2008 Primaries Thread

Man this is confusing! I'm half listening to the radio, and they're saying something about the Georgia caucus, and then they say Saakashvili has won! Turns out, they said Georgia in the Caucasus. :-/

just getting around to watching the debates tonight on youtube, starting with the democratic debate (youtube username: yd2008 , if anyone's interested on where to find)

cheers thx. football took precedent today, only because my 'hawks are still in it.

You mean Mr. "The-surge-is-working,-just-admit-it-you-cut-and-runners!"

-- Pleasant Plains, Sunday, 6 January 2008 05:35 (6 hours ago) Link

yes

i mean christ im not looking for him to be 'right' i'm looking for him to ask tough questions and get the candidates to answer w/ some fucking convincing arguments

test

otm

Time.com -- 01.06.08

This is basically what I was saying above, i.e., HRC may have misanalyzed the electorate and this isn't her moment (I'm not claiming wisdom, tho; I thought HRC would bounce after last night's debate performance, and I now get the feeling she'll be pilloried for it). But the short article goes way beyond that, to suggest that the size of Obama's Iowa win has shaken HRC's campaign to the core.

You mean Mr. "The-surge-is-working,-just-admit-it-you-cut-and-runners!"

-- Pleasant Plains, Sunday, 6 January 2008 05:35 (6 hours ago) Link

Er, the "surge" is working; it's the political part that's shit.

er, as hrc said last night, the political part was the whole point of the surge

er, as hrc said last night, the political part was the whole point of the surge

My strong belief is that in six months time if not sooner Iraq will be a huge mess again on all fronts. I'd like that not to be true. But I'm willing to bet it will be.

well theres been a huge jump in the polls something like 30% to 48% in people who think the war is going well buuuuut the numbers on wanting the troops to come home and thinking the war was a mistake are actualy trending even further in the anti-war direction.

so the public mood on the war seems to be: right nice surge can we stop doing this now plz.

the comparison w/japan korea etc as far as continued troop presence is kinda absurd - thers no war going on in those places - we lose something like 0 troops a year there. is that the threshold? when do you think were going to hit those numbers in iraq?

Jhoshea has it right -- this isn't a 'surge is working, let's see it through,' it's a 'surge is working, let's go home' mood in general. NRO types etc. think otherwise, which is where it'll bite them in the butt soon enough.

its worth noting that iraq is still by pretty any measure one of the absolutely most fucked places in the world.

the comparison w/japan korea etc as far as continued troop presence is kinda absurd

"kinda"

I don't think anyone talking about "permanent" bases in Iraq is expecting even dozens of casualties a month in perpetuity.

i dont think anyone talking about "permanent" bases in iraq has any fucking idea what theyre talking abt

this isn't a 'surge is working, let's see it through,' it's a 'surge is working, let's go home' mood in general. NRO types etc. think otherwise, which is where it'll bite them in the butt soon enough.

^^^ This. For collective psychological reasons not completely clear to me, all pro-war arguments -- including the notion that the surge is working -- seem to be long past their "freshness date." Barring some dramatic event (e.g., a formal political treaty resolving Sunni-Shia differences in Iraq, a partitioning of the country, driving AQI completely out of Iraq in a very visible way), I don't see pro-war arguments becoming viable again.

Of course, that also doesn't mean scare tactics about what might happen if we leave Iraq (offered by the GOP nominee) won't be persuasive with voters.

I'm referring to stuff like McCain's 100 years comment.

Yes. That comment should be stuffed down his throat in the GE.

McCain's 100 Years in Iraq [Ramesh Ponnuru]

He defended his comment that he would be fine if US troops were in Iraq for 100 years, so long as they were not taking casualties. I think liberals are overestimating his vulnerability on this point. But the question I would like him to answer is how he thinks speculating about staying forever will go over in the region, and whether such speculation serves our interests there.

its really hard to overestimate mccains vulnerability on the war in a ge

He defended his comment that he would be fine if US troops were in Iraq for 100 years, so long as they were not taking casualties.

That's rhetorically defensible, but (a) it sounds completely manufactured, given his prior -- unqualified -- comment and (b) it's stupid (I'm all for having permanent bases established in Iran and North Korea, too, starting right now, so long as they wre not taking casualties; and so long as we're making a wish list, I want a pony).

does McCain like ponies?

It was probably unqualified before because its kind of obvious... He's talking about having a presence in Iraq after things settle down, which is a discussion worth having.

Hm. That's putting the cart before the pony, don't you think?

have the discussion after the "settling down" maybe.

who's settling down with a pony?

"Whoa, whoa, whoa... let's plan the occupation AFTER we're in Baghdad, hotshots."

Iraq: impossible to leave. Oil. Defense industry.

"Whoa, whoa, whoa... let's plan the occupation AFTER we're in Baghdad, hotshots."

I was sort of being facetious. Obv., we should do advance planning.

By the way, I'm not so sure it was obvious he was saying "after things settle down" (obv., now he's saying that, because his statement is so unacceptable otherwise). Remember, this is the candidate who sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" a few months ago. He's very aggressive and hawkish when it comes to using U.S. miliatary power.

