2008 Primaries Thread

I think it's highly likely a Dem will be our next Pres, but assuming that it's going to happen makes it less likely to happen.

No, of course not. But the opponent will be more popular than Bush.

How so?

I think it's highly likely a Dem will be our next Pres, but assuming that it's going to happen makes it less likely to happen.

How so?

(Check out the results of where voters place themselves. Actually to the right of moderate.)

looking at the results of elections over the last 60 years will tell you the same thing. yet people still live in this dreamland where the great left-thinking public keeps rejecting the Dems because they are insufficiently ideological.

btw I'll pay $2 to anyone who designs a Screaming Lobster of Hope graphic.

I know Bush is really unpopular, but have you guys even checked out one of the GOP think tank sites recently? Talk about tension and despair.

"just a bunch of dumb old white guys"

You may disagree, but Bush, as unpopular as he is, is still a more likeable dumb old white guy in the GOP than the current GOP runners. (And Huckabee is an android planted to fuck things up for the GOP, I'm convinced.)

"First it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution. The only Republican Senator that always opposed the war. Every day from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't co-operate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice as many of the other Senators were. So, first the case is wrong that way."

"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.

"This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing calling Hillary the Senator from Punjab? Did you like that?"

"Or what about the Obama hand out that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook? Scouring me, scathing criticism, over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon.

"So, you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want. It wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly that we didn't do better in Iowa. But you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and the other is negative when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media, doesn't mean the facts aren't out there.

(Check out the results of where voters place themselves. Actually to the right of moderate.)

looking at the results of elections over the last 60 years will tell you the same thing. yet people still live in this dreamland where the great left-thinking public keeps rejecting the Dems because they are insufficiently ideological.

-- gabbneb, Friday, January 25, 2008 6:32 PM

^ yezir

I could Photoshop something, but it'd have the Obama campaign logo in it, is that OK?

No, of course not. But the opponent will be more popular than Bush.

How so?

cos bush was immensely popular with a sizeable subset of conservatives but massively unpopular with dems and many independents (enough to catapult a moribund kerry campaign to 48%).

I think it's highly likely a Dem will be our next Pres, but assuming that it's going to happen makes it less likely to happen.

How so?

i will cite precedent in the case of tortoise v hare

HRC's campaign is likely to out-Rove Rove, guys. (stressing "likely")

I'm not saying we should assume a Democrat will be our next President. I'm just saying that, you know, the reverse-Kerry-lost effect is really making you guys seem far more paranoid than you need to be, that's all.

alfred i'm kind of stunned that you're ordering me off this thread when you won't even cite one example of bill clinton being "nasty" to obama

the extract above is what most people appear to be worked up about, have taken as evidence that bill is "nasty" and an "attack dog".. but look at what he says. is that really it? is that the best you can do? i'll keep an open mind that there is other stuff out there bill clinton has said that is actually nasty, below-the-belt, etc etc but until you put up, please drop the imperious martinet act

Eppy, if McCain wins the GOP nomination, I think he'll be the heavy favorite (especially over HRC; sorry, Daria).

(xp)

you know what guys? i think hillary's just... i dunno, too ambitious. she seems ruthless. something about her voice.. just rubs me the wrong way.

Yes, and apparently she is a murderer, too!

(Kidding, kidding).

Mackro seems to be shouting into the wind a bit here.

where is the pinefox in these troubled times

We haven't seen how McCain will fare in a presidential general election. Does anybody think that over the course of the presidential campaign people could be made to understand that he is not a moderate?

I doubt it, since those juicy little details will all be filtered through McCain's core constituency: The Nat'l Media.

Why is everyone assuming McCain is going to be popular, much less REALLY popular?

The narrative is there. Where's the evidence?

(Granted, a lot could change between now and November. But no one knows what that will be. Probably random petty shit that has a huge effect on one candidate to be determined randomly.)

calling Obama's narrative a "fairytale" when Clinton himself has made bald-faced lies about his "opposition" to the war = uhhhhhhh, not "nasty" perhaps, but deeply hypocritical and disingenuous and unbecoming a President

x-post

Isn't anyone concerned about stripping Michigan and Florida of their primary delegates for moving their primary dates up? It seems like so much red meat for the RNC in the general election: "The Democrats disenfranchised your state in the primary -- Why vote for a Democrat who doesn't value your vote?" I mean, I can see Florida becoming decisively 'red' in the general if the GOP uses that line.

(^^^ referring to Clinton's own claims about being against the war from the start there, in case that isn't clear)

x-post

xpost I went into my reasoning above as to why I think McCain's gonna have basic mathematical problems if he's the nominee.

Elmo, I don't think Detroit is going to vote for McCain just because of a messed up Dem primary. Just a hunch.

"unbecoming a President" sounds like a danielle steele novel - good title

the problem for the Republicans in terms of a McCain nom is that he will suppress the Republican vote because large parts of their core constituencies don't like him

Florida is a concern. But Florida is for the GOP to lose at this point.

I think Dems would be less suspicious of Hillary if the Clintons hadn't demonstrated time and time again that they're far more interested in helping the Clintons than helping the party. Which is fine and understandable and all, but recent events have really played into that feeling.

please drop the imperious martinet act

I like this phrase!

