based on the exit poll, others based on raw vote, others incorporating past race information, and various combinations of the above. The analysts like to see model convergence. So, while it's risky to project a race based on models incorporating only exit poll data, it becomes less risky if the precinct sample models are saying the same thing. In a close race, this is still not enough information to make a call, but in a not-so-close race breaking in the expected direction, the data available at an early stage may be adequate.

[path12]

Did Obama say "I love you" at the end of that speech. It's not that there is anything wrong with that just I don't think I have ever heard a politician running for president say it. The guy does come across as sincere and believe s what he says, it's too bad Sauron's Republicans are going to crush him in the general in all likelihood.

Maybe. I wouldn't say likely yet. The Republican turnout was still just 40% of the Democratic turnout. McCain and Huckabee together had less votes than Hillary alone, by a fair margin. You could say it's because the Repub race is wrapped up, but it's been like this damn near everywhere, and I don't buy that the difference is Repubs voting for Hillary to keep it close.

[bronconick]

Someone might want to clue Billary in that in a year where a President has a 30% approval rating and Congress is around 15%, trumpeting your "experience" and that you know how things work in Washington probably isn't your best bet.

On second thought, don't. Wait until she actually concedes, then tell her.

[TazFTW]

http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/4223/181/

10% in.

Hawaii Caucus Democratic Results:
Total of 26 precincts - Maui and Oahu.

Clinton 666
Obama 2,258


Heh.

[SackAttack]

666, huh?

[Butter]

True. But I think the fundamental premise of his campaign -- whether we buy it or not, is irrelevant -- is that the sort of experience that McCain, Clinton and that ilk have is not what America needs and not what Americans want. That the fundamental idea behind government ought to be to help the people who need it most and to provide the country with stability and an atmosphere to thrive and innovate.

I don't think what he proposes is really the blueprint for that, but...you have to admit that if nothing else, the people who are backing him in droves understand this message. They assume that all politicians are fundamentally crooked and flawed people who don't care about them. They feel that Obama cares about them and that he's essentially one of them and that he's "called" to do this thing.

That's where they are, how they feel about it and well....I think it speaks volumes that they've turned this guy from an afterthought to an insurgent candidate. Whether it's all bluster or not isn't really an issue, because if we're being honest..Clinton and McCain aren't much different, it's just their rhetoric isn't the same.

It's been a fascinating year to watch all of this unfold though and I almost want to fast-forward, just to see how it ends, because it's pretty evident (I'm guessing) to all of us that no amount of punditry will really be able to determine the outcome of all of this.

Great post, DC. I am with you. Wish we could just fast forward this puppy to November and see how this is going to turn out.

[Neon_Chaos]

He really does sound like The Rock.

"FINALLLLLLYYYYYYY.... BA-RACK.... HAS COME BACK... TO O-HI-O!"

[QuikSand]

I work in politics for a living, and have had similar discussions about Senator Obama's experience with a lot of friends and acquaintances.

What I don't really buy is the notion that at the same time most people will agree that Congress is an inept and corrupt and pointless institution that accomplished basically nothing in most situations (whether this is fair or accurate I set aside for the moment) but then seems to be saying that Omaba only needs more of that to be qualified to be our President. I don't get it. What exactly do we want in terms of "experience" here? Sitting around in the US Senate for 8 more years, introducing the occasional bill, scratching Ted Stevens's or Robert Byrd's back for some project or another, holding some press conference here and a fundraiser there to pander to one group or another? Forgive me for being less than inspired.

I'm not saying that experience is irrelevant. I just think in the political realm, it's tough to simultaneously say that the whole game is useless, but you have to play it a lot to get anywhere.

[JPhillips]

When Kennedy started Vietnam, it was hard for any President to back out. No one wanted to be the first President who lost a war. LBJ couldn't back out without seeming weak on Communism. His hands really were tied.

Nixon's economic policies weren't that horrid. Sure he made a few blunders in dealing with the oil shocks, but he did take the US off the gold standard, which was major. Ironically enough, he called for a universal health care plan back in the 70s which didn't go anywhere. Besides, he was mostly uninterested in domestic politics. He was a foreign policy wonk, who opened up China and negotiated SALT I. Two historic actions.

GHWB only served one term because he was decent enough to realize that his campaign promise to not raise any more taxes wasn't going to work if he wanted to control the deficit.

And Kennedy was HORRIBLE during the Cuban Missile Crisis! A complete failure of diplomacy. Instead of making a simple phone call to the Kremlin as Ike would have done, the moron decided to escalate it by telling everyone in the US about things!

This really isn't the thread for this argument, so I won't threadjack further. I do think, though, that my primary argument that experience doesn't equal success stands.

[flere-imsaho]

And that means what to me?

Jeez man, I used a smiley and everything! :p

On the experience thing, I really don't think it matters. I used to think experience was more important, but over time I've come to believe that judgment is really what's paramount.

Exactly. "Experience", in campaign rhetoric, is just a way for candidates to enter into a pissing contest to try and score points. The Presidency is a huge job - no single person can be experienced in all of its facets. What we should want is someone who will listen to the thoughts and opinions of his/her advisors and use good judgment to make decisions.

This is why I'm an Obama supporter. Every time I hear him speak, especially when it's in a more informal setting, he comes off as thoughtful and intelligent. He strikes me as someone who is going to approach the challenges of the job in a thoughtful manner, and exercise good judgment when determining solutions.

After 8 years of knee-jerk reactionism, dogma-driven decisions, and scads of poor judgment, this would be refreshing, and certainly a heck of a lot better than 50-years-in-Iraq, Bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran McCain.

[Buccaneer]

I only have a couple of minutes so I can answer the several great posts that have come up. By "experience", it's not legislative experience per se but knowing what is the right thing to say at the right time. Also, I would add relationships to other leaders, their peculiarities and their decision-makers behind the scenes. That way you can make the right judgement (good word, JPhillips) when something unexpected comes up (e.g., knowing that they are bluffing or know that it's posturing for a specific deal).

[ISiddiqui]

50-years-in-Iraq

I think even with Obama, we'll be in the 50 years in Iraq. They'll just be called "military advisors" rather than "combat troops".

[flere-imsaho]

I think even with Obama, we'll be in the 50 years in Iraq. They'll just be called "military advisors" rather than "combat troops".

But with McCain we'll still be there in 50 years, with hundreds of thousands of troops, because we'll be fighting skirmishes with all the other muslim nations in the area (chiefly Iran, but also Syria and possibly others as radical muslims gain enough support to take over other governments).

I know which future I prefer.

[ISiddiqui]

But with McCain we'll still be there in 50 years, with hundreds of thousands of troops, because we'll be fighting skirmishes with all the other muslim nations in the area (chiefly Iran, but also Syria and possibly others as radical muslims gain enough support to take over other governments).

I know which future I prefer.

Scare mongering.

