2008 Primaries Thread

lol kennedy admin
lol clinton admin

NV and SC seem much more make-or-break for Obama than for Hillary

Probably. Obama needs momentum going into Super Tuesday, when he won't be able to do much in-person retail politicking (given the number of big states in play that day), which has been his strength.

I think they should move voting days to Saturday, and that the president should get to eat ice cream whenever the president wants. The End.

bush admin is the most rouguish

it's not strength in retail politicking so much as she's much better known/more exposed, and is therefore favored in states that haven't paid as much attention. NV and SC can impact 2/5 if they got lots of attention, but I think things will stay pretty much the same until then, assuming Edwards is still around and his people don't seriously migrate to the others, with her having the natural advantage and him having a bit more momentum

Rt. I'm saying Obama's power to woo people with his magnetic stump speeches will be less significant when there are so many big states voting on a single day. In that environment, HRC's potential advantages (name recognition and exposure and existing organization and establishment backing) may be too much to overcome.

But Obama's a magic man -- and there's contests before Super Tuesday -- so who knows.

woman who made hillary cry votes obama

sexism alive and well

the idea that she gained votes by crying is nauseating. I hope it isn't true.

i give credit to hillary's debate perf, which i think everyone on ilx for the most part agreed was a winner?

yeah the cnn exit polls suggest that hillary won over ppl for whom the debates were a bigger deal

i didn't like it, but it clearly was a winner for the people who put her over the top

i give credit to hillary's debate perf, which i think everyone on ilx for the most part agreed was a winner?

OTM. HRC's best move is to be a "newly-humanized" policy wonk (who has just "found her voice"). Policy wonkery makes her credentials feel meaningful in a way that just insisting "I'm more experienced" doesn't.

agree that Hillary was better in the debate (did a good job of laying out her case) and Obama seemed like he was coasting. I just thought nobody watches the damn things.

Groundhog Day has come early: 2-10 more months of "CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE"

(that was all that went on at that debate, right? along with parsings of "You're likable enough.")

her case didn't convince me, but she made it passionately and I can see how it would work for people who were still at that point undecided / convincable

Where's the 01/07 Nevar Forget crying Hillary eagle internet meme picture?

Another N.H. Lesson: Pay little attention to FOX News post-debate focus groups.

btw many many xposts but lol at nevada's restaurant/bar staff unions getting behind the dude who admits he did blow. WHO WOODA GUEST

that was all that went on at that debate, right?

nah there was one part where hillary did a much better job than usual of laying out her "i'm more experienced" line w/o using those exact words

now that I've heard her "Hillary, how do you do it" breakdown from yesterday... I've gotta vote for Obama over Kucinich in the primary, in the event that it's still a race.

That "breakdown" was the most anticlimactic thing I've ever seen given the hype it generated.

the opening section w/ responses to 'a major attack on the united states' - hillary killed it w/ specifics, obama was all generalities

the woman who triggered the breakdown admitted she was asking about hilary's hair

her "breakdown" struck me as super-calculated "here's something for the press to spin" bullshit.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=268328

The Nation blames the bradley effect ... ehhhhh
i feel like even arguing that is self-defeating

the opening section w/ responses to 'a major attack on the united states' - hillary killed it w/ specifics, obama was all generalities.

^^^ This. I remember we were all noting this at the time. Obama was playing pass-protect defense for much of that debate.

after 04 when i think the general consensus was taht kerry "won" the debates, are these kinds of debate benchmarks something that dems care about more? do gen election voters pay less attention to debates (or just interpret them in different ways)? it seemed like bush basically stayed on message but sidestepped a lot of details in his debates, but i could be off on that.

her "breakdown" struck me as super-calculated "here's something for the press to spin" bullshit.

http://sugarhigh.abstractdynamics.org/archives/man-ray-larmes-tears-1932-33-2801792.1.jpg

the late deciders went slightly for HRC, but the early deciders went heavily for her. i thought this was a case of NH avoiding risk and going with a known quantity at the last minute, but it looks more like the situation we thought we'd see before the iowa result: obama neck and neck with (if slightly behind) hillary as the established candidate.

even a month or so ago, if i'd seen a crystal ball to today (that didn't show me iowa at all), and i saw obama w/in 3 points in NH, it'd think "wow holy shit! he's close enough to do it!"