Yeah, the potential for a "disenfranchisement of Florida" meme is troubling me as well.

Bill has also called Obama a "kid" btw

The narrative is there. Where's the evidence?

There's no evidence about how any of these candidates will fare in the General Election, but there are good reasons to fear McCain far more than any other GOP hopeful. Many of them are set forth above. Remember, stalwart conservatives like Peggy Noonan apparently fear McCain somehow slipping through the primaries precisely because he isn't, in their view, an appropriately conservative candidate, which will make him appealing as a moderate/independent/outsider in the GE.

Lots of other reasons, too. I'd have to circle back later to elaborate, tho.

Shakey, significant part of the GOP base don't love McCain, but they'll campaign for him over a Democrat, esp. HRC. And I'm anxious to hear the mathmatical difficulties McCain will face as a GE candidate, Eppy.

calling Obama's narrative a "fairytale" when Clinton himself has made bald-faced lies about his "opposition" to the war

OTM. I was about to unearth this story. Do I need to say that I despise his tone – the self-pitying lilt he gives his words even when he's on the attack?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/JeffWells/subalbum1/britney-clinton.jpg

@o@!??

HRC is not a Trojan Horse for Bald Britney.

Yeah, but Florida went red last time. I think we're expecting it to stay red this time, and if it happens to go blue this year, well that will be a pleasant surprise. I don't see why all the worry about Florida.

I'm hardly gung-ho over Clinton (except now, thanks to the pic elmo posted(!)). But i mean, an old mean man who wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years is likely going to lose to a Clinton. Yes stressing "likely". But just sayin'!

Yeah, Iraq is where McCain is most vulnerable.

He says he knows little about economics, too (tho he now denies saying it), so maybe there's hope there, as well.

I want to be hopeful vs. McCain, but I'm not.

The problem with the "but Condi told us they wouldn't go to war" argument is that it amounts to "Hillary wasn't pro-war, she was just a chump."

I would be willing to bet good money that MI stays blue, most democrats in Michigan are pissed at the state party rather than than with the democratic party in general.

The narrative is there. Where's the evidence?

i like this - it could be said about every campaign ever.

The truth on the Clintons' war record

In the last two presidential elections, in which I'm pretty sure the GOP had a far better image than they do now, they still wouldn't have won without large increases in turnout. The evangelicals / social conservatives are already disillusioned (lotsa stories about evangelicals getting out of political activism) and something happened for the Dems to whomp the GOP in the midterms. McCain's gonna further alienate the evangeicals, and though he'll pick up independents, I really don't think he'll pick up appreciably more independents than Hillary will given the way she's been tacking since she ran for Senate. McCain is a nice guy and all, but if you're an independent, are you gonna vote for the pro-war anti-health care guy, or the anti-war pro-health care lady? Whose husband presided over the best economy in recent memory? So McCain loses a portion of her base, Hillary maintains hers, and they split the independents. Hillary wins.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/01/the-fine-art-of.html

Both of these attacks – i.e., Reagan and the “present” voting – are clearly factually false. And everyone who pays attention to the news knows it. And Clinton knows it too. Obama’s invocation of Reagan had nothing to do with praising Republican ideas, and the “present” thing has already been debunked too.

But still, she and her campaign keep harping on this -- dishonestly. What’s so infuriating is that, in doing so, they assume their audience is too ignorant to learn the truth. It’s not so much that they’re attacking Obama – after all, that’s politics. It’s that Clinton’s attacks illustrate a deep contempt for voters. Call it “the rube strategy” – we’ll say what we want and most people will be too ignorant to ever figure out the difference.

Now, I think the problem with Hillary is that she'll drive up GOP turnout way, way more than Obama will. So that's my worry. I think she's still the favorite though.

haha, hire me as a campaign writer!

Daniel, it's understood.

I got hit in the gut when Kerry BARELY lost. Yes, BARELY. In retrospect, we all say "Kerry went down big time". He did go down, but not BIG TIME!

And it's good to not assume either side has a shoe-in for the Presidency, but all the despair and worry that "Oh, now the GOP is DEFINITELY going to win" talk here whenever a Dem farts is, frankly, really fucking funny.

Eppy - McCain is NOT nice! That's the whole point! Everyone who thinks HRC is "like a total bitch" is definitely not going to like McCain either.

McCain loses a portion of her base, Hillary maintains hers, and they split the independents. Hillary wins.

"This is the biggest fairy tale I've ever heard!"

I hate McCain, actually, but honestly, aren't the people who think Hillary's a bitch exactly the kind of people that will like McCain's soft-spoken war hero schtick?

I got hit in the gut when Kerry BARELY lost. Yes, BARELY. In retrospect, we all say "Kerry went down big time". He did go down, but not BIG TIME!

Some of you thought John Kerry would win the 2004 Presidential election. That's because you looked it up in the polls. I looked it up in my gut, and it told me Bush would win. And he did.

Everyone who thinks HRC is "like a total bitch" is definitely not going to like McCain either.

I think a lot of the people who hate Hillary for "being a bitch" might go for McCain because a lot of the things she gets chided for are much more palatable in a male candidate.