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

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Chris Matthews suggested that when push comes to shove, they'll let Michigan have delegates at the convention who can actually vote to avoid this possibility.

I read that last night. If they will allocate delegates based on last night's vote, that's messed up considering Obama and Edwards did what the party wanted and pulled out. I know, people could vote "uncommitted" but I'm sure that a lot of people either didn't know that or just voted for the best candidate that was actually on the ballot.

Still, it's the Democrats, and it helps the crappy candidate that the party wants, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I read that last night. If they will allocate delegates based on last night's vote, that's messed up considering Obama and Edwards did what the party wanted and pulled out. I know, people could vote "uncommitted" but I'm sure that a lot of people either didn't know that or just voted for the best candidate that was actually on the ballot.

Still, it's the Democrats, and it helps the crappy candidate that the party wants, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

My wife and I decided not to vote. Apparently if you vote in the primary, the party gets your name and address which can lead to spam mail. We both decided that voting for Ron Paul wasn't worth it.

When it comes to the general election in November, none of this will have any impact on how we vote. I am not bitter or angry about any of this.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Apparently if you vote in the primary, the party gets your name and address which can lead to spam mail.

All true. In most states, whether a voter selected a Democratic or Republican ballot in a primary election is a matter of public record and thus made available to anyone that wants it for a modest fee. The respective parties always buy the lists as they are incredibly useful when you are targeting which voters you want to encourage to turn out.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I read that last night. If they will allocate delegates based on last night's vote, that's messed up considering Obama and Edwards did what the party wanted and pulled out. I know, people could vote "uncommitted" but I'm sure that a lot of people either didn't know that or just voted for the best candidate that was actually on the ballot.

Still, it's the Democrats, and it helps the crappy candidate that the party wants, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

I think the delegates would be given a free vote at the convention, not based on the primaries I think, so they go with Obama and Edwards. I could be wrong. It would be elementary by then anyways.

[chesapeake]

The expected scenario is that the either Hillary or Obama will have a majority of delegates already committed to them and that the DNC will seat the MI and FL delegates and allow them to vote. The possibility that the Democratic nomination will still be in doubt at the convention is remote.

[Jas_lov]

Hillary Clinton has won Nevada 51-45% over Obama. But she only got one more delgate than Obama 13-12. She does get all the headlines though, and puts another dagger into Obama's heart. Obama desperately needs to win S.C. and I think he will. Florida is irrelevant, so Super Tuesday will be where it's at and Clinton is probably strong in the bigger states like California, N.Y., N.J. Obama strong in Illinois. If Hillary comes back and wins S.C., is it over?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

No, it's not over if Hillary wins S.C. because John Edwards will drop out and potentially all his supporters will go to Obama. This thing is going to Super Tuesday, and perhaps beyond.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Hillary Clinton has won Nevada 51-45% over Obama. But she only got one more delgate than Obama 13-12. She does get all the headlines though, and puts another dagger into Obama's heart. Obama desperately needs to win S.C. and I think he will. Florida is irrelevant, so Super Tuesday will be where it's at and Clinton is probably strong in the bigger states like California, N.Y., N.J. Obama strong in Illinois. If Hillary comes back and wins S.C., is it over?

Your delegate count is backwards. Obama got one more delegate than Hillary even though he lost the popular vote. Much like the Electoral College, geography is more important that quantity.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

No, it's not over if Hillary wins S.C. because John Edwards will drop out and potentially all his supporters will go to Obama. This thing is going to Super Tuesday, and perhaps beyond.

Why do people assume all of his supporters will go to Obama? I think that's quite an assumption. Edwards message is appealing to blue-collar economic voters, who have been favoring Hilary over Obama.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Not assuming at all. I said potentially. It could happen, and that's why Obama will hang around, trying to get those. And why it's not over if he loses S.C.

[Buccaneer]

With solid backing from Latino voters and women overall

That, I believe, will be the death knell for Obama in the long run.

we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled.

I don't understand this - struggled with what? In a caucus by and for Dems, what had they been struggling with in the past?

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

No, it's not over if Hillary wins S.C. because John Edwards will drop out and potentially all his supporters will go to Obama. This thing is going to Super Tuesday, and perhaps beyond.

