posted
Michigan and Florida went against DNC rules and moved their primaries to before February 5th because they believe the influence the early states have is unfair, so as a result, their delegates don't get to vote wherever/whenever it is that they vote for the democratic nomination.
Several candidates withdrew their names in support of that decision.
Clinton did not, stating it was unnecessary, according to an older article I just read. And I gather that it is thought that a victory in those states, even though it doesn't count, will be good press for Clinton, especially within those states.
Edit: At least, that's my understanding of it.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obama, Edwards, and Richardson will not be on those ballots.
...why's that? Can they be written in?
Probably, but not meaningfully. I doubt that any statewide write-in*campaign has ever generated more than a thousand or so votes.
Clinton has been the candidate of choice amongst the DemocraticParty professionals*: the high elected officials and DemocraticNationalCommittee members along with a few other party "superdelegates" who control 852 uncommitted convention votes out of 4,367 total. ie X could win 2,183delegates with Y winning 1,332delegates from the state primaries and caucuses, and it is possible for the superdelegates to select Y as the party nominee. Not likely, but possible. Which is why the "smart money" & media originally had Clinton cakewalking to the nomination. Which is why Clinton can afford to violate DemocraticParty rules. Short of committing a serious felony onstage at a public function, she had 2/3rds of the superdelegate votes wrapped up. The only other "crime" which would pull that majority of superdelegate votes from her would be decisive losses to another candidate throughout the primaries and caucuses.
Kucinich, Gravel, and Dodd have been "candidates" only in the sense that they wanted a platform to express their ideas for the direction in which the nation should go. They were never even likely to be considered as VicePresidential running mates. So they could ignore the desires of the superdelegates with impugnity.
Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden needed to cultivate good will from those superdelegates. So they couldn't afford to break the party rules. Hence they could not keep their names on Michigan and Florida primary ballots.
* Except for widows of candidates who died after being selected as their party nominee.
quote: Giuliani's showing in Iowa is only a small surprise. I don't think anyone was expecting him to do better than single digits. His organization was near non-existant, he spent little money there and very little time (relatively) there.
I am not sure how much money Paul invested in Iowa compared to Giuliani, but I do know that they both visited the state 20 times.
The only thing that really surprises me about Iowa is Edwards beating Hillary and Paul not coming in 4th. I still can't wrap my head around the fact that Thompson beat him. Paul had the money, enthusiasm, grass roots, and momentum. Thompson was just meh.
I thought Giuliani would beat Thompson. I never thought Thompson would be so close to McCain. At least the pro war republican field will be divided enough to give Paul more time. I hope he gets third in NH.
EDIT: I really thought 3rd and 4th would be a battle between McCain and Paul with McCain probably winning the third spot. ..Still scratching head about Thompson.... Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Des Moines Register polls...under-estimated Paul's support by 2% - the same amount it underestimated Huckabee's."
Not exactly. 2% off from 10% is a 20%error. 2% off from 34% is less than a 6%error. The Iowa results combined with the NewHampshire polls give even stronger indication that FoxNews will be acting as an agit-prop wing of the RepublicanNationalCommittee when they exclude RonPaul from their pre-NewHampshire-primary debate/interview.
posted
According to the New York Times, only three Republican candidates fully carried any Iowa counties. All of the counties were split between Huckabee and Romney except Jefferson County, which went to Ron Paul.
Of course, aside from the fact that Huckabee won, all the other results are meaningless statistics. Still, Paul did something that McCain, Giuliani and Thompson were unable to. Good show!
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Michigan and Florida went against DNC rules and moved their primaries to before February 5th because they believe the influence the early states have is unfair, so as a result, their delegates don't get to vote wherever/whenever it is that they vote for the democratic nomination.
I'm still confused. Do the votes from these states count? How can an election where several major candidates aren't on the ballot even be factored into the national scheme of things?
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Votes from Michigan and Florida, for all intents and purposes, don't count for Democrats, only Republicans. The delegates won't be counted at the nominating convention until AFTER the candidate is chosen, at which point the eventual nominee will likely force the DNC to let the delegates be sat.
But the point is really moot. Since only Hillary has her name actually on the ballots in Florida and Michigan, the votes are useless, since you can't democratically choose anyone else. I don't think Hillary will get a big bump from either contest, I really don't. Any news of her victory, "Hillary won with 99% of the vote, amazing!", will be overshadowed by the Republican vote, which actually matters, and they won't forget to add the cavaet that she ran virtually unopposed in those two states. Hopefully the media will comment on how dumb it was of the DNC to dock those delegates.
