2008 Primaries Thread

yeah look for pawlenty's name to come up a lot in the coming years. if he's not a veep pick i'm betting he'll run in '12

Unless something dramatic happens in between not and 2012 I think its safe to assume he will be running, if John McCain is elected, or not.

xpost No, I think Hilldog beats McCain

I think you're right. Democrats overestimate the appeal of McCain because he appeals to them. Political junkies and journalists love him too, because he's a straight-shooter. But I don't think his appeal really translates all that well outside the media/blog bubble - the fact that he's the nominal front-runner now says more about the weakness of the GOP field than his strength as a candidate in the general election.

I think the basic fact is that the style in which a candidate conducts his campaign matters a whole lot more to pundits, journalists, and political junkies than it does to most voters. Perhaps it's bad form for Bill & Hillary to gang up on Obama. Perhaps it messes up the tidy first-woman vs. first-black for President narrative arc. But the liberal commentators (like Maureen Dowd) who foresee doom and damnation in these lapses of decorum are exactly the sort of complacent, elitist liberals who have never won a national election. There are many well-to-do, college-educated Democrats who prefer the elegant, soft-spoken, high-minded candidate - they are Obama supporters. But I think in the end there really are more Democrats who just want someone who will fight hard for their interests.

yup, he's pretty right wing on the issues but he's charming, young, and managed to hold on in '06 in a blue state. the conservative press loves him. PHEAR THE T-PAW

xp

But the liberal commentators (like Maureen Dowd) who foresee doom and damnation in these lapses of decorum are exactly the sort of complacent, elitist liberals who have never won a national election. There are many well-to-do, college-educated Democrats who prefer the elegant, soft-spoken, high-minded candidate - they are Obama supporters. But I think in the end there really are more Democrats who just want someone who will fight hard for their interests.

+

Half the voting public right now is engaged in a game of guess-what-the-other-hypothetical-voter-is-thinking and the other half has no idea how it will vote so I wouldn't take any "matchups" too seriously at this point.

you guys probably already knew this, but:

Super Tuesday Won't Decide Nominations

That article is kind of dumb, because if either Clinton or Obama won all of the states on Super Tuesday, the other one would be forced to drop out, anyway, just because the momentum would've shifted so dramatically it'd be nigh impossible to mount a comeback.

Thanks, Tracer. I'm going to have to backtrack and read a bunch of comments I missed, but 1) I am not being disingenuous and 2) I guess I've thought the same thing about Obama the whole time, this is true, but fwiw it started way before I was remotely considering supporting Hillary. Let me just go back to our old thread to verify, now, but that's how I remember it, as well as being strongly against HRC only a year or two ago. 3) Gabbneb, who died and made you god, that you think you need to correct my thinking for me?

But I guess I've been here before - lots of us have a disagreement, but it's somehow appropriate to respond by getting personal, telling me I can't think for myself. Why? Have I accused any of you of being myopic or crazy? Furthermore, have you considered that, in general, it's much more likely that others will be more open to hearing your point of view if you don't call them names and insist that they need to be corrected?

im not a hillary clinton supporter but the idea that a person deciding to vote for clinton is somehow crazy, stupid, cynical or lying is pretty far-gone even for gabbneb

no crazier than old dude totes DLC centrist party line til 3 months ago then jumps on obamawagon & starts trashing hil

if either Clinton or Obama won all of the states on Super Tuesday

But barring some last-min scandal/miracle, that's not going to happen

There are many well-to-do, college-educated Democrats who prefer the elegant, soft-spoken, high-minded candidate - they are Obama supporters. But I think in the end there really are more Democrats who just want someone who will fight hard for their interests.

This is about where I'm at. I really want someone who'll fight hard for universal health care. It's so expensive to be poor and when you have a serious health problem on top of it, you're pretty much screwed. I guess for me that's the part that's personal. Even though at this point I'm well-to-do comparatively speaking, despite living paycheck to paycheck, when you get right down to the % of people who have a college degree and a job with benefits.

<i>I think the basic fact is that the style in which a candidate conducts his campaign matters a whole lot more to pundits, journalists, and political junkies than it does to most voters.</i>

but nate, where do voters find out what to think about each candidate other than how the media portrays them? there will be such an obvious narrative arc pre-written in the event of either mccain-hrc or mccain-obama, and i don't think either one will help the democrats. and yeah, mccain-hrc will def mean bloomberg gets in the race, pulling in probably 8% or so, and i would guess that a significant portion of that would be from the democrat side, probably ensuring a mccain victory.

