2008 Primaries Thread

some ppl actually think/assume edwards was

re: exit polling

In past years, the network consortium that conducts the exit polls distributed mid-day estimates and tabulations to hundreds of journalists that would inevitably leak. In 2006, however, the networks adopted a new policy that restricted access to a small number of analysts in a "quarantine room" for most of the day and did not release the results to the networks and subscriber news organizations until just before the polls closed (information that did ultimately leak to blogs). As far as I know, that process will remain in place today.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/looking_for_new_hampshire_exit.php

some polls will be closing at 7pm, others at 8pm, so it's unlikely we'll see any returns until 7, I'm guessing.

(eastern time, natch)

mike gravel currently hospitalized for flu & respiratory infection, btw

re: I wouldn't put it past them to go all out anti-Obama...

A panicked and cash-short Clinton campaign is seriously considering giving up on the Nevada caucuses and on the South Carolina primary in order to regroup and to save resources for the massive 19-state mega-primary on February 5.

At the same time, some top independent expenditure groups supporting Clinton have been exploring the creation of an anti-Obama "527 committee" that would take unlimited contributions from a few of Clinton's super-rich backers and from a handful of unions to finance television ads and direct mail designed to tarnish the Illinois Senator's image.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/08/clinton-allies-may-dump-m_n_80460.html

I wonder what that net worth chart would look like with Bloomberg on it.

I think it was a recent Harper's Index bit where they listed the combined net worth of the top 10 candidates, then went on to say that Bloomberg's net worth was 11 times that.

I think Mitt's worth about $250M and Bloomberg's worth about $11B - so about 40 times the size of Mitt on that chart, I guess.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/unite-here-expected-to-endorse-obama/

so assuming he wins today, he's basically got the first 4

so... I know this is kind of morbid but re: "gonna get shot" comments upthread about Obama, how likely is this, really...? Even assuming he generates the kind of ill-will + celebrity combo that might bring out a crazed assassin-type, it's nigh impossible to assassinate someone with his level of security, isn't it...? I mean when was the last serious attempt on a public figure's life, Hinckley? (Russell Weston didn't even come close to Clinton)

Apparently, the Secret Service takes it seriously enough to beef up his security staff, beyond that given to most other candidates at this stage of the nomination process (Hillary being an exception for obvious reasons).

Report: Secret Service increases security for Obama

given the amount of unhinged stuff about his radical islamism in the reaches of the far right (and the number of guns in the reaches of the far right), it's not like you could call assassination concerns exactly paranoid.

well I didn't call them paranoid, I said "morbid"

Interesting chart from The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/images/ga/2007w52/p66-CampaignCost.jpg

http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10276639

I wonder why election spending has skyrocketed like that in the past couple of cycles?

because elites have more money to spend

is that adjusted for inflation?

bcz it's all about TV ad saturation, geometrically moreso every 4 years. Which is why DEBATES DON'T MATTER (short of a gaffe).

(my guess is no, Shakey)

http://subbooks.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/richistan.jpg

If Bloomberg gets in the race, he could spend as much as a billion by himself - not unthinkable, considering he spent $85M in the last mayoral election. I think that David Remnick is correct to say that there is something unseemly, to say the least, about the prospect of Bloomberg spending that kind of cash:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/01/14/080114taco_talk_remnick

its weird - but maybe its just cuz I'm in California - I don't remember ever seeing TV ads for presidential candidates on broadcast television for the last few elections. its really rare. Maybe they just don't bother out here.

Yeah, inflation. Because we've clearly had 100% inflation since 2004 and 900% since 2000.

bloomy isnt doing shit - even if he were deluded enough to get in the race - take it from someone who gets plenty of exposure to the guy - hes got nooooo juice

gimme a break I know inflation doesn't account for ALL of it, but it would smooth out the curve a little

http://images.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/01/08/obama/story.jpg

http://www.polizeros.com/pzarchive/radio/images/2003/08/22/030822bat.jpg

that obama illustration amused the fuck out of me too

http://www.dvdactive.com/images/reviews/screenshot/2004/4/motu1.jpg

Y'know. Only, like, black.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/03/29/business/0329-biz-subTAXweb.gif

^

http://bp3.blogger.com/_0F1a-sL9MFs/Rr6Aw43I_rI/AAAAAAAAAAk/7_feb0itsx4/s1600/LOL%2Bobama%2BIowa.jpg

its weird - but maybe its just cuz I'm in California - I don't remember ever seeing TV ads for presidential candidates on broadcast television for the last few elections. its really rare. Maybe they just don't bother out here.

because cali hasn't really been in play at the presidential level since, what, reagan? same is true in ny (and probably in reverse in texas). the markets are big and expensive and not worth the investment.

I would think you'd see ads ahead of the Feb. 5 primary though

seeking 0.01% - m4w

When did Perot announce in '92? Have ballot restrictions gotten tougher in the intervening years?

he's not running

did Bush I win California in '88? I don't remember.

gabbneb, my oracle, tell me.

a Republican hasn't won CA since Reagan

no wait he DID win! wtf

http://images.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/01/08/obama/story.jpg

this picture is made of win.

yes, Bush I won CA in '88, tho by less than 5 pts. it was Clinton that permanently realigned CA and New England.

Clinton made the Dems the party of the info class

biting tongue

... AND AWAY!

Precincts reporting: 2.99%

Clinton: 38.34%
Obama: 37.24%
Edwards: 17.02%

As always:

http://www.politico.com/

Clinton was the first Dem since Humphrey to win MI, CT or ME, the first since Truman (if you except Johnson's post-assassination domination of the whole map) to win CA or IL*, the first since Roosevelt to win NJ or NH, and the first in history to win VT.

*if you accept Kennedy stole it

Yeah, but racist Dems dominated the South up until the mid-60s, so it’s a ticklish comparison.

Dems didn't lose those states because there were some Southern racists in the party, they lost them because they were states of the establishment. Dems were aided in these places by the growth and movement of the knowledge-based upper middle class, but Clinton made possible the realignment by identifying and surfing that wave.

Obama pulling ahead.

Or not.