I don't see that for a bit. After all, Reagan talked a big game too, but engaged in minor skirmashes and quick wars.

[st.cronin]

But with McCain we'll still be there in 50 years, with hundreds of thousands of troops, because we'll be fighting skirmishes with all the other muslim nations in the area (chiefly Iran, but also Syria and possibly others as radical muslims gain enough support to take over other governments).

I know which future I prefer.

McCain is not likely to be President for 50 years.

[Vegas Vic]

I think even with Obama, we'll be in the 50 years in Iraq. They'll just be called "military advisors" rather than "combat troops".

No, they'll be called troops.

How long have we had troops in Japan? Germany? South Korea?

[Logan]

I work in politics for a living, and have had similar discussions about Senator Obama's experience with a lot of friends and acquaintances.

What I don't really buy is the notion that at the same time most people will agree that Congress is an inept and corrupt and pointless institution that accomplished basically nothing in most situations (whether this is fair or accurate I set aside for the moment) but then seems to be saying that Omaba only needs more of that to be qualified to be our President. I don't get it. What exactly do we want in terms of "experience" here? Sitting around in the US Senate for 8 more years, introducing the occasional bill, scratching Ted Stevens's or Robert Byrd's back for some project or another, holding some press conference here and a fundraiser there to pander to one group or another? Forgive me for being less than inspired.

I'm not saying that experience is irrelevant. I just think in the political realm, it's tough to simultaneously say that the whole game is useless, but you have to play it a lot to get anywhere.

Totally agree Quik. This is one of many aspects of politics that drive me away and cause me to be disinterested. One of the reasons I could personally get behind a potential Bloomberg run (as unlikely as it is to be successful) is because he would hopefully, as long as he doesn't fall into the trap, bring a completely different background and mindset into office.

[Swaggs]

Anyone else curious to see how SNL (which is returning live this week for the first time since the writers' strike) will play things with the election?

They only have one black male on the cast and he doesn't really fit the Barrack Obama bill, so it will be interesting to see which way they go in portraying Obama. I imagine it would be worthwhile for them to find someone to play him, as elections are SNL's bread and butter and they could get a lot of mileage out of an Obama impresonator during the rest of this and next season.

Amy Poehler has done Hillary (poorly, in my opinion) for awhile now and the Clintons have been beaten to death by SNL, so probably not much new there--it will be Hillary the Ice Queen and Bill (still played by Darrell Hammond) goofing around in the background.

They have done McCain in the past (w/ Chris Parnell), goofing on his habits from being a POW and saying outrageous things while on the "Straight Talk Express."

[Young Drachma]

Anyone else curious to see how SNL (which is returning live this week for the first time since the writers' strike) will play things with the election?


I wondered this the other day, too. They have a good amount of material to work with, so we'll see what ends up coming out of it.

[flere-imsaho]

McCain is not likely to be President for 50 years.

Neither is Obama. I was responding to this, in kind:

I think even with Obama, we'll be in the 50 years in Iraq. They'll just be called "military advisors" rather than "combat troops".

Scare mongering.

I don't see that for a bit. After all, Reagan talked a big game too, but engaged in minor skirmashes and quick wars.

Different situation. We already have troops on the ground in Iraq. McCain is already on the record as wanting to have a "muscular" foreign policy. McCain's on the record as not being averse to bombing Iran.

There is nothing McCain has said in the past year or so of campaigning which leads me to believe that he'll do anything but continue a Bush-style unilateralist foreign policy.

[ISiddiqui]

Different situation. We already have troops on the ground in Iraq. McCain is already on the record as wanting to have a "muscular" foreign policy. McCain's on the record as not being averse to bombing Iran.

There is nothing McCain has said in the past year or so of campaigning which leads me to believe that he'll do anything but continue a Bush-style unilateralist foreign policy.

You do realize that President Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, right? And I think ANY President will try to bomb Iran if there is obvious proof of a nuclear weapons program and the reactors are visible (aka, Isreal doing to Iraq in the early 80s).

And a quick look at McCain's website will show that he is VERY big on shoring up our alliances and only using force when the cause is considered to be just and its in American interests (McCain is far more a realist in the IR sphere).

[Warhammer]

Jeez man, I used a smiley and everything! :p


Sorry if I took that the wrong way. Been pretty stressed the last few days with job interviews and waiting for the phone to ring.

[Warhammer]

There is nothing McCain has said in the past year or so of campaigning which leads me to believe that he'll do anything but continue a Bush-style unilateralist foreign policy.

Had France had the intestinal fortitude to be unilateralist in 1936, millions of lives would have been spared.

As much as we want to judge the Iraq War now, it simply is not feasible. There is no way to know whether or not it will be successful, and we will not know for another 15 years.

The one thing we need to credit Bush with, is that he attempted to do something about the problem. He attempted to change the dynamic of the Middle East. If he does so with the loss of 5000 lives, it will make the world safer in the long run, and that sacrifice will be worth it.

The more and more I think about it (and yes, Bush did screw some things up), the more this situation seems to parallel the Civil War. In both cases, the war was unpopular on the home front. In both cases, everyone wanted some sign of progress in the war. In 1864, most people thought Lincoln was going to lose the election, and the Civil War would have ended in a negotiated peace. It was not until Sherman delivered Atlanta that many truly felt that progress was being made. Looking back, I think it is foolish to think that only when we took Atlanta did it seem like progress was being made. However, we need to keep in mind that it was a far bloodier war than any other war we ever fought in.

I think we are at the same crossroads in Iraq. Why were things bad in the beginning? Simple, we didn't have the troops to occupy the country. We implement the surge and it worked. Big surprise, but it was sound military strategy. Why should we pull out of Iraq if the Iraqi government does not want us to? We have commitments in Germany, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Korea, and Japan. We've been in Germany and Japan for over 60 years, and we have been in Korea for over 50. So why should we be surprised if Iraq will be any different, and is that necessarily a bad thing? Our presence in the Middle East will help pacify the area if we are there with good intentions and with the will of the government.

I think we need to keep in mind what is important for our country. First and foremost we must watch out for our security. A friendly Iraq definitely helps us in the Middle East. It also gives us additional clout in the area. Second, it will help to improve the flow of oil over time. If we can protect the oil fields, it will eventually help moderate the price of oil over time. Third, hopefully our presence there with a united Iraq will force Iran to play nice. I know this might be a pipedream, but with a united Iraq behind us, it gives us a much better position vis a vis Iran. Fourth, we can't try to make everyone in the world happy. We need to keep in mind that when people disagree with us, its not necessarily because they disagree with us. Sometimes they disagree so we can compromise on some other issue. They can wring some concessions from us on one issue, and then back us on another issue. This is a typical negotiation tactic.