Yeah, but don't you think it would be a pretty big blow if Obama loses another huge lead to Hillary, the comeback kid. She'd have beaten him 3/4 states and would have all the momentum. There'd still be plenty of chances to get delegates, but let's look at the Super Tuesday states:

Alaska
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah

How many of these states do you actually see Obama beating Hillary? Illinois for sure, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee? Mass. with Kerry's help?

Hillary picks up New York for sure, California is likely and it's for 441 delegates but I think it's proportional so Obama can minimize the damage, N.J., Arkansas, Utah, New Mexico, and a lot of these states probably have closed primary systems that will hurt Obama.

[Greyroofoo]

The Democratic debate has been kind of entertaining so far...

[Jas_lov]

It's a disaster. Instead of focusing on the issues, we've spent the whole debate talking about how Reagan is evil, Obama wants kids to visit sex shops, and Hillary isn't truthful. Hillary has put Obama on the defensive all night.

[Buccaneer]

“While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair – indeed, it’s demeaning – for a former president to say things that are patently untrue… or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former president is himself doing it,” he added. “Now, sadly, we’re witnessing a smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics.”

Whatever your views are of Clinton's former Labor Sec, Robert Reich, one cannot help but be reminded of Clinton's mode of operation. Those old enough to remember had to hear about this (underhanded, snide, machiavelli-like tactics) constantly for 8 years. Not saying the past 7 years were any better but I really hope we don't have more years of this from the Clintons.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Whatever your views are of Clinton's former Labor Sec, Robert Reich, one cannot help but be reminded of Clinton's mode of operation. Those old enough to remember had to hear about this (underhanded, snide, machiavelli-like tactics) constantly for 8 years. Not saying the past 7 years were any better but I really hope we don't have more years of this from the Clintons.

He owes this to her and he's going to do whatever he can to make sure she wins..or at least, that he doesn't. I mean, it's bad enough that he's young and that he thinks he can insult her without reprisal AND that the media is basically treating him with kid gloves.

But that he's all of those things and (due to the this) black, really probably offends them. I really never appreciated their racial pandering back in the day, because it was all toothless rhetoric and nothing substantive, but with the current soup de jour of pulling out all of the stuff as they have, it's clear that they care about no one but themselves.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

they care about no one but themselves.

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!

I had in my mind a while back that she/he/someone would come out and say, "do you want a black president??". This would instantly kill the candidacy so it was just wishful thinking. Not I'm not too sure that it won't happen since it is being strongly implied, you think?

[Galaxy]

I think the Dems need to keep an eye on Bloomberg. If he gets in, I think he could hurt the Dems (he seems to be center-left) and help the Republicans. If Hillary wins, I think he gets in.

[Young Drachma]

Bloomberg would surely appeal to the centre in a way that none of the Dems ever could. He'll mostly attract people who are fiscally conservative who are pretty much annoyed with the GOP and who can't hold their nose to vote for Dems. Or at least, I'd be inclined to vote for him more than anyone out there right now.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Bloomberg would surely appeal to the centre in a way that none of the Dems ever could.

What is "the centre"?

He'll mostly attract people who are fiscally conservative who are pretty much annoyed with the GOP and who can't hold their nose to vote for Dems. Or at least, I'd be inclined to vote for him more than anyone out there right now.

Isn't this an argument that he's hurt the GOP primarily?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

What is "the centre"?



Isn't this an argument that he's hurt the GOP primarily?

I've always though he would sap voters from the Dems. He seems liberal in his social views. He's stated he would be open to the idea of looking at universal health care. He's financially conservative, but not in the tax-cutting way unless the budget allows for it (didn't he raise NYC taxes and create a nice fund surplus)?

I don't think he'll win. I think he could honestly compete with the other two in terms of votes, but the election will be thrown to the House of Representatives.

He'll have to declare pretty soon, won't he?

[JPhillips]

Bloomberg won't win a single state. What's his constituency? What's his issue? He really doesn't offer anything besides "Can't we all get along?" It's inconceivable that even with his cash he could start from zero and gain a plurality. Look at it this way, if 25% are going to vote R no matter what and 25% are going to vote D no matter what, Bloomberg will have to get 70% or so of the remaining voters. It isn't going to happen.

