2008 Primaries Thread

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blogphotos/Blog_LAT_Clinton_Obama_McCain_January_2008.gif

-- LA Times

the real clear politics links take those la times polls into account, and the aggregate of the polls indicates that it's basically a tie with mccain regardless of who the dems nominate.

I don't think Hilary's attack politics are working in the Democrats favor right now. They certainly aren't working in her favor. Unfortunately, she is taking Obama down with her.

A lot of voters just see infighting and they make their big frowny faces and both candidates are bad meenies so they both loose, or the sad frowny face voters maybe stay home because everybody's a bunch of meanies, or maybe they will vote for mccain because he's not a meanie and what's the difference he supported campaign finance reform and he shoots straight and is a very nice man maybe they will have a happy face again.

people don't need calling out for their defense or advocacy of a candidate, they need calling out for their myopic, summary rejection of another candidate, which has been daria's take on Obama all along (if not calling him a fake, then the purportedly-ingenuous "i don't get it"), or for their apparent presumption that their favored candidate will best win over others based upon the strength of their own personal affinity for the candidate, apparently without examining the extent to which they personally match up with the electorate (while applying that standard stringently to the other side on other measures).

their myopic, summary rejection of another candidate

http://www.imperialtea.com/AB1002000Store/images/accessories/kettles/blackkettlesolo300.jpg

when I look at polls, I like to look not just at the spreads, but at the actual numbers the candidates are getting, i.e. how many people are actually willing to vote for this guy? the increased-undecideds factor against obama means that on the RCP average a notch more are willing to go for clinton than obama, but i think it's more revealing to look at the mccain side - against hillary, he's consistently at or in striking distance of 50% in every poll since December, but against Obama, he's held below that level in half the polls.

i'm just playing daria's game back at her, Tracer, I might even vote for Hillary yet! (tho not likely, of course)

and i don't pretend not to get hillary - i get her just fine, thanks

2008 elections: polls u can rely on

yea in any case i don't think polls taken 10 months before an election really mean that much.

edwards might in fact be the most electable in a vacuum, but now marginally the least electable because he's the biggest loser

Tracer always reminds me on this thread how Southerners really have learned to expect so much less from pols than the rest of us.

I was kinda saddened to hear on Morning Edition a nice old lady-on-the-street in South Carolina say Billy Blythe's recent hatchet work was unbecoming for a former ruthless, triangulating war criminal president.

Listen closely, you can already hear the Dems shrieking "THE SUPREME COURT! THE SUPREME COURT!" trying to convince folx to turn out on 11/4 for Her Lying Ladyship, sigh...

gabbneb, either you’re a master of playing devils advocate, or retarded.

i am the biggest devil, dude

Setting aside, for the moment, our advocacy for our fave dem candidates, can someone explain this to me:

The two biggest concerns of the electorate are:
1. the economy
2. iraq

They think president Bush's policies are:
1. economy = bad, wrong direction
2. iraq = terrible mistake, pull out now

McCain's positions are:
1. has been and continues to be in line with Bush economic policies, says he doesn't understand economics
2. war hawk, we could be in Iraq forever

McCain still has popular support. Could conceivably beat any of the three leading Democratic candidates who:
1. have real stimulus packages and will move economy in new direction
2. advocate pulling out of iraq as soon as possible

?????????????????

mccain seems serious and sober without being all stuck-up and fancy and intellectual and is willing to tell his party to go fuck itself so he must be an honorable man who cares about the people not just being a politician.

i am interested in the fact that most people i know who trust Clinton more than Obama are relatively bookish sorts who might tend to dislike the big crowd milieu he's got going on. they believe/hope that it may be sufficient for success in life simply to put one's head down and study all the relevant materials. i think these people just don't get it. i am to some extent one of these people, but i don't pretend that i'm gonna win any elections (i have won a few elections, actually, but i was more of a schmoozer then).

i am also interested in the fact that i see a fair number of Hillary supporters/defenders who either come originally from a very white place or strongly identify with an early-generation immigrant experience (hispanic or jewish or other white ethnic). while i might get off on disingenuously calling these people racist, i think it may be true that these people either feel less affinity with obama or are more inherently skeptical of his ability to get over. maybe they know something that i don't.

i just don't understand hillary supporters who call obama out for being centrist

i think a lot of people are so sick and tired of the speed with which bush and the republicans have flushed the country down the toilet that they want a divider, not a uniter, and obama's peace-love-n-harmony talk smacks too much of centrism and the latter

not sayin i agree but i think that's there

(/groundless mind-reading)

McCain will probably not be able to win a GE for the same reasons that certain people who should know better cream their jeans about him: he won't say anything to win an election, he's not very partisan, and he has nuances. Whoever the GOP puts up their main task is going to be turning out disheartened GOP voters. One of the many reasons Hilldog makes me nervous: the Clintons are great for GOP turnout.

xp I also think Dem voters smell blood and will turn out in droves to get their candidate into office.

Unless the Dems nominate a Klan member or a money or something. But I don't think Obama's going to suppress the vote.

I don't think mccain is a "war hawk"...

just thinks another 100 years in Iraq is fine!