We must not be afraid to use force when it is necessary. If we do not, why have the force. However, whenever we choose to use force, we must get in there and forget political ramifications. Get in, get the job done, and get out. If we had immediately instituted the surge once Saddam was captured, we would have avoided a significant time frame in which the insurgency was able to dig in. We would essentially be two years ahead of schedule. The other thing, how dare we impose milestones and timetables for Iraq to come up with a working government. It took us from 1781 to 1788 to come up with a working government. Why should we expect the citizens of Iraq to come up with one faster just because we told them to?

Anyhow, after veering off-course, you may resume our discussion about Obama trouncing Hillary.

[JPhillips]

Warhammer: There's a lot of thought in your post, but there's also a lot that I disagree with.

First, the WWII reference is tenuous at best. If France had acted unilaterally in 1936 things may have turned out almost exactly the same. There's no reason to think France could have defeated Germany in 1936 and further a French attack on Germany would have made it difficult to impossible for the U.S. to enter the war.

On knowing the results of the Iraq War, yes history will give us a clearer view, but we can judge some things now. We have spent hundreds of billions, we have last thousands of lives, the armed forces are stretched thin, etc. I think you could credibly argue it's worth it, but the idea that we can't make any judgments for decades leads to a very dangerous policy of never being able to make judgments on policies.

I have a lot of problems with the Civil War analogy, mostly regarding the stakes. The very future of the country was at stake in 1861, that's simply not true now. Even if Iraq is turning or is about to turn a corner the fact that it isn't central to our survival should be a part of the equation.

That's why I was stunned to see that we should stay in Iraq because the Iraqi government wants us to. Shouldn't we act in or own interest first?

Finally, I think the best use of our military is not using it as often as possible. We simply don't have the resources to act militarily all the time. I think our threats of force often serve us better than full use of that force. One of the problems in Iraq is that we haven't achieved much, but we've bogged down our military.

[lungs]

Our presence in the Middle East will help pacify the area if we are there with good intentions and with the will of the government.

That's the problem.. when have we ever had good intentions in that area of the world? From their point of view anyway, which is what counts because they are the ones that supposedly are being pacified.

From colonialism we went right into meddling. Propping up the Shah in Iran (after deposing a legally elected government) sure didn't lead to many positive results in Iran.

Moreso than Iraq, I think our support for the Saudi government could end up biting us in the ass.

Either way, we do not have very clean hands over the years when it comes to the Arab countries. I don't see how continuing to stick our nose in affairs over there will somehow make everybody love us.

[BishopMVP]

DC - I'm too lazy to look up the page where I compared Deval Patrick to Barack Obama and you disagreed, but one of the memes going around the blogosphere now is that Obama is basically plagiarising Patrick's platform. (I wouldn't use the term plagiarising because they have the same campaign advisor/speechwriter.) So there's more similarities between the two campaigns.

[Young Drachma]

DC - I'm too lazy to look up the page where I compared Deval Patrick to Barack Obama and you disagreed, but one of the memes going around the blogosphere now is that Obama is basically plagiarising Patrick's platform. (I wouldn't use the term plagiarising because they have the same campaign advisor/speechwriter.) So there's more similarities between the two campaigns.

Well, I disagreed with the idea that they're similar people other than the obvious similarity and even that's debatable. I think that Obama is a wonkish technocrat with a lot of nitty gritty ability, whereas Patrick was a wet suit with Clintonian credentials who swept into power using inspiration, hope and his race as the propeller. But in a state that elected Mitt Romney, I don't know that it's really that big a deal.

As for the policy similarities, I don't think that's really a big deal. I mean, if Patrick was a Clinton supporter it might be a bigger deal. And I saw the thing you're talking about or at least, something similar to it, and while it's a little silly for him to have gone that route or whatever....I tend to think that reinventing the wheel is a little silly if you don't have to. And clearly in this case, they don't have to.

Obama does his best work ad-libbing and really struggles more because I think he has to dumb down his speech to a filled to capacity arena. He seems more earnest to me and the main difference between a President and a Governor are the tons of people that he has at his disposal to help advise and guide him if he so chooses to solicit them.

So I don't think the similarities are really apt. Obama won't run again for President if he loses this time. People doubt that and think it's crazy to suggest since he's so young. But Michelle is not a traditional politicians wife and his message is one that if he were to do that, he'd basically be just the same thing as what he's supposedly fighting against.

But all of that aside, it's probably pretty clear that the slick marketing of his campaign is historic in ways that will be studied for years and years. Because what worked for Patrick in his ridiculously longshot candidacy for Governor, is working for Obama in his similarly ridiculously longshot candidacy for President.

[flere-imsaho]

I'll only respond to the part that JPhillips didn't already, because I agree with what he said.

The one thing we need to credit Bush with, is that he attempted to do something about the problem. He attempted to change the dynamic of the Middle East. If he does so with the loss of 5000 lives, it will make the world safer in the long run, and that sacrifice will be worth it.

If. And if it makes the world less safe in the long run (which I think is equally, if not more, possible), then what of those 5000 lives (and the countless Iraqi civilian casualties?

We implement the surge and it worked.

I am confident that history will not come to this conclusion. In fact, I'm pretty sure that we'll look back at this in a year and not come to this conclusion. Why?

The "success" we're seeing in Iraq is not due to the increase in the number of U.S. soldiers on the ground, or to the change in their tactics, alone. It is also due to:

1. The segregation of Sunnis and Shias in Iraq (and especially in Baghdad) becoming almost totally complete in the past year or so.

2. Al-Sadr putting the Madhi Army into a ceasefire for the past 6 months.

If creating a segregated state is considered a good thing, then we might as well partition the country and be done with it. The Kurds will be ecstatic.

If Al-Sadr doesn't extend the ceasefire, we'll almost certainly see a resurgence in violence, no matter the "boots on the ground". And bear in mind we have no more manpower to rotate into the area in the next few years.

So, the changes in military strategy brought about during the "surge" are important influences, but they aren't the only ones. Look beyond the headlines.

We've been in Germany and Japan for over 60 years, and we have been in Korea for over 50.

These examples aren't even remotely analogous. We functioned as "law & order" in Germany and Japan for very short periods, and then had bases there first as a counter to Soviet power and later to enable our own force projection needs.

We're not acting as a counter to anyone in Iraq, unless you want to suggest that any of their neighbors would invade when we still have carrier battle groups and bases in Saudi Arabia & Turkey nearby. They all saw Gulf Wars I and II. They know what we can do to a conventional army. Besides, they've already infiltrated the country with us there. It's a very different scenario.

I think we need to keep in mind what is important for our country.

I couldn't agree more. Every day we spend in Iraq is a day closer we come to bankrupting this country. In the next couple of years the bill for this war is likely to be a trillion dollars.

First and foremost we must watch out for our security.

It will be woefully ironic if, in the name of ensuring our security, we send our country into a debt and economic death spiral. What happens when there's nothing left to protect?