[Young Drachma]

I don't think Bloomberg would win anything. I think he'd be a more well-heeled version of Ross Perot. People would take him more seriously, but...in the end, all he'd do is cause the GOP to legitimately win the election the same way Perot helped Clinton in '92.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I don't think Bloomberg would win anything. I think he'd be a more well-heeled version of Ross Perot. People would take him more seriously, but...in the end, all he'd do is cause the GOP to legitimately win the election the same way Perot helped Clinton in '92.

Oh, I agree. Do you think he could compete in the meaningless popular vote race? Of course, anything is possible from now until November.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Oh, I agree. Do you think he could compete in the meaningless popular vote race? Of course, anything is possible from now until November.

Nah, I don't think he'll compete in the meaningless popular vote, because as has been said earlier..he doesn't have national appeal, he's relatively unknown despite his cash...and people might -- in an continually declining economy -- feel like rich people like him are the reasons that things suck so bad in America.

I don't believe that, but I could see an Obama or a Hillary trying to inject of the populist rhetoric into the debate and make things interesting.

Frankly, I think Bloomberg is just teasing right now. I can't see what he'd have to gain from running a Presidential campaign knowing that he'd have a very slim shot at pulling off a win.

He might be bored or perhaps he's trying to maximize his legacy. Or perhaps he wants to leverage an Obama defeat in the Democratic primary into a scenario in which Barack becomes his VP candidate and they use Obama's appeal to turn the tables on "politics as usual."

All fanciful stuff to be sure. But we're just speculating and so, I'm just playing with crayons as to what he could possibly be thinking.

Another idea might be that if Romney is the GOP pick, Bloomberg could out CEO him in his sleep and that might take votes from him and if Hillary gets in on the Dem side, that my previously mentioned scenario with Obama might be just the trick to put them in a competitive situation with them, since neither has a super strong base of support.

But again, it'll be more interesting to see the next few months play out because this is so wide open that almost anything can happen as you said.

[Vegas Vic]

Perot enabled Clinton to win a few states that he wouldn't have won in a heads-up race with Bush (e.g. Montana), but exit polling and postmortem research indicates that Clinton would have still won the Electoral College 281 to 257. Perot's 19% of the popular vote did keep Clinton below the 50% mark, but the exit polling reveals that Perot voters would have split roughly 50-50 in the popular vote (with a percentage not even voting) if Perot wasn't in the race.

Before Perot re-entered the race late in the summer of 1992, Clinton had a substantial lead over Bush in every tracking poll. After Perot re-entered, Clinton's numbers dropped, Perot's numbers went up, and Bush stayed relatively static. This shouldn't come as a surprise, because both Perot and Clinton were seen as candidates of "change", while Bush represented the status quo.

Perot's Impact on Clinton's 1992 Victory

[Young Drachma]

New York Times editorial board endorses Hillary Clinton and John McCain for the primaries.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

He'll have to declare pretty soon, won't he?

My understanding is that his "deadline" would be March 5th, as that's the first date in which you can start doing petitions in any state (Texas, in this case) to be put on the ballot as a third candidate.

On the other hand, if he continues to dither, he has the chance to "Fred Thompson" himself out of the race.

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Frankly, I think Bloomberg is just teasing right now. I can't see what he'd have to gain from running a Presidential campaign knowing that he'd have a very slim shot at pulling off a win.

The various pieces that have been done about him all quote "sources close to the Mayor" as saying that he's inclined to enter the race if it looks like the two nominees are both uninspiring to their respective parties.

Of course, uninspiring by what measure?

[st.cronin]

My gut feeling is that Obama will win this nomination. Obama vs. McCain is how I see the general. (This could very well be wishful thinking on my part.)

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

My gut feeling is that Obama will win this nomination. Obama vs. McCain is how I see the general. (This could very well be wishful thinking on my part.)

It is. Romney and Hillary will meet in the general election. No doubt about it. McCain and Romney are now dead even in Florida as Romney is capitalizing on his business background, the terrible economy, and Washington being broken. At the debate last night, everybody was saying how Romney won the economy part hands down while McCain looked like an idiot without the focus being on the Iraq war. Giuliani has fallen off and will probably finish 3rd in Florida, his highest finish yet. He might be done. All indications are that Huckabee is out of money. Obama will win S.C., but Hillary will win big on Super Tuesday. In any closed primary, she has the advantage as does Romney on the Republican side.