Two new New Hampshire polls:

Mason-Dixon Poll: Obama up 2% (a + 6% swing for Obama); McCain up 8% (a + 16% swing for McCain). Interestingly, Clinton and Romney's support is basically unchanged from a month ago.

Zogby Poll: Romney edging McCain; Clinton edging Obama. This poll is partially based on data from before Iowa, so take it with a grain of salt. It also apparently takes into account the fact that many N.H. independents will vote Democrat (for Obama), which will hurt McCain on the Republican side (I hope!). And while HRC still leads Obama, he's on a major uptick.

I was watching a live Frank Luntz poll on Fox last night, re: the Dem debate and pretty much the whole restaurant full of people were righteous over Obama, having been Clinton supporters as recent as December.

Hardly scientific with such a small sampling, but fun to watch.

I saw that. Like I said upthread, I apparently badly misanalyzed how New Hampshire votes would evaluate the debate.

Here's the other (pretty obv.) thing that struck me about that Luntz focus group: the group's reactions were very focused on character traits and broad impressions of the candidates' platforms, and not very focused on specific policy suggestions or the nuances between the candidates' positions. For instance, here are a few things I heard said (not verbatim, but close to it):

• [On who will best bring about “change”]: “I think HRC avoided the question, and Obama was very specific about how he would implement it” (end of comment)
• [On change]: “Obama won it because he was more even and HRC was not” (end of comment)
• “I was v. impressed with Obama’s coolness under fire, and HRC seemed to crack”
• “HRC seemed dogmatic, almost angry, like she was vicious and that’s what hurt her”
• Q: “Will you stand up for HRC?” A: “No. She got on the defensive for one sentence and stayed on the defensive and she didn’t need to be. . . . It was only worth one sentence and she should have articulated a clear, positive message”
• “She’s doing the same old things that have been going on since her husband was president years ago. She’s in the middle of things.”
• “She doesn’t like to be questioned. You bring up a point, and she gets v. upset.”
• “I can’t trust her.”
• “Her answers aren’t informative. . . Obama’s answers are informative.”

Obv., it's hard to give informative opinions on the fly and so soon after a debate (see our (sarcastic) live-blogging of it, for example). Still, these responses are just devoid of any discussion of content. Not one comment about the specific policy agendas of any candidate.

the group's reactions were very focused on character traits and broad impressions of the candidates' platforms, and not very focused on specific policy suggestions or the nuances between the candidates' positions

this kind of statement reinforces my concept of you as an immigrant from outer space. have you EVER paid attention to political campaigns before this year? I mean, WE KNOW.

Sorry dude I appreciate your posts overall but once in a while it's like YEAH AND???

you ain't rollin with pawns I guess is what I'm attempting to express

in that sense the "why does people never likes you?" question was maybe the only important one. i thought she did the only thing she could w/it, and obama's "you're likable enough" sounded mean, but she's kinda stuck. people aren't going to suddenly start liking her. you can go into all the crypto-sexism underlying the "i don't like hillary" mentality, but it doesn't really matter. (btw i don't like hillary much, and i don't rule out crypto-sexism as a contributing factor.)

(although of course i would argue there are plenty of non-sexist reasons not to like her too)

otoh it's hard not to worry that everybody's getting seduced by these daydreams of "omg how cool if we elect BLACK MAN" and not really thinking through how things are going to go between now and election day. but on the other other hand, whoever the democratic candidate is is going to be subject to unbelievable slime and vitriol, and all three of them are vulnerable to that (because anybody is). obama definitely has play with the self-identified "independents." (one guy i know says he'll vote obama if he's the nominee, but probably republican otherwise -- i know, MAKES NO SENSE, but i think there's a certain amount of that out there. a lot more than there is for hillary.)

i think people know they're "taking a risk" and sort of want to do it. the idea that the risk-free alternative is hrc, tho, is lol-worthy.

Some people just rub you the wrong way, even if they don't intend to or try all sorts of ways not to. They just do. Hillary's problem is that this applies, in her case, to about 52% of the population.

no, it applies to more than that. a lot of us would happily vote for her regardless.

she's defensive and angry. johnny sunshine just plays angry on tv.

it really doesn't matter that if she'd make the best president

Yeah, there was a point last night when you could tell she was inches from losing it.

i think people know they're "taking a risk" and sort of want to do it. the idea that the risk-free alternative is hrc, tho, is lol-worthy.

this is true. i mean, i respect her effort to position herself that way, and i think she's run a good campaign for the last year. i'm a lot more sold on her now than i was a year ago. (that is, i've gone from knee-jerk "she can't elected" to "yeah, ok, she can maybe get elected.") but she still hardly seems like a safe bet.

you ain't rollin with pawns I guess is what I'm attempting to express

Not sure what this means. I know the point I made was obvious, but I think it's worth reinforcing sometimes.

Poor Hillary. And I say that with all seriousness. If she loses it will not be because of policy or issues but because of likeability. It's weird, even I cannot explain why I am not fond of her. I try to grasp at something substantial and all I get is hot air with a side of BS. And no matter how many Mark Penns are behind her that will never change. Not within the next few weeks, at least.

I know the point I made was obvious, but I think it's worth reinforcing sometimes.

no. the first clause of that sentence should always obliviate the second. FFR.