The other thing, how dare we impose milestones and timetables for Iraq to come up with a working government. It took us from 1781 to 1788 to come up with a working government. Why should we expect the citizens of Iraq to come up with one faster just because we told them to?

That's 7 years. We've been in Iraq for 5. Communications technology is far better in 2003 than it was in 1781. The U.S. Constitution was the first document of its type since Magna Carta. The Iraqis now have literally hundreds of similar documents upon which to base their new constitution.

American men and women are dying so these guys can sit around, waffle, and take 3-month summer vacations. We, as a country, have spent half a trillion dollars so these guys can sit around, waffle, and take 3-month summer vacations.

I think we have every right to impose milestones and timetables.

[Galaxy]

You do realize that President Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, right? And I think ANY President will try to bomb Iran if there is obvious proof of a nuclear weapons program and the reactors are visible (aka, Isreal doing to Iraq in the early 80s).

And a quick look at McCain's website will show that he is VERY big on shoring up our alliances and only using force when the cause is considered to be just and its in American interests (McCain is far more a realist in the IR sphere).

One thing I'll give McCain is he disapproved of the war game plan from the beginning with the lack of troops and such.

[Buccaneer]

The U.S. Constitution was the first document of its type since Magna Carta.

Hmmm.

[Jas_lov]

Iraq this, economy that. Blah blah blah. Let's get to the good stuff! The best part about Presidential politics are the smears of the candidates!

In 2000 we learned that John McCain had an illegitimate black baby. This year we learn that he had an affair with a female lobbyist according to the New York Times, a very credible and unbiased source. This story is completely true and not at all based on the assumptions of McCain's advisors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Three days ago we also learned that Barack Obama had sex with Larry Sinclair from Minnesota and did drugs with him. I can't think of any reason why this guy would lie about one of the biggest public figures in America this close to the general election, so I'm going to take his word for it. Thank you to the website offering up the money for Mr. Sinclair to take the polygraph. $10,000 well spent.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626

[Young Drachma]

American men and women are dying so these guys can sit around, waffle, and take 3-month summer vacations. We, as a country, have spent half a trillion dollars so these guys can sit around, waffle, and take 3-month summer vacations.


I just like how you phrased it. Because when it comes down it, it's all of that and this one addendum.

"And despite all of that, we're still not making anyone any safer than they were before."

[Buccaneer]

I just like how you phrased it. Because when it comes down it, it's all of that and this one addendum.

"And despite all of that, we're still not making anyone any safer than they were before."

Couldn't you extend that to other War on [Something] that the federal govt have spent trillions of dollars on only to have realized marginal benefits at best? We expect and want them to do throw tons of money at something with the hope that something good comes out of it. Until the majority of voters wise up, we will continue to see them spend trillions of dollars on nation-building, poverty, welfare, drug control, security, foreign aid to every single nation, corporate welfare, farm subsidies, unneeded weapons programs, etc.

[Young Drachma]

Couldn't you extend that to other War on [Something] that the federal govt have spent trillions of dollars on only to have realized marginal benefits at best? We expect and want them to do throw tons of money at something with the hope that something good comes out of it. Until the majority of voters wise up, we will continue to see them spend trillions of dollars on nation-building, poverty, welfare, drug control, security, foreign aid to every single nation, corporate welfare, farm subsidies, unneeded weapons programs, etc.

Yes, it could be extended that way. Voters aren't going to wise up. They are too zombie-like and too conditioned. It'll take a revolution and a paradigm shift of epic proportions before people come to the realization that things would be a lot better if they were able to truly earn an "honest day's living" and actually keep all of that money or the majority of it, only paying taxes for the necessities for government to run and leaving the rest of it to individual, private citizens to come together and make stuff happen as they want to.

Or if they want to vote for it as a town or a city or even as a state, so be it.

That's just too forward thinking for the nanny state times we live in now.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Wow. WH is smoking the same stuff Obama was smoking when he was younger.

[Young Drachma]

The People's Questions (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/opinion/21QUESTIONS.html)

I saw a few that I thought were pretty good. What question would you ask to either of the candidate tonight's if you could?

[Warhammer]

Warhammer: There's a lot of thought in your post, but there's also a lot that I disagree with.

First, the WWII reference is tenuous at best. If France had acted unilaterally in 1936 things may have turned out almost exactly the same. There's no reason to think France could have defeated Germany in 1936 and further a French attack on Germany would have made it difficult to impossible for the U.S. to enter the war.

Germany was a paper tiger at the time. Do some reading on the subject and
you'll find that Hitler was terrified of the French and the Brits standing up to him. Additionally, the German Army was looking for an excuse to get rid of him even then, but they did not feel like getting involved in political matters. However, a failure in the Rhineland would probably have spurred them into action. "On the Origins of War: And the Preservation of Peace" has an excellent chapter on this issue. There's another book on the German Army of this period that you can get the army's view of things, but I can't recall the title (I can get it if you or anyone else is interested as it is at my dad's, PM me if interested.)

Finally, I think the best use of our military is not using it as often as possible. We simply don't have the resources to act militarily all the time. I think our threats of force often serve us better than full use of that force. One of the problems in Iraq is that we haven't achieved much, but we've bogged down our military.

Fair enough. Part of the reason why we had some issues in the past with small banana republics was because they never thought we would use force due to the political climate. That was part of the reason why the Russians were terrified of Reagan because he did put our military to use.

Again, we don't know what we have achieved in Iraq yet. We won't know yet for some time. That is my point.

[Warhammer]

I'll only respond to the part that JPhillips didn't already, because I agree with what he said.

If. And if it makes the world less safe in the long run (which I think is equally, if not more, possible), then what of those 5000 lives (and the countless Iraqi civilian casualties?

I don't think our invasion of Iraq will make the world less safe. Regardless of our belief, it is only by giving up that we make the loss of lives vain.

I am confident that history will not come to this conclusion. In fact, I'm pretty sure that we'll look back at this in a year and not come to this conclusion. Why?

The "success" we're seeing in Iraq is not due to the increase in the number of U.S. soldiers on the ground, or to the change in their tactics, alone. It is also due to:

1. The segregation of Sunnis and Shias in Iraq (and especially in Baghdad) becoming almost totally complete in the past year or so.

2. Al-Sadr putting the Madhi Army into a ceasefire for the past 6 months.

If creating a segregated state is considered a good thing, then we might as well partition the country and be done with it. The Kurds will be ecstatic.

If Al-Sadr doesn't extend the ceasefire, we'll almost certainly see a resurgence in violence, no matter the "boots on the ground". And bear in mind we have no more manpower to rotate into the area in the next few years.

So, the changes in military strategy brought about during the "surge" are important influences, but they aren't the only ones. Look beyond the headlines.

I'll agree with those. However, it is funny that things do correspond to the when the surge went into effect. Additionally, the surge is in complete accordance with proven military doctrine (not current, but also past doctrine as laid out in the English conquest of Wales).

