U.S. Elections 2008

[Roy G Biv]

I'll quickly point out that you're asking the SD's to nominate the candidate with over 100 less pledged delegates and less popular vote. Such an act will pretty much splinter the party in two, and Democrats should stop assuming they'll win all the states they normally would.

Suggesting Hillary would have an "easy ride" to winning Ohio makes no sense. She only beat Obama by 10 pts, and that was during Nafta-gate.

Meanwhile...

The increasingly charged Democratic race for the White House appears to be hurting Hillary Clinton significantly more than Barack Obama, a just-released poll suggests.

According to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the New York senator's personal approval rating has dropped markedly, and those that hold a negative view of her have reached 48 percent — the highest in that poll since March 2001. Just 37 percent now have a positive view of Clinton — down from 45 percent two weeks ago.

Meanwhile, in head-to-head matchups Clinton and Obama remain deadlocked for the nomination, each drawing 45 percent among Democratic voters. Both are also statistically tied with John McCain in matchups: Clinton is two points behind the Arizona senator while Obama is two points ahead — both within the poll’s margin of error of 4 percentage points.

Hillary Clinton’s argument that she is the Democratic contender best-equipped to win the “big states” the party needs to capture the White House took a slight hit Thursday with the release of a new survey that seems to suggest Barack Obama is better-positioned to win California – a state where she won last month’s primary contest.

A new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California indicates if the election were held today, Obama would hold a 49-40 percent advantage over McCain in a hypothetical fall matchup there. Clinton’s 43-40 percent edge over McCain falls just outside the survey’s margin of error. Fifty-seven percent of independent voters in the state have a favorable view of Obama, while just 35 percent say they like Clinton.
The survey of 2,002 California voters was conducted by telephone from March 11-18, and has a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Independents are going to play a big role in November; Obama will be much more competitive in this regard.

 

[Brandon716]

That's a very long, and somewhat delusional post. I'll get to it when I have some time. Meanwhile...



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Its not delusional, its the way things are. You're free to respond and say whatever you want, that will probably be my last detailed post on this issue as I am caring less and less about this election as the time goes on.

And your quote on the unlikeable score for Hillary isn't news to me. Neither is the national poll where they are all super close. A straight national poll takes nothing into consideration of the electoral map. Hillary is hated immensely in Kansas, Texas, Idaho, and Arizona.

We already know this, its nothing new.

She's well liked in certain parts of the nation where electoral votes matter.

Part of the reason why Obama's unlikeable score is in the 30-35% category while Hillary's is in the 45-50% category is because - believe it or not - many people simply don't know a lot about Obama. Many general election voters haven't even started paying attention to the election. When it comes to general election time, see his "unlikeable" numbers go up.

Hillary is known by everyone due to her history.

You are free to call me delusional all you want, but the fact is that Al Gore and John Kerry were never elected President, now were they? And Kerry is hardly the most unlikeable candidate, he was all positive just like Obama and wouldn't let any bad speeches about Bush be present at the DNC convention in 2004. He was "too good" to make Bush a centerpiece of the campaign, and he got beat by a lousy 2% popular vote count and a more significant loss in the electoral college.

If you can't learn from previous mistakes, oh well. The Democrats are headed for another loss. John McCain is going to be our next President.

I could care less if Hillary rips McCain apart, he's a Republican and the nation doesn't need another Republican President. We don't need an election where Obama sits around, above the fray, and just lets the Republican machine underneath McCain rip him apart.

I think you're seeing the same situation in Canada right now: Stephane Dion, a fantastic individual, being beaten in the polls because he is too nice and too weak to take a stand.

These people aren't politicians who can lead or win.

And you ask why I support Hillary? I'm tired of Republicans ruling this nation and destroying the world.

That's why.

Politics is a sport, and if you can't fight to win, you'll lose every round. Thinking too highly of one's self or just thinking you're better than others won't get you elected in any nation. You have to make a case and fight to win.