Obama's 'beyond divisiveness' talk sounds a lot like the bullshit calls for bipartisanship, which we've had plenty of since 9-11-01 -- it means the Dems roll over for 98% of what Repubs wanna do.

Then there's also his voting to protect corporations from class-action suits, the healthcare dithering chronicled by Krugman, etc.

Why do US parties do this eating their own young thing immediately before general elections rather than immediately after defeats? (this is a rhetorical question)

Brainwasher, what is and what has been mccain's stance on the iraq war, 2002-today?

For the moment, Morbs, I will not argue your point, but I assume you don't support Hillary, which was central to mine.

Personally, I would have preferred to have an idealized recollection of Bill Clinton's presidency as it was during a time when I didn't pay much attention to politics, but now I'm forced to see Bill's role on the campaign trail now and his handling of reporters as his legacy. He comes across like a demagogue and a bully, quickly spinning out from relatively innocuous questions about Hil's campaign to admonishing the questioner for their shamelessness and how they hate fairness and America. He's like BizzarrO'Reilly at times.

McCain will probably not be able to win a GE for the same reasons that certain people who should know better cream their jeans about him: he won't say anything to win an election, he's not very partisan, and he has nuances. Whoever the GOP puts up their main task is going to be turning out disheartened GOP voters. One of the many reasons Hilldog makes me nervous: the Clintons are great for GOP turnout.

If this analysis is correct, then perhaps the best thing for the Democrats' chances in a Clinton-McCain match-up would be a Bloomberg candidacy, since it would split the Anyone-But-Hillary vote?

HILLARY CLINTON THINKS CATS ARE EXPENDABLE. CAN YOU TRUST HER?

Bill really bugs. Is this prissy paranoia the result of permanent damage from the hyper-partisan whitewater/lewinsky years, or was he always like this?

So I just want to know -- if HRC wins the general election, shall we refer to Bill & Hillary as THE PRESIDENTS CLINTON?

you guys probably already knew this, but:

Super Tuesday Won't Decide Nominations

you know it's really gotten to the point where,obviously, i'm voting for obama or clinton (and support obama), but even if they lose to mccain, I cannot fathom the next four years under him being worse than the last eight years. I could easily be proven wrong I guess.

bill's actions are really surprising me now. i was always unsure what kind of role he would take in hillary's campaign, but i didn't think it would be the all-out attack dog thing he's doing now. i thought he would have rather sat back and let hillary fight her fight.

xpost No, I think Hilldog beats McCain, but Romney might be able to slime up enough energy to get the turnout he needs. Bloomberg's not gonna run, he's just pretending to run to get publicity. (Which I endorse.)

Yeah, Bill was always like this. The problem with the Clintons is that they're solid, dependable liberals, but when anything threatens their power base they'll do whatever it takes to secure themselves. That's how Bill ended up passing so much Republican legislation. He was a good "go Democrats!" booster since Bush got elected, but now that he's got a dog in this fight (no offense meant to Hillary), it's personal.

I think Aunt Maureen's column nails my feelings about the race right now pretty well, which I never thought I'd be saying.

A McCain presidency will not be worse than the Bush years. Of course, the Bush presidency has not been as bad as an Evil Mutant Cyborg That Eats Babies administration, so I don't know what people are complaining about.

uh in other words not solid, dependable liberals

To clarify on McCain: the only reason the GOP won the last two presidential elections was because they were able to boost turnout. The evangelicals are already staying home, and if anyone but Huckabee gets in (which it looks like he won't) they're not going anywhere on election day. McCain will pick up independents but I don't know that he'll pick up more than Hillary. They split the independents, McCain loses a third of his base, Hillary gets 'em all out: H-dog wins.

McCain's record (think his 'we gotta do this right goddammit!!' kind of stance in pushing the establishment of TSA after 9/11) lead me to believe that on the small-ticket kind of stuff that the Bush crew has been laughably, disgustingly awful at, he'd be fine -- no EPA director out there preventing california from tightening emissions, for instance. on the big ticket stuff, i think he'd be pretty bad. at least he's anti-torture. which may mean we won't see a president mccain.

bill has parts of the prince memorized (if not the whole thing)

xpost

uh so does everyone who plays call of duty 3

"never do an enemy a small injury"

Clintons ... solid, dependable liberals

NUTS. Where, in their own minds? What was The Third Way all about?

I generally agree with gff on McCain. He would respect the rule of law and would allow the government to function according to it's mandate. He will also drag us further into a protracted recession and a broken foreign policy. Hyperbole alert: I honestly think, if elected, McCain could be our generation's Herbert Hoover.

http://www.dlc.org/upload_graphics/leaders2007.jpg

Third way was about securing their power base.

i'm coming to think that all the personal jibes against bush have been counterproductive in the long run because it allows republicans to think the problem these days with the economy, with foreign policy, with the corruption of the justice department, etc is just because bush is a fuck-up, rather than the truth, which is that bush has implemented just about every policy that red-meat republicans have been calling for for years, and that we're in the mess we're in because those policies are short-sighted, counter-productive, greedy and wrong for most americans

otherwise why wouldn't mccain be running from these policies as fast as he could?