But I think in the end there really are more Democrats who just want someone who will fight hard for their interests.

(jokes, bruv)

milo has proof that Hillary is in fact a 12-foot lizard

a Clinton fighting hard for anything but votes, rofl

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

O RLY?

While I wouldn't counsel ignoring completely what candidates say, an aspie-like over-literal reading of their words without regard to the context is even more off-base. All of these guys are playing a bit against type to try to address perceived weaknesses. Hillary knows that women are perceived as weaker in the national security dept so she hit hawkish notes until everyone had them stuck in their head. Obama knows that black liberals are not generally regarded as paragons of electability, so from his earliest days he's introduced himself as a mainstream unifying figure careful to respect the other side. Edwards knows that traditional Southern whites are not often the first choice of liberal Democratic primary voters, so he consistently positioned himself a half-step to the left of the other two. Hil is now Rovianly trying to turn Obama's pivot towards strength into a weakness. She's saying you want to be the unthreatening black candidate, fine, now you're too centrist for Dem primary voters. (This very cleverly allows her to address her own too-centrist problem with Dem primary voters by making her appear to be the more leftwing candidate without actually making gestures toward the left that would compromise her in the general). She may justify this by saying that such an approach will only help Obama in the general if she loses the primary. But she's also going directly for Obama's strength by trying to turn him back into the black candidate. Oh no, she wouldn't go so far as to marginalize him into Jesse or Al, but she's perfectly comfortable portraying him as a 'very likeable', charming, smooth-talking guy who can't be completely trusted (Vito to Pino on backstabbing in the backroom) and might let you down in the end (you know what I'm talking about, girlfriend!).

As for the Dems who want a candidate who's perceived as a fighter, of course there are more of them than Dems who just like the guy who's perceived to talk flowery (tho the ratio is smaller than it used to be). But that seems irrelevant in a general tho - I don't think either of these Dem groups decides the election. Independents do, and we have a pretty good idea who they like more.

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

that's definitely the approach they're taking/will take, but they'd take it regardless of whether we called him a chimp too many times

Apparently Washington state's Dem caucus, four days after Super Tuesday, might actually matter, since apparently it's impossible to determine a clear winner after Super Tuesday. We have just under a 100 delegates to split. Hat tip to Slog.

she wouldn't go so far as to marginalize him into Jesse or Al

She wouldn't personally, but her supporters on some liberal blogs--some of whom are rumored to be on the campaign payroll--are already explicitly referring to Barack as "Jesse Jackson" and gleefully hoping to see some "white flight" in South Carolina.

must make a confusing read?

such tactical skill may make hillary the better candidate. obama supporters think/hope that he's so likeable/straightforward he won't need those skills as much.

if WA becomes important, that might bode well for O

daria, yr basic argument seems to be it matters to you a lot that hillary gets in because of what she's gonna do on health care. i honestly don't see much difference between that and a republican saying that they don't doubt [random democrat]'s patriotism, but they want to be sure the country is safe from the terrists. andwhat, you only get half a bar.

Wouldnt that be supporting hillary because of her stance on an issue that's important to the voter (daria)? What's wrong with that?

Yeah, I'm confused as to the objection on that one..

even if you give credence to the policy difference, it's what she's unfairly implying (or maybe actually fearing - a GOP-oriented trait these days) about the other guy

and again, i gotta go back to if you actually fear this guy, your perception is off. but maybe i gotta respect that.

Well he is black.

(joke! joke!)

I know I'm preaching to the choir (mostly), but just to underline my point about McCain:

mccain economic plan

mccain iraq plan

People across the spectrum believe that McCain is more moderate than he is. To be fair, he is much more responsible, economically, than GWB.

I believe McCain is honest in his intent to balance the budget, but he wants to do that while making the Bush tax cuts permanent, introducing new tax cuts for the middle class, eliminating the AMT, and reducing corporate taxes by 10 percentage points, while increasing spending on the Iraq war.

I don't know how he's going to balance the budget that way.

Where are the spending cuts going to come from that are going to eliminate trillions of dollars of deficit during a war-time recession after massive tax cuts?

IT'S A TOTAL FUCKING FANTASY. MCCAIN = VOODOO ECONOMICS. THIS RIGHT WING SUPPLY SIDE SHIT IS EXTREMELY FUCKED UP YO.