Florida will big huge for Giuliani. Other than that, not much of a factor I don't think.
Tomorrow night is Wyoming's Republican caucus.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To extend on Lyhawn's answer to Dragon, the reason most democratic candidates can be kept off the ballots is because it's a primary. Though state and county governments run the vote collecting, the parties set the rules for their delegates. And the parties want to keep the early primary states in front of the rest.
I suspect that the early primary system is going to crumble soon. It's already in disarray this year with so many states moving up their primary dates. I bet by 2012 it dissolves.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually like Thompson. I suppose his quiet message that we should be looking forward to issues like Social Security before it becomes a crisis is resonating with people. I'm in Florida so I'm stuck with what's on the candidates websites to go by, but I can't image the actor is uncharismatic. His highest polling numbers were in the 20s even. For a five way race, he's doing just fine so far.
/soapbox
Completely unrelated to that, does anyone know which of the candidates OSC was referencing in his last essay? I think the second one is Guiliani and the third Huckabee, but other than that I'm lost and curious.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll take a stab at it. Quoted and numbered for ease of reference:
quote: 1) Will it be the person who obviously took bribes but simply denies it?
2) The person who used public money to conceal an adulterous relationship?
3) The person who uses religious bigotry as a tool to bring down a frontrunner, even as he claims to stand for constitutional values?
4) The person who claims to champion the poor, but treats ordinary people with disdain when he happens to run into them?
5) The person who kind of wants to be president but doesn't want to do any of the work required to actually get the office?
With the caveat that I don't necessarily agree with his descriptions of the candidates, I think they're as follows. 1) Clinton 2) Guilliani 3) Huckabee 4) Edwards 5) Obama
I could be wrong, but those seem to make the most sense and I don't think he'd bother with on 2nd-tier candidates in this.
posted
Huh. Obama's campaigning his butt off. I'm also hesitant about his lack of national experience, but I certainly wouldn't say he's not doing the work.
Clinton and Edwards I wouldnt know about, not having paid much attention to the Dems yet. I'll just worry about who they give me come the general election.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Threads, that was powerful. Thanks for sharing. It's definitely an interesting, and important, perspective on Obama's candidacy.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow Threads. Thank you for that link. I am totally one of those young people for whom the tragedies he cites are just history book facts, not scary possible futures. Add to that the fact that my skin is white, and the fears he described would never have otherwise crossed my mind.
I saw Obama speak tonight, along with Clinton, Kucinich and Richardson, and the fear that one of the 3,000 people there would even think of harming him never even occurred to me. Having read that though, I'm nervous.
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:With the caveat that I don't necessarily agree with his descriptions of the candidates, I think they're as follows. 1) Clinton 2) Guilliani 3) Huckabee 4) Edwards 5) Obama
I could be wrong, but those seem to make the most sense and I don't think he'd bother with on 2nd-tier candidates in this.
Enigmatic, I don't think that number five refers to Obama, but to Fred Thompson.
"The person who kind of wants to be president but doesn't want to do any of the work required to actually get the office" sums up the criticism of Thompson's "sort of" campaign.
To me, the key phrase was "kind of wants to be president." That's Thompson.
There doesn't seem to be a lack of enthusiasm about that on Obama's part. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was afraid number 4 meant Obama, though I don't get that from him. 5 is definitely Thompson.
I overheard someone saying they thought Obama was just another political phoney at a party the other day, but I think they were the sort of person who thinks being displeased with everything is a mark of great intelligence.
I really want to believe aspectre's analysis of what a corrupt villain Hillary Clinton is. Though, maybe not everyone reads it that way. Maybe some people read it and say "you go, girlfriend!"
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: To extend on Lyhawn's answer to Dragon, the reason most democratic candidates can be kept off the ballots is because it's a primary. Though state and county governments run the vote collecting, the parties set the rules for their delegates. And the parties want to keep the early primary states in front of the rest.
I suspect that the early primary system is going to crumble soon. It's already in disarray this year with so many states moving up their primary dates. I bet by 2012 it dissolves.
