2008 Primaries Thread

it is happening... again

Romney puts it all on Michigan - http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/09/565494.aspx

Richardson out - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_el_pr/richardson

will he endorse O? helping him take NV?

Welcome back Richardson! To NM.

Clinton/Bush-Legacy campaign continues - http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080109e.html

The agent of the candidate for change:

"But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama."

run jesse(s) run! for the love of god just run.

I've gotta vote for Obama over Kucinich in the primary, in the event that it's still a race.

this is me. i doubt california's coming into play.

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn xxp

That interview with Obama's manager is not where Obama should go, despite my wanting him to show he's capable of throwing hard punches. That kind of talk plays into HRC's hands.

Absolutely.

Did she cry when Obama lost NH? Then she does not represent the black voters of SC.

Jeff Chang:

HRC will sound more liberal and more concerned with racial justice than she ever will again this election season in the days before South Carolina. And you can bet that a lot of dedicated young activists in the Clinton and Obama campaigns are about to be tapped for the ride of their lives.

Because of the hard work of what might now be seen as a vanguard group of activists at the University of Iowa, Iowa State, and other college campuses in the Hawkeye, Democratic candidates are more interested than they've ever been in what you're going to be doing on the day their little election comes to your state. So if you're a left-leaning college student, know that for the next several weeks, you will be the most courted young person in the history of American politics.

Not in the Mountain time zone, I bet. :(

Hain't none comin' round to court this maid.

shouldn't al sharpton be derailing democrats right around now? can't believe he's letting the jesses steal his thunder here.

Sharpton's dealing with the Feds now.

I can't stand Karl Rove, but what he says in the article Gabbneb links isn't wrong. And it goes beyond a bad moment for Obama; it struck a blow against his entire image (for reasons I set forth above, which -- in fairness -- Alfred disagrees with for reasons I understand).

From now on, I think Obama should be ultra-serious (as he is in his stump speeches), get more policy detailed fast (which he certainly can do) and use humor in a gentle, self-depricating way (he's done this to great effect when he talks about his wife (e.g., how she reacted to pundits saying Obama is a political savior)).

yeah that bitter bill c. 'fairytale' comment is this close to sticking if obama doesn't meet his starfuckers halfway with some policy meat

Clinton was at the top of the ballot, and it is a well-known long and long-studied phenomenon in politics that placement at the top of the ballot provides a not insignificant edge to any given candidate.

I hate that Romney is pulling his ads in Florida; it seems to open up even more room for a Giuliani win in Florida. And as much of a buffoon as I think Giuliani is (and, therefore, a good matchup in the GE), I'd prefer him not to lead the delegate count after "Tsunami Tuesday" (tho I'd greatly prefer him to McCain).

Rosa Brooks (LA Times) on Bloggingheads.tv: "If the Republican attack machine tries to portray Obama as the 'scary black guy' or the 'scary Muslim guy,' it won't work. We're moving to a place where that's just not attractive to people. The average American is better than that at this point. There has been a cultural sea change in the nation on issues of race."

LOL. Silly pundit. Were it only true.

yeah i think the candidates would do well to (appear to) work under the assumption that race and sex don't matter but the average american is still a dipshit, fuck all that noise. talk radio alone could bury several campaigns under several tons of freeflung shit without even trying.

Daniel, I think that tactic would definitely work for some significant of the population. The question is how much - Obama doesn't need everyone's vote.

"Political scientists have proposed various theories aimed at salvaging some dignity for the democratic process. One is that elections are decided by the ten per cent or so of the electorate who are informed and have coherent political views. In this theory, the votes of the uninformed cancel each other out, since their choices are effectively random: they are flipping a coin. So candidates pitch their appeals to the informed voters, who decide on the merits, and this makes the outcome of an election politically meaningful."

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/07/09/070709crbo_books_menand?currentPage=2

I don't know if this is true, but it has obvious implications for race + sex during the election.

That's obviously a nonsensical theory, and it isn't even the main theory addressed by that article you linked to, it's just used as an example of a theory.

Who the fuck are "the informed" and "the uninformed?" No one knows anything.

Of course that's nowhere near as insulting and arbitrary as the main theory being reviewed in that piece.

it's a huge false assumption that "the uninformed" vote randomly

There was a nice article a couple of months ago – its name and publisher escapes me – that refuted Surowiecki’s “The Wisdom of Crowds” concept on the basis of some new findings. Does anyone remember it? I would love to read it again.

I mean I'm college-educated and read a good amount of campaign coverage from just about every imaginable part of the political spectrum and I try to make sure I have a basic grasp of current foreign policy and economic and social issues, and the fuck if I feel like I'm truly "informed" - especially when it comes to predicting what kind of president a candidate might make.

I really have no idea (about the validity of the article, the theories, etc).

The article does a fine job of taking the "Myth of the Rational Voter" theory apart.

The theory itself is just a typical conservative economist confusing his ideology for objective realtiy.

Bit po'faced to shuffle your feet and call yourself uninformed, Hurting. The standard for being 'informed' is hardly perfect clarity and an ability to predict the future.

If 10% of the voters are informed, that means that 1 in every 10 voters fits the criteria. Probably knowing the different candidates, and understanding their basic policies (etc) would qualify you as informed. Otherwise only 1% of the voterbase would probably be "informed."

xpost Maybe. But also with the use of "informed" there's an assumption of a rational standard - that idea that if voters just knew what I know they'd make they choice I make because that's the rational choice.

the same writer reviewed a book in 2004 that explores the 'shortcut' model more positively

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/08/30/040830crat_atlarge

I guess it's "uninformed" to think you like Ron Paul because of his views on the war while having no idea what he stands for in terms of economic policy and immigration. At the same time, not knowing the specific difference between Obama's and Clinton's healthcare proposals (I'm not sure I do), but I'm not convinced that voting for one or the other nonetheless because of gut feelings about their character is necessarily a bad way to choose.

sorry, last sentence came out garbled but I think it's clear what I meant.

"I like this person better" is not necessarily a worse way to choose a president than "I like this platform better," in other words, and it's certainly not "flipping a coin" in any case.

Hurting, the New Yorker piece wasn't even suggesting that some choices should be privileged over others. Voting for someone because of their welfare platform, while ignoring other policies, is a valid decision. The problem is that only 30% even named an issue to explain their vote, and only 1/5th didn't contradict themselves. (The New Yorker contradiction example is: Anti welfare, but pro the government giving assistance to the poor -- though I don't know why this is a contradiction, you could be pro assistance and anti the current methodology... ANYHOW).

Maybe that's a bit extreme - I just mean the first is a bit underrated and the second a bit overrated. (xpost to self)

I think one of the problems with "I like that person better" is that you rely on MSM to evaluate the person's personality. What % of people are actually watching speeches? With policy, ideally, you can take the quotes that people have said and analyze them. Personalities are so touch and go, tho.

Fair point. I need to fucking go to bed. Night all.

xp yeah i'm not sure how much even the 'shortcut' model controls for whatever media filters contribute to building a given voter's impressions on candidates. perhaps i should read the book.

Is HRC still promising new spelling rules and jobs?

http://images.google.com/images?q=%22new+jobs+for+tommorrow%22&

We made up a great Democratic National Debates Drinking Game -

Every time a candidate says the word "change," take a shot. Every time Bill Richardson says the words "I'm the only one up here who..." take two shots.

You'll be rip roaring drunk in ten minutes.

lol camille paglia hate hillary http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/01/10/hillary/?source=whitelist

At this point Paglia is the academic version of Maureen Dowd.

not even