But I know tons of people, dems & independents (plus the republican base) who think this guy is a moderate.

ive been saying since i read it in the nation in 2000 -

MCCAIN IS THE FOURTH MOST CONSERVATIVE SENATOR IN THE WHOLE DAMN SENATE

and as of the 109th senate hes the SECOND MOST CONSERVATIVE

http://voteview.com/sen109.htm

109 14826 4 NEW HAM R GREGG 63 536 0.882 98.000
109 29740 4 NEW HAM R SUNUNU 61 529 0.885 99.000
109 15039 61 ARIZONA R MCCAIN 99 505 0.804 100.000
109 15429 61 ARIZONA R KYL 37 542 0.932 101.000

huh

MCCAIN IS NOT A MODERATE

HERE IS A LIST OF SENATORS FURTHER LEFT THAN MCCAIN

109 49309 25 WISCONS D FEINGOLD 55 536 0.897 1.000
109 14230 31 IOWA D HARKIN 36 540 0.933 2.500
109 14307 6 VERMONT D LEAHY 35 542 0.935 2.500
109 15011 71 CALIFOR D BOXER 33 521 0.937 4.000
109 10808 3 MASSACH D KENNEDY ED 15 530 0.972 5.500
109 40104 12 NEW JER D CORZINE 11 199 0.945 5.500
109 14914 12 NEW JER D LAUTENBERG 25 537 0.953 7.000
109 13039 52 MARYLAN D SARBANES 20 542 0.963 8.000
109 29142 5 RHODE I D REED 28 543 0.948 9.000
109 94240 6 VERMONT I JEFFORDS 49 517 0.905 10.000
109 14400 82 HAWAII D AKAKA 31 535 0.942 11.000
109 4812 82 HAWAII D INOUYE 40 488 0.918 12.500
109 14709 23 MICHIGA D LEVIN CARL 29 542 0.946 12.500
109 15021 21 ILLINOI D DURBIN 21 538 0.961 14.000
109 40101 33 MINNESO D DAYTON 36 516 0.930 15.000
109 49308 73 WASHING D MURRAY 40 539 0.926 16.000
109 14213 1 CONNECT D DODD 41 520 0.921 17.500
109 39310 73 WASHING D CANTWELL 41 537 0.924 17.500
109 14871 72 OREGON D WYDEN 51 542 0.906 19.000
109 29373 12 NEW JER D MENENDEZ 13 223 0.942 20.000
109 40502 21 ILLINOI D OBAMA 30 538 0.944 21.000
109 14440 52 MARYLAN D MIKULSKI 17 519 0.967 22.000
109 49300 71 CALIFOR D FEINSTEIN 39 535 0.927 23.000
109 14858 13 NEW YOR D SCHUMER 37 539 0.931 24.000
109 40105 13 NEW YOR D CLINTON 32 532 0.940 25.000
109 14920 3 MASSACH D KERRY JOHN 31 526 0.941 26.000
109 29732 23 MICHIGA D STABENOW 34 539 0.937 27.000
109 49901 22 INDIANA D BAYH 48 537 0.911 28.000
109 14101 11 DELAWAR D BIDEN 42 502 0.916 29.000
109 14912 66 NEW MEX D BINGAMAN 57 529 0.892 30.500
109 15704 1 CONNECT D LIEBERMAN 52 509 0.898 30.500
109 15703 25 WISCONS D KOHL 39 541 0.928 32.000
109 14922 56 WEST VI D ROCKEFELLER 28 434 0.935 33.000
109 15054 65 NEVADA D REID 33 543 0.939 34.000
109 40500 62 COLORAD D SALAZAR 44 532 0.917 35.000
109 14812 36 NORTH D D DORGAN 57 532 0.893 36.000
109 15502 36 NORTH D D CONRAD 79 525 0.850 37.000
109 1366 56 WEST VI D BYRD ROBER 87 530 0.836 38.000
109 15425 37 SOUTH D D JOHNSON 45 538 0.916 39.000
109 14651 43 FLORIDA D NELSON 74 541 0.863 40.000
109 49702 45 LOUISIA D LANDRIEU 66 530 0.875 41.000
109 29305 42 ARKANSA D LINCOLN 36 540 0.933 42.000
109 40301 42 ARKANSA D PRYOR 43 543 0.921 43.000
109 14203 64 MONTANA D BAUCUS 62 530 0.883 44.000
109 15015 11 DELAWAR D CARPER 56 542 0.897 45.000
109 40103 35 NEBRASK D NELSON BEN 106 542 0.804 46.000
109 49905 5 RHODE I R CHAFEE 76 531 0.857 47.000
109 14661 2 MAINE R SNOWE 53 536 0.901 48.000
109 49703 2 MAINE R COLLINS 46 544 0.915 49.000
109 14910 14 PENNSYL R SPECTER 70 531 0.868 50.000
109 15020 24 OHIO R DEWINE 65 543 0.880 51.000