I don't know about the Republican side, but there are already some winds of change on the Democratic side. Several of the leadership officials in the DNC have proposed adding several new states to the front loaded part of the election cycle. The problem is that New Hampshire will continue to push their primary out in front, regardless of how many new states are added. Change IS coming, it's just really hard to have any idea of what it will look like when it gets here, but the fact that so many states have moved up their primaries, and that Florida and Michigan sacrified their votes this time around for the sake of change, I think 2012 will look like a whole new nominating process. New Hampshire and Iowa are powerful, in ways that allowed them to more or less shut Michigan and Florida (amazing considering the vast different in real power, political and economic that exists there) out of the process entirely when they tried to horn in. That won't stand. Michigan and Florida are too important, and I don't think they'll be the only two to move out in front.
Early voting states won't disappear, they serve a useful function, but New Hampshire and Iowa are about to see their special position radically altered.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, my biggest fear about Obama is exactly that: that he might be just another political phony. He hasn't been in politics long enough for me to be sure that he actually has the principles he claims to have, or that he can stick to them once he has to play politics; heck, he's compromised them enough during the campaign that I'm a bit concerned. I'd still rather vote for someone who may or may not have principles vs. someone I'm sure doesn't have them, though, and it looks like that'll eventually be the choice.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I agree with everybody's analysis here that #5 is more likely Thompson than Obama. I was thinking it was just another "inexperienced" jab, but what you're all saying about it referring to Thompson's campaign makes much more sense.
AvidReader: I'm guessing #1 is supposed to be Clinton because there was a fundraising scandal a while back (which never got much traction because she gave the money back after they found out the guy who raised it for her had broke the law). I'm pretty sure #2 is supposed to be Edwards just because he's the one who's been campaigning the most on championing the poor and helping lower class Americans, etc. I don't really know where the "treats ordinary people with disdain" part comes into that, but people like to attack Edwards for things like the $400 haircut or living in a nice house.
quote:I'd still rather vote for someone who may or may not have principles vs. someone I'm sure doesn't have them, though, and it looks like that'll eventually be the choice.
That seems like a very odd approach to the situation, Tom.
What good is there in choosing, as an executive leader, someone you know you cannot trust, vs. someone you wish you could trust but don't know for sure?
I think there are things you must trust Hillary on (jumping to that conclusion). You trust her to be guided by her pocketbook. Since I don't have a noticeable pocketbook, I don't really see a lot of gain for me in that.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He hasn't been in politics long enough for me to be sure that he actually has the principles he claims to have, or that he can stick to them once he has to play politics
See, to me that's a positive. It means two things: 1. He's still idealistic enough to think he can get things done that rank and file establishment types wouldn't bother trying. 2. He's not as beholden to people as other candidates are.
But I'd have to side with Tom's thought on this one. You've got a point pooka, with the whole 'trust the devil you know' thing, maybe it's just me but I still choose the guy who you can hope has those principles rather than the guy you know doesn't. At least then you have a chance.
Wyoming
Romney currently leads the vote with more than 50%. He's seconded by Duncan Hunter at 21% and Thompson at 17%.
To be fair, the three of them, plus Ron Paul, are the only candidates who even bothered doing a little campaigning in the state. Romney will win, and he has to hope that he might just get a tiny bump of free media out of it before heading into New Hampshire on Tuesday.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Romney currently leads the vote with more than 50%. He's seconded by Duncan Hunter at 21% and Thompson at 17%.
To be fair, the three of them, plus Ron Paul, are the only candidates who even bothered doing a little campaigning in the state. Romney will win, and he has to hope that he might just get a tiny bump of free media out of it before heading into New Hampshire on Tuesday.
I'm surprised Paul isn't doing better. From the coverage I saw, he was the only one with a significant footprint, besides Romney. Maybe Paul's anti-war message didn't play well on the plateau.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I thought I'd add, in it's own separate post, that for Michigan voters, DO NOT write in Obama or Edwards' names on January 15th during our primary. Neither Obama or Edwards chose to put their names into consideration for write-ins, which means if you write in their names, your ballot will be THROWN OUT. Michigan's Democratic party suggests that you vote "uncommitted" or just vote Republican.