xp according to ambinder obama's internal polling takes 'bradley effect' into account, so something else happened. nation's campaign reporting has been unimpressive imo.

hillary killed it w/ specifics, obama was all generalities.

these are their basic debate strategies. it doesn't mean one couldn't do the other, just what they bet works best for them.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=268328

The Nation blames the bradley effect ... ehhhhh
i feel like even arguing that is self-defeating

-- deej, Wednesday, January 9, 2008 3:01 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

except obama was polling at 37% and got... 37% - nobody who said they were voting for him didnt vote for him.

^^^^^^^^

nation's campaign reporting has been unimpressive imo.

-- gff, Wednesday, January 9, 2008 2:03 PM (4 minutes ago)

Yeah, I'm telling you guys it's the unexpected independent bump Hillary got (for reasons we may never know).

it looks like undecideds went for hillary. big deal.

v v interesting that the iowa and NH results leave things very equivocal and uncertain still! battles in SC and NV! exciting!

http://img27.picoodle.com/img/img27/4/1/9/f_babyromneym_1e0423a.jpg
poorly matched photos and captions are the gifts that newspaper websites keep giving

babykisser

my mom on mccain: "he seems a little crazed to me. can you imagine him having his finger on the button? no thanks."

A letter to Sullivan:

I am a 52 yr old, gay woman who is a resident of Illinois and who has enthusiastically supported Obama since he ran for State Senate. Iowa made me swoon and I looked forward to seeing the New Hampshire primary put the Clinton candidacy to bed. But, by Monday night, I was sputtering that "we are not electing Jesus here" and was appalled/furious at the undisguised and creepily malevolent glee that the talking heads (Fox bobbleheads/barbies and Chris Matthews deserve particular mention; and you, sir, do not come out unscathed) were throwing up as "analysis" of the "Hillary meltdown" and of their frankly undisguised loathing of her. I thought it was sexist and so did every woman I know.

You dismissed the Steinem editorial as "old-line lefty". Newsflash: there were twenty copies of that editorial in my in-box before breakfast yesterday morning – all of them from women who are ardent Obama supporters. We remain Obama supporters and will work "until the last dog dies" (thanks, Hillary!) for his nomination. However, we are just about done with a media that cannot report, analyze or provide information on candidates without first filtering it through its self-aggrandizing, inside-the-beltway-fantasy- filter about what would provide a better election narrative. Okay, so much of the media does not like Hillary? Neither do I. They just have to stop with the comments about tears, wrinkles, brittleness, legs and her alleged cackle. I may not want to vote for her—but I have always respected her. Peggy Noonan was too-obviously thrilled to write that Obama "took Mama to school" in Iowa; looks to me like Mama took the country to school last night.

these are their basic debate strategies. it doesn't mean one couldn't do the other, just what they bet works best for them.

Remind me again why it's so shameful I don't watch these?

if a candidate drops out of the primary (i.e. edwards), do they get to decide where to allocate the delegates they've gathered?

morbs, it's not that you don't watch debates, it was that you said the "coverage" was much more reliable in learning what the candidates actually stand for.

do they get to decide where to allocate the delegates they've gathered?

I think it's up to the delegates? but the candidate can give them guidance?

Reich on the health care plans - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119984199293776549.html

HRC v. McCain = Bad Dynamic:

3. The odds of a Republican presidency suddenly got a lot higher. There’s really only one potential matchup that would give the GOP a better than even chance of winning: John McCain versus Hillary Clinton. McCain is a popular personality who can attract the support of voters who aren’t inclined to support his party. Clinton is an unpopular personality who loses the support of voters who are otherwise inclined to support her party. If she wins the nomination, it will be because she’s a polarizing figure who rallies Democrats as the object of Republican attacks. (If George W. Bush could run for re-election, he’d easily ace the GOP primary for the same reason.)

Not sure about that last sentence (incl. the paranthetical), but otherwise, I think Chait is right.

elmo, by "coverage" I didn't particularly mean all this CHANGE! CRYING! CHUCK NORRIS! BRADLEY EFFECT! gassery.

fair enough, but what do you mean by 'coverage'?