quote:Strangely, I'm thinking the pair of differing mechanisms, both with good track records, that still largely agree, are at least in the general ballpark of predicting huge, near-nationwide effects.
Yeah, I know. It's kind of cute.
quote:Hillary, despite claims I see on Hatrack, will energize a lot of people on the Left to head to the polls who might also traditionally stay home.
posted
No, Bush haters. Again, you're overestimating hatred of Hillary and underestimating hatred of the Republican party. Measure 7 years of solid crap that Bush and the Republican congress (six of those years) has pulled against however many years of Republican smear against Hillary. Why do you think Democrats are getting such ridiculous gobs of money? Republicans have bungled too much in the last seven years, and Democrats have NOT forgotten that. They've got the fire right now.
You have to look at the trends. Rallies for Democratic candidates, even the way back in the back guys like Biden are reaching into the hundreds for attendees, numbers the Republican frontrunners would die for. Democrats in 06 burned through the midwest, taking House seats, Senate seats, flipping legislatures and gubanatorial races.
And you're worried about turnout? Bah. I think Obama will have a much easier time of it in the end than she will, due to, like you said, the fact that he doesn't invoke the same controversy, but the "I hate Hillary" club is given a much bigger microphone than I think they truly represent in the electorate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. Hillary, despite claims I see on Hatrack, will energize a lot of people on the Left to head to the polls who might also traditionally stay home.
I just don't believe this. I think 99% of those who would go vote for Hillary would pull the lever for Obama instead. I don't think this is true in reverse. Obama has FAR more pull with the moderates and independents, from what I can see.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: we might get a chance to find out. Care to place some sort of wager, conditional on Hillary receiving the Democratic nomination?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth, I think that the hatred of Hilary hasn't been properly measured either. This is just my little area of Kansas speaking, but around here, Hilary would motivate more Republicans to vote against her. I'm not convinced by the polls, yet. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Well, you realize I said "the Left" and not the center. Regardless, she's moderate herself, and a long campaign, especially given her resources, will hammer that effect home and probably change some minds.
But I'll repeat that, the point you didn't address, my second one, makes part of this conversation fun but moot for the moment. Who is she running against? You can't predict Hillary will lose without knowing who she is running against, because almost none of the current crop of Republican candidates will be able to rally the entire party. Single issue voters about abortion WILL stay home, or go third party if Giuliani is the candidate. And that's a biig chunk that was never going to vote for ANY Democrat. He has the lead nationally right now, dominating the others, it all depends on what they can do in national polls before HyperTuesday.
The thing is, we know all about her baggage right here and right now, because Republicans have been harping on it for years. Hillary has nowhere to go but up. Giuliani (and then the others, though I don't know the specifics for Romney and McCain (both will get hit with heavy flipflopper labels) I think has nowhere to go but down. He has more baggage than an airport, and it'll ALL come out during the campaign. He'll get hammered on a wide array of traditionally Republican issues, and even the issues he's supposed to be good at like security, he'll be hammered on for his decision making lapses in judgement during his tenure as NYC Mayor. Huckabee will turn off just as many moderates as Hillary will.
You see where I'm going with this, it's just not enough to say Hillary will lose the election with her name alone. There are way too many other factors that cannot be dismissed.
PS, neither here nor there, but we'll find out today if Obama's suppoters will even come out for HIM, let alone for her. The majority of his support is first time voters, youth, and independents. In other words, if he can't get these people who traditionally don't vote at all to come out and caucus for him tonight, then it doesn't much matter how much lip service they pay him, he'll be left in the dust. He's experimenting with tempermental electoral forces.
Tstorm -
Kansas would still go Republican in 2008 regardless of who the Democratic candidate is. Turnout there is a moot point. It's the battleground states that matter, ones where there is a reasonable chance of the state going one way or the other.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I'll repeat that, the point you didn't address, my second one, makes part of this conversation fun but moot for the moment. Who is she running against? You can't predict Hillary will lose without knowing who she is running against,
My contention was not that she would lose. My argument is that Obama would win easily, while Clinton will be a tough race.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Why the Richardson hate?
I really can't speak much for the others, but it is not really "hate" here. After Romney, Huckabee, Guiliani, and Clinton got out (each of which I had major objections based on various threads here) I'm going on little more than wikipedia summaries of each of the candidates positions.
Problem is, each of the remaining democratic candidates seem rather opaque to me, that is their differences on the issues seem rather minor by this point.
My only objection to Bill Richardson is his support for "affirmative action policies in government contracts" and the death penalty.
I am very willing to be convinced otherwise and would appreciate info about the remaining democratic candidates and how they stack up against each other.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I wish we could have negative votes at the polls too!
YES! With the added benefit that some would be confused by them, and cancel out their own intended votes.