These examples aren't even remotely analogous. We functioned as "law & order" in Germany and Japan for very short periods, and then had bases there first as a counter to Soviet power and later to enable our own force projection needs.

You're right. What is to say that is not going to happen in Iraq? Neither you nor I have the power to see in the future. The people saying we're going to be there for 50 years have not given any context of the way in which we will be there. Being there with bases as a projection of force in the region is not a bad thing.

We're not acting as a counter to anyone in Iraq, unless you want to suggest that any of their neighbors would invade when we still have carrier battle groups and bases in Saudi Arabia & Turkey nearby. They all saw Gulf Wars I and II. They know what we can do to a conventional army. Besides, they've already infiltrated the country with us there. It's a very different scenario.

We can battle the forces of instability in the region. As you point out, anyone invading any of our allies in the area is insane when we have a military presence there. That will add stability to the area. We can also cut our ties with the Saudis if we choose.

I couldn't agree more. Every day we spend in Iraq is a day closer we come to bankrupting this country. In the next couple of years the bill for this war is likely to be a trillion dollars.

It will be woefully ironic if, in the name of ensuring our security, we send our country into a debt and economic death spiral. What happens when there's nothing left to protect?

So we've spent a trillion dollars. Compare that to the cost of WWII, or any other war you wish. Compared to our GDP it is not that significant and we are not incurring any substantial debt due strictly to the war. The war would not even be the biggest item on the budget in any given year. Taken as a whole one time sum, sure, but let's compare entitlements over that time frame compared to the war and see which one is bigger.

That's 7 years. We've been in Iraq for 5. Communications technology is far better in 2003 than it was in 1781. The U.S. Constitution was the first document of its type since Magna Carta. The Iraqis now have literally hundreds of similar documents upon which to base their new constitution.

American men and women are dying so these guys can sit around, waffle, and take 3-month summer vacations. We, as a country, have spent half a trillion dollars so these guys can sit around, waffle, and take 3-month summer vacations.

I think we have every right to impose milestones and timetables.

So we just need to cram a Constitution down their throat? (Not that I don't entirely disagree with you) We are the preeminent democracy in the world and we should help those that want to implement one in their country. We should act as advisors and help stabilize their country until they get a stable government in place. If we can get a stable, thriving Iraq, you don't think that they will be grateful?

If you want to impose milestones and timetables go ahead, but don't sit there and say "I told you so!" after we pull out due to an artificial milestone or timetable.

[JPhillips]

Germany was a paper tiger at the time. Do some reading on the subject and
you'll find that Hitler was terrified of the French and the Brits standing up to him. Additionally, the German Army was looking for an excuse to get rid of him even then, but they did not feel like getting involved in political matters. However, a failure in the Rhineland would probably have spurred them into action. "On the Origins of War: And the Preservation of Peace" has an excellent chapter on this issue. There's another book on the German Army of this period that you can get the army's view of things, but I can't recall the title (I can get it if you or anyone else is interested as it is at my dad's, PM me if interested.)

Fair enough. Part of the reason why we had some issues in the past with small banana republics was because they never thought we would use force due to the political climate. That was part of the reason why the Russians were terrified of Reagan because he did put our military to use.

Again, we don't know what we have achieved in Iraq yet. We won't know yet for some time. That is my point.

From what I've read the German Army likely would have defended east of the Rhine had France attacked. It's debatable whether they would have won, but I don't see any reason to think that would have significantly altered the death toll in Europe. Based on Eden's memos it's clear that the British would not have gotten involved in 1936 and France would have had to go alone.

I'd also question your idea that Reagan used force in some way analogous to GWB. Reagan basically left the armed forces on the sidelines except for a couple of minor operations. It was the credible threat of force that Reagan used effectively.

[Young Drachma]

I caught the debate late into it, so I have no idea what's going on. I do think that she's trying really hard to remind people that the Clinton years were "great" and that Bush messed up what the Clintons did.

Obama looks more and more Presidential in these deals as things going on. Clinton dodged a question about superdelegates and saying that the party would be picked and that it'll be all okay and that she's not "worried about that."

Obama is being more and more attack dog in this, versus before when he was being nice and that's it.

He's learning this game pretty quickly...and I think that it'll be interesting to see how this debate translates to his results going to March 4th.

[Young Drachma]

FOX does a funny thing with supposedly undecided voters. It was pretty lame, because those people didn't look undecided. They looked goofy.

After the debate tonight, Obama goes over to shake the hands of the moderates and looks relatively warm to Hillary, who seemed like she just wanted to get away from him as soon as possible.

Chelsea went up to her mom after it was over and looked really...happy...it seems pretty obvious that they're close, just from the way that they looked when it was over. I guess that would make sense, but...still.

Waiting to hear what the pundits thing, mostly because I didn't see the whole thing.

[Young Drachma]

Obama's gotten the endorsement of every major newspaper in the state of Texas. That's gotta sting. The pundits are calling her final remark as a valedictory speech and the more I see the highlights, seems that way.

I don't understand how anyone thinks that people who used to work for them (like former speechwriters) can't be anything other than schills.

[Dutch]

From what I've read the German Army likely would have defended east of the Rhine had France attacked. It's debatable whether they would have won, but I don't see any reason to think that would have significantly altered the death toll in Europe. Based on Eden's memos it's clear that the British would not have gotten involved in 1936 and France would have had to go alone.

Of course, the key was the 2 battalions the Germans marched across the Rhine, not the support element that was left on the east bank. Hitler's generals were all too aware of the mismatch and wanted nothing to do with armed conflict with the French on the west bank of the Rhine.

The French could have marched a single division into German, the Nazi's would have turned tail and run and the gamble would have failed. The west bank of the Rhine would have been re-occupied by France and Britain and instead of a glorious first victory, Hitler would have instead looked quite pathetic. According to the Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich, the German military machine in 1936 was nowhere near ready to be an offensive weapon and was never truly prepared to be a defensive weapon.

As we find out later, the prize of the American and British army was the Rhine river, holding that would be the last key defensive position before the defenseless plains of Germany. The French, in 1936, had every right to march right up to it and hold it until they figured out what Hitler's deal was. Further reading would show that Hitler was still an ackward fledgling political leader at that point in time and was under threat of being overthrown (up until the successful remilitarization of the Rhineland, after that, assissination plots were the concern), with two battalions of troops who were under orders not to engage French if they were to enter German territory.

I think the French should have given it a go, what's the worst that could've happened?

[JPhillips]

It might have worked, but there's no way you can guarantee that if the French invaded the Rhineland in 1936 millions of lives would have been saved, so we should be in Iraq.

That's really my point. It's silly to use a counterfactual to "prove" a political argument.