109 40302 33 MINNESO R COLEMAN 33 520 0.937 52.000
109 49705 72 OREGON R SMITH GORD 48 539 0.911 53.000
109 29369 34 MISSOUR R TALENT 61 544 0.888 54.000
109 14506 22 INDIANA R LUGAR 48 538 0.911 55.000
109 14712 40 VIRGINI R WARNER 46 537 0.914 56.000
109 40300 81 ALASKA R MURKOWSKI 27 531 0.949 57.000
109 40501 43 FLORIDA R MARTINEZ 48 534 0.910 58.000
109 49704 35 NEBRASK R HAGEL 52 537 0.903 59.000
109 49903 24 OHIO R VOINOVICH 69 539 0.872 60.000
109 14103 66 NEW MEX R DOMENICI 24 519 0.954 61.000
109 12109 81 ALASKA R STEVENS 33 536 0.938 62.000
109 49307 67 UTAH R BENNETT 26 537 0.952 63.000
109 14009 46 MISSISS R COCHRAN 23 537 0.957 64.000
109 40304 54 TENNESS R ALEXANDER 43 536 0.920 65.000
109 49502 54 TENNESS R FRIST 33 542 0.939 66.000
109 49306 49 TEXAS R HUTCHISON 47 542 0.913 67.000
109 15501 34 MISSOUR R BOND 38 543 0.930 68.000
109 15701 64 MONTANA R BURNS 33 531 0.938 69.000
109 14852 32 KANSAS R ROBERTS 30 536 0.944 70.000
109 14503 67 UTAH R HATCH 23 530 0.957 71.000
109 29141 14 PENNSYL R SANTORUM 46 524 0.912 72.000
109 14226 31 IOWA R GRASSLEY 32 544 0.941 73.000
109 29754 37 SOUTH D R THUNE 42 530 0.921 74.000
109 40303 47 NORTH C R DOLE 36 538 0.933 75.000
109 14031 46 MISSISS R LOTT 32 501 0.936 76.000
109 29345 63 IDAHO R CRAPO 29 542 0.946 77.000
109 29918 45 LOUISIA R VITTER 46 530 0.913 78.500
109 94659 41 ALABAMA R SHELBY 43 535 0.920 78.500
109 14809 63 IDAHO R CRAIG 39 539 0.928 80.000
109 14921 51 KENTUCK R MCCONNELL 26 543 0.952 81.000
109 29523 32 KANSAS R BROWNBACK 50 535 0.907 82.000
109 29148 40 VIRGINI R ALLEN 37 542 0.932 83.000
109 29512 44 GEORGIA R CHAMBLISS 27 532 0.949 84.000
109 29909 44 GEORGIA R ISAKSON 22 537 0.959 85.000
109 29537 65 NEVADA R ENSIGN 50 536 0.907 86.000
109 15406 51 KENTUCK R BUNNING 26 530 0.951 87.000
109 15424 53 OKLAHOM R INHOFE 44 536 0.918 88.000
109 49706 68 WYOMING R ENZI 28 519 0.946 89.000
109 40305 49 TEXAS R CORNYN 36 538 0.933 90.000
109 15633 68 WYOMING R THOMAS 33 521 0.937 91.000
109 29108 62 COLORAD R ALLARD 38 542 0.930 92.000
109 49700 41 ALABAMA R SESSIONS 29 542 0.946 93.000
109 29566 48 SOUTH C R GRAHAM 62 525 0.882 94.000
109 29555 53 OKLAHOM R COBURN 56 538 0.896 95.000
109 29548 47 NORTH C R BURR 36 537 0.933 96.000
109 29936 48 SOUTH C R DEMINT 26 538 0.952 97.000
109 14826 4 NEW HAM R GREGG 63 536 0.882 98.000
109 29740 4 NEW HAM R SUNUNU 61 529 0.885 99.000

HERE IS A LIST OF SENATORS MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN MCCAIN

109 15429 61 ARIZONA R KYL 37 542 0.932 101.000

109 40104 12 NEW JER D CORZINE 11 199 0.945 5.500
109 14914 12 NEW JER D LAUTENBERG 25 537 0.953 7.000

holla back nj

Hillary and Obama both hold liberal voting records:

109 40502 21 ILLINOI D OBAMA 30 538 0.944 21.000
109 14440 52 MARYLAN D MIKULSKI 17 519 0.967 22.000
109 49300 71 CALIFOR D FEINSTEIN 39 535 0.927 23.000
109 14858 13 NEW YOR D SCHUMER 37 539 0.931 24.000
109 40105 13 NEW YOR D CLINTON 32 532 0.940 25.000

Listen, Hillary supporters, Obama is to the left of Hillary. His hope and unity speaches are not about triangulation, but about making a broad coalition of people comfortable with his progressive policies.