I like Obama, and I can't repeat that enough. This isn't about whether or not I LIKE Obama, its about how to stop the Republican machine and get some results. Otherwise we'll be bitching for 4 more years hoping what could have been.

Do you want to look at this for 4-8 more years?

Let McCain speak for himself.

McCain on Iraq:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRAshmSdps

McCain on the Economy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqGWTh_NZ-0

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaR1CnfyrEo

 

[unimaginative2]

You make good points, Brandon. Just a couple things I'd add, though. Hillary's successes in states like New York and California are just as irrelevant in the American system as Obama's successes in places like Utah. Both of them will go Democrat regardless of who is the nominee. What matters are states like Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Florida, Ohio, etc. Swing states. I agree with you that Clinton has a better chance in Florida and perhaps Ohio, but Obama has a good chance in a lot of mid-sized states, particularly in the west, which combine to even more electoral votes. They did that big poll of all the states and how they would turn out in November with either as nominee. Obama won more electoral votes, because he carried states like Washington and Oregon which Clinton lost. Those two combined are much as big as Ohio.

 

[Brandon716]

You make good points, Brandon. Just a couple things I'd add, though. Hillary's successes in states like New York and California are just as irrelevant in the American system as Obama's successes in places like Utah. Both of them will go Democrat regardless of who is the nominee. What matters are states like Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Florida, Ohio, etc. Swing states. I agree with you that Clinton has a better chance in Florida and perhaps Ohio, but Obama has a good chance in a lot of mid-sized states, particularly in the west, which combine to even more electoral votes. They did that big poll of all the states and how they would turn out in November with either as nominee. Obama won more electoral votes, because he carried states like Washington and Oregon which Clinton lost. Those two combined are much as big as Ohio.

The only thing I can say is that I hope we don't end up with McCain. I can't imagine the thought right now.

I happen to believe that Hillary can handily win Washington and Oregon in a November general election though, Ohio and Florida are so very, very important. I can't emphasize it enough.

Its why Gore and Kerry weren't elected, two very honorable, decent human beings.

 

[unimaginative2]

I agree. I also think that Obama has a good chance in Ohio. The biggest difference is that Obama has (or at least had before this endless mudslinging primary) the chance to run a really exciting, dynamic campaign that would really energize people and potentially win a lot of states that nobody would have imagined to be blue states. Remember that Reagan was even able to win Massachussetts. Clinton's best hope, I think, would be a repeat of the last four elections, with small victories ground out in a handful of swing states. Too many people have already made up their mind about her to achieve a real landslide.

The likeability issue is a huge factor for Obama. A lot of arch-conservatives really don't like McCain, and they're looking for a reason to stay home and not have to mark a ballot for him. Unfortunately, the only person they hate more than him is Hillary Clinton, so most would turn up to keep her out. That also gives McCain a lot of insurance on his base so that he can moderate his positions to go after independents. He doesn't have that advantage with Obama.

 

[Brandon716]

That is very true. Its the only notable negative for Hillary Clinton I really worry about. She's very much hated by core conservatives.

What worries me the most is seeing a poll showing 20%-30% of Democrats voting McCain instead of their preferred nominee. I happen to be one of the many voiceless who think both Obama and Hillary are outstanding politicians, I just don't see any real policy difference between them in reality so all this stuff people are talking about are personality differences.

 

[Undying42]

That Gallup poll means nothing. 9 point lead +/-2%? And it's from March 7--22nd. That's just so arbitrary. These polls are so volatile right now.

Very true, public opinion fluctuates by the second depending on much mud is slung at the other candidate. Observing quarterly statistic polls however demonstrate that overarching opinion has not wavered very much since December.

And don't blame Obama voters. That's completely unfair. They are voting for who they know is the best candidate, as they should. You're basically blaming Obama for being better? Hillary offers nothing new when it comes to politicians. She is only in her current position because of Bill Clinton. She claims his experience as her own.