[Galaxy]

Yikes!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/02/21/mccain-scandal-co-author-once-took-funds-liberal-activist

[Young Drachma]

http://www.star-telegram.com/dallas_news/story/486413.html

[Warhammer]

It might have worked, but there's no way you can guarantee that if the French invaded the Rhineland in 1936 millions of lives would have been saved, so we should be in Iraq.

That's really my point. It's silly to use a counterfactual to "prove" a political argument.

If you're interested in the subject, I really advise you to read the book On the Origins of War that I mentioned earlier. Not only does it talk about WWI and WWII, but it also talks about the Peloponnesian War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The whole point of the book is about the methods people have used to avoid war, what worked, what failed, etc.

[Warhammer]

Here's the except from wikipedia on the subject:

During January 1936 German Führer Adolf Hitler decided to reoccupy the Rhineland. On 12 February he informed his War Minister, General Werner von Blomberg, of his intentions and asked the head of the Army, General Werner von Fritsch, how long it would take to transport a few infantry battalions and an artillery battery into the Rhineland. Fritsch answered that it would take three days organisation but he was in favour of negotiation as he believed that the German Army was in no state for armed combat with the French Army.[2] General Ludwig Beck warned Hitler that the German Army would be unable to successfully defend Germany against a possible retaliatory French attack.[3] Hitler reassured Fritsch that he would ensure that the German forces would leave at once if the French intervened militarily to halt their advance. The operation was codenamed Winter Exercise. Not long after dawn, nineteen German infantry battalions and a handful of planes entered the Rhineland. They reached the river Rhine by 11am and then three battalions crossed to the west bank of the Rhine. When German reconnaissance learned that thousands of French soldiers were congregating on the Franco-German border, General Blomberg begged Hitler to evacuate the German forces. Hitler inquired whether the French forces had actually crossed the border and when informed that they had not, he assured Blomberg that they would wait until this happened.[4]

Heinz Guderian, a German general interviewed by French officers after the Second World War, claimed: "If you French had intervened in the Rhineland in 1936 we should have been sunk and Hitler would have fallen".[5] Hitler himself later said:

"The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance."[6]

Guderian was not the only general that felt this way either.

[JPhillips]

But you're expecting the French leadership to be completely different. Bold, quick decision making simply wasn't going to happen. Even if they would have crossed into the Rhineland there's no telling what blunders they would have made. Regardless of what Guderian said I think it's nearly impossible to make such a straight line from French invade the Rhineland to millions of lives saved.

Even if Hitler was overthrown and there was no militaristic Riech, what would have stopped a Soviet invasion and a war of the same intensity, but with different dance partners? I like counterfactual history and the French indecision is fascinating, but it's simply not wise to make such broad conjectures without understanding the limitations of such predictions.

[Fighter of Foo]

Sorry if I'm slow, but what the fuck does the French army in 1936 have to do with anything?

[Dutch]

But you're expecting the French leadership to be completely different. Bold, quick decision making simply wasn't going to happen. Even if they would have crossed into the Rhineland there's no telling what blunders they would have made. Regardless of what Guderian said I think it's nearly impossible to make such a straight line from French invade the Rhineland to millions of lives saved.

Even if Hitler was overthrown and there was no militaristic Riech, what would have stopped a Soviet invasion and a war of the same intensity, but with different dance partners? I like counterfactual history and the French indecision is fascinating, but it's simply not wise to make such broad conjectures without understanding the limitations of such predictions.

But you did say you saw no reason. Naturally, I assumed if someone could clarify how it was possible, you would consider it. If we've ever considered any historical event a blunder, certainly there has been some thought put in to how the blunder could have been avoided. It just so happens that many historians consider the way the European nations (France and Britain in particular) dealt with the rise of Nazi Germany as blunderous.

By your logic, you are suggesting that no matter what anybody does, things play out the same way. I disagree.

Anyway, we've taken the thread off the path far enough. I just wanted to bring some clarity from an opposing viewpoint. Nothing personal intended.

[st.cronin]

Sorry if I'm slow, but what the fuck does the French army in 1936 have to do with anything?

Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.

;)

[Dutch]

Sorry if I'm slow, but what the fuck does the French army in 1936 have to do with anything?

For you? Probably nothing. However, not to leave you completely out of the thread, here's something that might be more interesting for you. Pretty colors on your computer screen! Yay!

[JPhillips]

Dutch: No reason was too far. I should have said something like "can't guarantee." I'm not saying things will always turn out the same way, just trying to point out that a single conterfactual doesn't provide proof of a different outcome, especially when the projection is as far ranging as this. It may have made a big difference, it may not have. It certainly doesn't provide any evidence that we should or shouldn't be in Iraq.

[Young Drachma]

Sorry if I'm slow, but what the fuck does the French army in 1936 have to do with anything?

+1

[Dutch]

Dutch: No reason was too far. I should have said something like "can't guarantee." I'm not saying things will always turn out the same way, just trying to point out that a single conterfactual doesn't provide proof of a different outcome, especially when the projection is as far ranging as this. It may have made a big difference, it may not have. It certainly doesn't provide any evidence that we should or shouldn't be in Iraq.

I think we better end on that note before somebody accuses us of thread-jacking. :)

[Galaxy]

So what's Hillary mad about? Just another attack to try to make herself look "good"?

[Buccaneer]

So what's Hillary mad about? Just another attack to try to make herself look like a hypocrite.

Perhaps fixed?

[Young Drachma]

So what's Hillary mad about? Just another attack to try to make herself look "good"?

Same ol' stuff. Said he distorted her message or whatever. She's in New Orleans now speaking at the State of the Black Union. Obama (and McCain and Huckabee) didn't accept an invitation at the event (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/obama.sobu/index.html).

She deflected a question about the Michigan and Florida delegates, basically saying that there will be a nominee before the convention and that they won't play a part because it'll be over by June.

Otherwise, same ol' stump speech basically..only with more quotes in it from black historical figures.

[Galaxy]

Perhaps fixed?

Yeah. I just didn't hear the whole story. I figured as much.

[Young Drachma]

Hillary at a rally in Rhode Island today (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html)

At least they're getting this out of the way early: Obama fights back on questions about his patriotism (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/obama.patriotism/index.html)

[Vegas Vic]

Uh oh. He's baaaaaaaack! (http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/24/nader-says-he-will-run-for-president/)

[Young Drachma]

Meh, Nader is a shell of himself at this point. He's like the Titanic and proves that campaigning is more lucrative than working for real.

[Big Fo]

Liberals who live in swing states have already learned their lesson, I don't anticipate this having any impact.

[Galaril]

Liberals who live in swing states have already learned their lesson, I don't anticipate this having any impact.

Agree.

[Young Drachma]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XLZ18U1Txnc&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XLZ18U1Txnc&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

SNL does the Dem debates

[Toddzilla]

Liberals who live in swing states have already learned their lesson, I don't anticipate this having any impact.What? Didn't they say that after 2000? And what happened in 2004? It was even worse. Lame electorates (read: democratic voters) tend to stay lame. If a democrat is going to win a swing state, it will be from independents and weakly republican voters changing sides.