I know that, on paper, his health-care plan appears to be to the right of Hillary, but in the end, if not during the general election, who do you think is going to swing back to the right? The DLC chair or the senator who pointedly had his name removed from the DLC list, who sought unity within the party inclusive of liberal Democrats?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064653.php

Who do you think will be a stronger Republican candidate in the general election? Mitt or McCain?

I'd guess McCain, but you can't just assume that based on polls at the moment - Romney isn't nearly as well known as McCain.

in case you forgot Obama's the black candidate, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080124/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Mitt!

Former Sec. Labor R. Reich (Politely) Slams the Clintons

what's this bill is saying about "obama's union people intimidating nevada caucus-goers"?

in case you forgot Obama's the black candidate, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080124/ap_on_el_pr/obama

wtf Bill you were just complaining yesterday about how the media is inappropriately focusing on race and gender! grrrr

Gail Collins doesn't go far enough here, but she's waking the commentariat up to the probability of a shared presidency.

I think the basic fact is that the style in which a candidate conducts his campaign matters a whole lot more to pundits, journalists, and political junkies than it does to most voters. Perhaps it's bad form for Bill & Hillary to gang up on Obama. Perhaps it messes up the tidy first-woman vs. first-black for President narrative arc. But the liberal commentators (like Maureen Dowd) who foresee doom and damnation in these lapses of decorum are exactly the sort of complacent, elitist liberals who have never won a national election. There are many well-to-do, college-educated Democrats who prefer the elegant, soft-spoken, high-minded candidate - they are Obama supporters. But I think in the end there really are more Democrats who just want someone who will fight hard for their interests.

Well, I don't think Aunt Maureen has actually run for office, but regardless, the idea that only latte-sippin' liberals like Obama is very much a Clinton talking point--if just the effete poindexters voted for Obama in the primaries so far he wouldn't be one of the two leading candidates right now. And something has to be driving South Carolina voters into Obama's camp, given the ground Hillary's lost there. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to suggest that it's at least partially to do with Bill's behavior of late.

(I also don't think anyone takes Dowd seriously on actual politics, she's the commentator of mores and culture, not practicality.)

If you don't think Obama's a pretty damn sharp political operator, you might want to take a closer look at his actions thus far. I mean, c'mon, he's almost beating a Clinton, right?

(That said, I do wish Obama's people were doing more to get stories in the media right now about how Hillary won NH even though the polls showed her down, and that she could still very well win SC. Need more stuff about there about how Hillary Clinton will never be the underdog unless she's running against zombie RFK or something.)

Oh and maybe Wes Clark for Dem running mate? (I just still like him for that Outkast ad.)

Oh and maybe Wes Clark for Dem running mate?

For Obama? Doubtful, since Clark already endorsed HRC, I think.

Besides, I prefer Sen. Jim Webb: strong nat'l security bona fides, former Republican Cabinet Member, seen as a tough guy, and with a son currently serving in Iraq.

Oh yeah, I'm sorta assuming Hillary's gonna win at this point.

I like that Webb is in our camp and in Congress, but I really, really don't want a dude like that in the White House. If he changed sides once...

CLINTON LIEBERMAN 08

(Southland Tales joke)

fall preview of Surrender Monkey theme:

Senator John McCain launched into a pointed critique of his Senate colleague Hillary Rodham Clinton today, saying that “for the first time in political history” a presidential candidate has called for outright surrender in a war.

“Candidate Clinton has called for surrender and waving the white flag,” he said during an appearance in West Palm Beach. “I think it’s terrible. I think it’s terrible.”

“I look forward to the debate with Senator Clinton on that issue. Americans don’t want to throw away the hard-earned gains we have made against Al Qaeda and Iraq. If Senator Clinton has her way, Al Qaeda will trumpet to the world that they have beaten the United States.”
“For us to do what Senator Clinton wants us to do — that is to wave the white flag -– I cannot guarantee United States security in the region or in the United States.”