2008 Primaries Thread

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'?

YOU NEED MORE
THAN RECORDS THESE DAYS.

YOU NEED COVERAGE.

COVERAGE?
YOU MEAN THEM
ROOT WEEVILS

THAT CRAWL AROUND
POPPING CAMERAS?

THOSE ROOT WEEVILS
WRITE HISTORY.

LET THEM
WRITE HISTORY,

AND LET THE PILOTS
FLY THE AIRPLANES.

PILOTS.

There’s really only one potential matchup that would give the GOP a better than even chance of winning: John McCain versus Hillary Clinton

I agree that McCain might be the strongest GOP candidate in the general election, but I'd still guess that he has less than an even chance of making it that far. NH has always liked McCain - but he's not leading in the polls anywhere else that I've seen. Where does he go from here?

i'd say mccain has as good as shot as any to absorve the vote that would have gone to giuliani were he running a real campaign. he can run, and pretty legitimately, as the foreign policy experience candidate in a field where no one really has any.

and mccain has been showing up pretty well in national polls with huckabee, altho not sure where he is state-by-state

Dunno. He was hoping (a) for a post-N.H. bounce and (b) with no viable alternatives left, to emerge as the GOP establishment-backed rival to Mike Huckabee. His terrible victory speech last night won't helping him, tho.

(xp)

xp

like, a list of proposed 'solutions' to issues, Senate voting history, donors and fellow travelers, incidences of blatant lying, etc.

Alex Cockburn takes down the Big 3 (before declaring R*n Pa*l as his favorite):

John Edwards is offering us a populist package, with homilies on fair trade, gaps between rich and poor, corporate greed and so forth. Decent people, including many labor organizers, are working for him. I don't believe a word he says. His record on war and empire is bad. He has poor judgment. Why spend $400 to have a hairdo that makes you look like a slick lawyer with a fancy haircut?

Barack Obama? I can't remember a single substantive statement he's made. In terms of political philosophy and pragmatic intention, his platform is like the Anglican clergyman's answer when asked for his conception of God: an oblong blur. When he's pressed, Obama's positions on war and empire are usually very bad. Talk about "moving beyond partisan differences" invariably ends with the Establishment's long-term goal of abolishing Social Security.

Hillary Clinton is the candidate for corporate power at home and empire abroad. She argued passionately in the White House for the NATO bombing of Belgrade. Two days after September 11, 2001, she was calling for a broad war on terror. She voted for the Patriot Act. When it came time for Mrs. Clinton to deliver her speech in support of the attack on Iraq, she reiterated some of the most outlandish claims made by Dick Cheney.

If you needed a reason why the right won't support McCain:

To Senator McCain, congratulations. But he has not got this thing wrapped up by any stretch. It’s less than a year since he tried to push a disastrous immigration bill into law — one as manipulative as any pork-laden appropriations bill — with vigorous opposition from talk radio, conservative bloggers, think tanks, and the grassroots. I don’t see how such a man wins the Republican nomination. I’m second to none in praising him on his surge leadership. But on a whole host of issues — including water boarding, tax cuts, and the freedom of speech — he’s not one of us. Rush Limbaugh has emphatically stated that McCain is not a conservative — and he has more than a few listeners with similar instincts. McCain’s not going to be handed this nomination. Conservatives suspect that he’s a recipe for heartache

Do people like it when McCain calls everyone ''my friend(s)''? I hate it. Like fingernails on a blackboard.

unconscious bias against Obama? - http://www.physorg.com/news117208899.html

Cockburn's pithy pensees aren't even worth Huffington's blog. The Edwards haircut remark is lame, and his speculation on Obama's SS plans are uninformed if not stupid.

Alex Cockburn and David Duke united! - http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/09/quot-the-duke-s-quot-campaign-advice.aspx

What the Hell Happened Last Night?
by: Chris Bowers
Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 15:29:21 PM EST

Was it massive polling error? Were women motivated by a double standard imposed on Clinton for showing emotion? Was it the Wilder / Bradley effect, where white voters lie about supporting African-American candidates to pollsters out of perceived social pressure? Was it something else? Twelve public polling organizations were in the field in New Hampshire entirely after the Iowa caucuses. One of these organizations concluded interviews on Saturday, January 5th. Seven concluded interviews on Sunday, January 6th. Four concluded interviews on Monday, January 7th.. The average of the final results from these pollsters is as follows:

Obama: 37.25%
Clinton: 29.92%
Edwards: 18.92%
Richardson: 5.75%

Now, compare this to the results, with only one precinct outstanding
Clinton: 38.99% (+9.07, +30.3%)
Obama: 36.39% (-0.86, -2.3%)
Edwards: 16.91% (-2.01, -10.6%)
Richardson: 4.60% (-1.15, -20.0%)