I'll be casting my "+" vote in person in a few hours, so I base the following purely on whose TV commercials most damage my calm:
-2 Dodd -0 Romney
I'd have split them, but (thankfully) Romney is already off the island. Just needed to vent - it's the very last day of caucus commercials!
Posts: 16 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lobo: This is confusing... I better go read page one and two...
Oops - sorry if my non-standards-compliant vote was the cause of your confusion!
I had intended to vote one negative against each of Romney and Dodd, because they have the most irritating TV commercials (I live in Iowa). Romney has already lost (this) poll, so I shifted "his" point to Dodd.
Trust me, Dodd's commercials are really, really, really irritating.
I didn't cast a positive vote, because I'll be doing that in a few hours "for real".
I love the idea of this "game". Very non-damaging to my calm. Posts: 16 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Kansas would still go Republican in 2008 regardless of who the Democratic candidate is. Turnout there is a moot point. It's the battleground states that matter, ones where there is a reasonable chance of the state going one way or the other.
Yes, I'm already aware of this. I was just agreeing with Tom Davidson. The undercurrent of dislike for Hillary is underestimated. I've witnessed a bit of this firsthand, but even though it's purely anecdotal, my 'hunch' is that this dislike is relatively widespread.
I don't need any further explanation of why my vote in Kansas is purely symbolic and absolutely meaningless.
And this is why I'm only in this thread for the voting, so without further adieu:
Totals after my vote: 25 Barack Obama 10 Joe Biden 7 Chris Dodd 6 John Edwards 4 Dennis Kucinich 2 Bill Richardson
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Richardson's a terrible extemporaneous speaker, and I disagree with him on several issues, albeit none of which are particularly hot-button. However, he's got foreign policy experience that makes the rest of the Democratic field look like infants in comparison. I have a very strong feeling that, if Edwards or Obama takes the nomination, Richardson will be among the top picks for VP. In a perfect world, they'd get Mark Warner (former governor of Virginia) instead, but he's prepping his Senate campaign as we speak and may not want to play second fiddle.
If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm guessing she'll tap Obama for VP. Might as well harness his wild popularity among younger voters to the baby boomer-led Clinton bandwagon.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm guessing she'll tap Obama for VP. Might as well harness his wild popularity among younger voters to the baby boomer-led Clinton bandwagon.
I think that'd be a terrible idea. They'd get hammered on the "inexperience" front (with her 6 years of Senate and his 2). I think she'd do much better to choose either a seasoned diplomat (maybe one of Warren Christopher's deputies, or someone like Tony Lake), or at least a multi-term centrist state-governor like Mike Easley. Or she could take Richardson and get both in one shot.
Assuming she receives the nomination, Clinton will already be facing the problems inherent in moving from the Senate to the Presidency (something no one's done since JFK, and I don't know who before him); she'll need someone with a slick executive sheen to lend her candidacy management credibility. I think Obama's downside of inexperience trumps any upside due to youth voters and idealists.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think Obama's downside of inexperience trumps any upside due to youth voters and idealists.
The thing that has occured to me about Obama's apparent lack of expierence is that it might not necessarily be a bad thing. Not necessarily a good thing either.
He's had expierence in politics, so he obviously knows how things work. But he hasn't been around as long as some of these other people. Hasn't been playing the game.
I can't say for sure. But I would think that less political expierence would also lead to fewer friends in high places and thus less corruption.
Just a thought I had. Not necessarily true. And not necessarily a way to defend him getting the nomination. Just a thought I had.
Edit:
Just wanted to add that I think a lack of expierence is usually a negative thing. We'll see. If he gets the nod and gets elected, he might be the young and radical sort of leader we need. I think most people can agree that we need something different than what the last few elections have provided.
I think I would almost rather see someone else get elected and then have Obama run again during the next election. This would give him some more time to test the waters. Prove himself. Maybe prior expierence in a presidential campaign would be good for him. *shrugs*
I'm not a political commentator.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PenguinsOnTV: But I would think that less political expierence would also lead to fewer friends in high places and thus less corruption.
This was a major theme among Obama's supporters tonight. You're not alone in this view.
I see this groundswell against corruption as a great sign of hope (far more significant to me than Obama's candidacy). It was a great relief to hear such a wide age spread express the same concern. Corruption is the bane of democracies.
Another popular theme among almost all participants was a loathing for Clinton. Several stated they were Republicans who had crossed party lines just to vote against her. Several others said they would definitely not vote Democratic in November if Clinton won. That was a consistent theme during about two and a half hours of chatting.
Figured I'd do my "+" vote to correspond to my caucus vote (as you've heard, it's a multi-round thing, so one's first choice doesn't necessarily get one's vote): +1 Edwards
Posts: 16 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm guessing she'll tap Obama for VP. Might as well harness his wild popularity among younger voters to the baby boomer-led Clinton bandwagon.