In 2004, it was story after story about how energized the under-21 voters were, how they were going to set records for voter turnout and be a force in the election. Well, they set records all right. They stayed away from the polls in droves and there is nothing to suggest they won't do the same this year.

[Vegas Vic]

In 2004, it was story after story about how energized the under-21 voters were, how they were going to set records for voter turnout and be a force in the election. Well, they set records all right. They stayed away from the polls in droves and there is nothing to suggest they won't do the same this year.

Actually, under-21 voters had a record turnout in 2004. In the end, it didn't make any difference.

[Big Fo]

I don't recall Nader doing near as well in 2004 as he did in 2000 and figure his share of the votes are more likely to decline than improve from 2004 levels.

As far as overall Democratic turnout goes I am less certain (everything is trending towards a bigger turnout in primaries but we'll have to wait and see in November...) though the fact that we aren't relying on the stale loaf of bread known as John Kerry to inspire the voters can't hurt.

[Big Fo]

Under 21's have to be what, like 2-3% of voters? That's not that important. It's more like the 18-29 group that matters.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

As an Obama fan, doesn't really worry me one bit that Nader is running as an independent, because of what happened in 2004.

Nader popular vote in 2000: 2.74 % (with the assistance of the Green Party)
Nader popular vote in 2004: 0.38% (as independent)

And the vote in 2000 only mattered because Florida was so close. I doubt we will see that perfect storm again.

[Young Drachma]

I heard a report today that 25% of the potential November electorate are under the age of 30. Voter turnout is higher this year than it's ever been during a primary season and that's with the Presidential race having started last year.

I think this is the millenials coming out party in the form of one of their own running for President.

[Young Drachma]

Geraldine Ferraro giving a glimpse (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html?pagewanted=2&hp) into what might be a revolt by the party elites to tip the election to Hillary.

I may be a cynic, but I’m a fairly knowledgeable political cynic. If Mr. Obama wins the nomination, those members are undoubtedly concerned that they would be inviting a primary challenge in their next re-election campaign by failing to support his candidacy.

But if they are actually upset over the diminished clout of rank-and-file Democrats in the presidential nominating process, then I would love to see them agitating to force the party to seat the delegates elected by the voters in Florida and Michigan. In those two states, the votes of thousands of rank-and-file party members will not be counted because their states voted on dates earlier than those authorized by the national party.

Because both states went strongly for Mrs. Clinton, standing up for the voices of grassroots Democrats in Florida and Michigan would prove the integrity of the superdelegate-bashers. The people of those states surely don’t deserve to be disenfranchised simply because the leaders of their state parties brought them to the polls on a day that had not been endorsed by the leaders of our national party — a slight the voters might not easily forget in November.

As it happens, the superdelegates themselves can solve this problem. At this summer’s Democratic national convention in Denver, the superdelegates could assert their leadership on the credentials and rules committees. That is, after all, one of the reasons they were created in the first place in 1982

[yacovfb]

Geraldine Ferraro giving a glimpse (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html?pagewanted=2&hp) into what might be a revolt by the party elites to tip the election to Hillary.

Eh, I don't see it. If Hillary wins by seating the Florida and Michigan voters, there's going to be some irreparable damage to the party and she won't win in November. Only way that Hillary can win and still hope for a shot in the general is by winning big in both Texas and Ohio...which, unless something big happens in the next few weeks, doesn't look like that will happen. Ideally for the party, Obama finishes this thing as quickly as possible and the delegates from Michigan and Florida are seated, but without any effect on the outcome.

[bhlloy]

I'm no lawyer, but surely Obama would have a great shot at challenging that in court, seeing as he withdrew his name from the ballot in both states in line with what the party instructed him (and Hilary) to do

I'm also a huge cynic, and I'm sure there are a lot of the Democrat elite that would much rather see Hilary win the nomination, but I'm not sure they are that stupid. It would be complete and utter political suicide. I don't see how that would be any less controversial that if the superdelegates just came out and sided with Hillary to begin with. At least then Obama wouldn't have any legal recourse.

[lungs]

http://drudgereport.com/oa.jpg

Hillary's staff is circulating this picture. Desperate at all? Yup... he must be a Muslim.

[lungs]

http://drudgereport.com/cc1.jpg

I guess Hillary is one too!

[ISiddiqui]

According to drudge (where the story came from), the reason it was circulated was:

"Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

So, it seems its about media bias rather than "Obama is a Muslim!!!1!"

[CraigSca]

Hey, Louis Farrakhan just endorsed Obama - that should help clear up this whole Muslim issue!

[lungs]

According to drudge (where the story came from), the reason it was circulated was:

[/FONT][/B]

So, it seems its about media bias rather than "Obama is a Muslim!!!1!"

This is true, but honestly, who cares that Obama was dressed like that? The media probably didn't make a big deal of it precisely because it's not a big deal.

Like I said, it's reaks of desperation.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, most inner campaigns make a big deal that they aren't being treated fairly by the media. Yes, I may have worked for Republican campaigns in Northern New Jersey, but every one of them were saying similar things internally (if we did what he's doing, the media would be all over us).

I don't really see it as desperation.

[lungs]

I guess I see it as desperate because the campaign is whining like little a little school girl about things not being fair and then digging up pictures that are almost two years old to prove it.

I doubt this even registers even a small shockwave either way because the only people who give a shit aren't voting for Obama anyway.

[ISiddiqui]

I think that the culture inside a campaign is far different than that outside of it. Those inside a campaign see slights and biases in every single direction, where those outside of it wonder what in the Hell those people are talking about. Republican campaigns have a little bit more it (due to concerns about the "liberal media"), but it isn't just a Republican thing.

Though sometimes you get some good info well before it is well known, like when I worked for the Bret Schundler for NJ Governor campaign. He was running against Jim McGreevey and there were BIG time rumors that McGreevey was gay and was cavorting around with men in cars and whatnot... and how if it was Schundler the media would have been on him like a ton of bricks in an instant. I kind of shrugged that off, but a few years later... well, you know.

[albionmoonlight]

I wonder if Clinton, knowing that she is going to lose, is doing her best to hurt Obama on the way out--figuing that if he does not win in 2008, she would like McCain to win so that she can run again in 2012.

[ISiddiqui]

While I do think that if McCain wins the Presidency, the loser of this nomination immediately becomes the Democratic favorite in 2012, I don't think Clinton has gone to that strategy (deep sixing Obama). I think she still believes she's got a shot to take this thing.

[Big Fo]

Hillary's staff is circulating this picture. Desperate at all? Yup... he must be a Muslim.

That might be the political equivalent of pulling the goalie in the last minute.

[Galaril]

boy tomorrow nights debate really will be "There will be blood."