Some are now saying that even though Hillary will certainly take the state, it's her margin of victory that will matter now. If Obama and Edwards supporters vote uncomittied in large numbers, and she gets less than 50%, it will be embarassing for her. I was considering not voting at all, especially now that I can't even write Obama's name in, but now I think I will, to vote uncommitted. It's basically a vote against Hillary, but at this point, it's the best thing I can do to support Obama. I won't feel good about it. I'm still pissed that Obama gave in, but I guess if he hadn't, he probably would have suffered in Iowa for it. But I've decided that Michigan will have to suffer this year, and that was a deliberate choice we made. It's not a sacrifice unless you give something up, so we'll do it, and I'll make the best of it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What good is there in choosing, as an executive leader, someone you know you cannot trust, vs. someone you wish you could trust but don't know for sure?
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. We seem to be in agreement. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
New Hampshire on Tuesday night. I didn't catch the debates tonight, so if anyone wants to post a review or breakdown...go for it. Hillary and Obama are tied at 33% in New Hamphsire (look to the Independent vote to break that tie in Obama's favor). McCain leads in NH at 33%, trailed by Romney at 27% and Giuliani in third ahead of Huckabee with 14%. Paul, Huckabee and Giuliani will vie for third place. Thompson and Hunter barely register on the poll.
It's hard to guess now, but I'd say Democrats go 1. Obama 2. Hillary and 3. Edwards, while Republicans go 1. McCain 2. Romney 3. Giuliani, but I'll add that it's very possible that Ron Paul will take third (a must win for him). I'd like to say that Huckabee will get a big bump from Iowa, but his victory was artificial, created by evangelical Christians, and that bloc doesn't really exist in the same way in New Hampshire.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Paul I think will be hard to predict from polls. The independent swing in NH (independents vote in either parties' primary) makes it hard to handicap too, at least the 2nd tier candidates.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
if the superdelegates from other states pick Hillary at the DNC because she's their bud that won't push Obama out of the race, it just means it will become a three way race between the republican candidate, Hilary, and Obama running on an independent ticket. Since this would syphon a huge part of Hillary's vote away, it would probably result in a republican victory, but Obama could potentially pull enough votes away from the republicans to actually win by a margin similar to what he earned in Iowa. of course if he failed it would end his political career, but if he doesn't take the chance he'll never have the cultural zeitgeist behind him that he's achieving this year, he'll be an also ran, probably an appointee to the supreme court at some point (if hillary gets elected it'd be a very savvy move for her to appoint him when the first of the four justices that will retire under a democratic president decide to retire.) I think Obama won't really have another chance to run for president again with a realistic shot at winning the primary so he probably should run as an independent if necessary--strike why the iron is hot.
frankly if the superdelegates pick hillary because they're fearful Obama is unelectable (because he's black) they're just as racist (if not more so) than the bogeymonster racists they fear will materialize for the vote.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enjoyed that link, threads, but I wasn't certain what this meant:
quote:I relaxed for the first time in many minutes, finishing my drink and looking at the post-speech coverage of Olbermann trying not to laugh at the shit-scared White man writ large, Chris Matthews sitting next to him, all darting eyes and afraid of what is on the horizon.
First and foremost the most recent polling data shows Obama has opened up a double digit ten point lead over Hillary in New Hampshire.
Obama: 39% Hillary: 29% Edwards: 16%
The +/- is 5%, which pretty solidly puts them in those spots. The poll didn't specify if the respondents were registered Democrat or Republican, but other sources I've read say that Independents are expected to vote overwhelmingly Democrat in this election for various reasons that I can go into if anyone would like. And if Iowa is any indication of the independent vote, Obama might win this one by a landslide. Edwards on the other hand has only been sinking in the polls.
As an aside that poll specifically asked Independents to name which primary they will vote in. The percentages have wildly varied in the last two weeks. As recently as a week ago 63%/37% (D/R) was the result. As of yesterday that had swayed to 56%/44% (D/R). I believe closer to the 60% margin personally, but, it's hard to say with such a small pool of people asked.
The race is on for third place. Huckabee surged ahead of Giuliani, but Paul is in the mix. Remember that in 2000, Bush beat McCain on Republican voters, but independents overwhelmingly came out for McCain. That isn't going to happen this year. His victory, if he wins, will be narrower I think.
An interesting stat or two from the most recent poll: When Democrats were asked which candidate was most inspiring, Obama won with a whopping 60% of the vote, trailed by Clinton with 18%. When asked which is more important for a candidate to bring, experience, change, or neither, 61% said change, 29% experience and 10% said no opinion. When asked who would best bring change, 41% to 28% said Obama over Clinton.