When was the last time someone pulled in a primary contestant as VP and won? I just really don't think that is how it works. [edited for spleen]
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm guessing she'll tap Obama for VP. Might as well harness his wild popularity among younger voters to the baby boomer-led Clinton bandwagon.
When was the last time someone pulled in a primary contestant as VP and won? I just really don't think that is how it works. [edited for spleen]
Reagan did it 1980, despite Bush famously deriding Reaganomics as "voodoo economics". Kennedy in 1960 also did it.
Bush might have, if Cheney hadn't picked himself as the best VP candidate.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My Votes: +1 Obama -1 Richardson -1 Kucinich
resulting in:
30 Barack Obama 7 Joe Biden (Dropped out) 7 John Edwards 5 Chris Dodd (Dropped out) 2 Bill Richardson
Dead: Dennis Kucinich
Obama is now the only candidate with a double-digit score. Richardson is still hanging on, but barely. With Biden and Dodd dropping out, we're left with:
30 Barack Obama 7 John Edwards 2 Bill Richardson
This game's almost over.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sen. Hillary Clinton's candidacy is really in trouble. Sen. Barack Obama is attracting a lot of young independent voters, but he is too extreme a liberal to win in the general election. America always shuns extremes.
I was surprised that the man with the Hickish, Mark Twainish name (Huckabee) won going away over Romney in Iowa. If he shows similar strength elsewhere, besides where Evangelical Christians dominate the electorate, he could win nomination.
But Sen. John McCain, the old "Come-back Kid," is at it again. Polls say he has way surpassed Romney in New Hampshire. What has really helped him is being right about Iraq--he favored the "Surge" when the president announced it, and pointed out he had criticized the president before for not sending in enough troops, and now everyone sees that the Surge is working. Even the liberal media pundits admit it. The news out of Baghdad has been really good, with weddings and night life returning peacefully to the streets, with the Baghdad Zoo reopening, and with the Sunnis so clearly turning against Al Qaeda, knowing there are abundant American troops to back them up.
Everyone thought President Bush and his Iraq policy would be a liability for the Republican Party in this election, but as the news out of Iraq steadily improves, the "Bush factor" may wind up being a plus, especially for Republicans like Senator McCain.
Gov. Huckabee may win nomination and the election, but McCain now has a real chance. The odds are becoming long for Romney.
[ January 06, 2008, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny thing, if you look at some of what Romney has been touting lately (alternative energy, universal healthcare, more money for education), he starts to sound more and more like what Republicans keep calling radical left wing policies.
Obama is nowhere near extreme. He's right in line with moderate Democratic policies, just like the other main two candidates.
And it's those same independet voters that Obama is wooing that are really going to hurt McCain. How many of those polls include Democrats AND Republicans in the same poll? Data I've seen shows that Independents in New Hampshire will swing overwhelmingly Democrat this time around, and McCain will lose the push he got in 2000 to beat Bush. Remember Bush won the Republican vote, it was Independents that gave it to McCain. His lead isn't as automatic as you might think.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sen. Obama's policies--economic, foreign policy, everything--are extremely liberal to anyone except a liberal. Same as Sen. Clinton's.
Lyrhawn does raise a good question about who will appeal to young independent voters more--McCain or Obama. Sen. McCain's main strength in 2000 was independents.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could it not be argued that those meanings are more similar than one might think, or that one is actually derived from the other on a fundamental level - that any "contradictions" are actually misinterpretations of certain ideas or concepts?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sen. Obama's policies--economic, foreign policy, everything--are extremely liberal to anyone except a liberal. Same as Sen. Clinton's.
Okay, so if Obama and Clinton's policies are "extremely" liberal, what are Kucinich's policies? Do you have to make up an entirely new word now or do you just spell it "XXXtremely liberal"?
posted
rollainm, I mean that on the conservative (A)- liberal (Z) spectrum, US politics run from A to about G.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: rollainm, I mean that on the conservative (A)- liberal (Z) spectrum, US politics run from A to about G.
That may be true if you consider only Europe and the US, but if you include the rest of the world, I would guess the US would find itself pretty squarely from (K)-(S).
<edit>*caveat: I don't find the whole liberal/conservative classification system all that enlightening. How would you classify, for instance, China? Communism seems like a pretty "liberal" economic policy, but certainly the government severely curtails individual liberties. This may be more what rollainm was getting at.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...possible. I guess I am mostly considering "developed" nations and those we would consider to be democratic.
edit: I was referring to economically liberal. Capitalist - socialist.
Though I think that in most developed nations, social policy is also less conservative except for the theocracies (mostly Muslim, perhaps Israel, and I suppose the Vatican). Though there is considerably more variety there. A lot of places (Ireland for example) are experiencing a huge and fast swing towards being less conservative.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