While Obama and Richardson both saw their support drop from the final polling average, Edwards saw his drop as much as Obama and Richardson combined. It is possible that Edwards saw his numbers drop for a different reason than Obama or Richardson, or even that all three saw their numbers drop for different reasons. However, given Obama's numbers dropped the least, both in overall terms and in percentage terms, I am not convinced of a "Wilder effect here at all. Or, at least, I am not convinced that the "Wilder effect" was the only dynamic in play. It seems equally plausible that Edwards and Richardson saw their support drop much the way third-party support always drops from the polls to the final results. The lower the perceived chance a third-party candidate has the win, the larger their expected drop from the polls to the final results. It would appear that those voters broke toward Clinton.

Here is what I think happened, in chronological order:
Chris Bowers :: What The Hell Happened Last Night?
First, Clinton probably had a superior absentee voter program, which gave her a small boost. Likely voters are not guaranteed voters, but those who have already voted are. Before they were rebalanced, the exit polls showed Obama narrowly ahead of Clinton, 39%-38%. Absentee voters were not included in the exit poll, and a successful and strong absentee voter program can indeed account for a 3-4% net swing, especially since Clinton held a commanding 48%--31% lead among voters who had their minds made up the longest. This is also, for example, is why Brian Bilbray outperformed Francine Busby in final polls in CA-50.

Second, the polls were somewhat wrong, probably due both to a very mild "Wilder effect" and to improper weighting of the electorate / measurement of likely voters. However, the polls don't have to be more than 1% wrong in order to make this scenario work (although the more wrong the polls were, the easier this scenario works). Given that Rasmussen, a polling firm that utilizes the automated, IVR methodology, showed the campaign to be a little closer than other pollsters who used live interviews, there probably was a mild "Wilder effect" of about two percent or so. IVR polls should eliminate the Wilder effect altogether, and so it is useful to look to them as a baseline when determining the presence of a Wilder effect.

Third, there was a break toward Clinton on Election Day itself, when no polls were taken. A survey of 2004 and 2000 polls taken between Iowa and New Hampshire shows there is a tendency for Iowa bounces to begin to recede after three to five days, meaning that by Election Day Clinton should have been pulling back on Obama anyway, with or without a sympathy vote. Exit polls back this up. Among voters who decided who to vote for in the last week, Obama led Clinton 43%-28%, probably due to a huge surge in the two days after Iowa. Among voters who decided in the three days before the election, Obama still led by a smaller amount, 37%--34%. Among those who made up their minds on Election Day itself, the bounce had faded entirely, and Clinton pulled into a 39%-36% lead. That accounts for at least another half of a percent. Of course, the sympathy vote probably didn't hurt.

Fourth, Edwards and Richardson supporters who favored Clinton as a second choice disproportionately broke away and choose Clinton, since the narrative implied both that she was the only other candidate who could win and that she needed help to do so. We all saw this, for example, in 2000, when Nader was a factor and Gore was in a position similar to Clinton. In the end, Nader underperformed his final polls by 1.2%, and Gore outperformed his final polls by 2.0%, providing Gore enough of a boost to win the popular vote. By way of contrast, Edwards and Richardson supporters who favored Obama as a second choice probably didn't think Obama needed any help. This could have added as much as 3% to Clinton's total.

Fifth, Clinton was assisted by the ballot order, probably to the tune of about 3%. 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.
This is a "perfect storm" scenario that requires no significant polling error, no significant Wilder effect, and no significant sympathy effect for Clinton. The top of the ballot, a superior absentee voter program, a naturally fading bounce, and an also somewhat typical "third party effect" from Edwards and Richardson supporters can, in and of itself, account for the ten-point swing from Obama to Clinton. However, that it requires all of these less than mysterious pieces to fall into place makes it somewhat dubious. The most likely scenario is that the four reasons I provide all played a role, but less than the amounts I suggested here. Further, the three most common reasons being given, Wilder effect, sympathy effect, massive polling error, all also probably played a role, but less than is being trumpeted by others. It was probably just a perfect storm for Clinton incorporating all seven rationales.

Still, this result should give real pause to anyone like me who believes pre-election final poll averages are almost always a very accurate predictor of final results. If a whole host of factors fall into place, clearly it is possible to bust up final averages by as much as 10%. Clinton got a perfect storm, drawing on as many as seven different factors It will take a long time to sort this out with any certainty, and even then certainty may never come. The future performance of polls in predicting final results will now be watched much more closer than ever. I guess they are "on notice."

you guys i have been reading this thread for 2.5 hours and it has not stopped

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.