I wish more people would share your position. The people backing Hilary seem to me to be of one of three camps:

Feminazis would believe just because a woman's in office she'd become their mascot and agenda-taskers;

Bigots who can't fathom relinquishing an ounce of power, clout or authority to a minority;

Or the narrow-minded, uncouth who are old accustomed to conventional party favoritism they'd dare not stray from the norm too much and pick a de facto president challenging her husband's term of duty .

Maureen O'Dowd of NY times chimed in on the "kitchen sink" strategy that Clinton is using...

she said that Clinton knows she is far behind and odds of her getting nominated is really small. She will be 61 y.o. election day in November. She is trying to mortally wound Obama so that Obama would not be able to beat McCain in November. Thus, in 4 years she can run again at age 64...and possibly be president at age 65. This is a much better scenario for her cause if Obama wins, the next time she could run, she will be 69.

So that's how deep and contemplative the hatred goes, to sabotage your own partys chances of getting in office for another shot in four years? That stupid b-word ! I really detest how one's selfishness could single-handedly destroy America and the free world- a hyperbole I know, but people her age with her financial and political clout should enjoy their retirement if they're too blinded by greed, pride, egotism and megalomania to stop themselves of ruining what's already a messed up domestic economy, social welfare infrastructure and public image of warmongers hellbent on eliminating a preceived enemy of the state. Her attempts are edging on tyrannical now and puts back the female liberation movement by decades if the littest oppurtunity at power turns them into power-mad jerks and freaks. Ones that if going down will take everyone down with them! Excuse me, my rant is over now .

It does NOT MATTER who is the Democratic nominee at this point, the party is split.

There goes my chance at becoming a landed immigrant in the States. I'd sooner pauper here than go to a America run by Bushite Republicans for the next 4-8 years, as a confirmed doom reality egged on by unwillingness to accept defeat and realize the majority doesn't like your cannibalistic attempts at sabotaging the people's will as evidenced by more states polling for Obama.

 

[Roy G Biv]

I apologize if I'm being a little abrasive, but I've supported Obama since back when he had no chance, so you can see why I'm defensive.

Most of the unaligned SD's who have spoken publicly have stated that SD's should support the leader in pledged delegates. When Obama supporters claim an "early victory", they are more right than wrong. This thing is pretty much over. That's what Hillary supporters need to come to terms with.

I also honestly believe that Obama's ace is his ability to win the Independent vote.

It's also unfair to assume that Obama won't trade punches with McCain. While he hesitated in the early stages of this campaign, he now lobs them back as well as Clinton does. Super-Tuesday was the turning point in this regard.

The Democrats can't be afraid of McCain. The guy is ridiculously vulnerable. You could do a half-hour YouTube show about his flip-flops and bungles. The Democrats will only beat themselves, and I worry they are doing just that by letting this campaign drag on.

 

[Brandon716]

There goes my chance at becoming a landed immigrant in the States. I'd sooner pauper here than go to a America run by Bushite Republicans for the next 4-8 years, as a confirmed doom reality egged on by unwillingness to accept defeat and realize the majority doesn't like your cannibalistic attempts at sabotaging the people's will as evidenced by more states polling for Obama.

I actually would have agreed with you if Hillary would have lost Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island back when the last primaries were held. After February I was surprised at how long of a streak she went without winning.

But when the big states started coming back and gave her the votes, its clear neither Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton have a clear majority in this primary election.

BTW, you must be aware that many states held caucuses, not elections, and its not "will of the people" we are talking about here...

Again, you can't make the argument that Barack Obama has any significant lead, he simply doesn't. The will of the people is confused, hence why the primary season is so chaotic.

When I post information that shows more Democrats will leave the party if Obama is the nominee, it seems to go against your "will of the people" argument.

If 30% of Democrats are thinking of leaving the party should Obama be the nominee, that's too much damage to the base. There's not enough independents to go around, remember they usually make up the middle 10-15%, not 20-30%. Many "independents" strongly, strongly lean one way or the other and almost never vote the opposing party.