[Young Drachma]

Obama is up 51-39 in national democratic polls (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-25-poll-prez_N.htm)

Story (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/25/america/25webcamp.php)
A flap erupted when some Internet sites on Monday posted a photo of Obama in Somalian garb, including a white turban. When the Obama campaign charged that Clinton aides had leaked the photo - taken during a 2006 trip to Africa - the Clinton campaign manager, Maggie Williams, tried to turn the matter back at the Obama team, even though her camp has not denied any role in distributing the photo.

"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed," Williams said in a statement. "Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely."

In what her aides billed as a major speech on foreign policy, Clinton renewed her charge that Obama lacks the seasoning to lead the country. "We have seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience or the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our nation," she said at George Washington University in Washington. "America has already taken that chance one time too many."

Clinton said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, changes in Cuba, Kosovo's declaration of independence and other events demonstrate "how essential it is we have sound strategy and sound leadership," Bloomberg News reported.

She's going down guns blazing, as we expected. I don't think it'll help. If they'd done this shit six months ago, maybe. But now? Too little, too late.

[-apoc-]

I'm no lawyer, but surely Obama would have a great shot at challenging that in court, seeing as he withdrew his name from the ballot in both states in line with what the party instructed him (and Hilary) to do


There is nothing for lawyers or courts to be involved in, the party can choose its nominee however it wants and by whatever rules it wants.

[cartman]

Obama is picking up steam in Texas. He seems to have locked down the mariachi vote!

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0fd-MVU4vtU&rel=0&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0fd-MVU4vtU&rel=0&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[JPhillips]

There is nothing for lawyers or courts to be involved in, the party can choose its nominee however it wants and by whatever rules it wants.

But they can't change the rules. That's where a lawsuit would come in. The candidates agreed to a set of rules and seating the FL and MI delegates would be contrary to the agreed upon rules.

[SackAttack]

Was this debate earlier in the evening than the last one? I remember watching the tail end of the last one on CNN while at the gym, but when I went tonight, all CNN was showing was some special on Iraq (at least, I'm assuming the Iraqi flag indicates that, as there's no sound and I was too far away to read the captioning).

[Swaggs]

Was this debate earlier in the evening than the last one? I remember watching the tail end of the last one on CNN while at the gym, but when I went tonight, all CNN was showing was some special on Iraq (at least, I'm assuming the Iraqi flag indicates that, as there's no sound and I was too far away to read the captioning).

It was on MSNBC with Tim Russert and Brian Williams as the moderators, so I am guessing it was exclusive to that channel.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

There is nothing for lawyers or courts to be involved in, the party can choose its nominee however it wants and by whatever rules it wants.

Not when certain promises or representations are made, on which someone relies to their detriment. Never underestimate the reach of the law.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

There is nothing for lawyers or courts to be involved in, the party can choose its nominee however it wants and by whatever rules it wants.

Not when certain promises or representations are made, on which someone relies to their detriment. Never underestimate the reach of the law.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

There is nothing for lawyers or courts to be involved in, the party can choose its nominee however it wants and by whatever rules it wants.

Not when certain promises or representations are made, on which someone relies to their detriment. Never underestimate the reach of the law.

[Buccaneer]

From CNN and NY Times:


It seems like Hillary Clinton is not only running against Barack Obama these days, she’s also running against the news media.

Early on in last night’s debate, Clinton referenced a “Saturday Night Live” skit that showed reporters fawning over Obama and showering him with softball questions. She said, “Maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow.” Clinton also whined about getting asked the first question more often in the last several debates.

The Clinton campaign has been complaining recently – more so since she has fallen behind – that the news media is tougher on her than Obama. It’s a tactic as old as politics: things aren’t going well, blame the media.
In today’s column in The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/opinion/27dowd.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print), Maureen Dowd questions Clinton’s line of attack against the media.

She writes: “Beating on the press is the lamest thing you can do. It is only because of the utter open-mindedness of the press that Hillary can lose 11 contests in a row and still be treated as a contender.”

She has a point. If Barack Obama had lost the last 11 races in a row since Super Tuesday, we wouldn’t even remember his name.


Clinton really said or believes that???

[GrantDawg]

From CNN and NY Times:



Clinton really said or believes that???


Yup. She been getting the benefit of the press her whole career (CNN does stand for the Clinton News Network, right? I mean you can't be a democratic political commentator unless you worked for the Clintons), but now feels they aren't bowing to her enough.

[Galaril]

This chick is deader than disco as far as this election goes. I see her lossing though slimly in Texas, Oh, and Vermont next Tuesday.

[ISiddiqui]

Hillary Clinton has gotten the benefit of the press her whole career?! Which press are we exactly talking about?

[Buccaneer]

Imran, serious question. Where were you and what were you doing from 1992-1999?

[ISiddiqui]

Imran, serious question. Where were you and what were you doing from 1992-1999?

Are we talking about the same press that hammered her for the entire Clinton administration? I don't remember anyone saying anything nice about her. They liked Bill, no doubt, but didn't like her at all.

[Buccaneer]

Imran, I'm still interested in knowing where we you during those years, not questionning your perception.

Another perception was that she was the martyr, first as the cheated-upon wife of Gov. Clinton (and its aftermath during the campaign) and then later getting all of the sympathies during the Monica affair. She had huge, huge vocal allies among the feminist, gay and soccer moms contigencies.

[ISiddiqui]

I was in school during those years. All the way up to college. And it wasn't like my parents were big time Democrats who were feeding me those lines, they were (and still are) Republicans.

[Buccaneer]

You followed the media attention while in jr. high and high school, including the run-up to the 92 election?

[ISiddiqui]

Of course... though Hillary Clinton was better treated until 1993... I think people forget that a lot of the good press for Bill Clinton during the 90s didn't exactly flow to Hillary Clinton (though sometimes his bad press did... with the cheating scandels). Why else do you think the polls show Bill to be vastly more popular than Hillary?

[Malificent]

Why else do you think the polls show Bill to be vastly more popular than Hillary?

Because Bill has charisma and Hillary has none and is starting to approach negative charisma levels?

[Vegas Vic]

Why else do you think the polls show Bill to be vastly more popular than Hillary?

As a politician (regardless of ideology), Bill Clinton has a lot more in common with George W. Bush and Barack Obama than he does with Hillary, Al Gore and John Kerry. On the campaign trail, Bill Clinton, GWB and Obama genuinely connect with their audience, and people gravitate to them.

Hillary, Gore and Kerry do not have this quality, and when they try to imitate it, it comes across as "forced".

[sterlingice]

Of course... though Hillary Clinton was better treated until 1993... I think people forget that a lot of the good press for Bill Clinton during the 90s didn't exactly flow to Hillary Clinton (though sometimes his bad press did... with the cheating scandels). Why else do you think the polls show Bill to be vastly more popular than Hillary?

She was completely blasted up and down over the health care debacle (and rightfully so)

SI