And here's a HUGE number, I think a very, very telling number about electability:
Asking Republicans what their favorible/unfavorable response is to Democratic candadiates they responded as follows:
It looks to me, according to people in New Hampshire, that McCain is the biggest threat to Democratic candidates, and Obama is to Republicans. Remember it's not a national poll, though I'd love to see one with THOSE questions specifically asked. And there is still a bloc of undecideds as of today.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: but other sources I've read say that Independents are expected to vote overwhelmingly Democrat in this election for various reasons that I can go into if anyone would like
quote: but other sources I've read say that Independents are expected to vote overwhelmingly Democrat in this election for various reasons that I can go into if anyone would like
go right ahead
Sorry to butt in, but they will vote in large part because Republicans have had control of the white house for 8 years now, and people want a changing of the guard.
Its extremely likely that if a Democrat IS elected, that eventually the house and senate will fall back into Republican control.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure on the dates, but I think a republican controlled congress is rather the exception.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
werent the dems in control of congress for like 16 years before 2000?
IP: Logged |
posted
Other way around. The Republicans got control of congress (and a lot of state legislatures and governors) in 1994.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its extremely likely that if a Democrat IS elected, that eventually the house and senate will fall back into Republican control.
Certainly not in the 2008 elections. History suggests that the coat tail effect is quite strong so republicans have virtually no chance of winning either the house or the senate if they loose the Presidency.
What happens in 2010 will depend very strongly on what the winners do after 2008.
I guess if you give "eventually" a very broad interpretation then you are very likely correct.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My memory is that Clinton lost the congress at midterm, and bush lost it at the end of his first term. My memory is that Bush I and Reagan never had congress on their side.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, yeah, I went link hunting and never came back on this. It seemed like since WWII, there had not been a republican congress until Clinton. Maybe I'm thinking of Watergate. But people used to cite a Republican congress as evidence that Clinton was no good -- kind of how they are now talking that way about Bush.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The decision of a running mate is typically who can complement the Presidential candidate the best in the election; strong where he is weak. Would Edwards get Obama any more support in the general election? Richardson would be a good balance; experience, western state, Hispanic vote.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Oh, yeah, I went link hunting and never came back on this. It seemed like since WWII, there had not been a republican congress until Clinton. Maybe I'm thinking of Watergate. But people used to cite a Republican congress as evidence that Clinton was no good -- kind of how they are now talking that way about Bush.
Personally, I always thought that Clinton and the Republican congress was a good combination (up until impeachment hearings bogged everything down) in that they had to work together and compromise on stuff so that neither party could just steamroll through their full agenda. I had this smug little theory that having congress majority and the president being different parties was the best situation.
Bush with a republican congress seemed to support my theory, as then only republican priorities got done and there weren't really checks and balances. But then Bush with a democratic congress has been ruining my theory, as now very little is getting done, instead of the compromises for shared middle-ground.
Mind you, I don't know if that means Clinton was better than Bush, or the 90s Republican congress was better than the 2000s Democratic congress. Or both, or neither. It was just a sort of layman's view of things.
posted
A Republican controlled Congress would do their best to stymie a Democratic president, that I believe, but it's not a real threat. The odds of the Republicans taking over Congress are like a billion to one. When you look at the state by state races for the Senate, the Democrats have a good chance of picking up another five or so seats. More Republican seats are up for grabs (by a 2 to 1 margin I think) than Democratic, and early polling data suggests Democrats will be highly competitive in states they are traditionally shut out of. In the House they are poised to net a couple of seats as well, maybe more than a dozen. The only Democratic seat truly in danger is that of Mary Landreiu in Louisiana, which some see as fallout from Katrina. Other than that it's smooth sailing.
Blayne -
The reason many expect the Democrats to gain so many Independent votes goes beyond the fact that there really aren't THAT many independents in New Hampshire. Maybe only 10% of the state's voters are actually independents, and the others are really Republicans and Democrats that just aren't registered, and they are also a lot less likely to actually vote. Next, 1/4th of New Hampshire's voters this year are new voters. Some of those come from kids reaching voting age, but a large bloc, 80,000, are people who moved into New Hampshire from out of state, and a large bloc of THOSE, come from the heavily Democratic Boston area.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It's definitely an interesting, and important, perspective on Obama's candidacy.