20% is enough damage as is, but 30% is horrible.

I've already braced myself for hearing the words President McCain. Things just don't look healthy.

I'm not sure what is more of a negative, Hillary's face bringing out some Conservatives to vote against her, or Barack losing 30% of his base.

Its horrible either way.

 

[Brandon716]

I apologize if I'm being a little abrasive, but I've supported Obama since back when he had no chance, so you can see why I'm defensive.

Most of the unaligned SD's who have spoken publicly have stated that SD's should support the leader in pledged delegates. When Obama supporters claim an "early victory", they are more right than wrong. This thing is pretty much over. That's what Hillary supporters need to come to terms with.

I also honestly believe that Obama's ace is his ability to win the Independent vote.

It's also unfair to assume that Obama won't trade punches with McCain. While he hesitated in the early stages of this campaign, he now lobs them back as well as Clinton does. Super-Tuesday was the turning point in this regard.

The Democrats can't be afraid of McCain. The guy is ridiculously vulnerable. You could do a half-hour YouTube show about his flip-flops and bungles. The Democrats will only beat themselves, and I worry they are doing just that by letting this campaign drag on.

I think its more important to remember that our goal is one in the same: we want a Democrat in the White House to defeat John McCain.

None of us are perfect in our analysis, all we have is our energy, the information we read, and our own beliefs.

Hopefully this election year isn't another big disappointment.

 

[Roy G Biv]

You can criticize the primaries all you want, but I'm going to need you to admit that Obama has a lead that is nowhere close to negligent.

And 30% of Democrats leaving their party? That's a chicken-little scenario. Your poll had 28% if Obama wins, and 19% if Hillary wins. It's March. Nobody has layed a finger on McCain yet, while everyone has seen Hillary and Obama absorb roundhouses. Of course McCain looks nice and loving... These Dems aren't going to run away. The poll is just a function of being in the middle of a hostile primary.

You easily dismiss actual numbers (Obama's lead) and then use unsound logic and assumptions to build some hypothetical case for Hillary.

The primaries are there to allow Democrats to choose their nominee, and they are doing so.

EDIT: I should make it clear that I really don't think much of the Democratic Party. They're almost as bad as the GOP, and have been rather spineless since their big midterm victories. They only reason I'd support them is because they have the best candidate, and will stack the courts with liberal judges.

 

[Roy G Biv]

Brandon: You realize you're essentially asking the SD's to nominate Hillary, right? Do you think this would be wise for the party?

Pelosi doesn't:

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said late Wednesday the California Democrat stands by her argument that the party's superdelegates would do damage if they go against the will of voters and hand the nomination to the candidate who finished second among those delegates awarded from the round of caucuses and primaries.

"The speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters," Daly said. "This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.”

"Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Sens. Clinton or Obama — our two strong candidates — before the convention in August," Daly also said. "That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses."

Pelosi first expressed her stance in an ABC News interview earlier this month — one that benefits Barack Obama, whose current pledged delegate lead of 171 is virtually insurmountable given the party's proportional delegation allocations, even if Clinton were to win each of the remaining 10 primary contests.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

 

[unimaginative2]

I wish more people would share your position. The people backing Hilary seem to me to be of one of three camps:

Feminazis would believe just because a woman's in office she'd become their mascot and agenda-taskers;

Bigots who can't fathom relinquishing an ounce of power, clout or authority to a minority;

Or the narrow-minded, uncouth who are old accustomed to conventional party favoritism they'd dare not stray from the norm too much and pick a de facto president challenging her husband's term of duty .

I'm a big Obama supporter, but it's idiotic comments like these (especially the "feminazi" bit) that allow people to marginalize his supporters. Can forumers not get banned for wildly offensive and sexist crap like this?

 

[ShonTron]

If it continues, yes.

I'll slap a warning on Undying.

 

[JasonParis]

"Feminazi" is a term coined by Rush Limbaugh (not that that makes it acceptable).