[Malificent]

Hilary vs Romney, also known as the "I'm writing a candidate in" vote.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

It is. Romney and Hillary will meet in the general election. No doubt about it. McCain and Romney are now dead even in Florida as Romney is capitalizing on his business background, the terrible economy, and Washington being broken. At the debate last night, everybody was saying how Romney won the economy part hands down while McCain looked like an idiot without the focus being on the Iraq war. Giuliani has fallen off and will probably finish 3rd in Florida, his highest finish yet. He might be done. All indications are that Huckabee is out of money. Obama will win S.C., but Hillary will win big on Super Tuesday. In any closed primary, she has the advantage as does Romney on the Republican side.

Latest Florida poll (Survey USA) is: McCain 30, Romney 28, Giuliani 18, Huckabee 14

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Malificent

Hilary vs Romney, also known as the "I'm writing a candidate in" vote.

+1

[Bubba Wheels]

Romney vs. Hillary. Practically guaranteed now. Love or hate Bill O'Reilly, he did predict this over a year ago.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Whatever your views are of Clinton's former Labor Sec, Robert Reich, one cannot help but be reminded of Clinton's mode of operation. Those old enough to remember had to hear about this (underhanded, snide, machiavelli-like tactics) constantly for 8 years. Not saying the past 7 years were any better but I really hope we don't have more years of this from the Clintons.

C'mon, Bucc. You're above this post, aren't you? I mean, this is just not what this thread is about, is it?

SI

[Buccaneer]

SI, in my dislike for the Clintons? No. People had wondered why some that were beyond college age during the 90s still carry a dislike for them, as well as why Hillary still has such high negatives. Reich nailed it, imo, and there have been many words written recently about their tactics against Obama. That would be the source of much anti-Clinton mentality - from both parties. But you're right. Libertarians should be above such petty partisanship because that's not where the focus should lie. But past feelings and perceptions are hard to get over.

So what do libertarians realistically want? A Congress that is more libertarian-minded. For example, don't do what the Senate is trying to do with the stimulus bill. But in the end, if we can get a split legislature/executive, that'll help.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

SI, in my dislike for the Clintons? No. People had wondered why some that were beyond college age during the 90s still carry a dislike for them, as well as why Hillary still has such high negatives. Reich nailed it, imo, and there have been many words written recently about their tactics against Obama. That would be the source of much anti-Clinton mentality - from both parties. But you're right. Libertarians should be above such petty partisanship because that's not where the focus should lie. But past feelings and perceptions are hard to get over.

So what do libertarians realistically want? A Congress that is more libertarian-minded. For example, don't do what the Senate is trying to do with the stimulus bill. But in the end, if we can get a split legislature/executive, that'll help.

The Clinton post just seemed kindof petty to me.

As for agreeing on politics, and how we rarely do it, I'm with you on this ridiculous stimulus package, tho.

EDIT: I also agree with the split legislature/executive but let's be honest. The Dems in the legislature can never get their stuff together as they splinter and bicker like children when "in power" so it's almost like having a split legislature. Whereas the GOP is really good as having a hammer and getting things done when they're in so it's why a GOP Exec/GOP Cong is about the scariest thing out there.

SI

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Michigan is so firmly Democratic at this point that the highly unpopular Dem Governor Jennifer Granholm easily won re-election in 2006. All the Dems had huge leads in the most recent polls (December) that tested matchups in Michigan. I think there's virtually no chance that Michigan goes red, unless the Dem nominee drives to a rally in a foreign made car and then gets out to take a piss on an American made car.

Today's Detroit News shows Michigan as 3rd worst place to do business (behind NY and Cal) down from 5th just last year. Michissippi can't help but continue to decline, and that perpetuates it going more blue cause the red business-minded folks are leaving in droves.

This was a state that ran Dick DeVoss, west-stater businessman vs. Jennifer Granholm female socialist. Sounding familiar?

[Galaxy]

Looks like Obama wins Carolina by a very impressive margin.

[Young Drachma]

I think Super Tuesday will be the most telling thing now, because I think the questions are the inevitability of Hillary versus whether Obama can "actually pull this off." One would hope that without the smokescreen of race or gender able to give the Clinton's a chance to throw Obama off his game and strengthened by a big win whether he'll able to get back to his original message of hope and bringing people together.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think Super Tuesday will be the most telling thing now, because I think the questions are the inevitability of Hillary versus whether Obama can "actually pull this off." One would hope that without the smokescreen of race or gender able to give the Clinton's a chance to throw Obama off his game and strengthened by a big win whether he'll able to get back to his original message of hope and bringing people together.

Interesting point. How does such a big win that he has today work? Does it have any impact?

[Vegas Vic]

Great win for Obama, and totally expected.

Looking at the upcoming primaries with fresh polling data:

Florida - Clinton +18
Missouri - Clinton +15
Illinios - Obama +29
Arizona - Clinton +10
Tennessee - Clinton +14
California - Clinton +12
Alabama - Clinton +15
Massachusetts - Clinton +37
Georgia - Obama +6
New Jersey - Clinton +18
New York - Clinton +22
Connecticut - Clinton +14
Pennsylvania - Clinton +20

[Buccaneer]

It looks like the Clintons will not be supporting the youth-centric 'Rock the Vote' campaign.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Great win for Obama, and totally expected.

Looking at the upcoming primaries with fresh polling data:

Florida - Clinton +18
Missouri - Clinton +15
Illinios - Obama +29
Arizona - Clinton +10
Tennessee - Clinton +14
California - Clinton +12
Alabama - Clinton +15
Massachusetts - Clinton +37
Georgia - Obama +6
New Jersey - Clinton +18
New York - Clinton +22
Connecticut - Clinton +14
Pennsylvania - Clinton +20

He might make some gains in Missouri, Tennessee, and Alabama, but I don't see him overcoming Hillary in many of those other states. The delegate count is not in his favor.

California - 441
New York - 281
Pennsylvania - 188
Illinois - 185
New Jersey - 127
Massachusetts - 121
Georgia - 103
Missouri - 88
Tennessee - 85
Arizona - 67
Connecticut - 60
Alabama - 60

He's going to be far behind in the delegate race after Super Tuesday, unless he pulls off a stunner in NY or CA, which I don't see happening.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

He might make some gains in Missouri, Tennessee, and Alabama, but I don't see him overcoming Hillary in many of those other states. The delegate count is not in his favor.

California - 441
New York - 281
Pennsylvania - 188
Illinois - 185
New Jersey - 127
Massachusetts - 121
Georgia - 103
Missouri - 88
Tennessee - 85
Arizona - 67
Connecticut - 60
Alabama - 60

He's going to be far behind in the delegate race after Super Tuesday, unless he pulls off a stunner in NY or CA, which I don't see happening.

you're forgetting that the Dems aren't "winner take all" though, they are porportional. So as long as he continues to run strong it can still be close.

[Jas_lov]

And he will keep it close in some states to keep the delegate count close. He'll win Illinois and some other southern states. Hillary will win New York and a lot of the rest. How many of these Super Tuesday states can Obama beat Hillary?

Alaska
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

you're forgetting that the Dems aren't "winner take all" though, they are porportional. So as long as he continues to run strong it can still be close.

Yeah, but even if he's close in the delegate race (which I doubt), she's going to have all the momentum after winning 5 of the 6 biggest states. Even with a South Carolina bump, I don't see him overtaking her in any of those 5 states.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

And he will keep it close in some states to keep the delegate count close. He'll win Illinois and some other southern states. Hillary will win New York and a lot of the rest. How many of these Super Tuesday states can Obama beat Hillary?

Alabama
Arizona
Georgia
Illinois
Minnesota
Missouri
Tennessee

I think this is about it.

[Jas_lov]

7/21 isn't very good. I'm not sure what the delegate count would be if that were the result. Seems like a decent scenario though. Hillary will win in the north east, California, Bill's home state, not sure about the other western states. Some of those states are probably closed primaries/caucuses which will also favor Hillary. Maybe Obama can give Edwards VP or AG in exchange for his endorsement, but that might not change the result too much as Edwards supporters could go either direction. But we'll see if this big win gives Obama any momentum in the polls.

[st.cronin]

It seems to me that Obama has more talent as a campaigner, and has lower negatives even among Democrats than Hillary. Meaning, I think voters are more likely to switch from Hillary to Obama than the other way around. I feel this will be at worst a close contest, and I can easily see Obama pulling ahead.