2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

yeah that def seems like the plan

So my friend who lives in Wash. Heights says a big story in the spanish-language papers right now is that Hillary's original campaign manager was Latina, and that was a big part of why she was getting such a big portion of the latino vote. But they are pissed that one of their own got fired. Has anyone seen any tracking polls specifically tracking hispanic voters since the firing happened?

I already linked to this but I think that this was probably a considerably larger factor in the large latino and asian vote for hillary
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-chang/why-latinos-and-asian-ame_b_85359.html

That seems to be way more about the asians than the hispanics.

how so? its entitled "Why Latinos and Asian Americans Went for Hillary" and his major evidence is "In Los Angeles, that meant securing Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's support, and the predominantly Latino unions that have supported him. She also landed the support of Fabian Nunez and Dolores Huerta."

i dont see a spot in the entire essay where he focuses more on asians than latino voters

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/12/mccain-received-100000-_n_86245.html

xpost He has a whole lot of specific points about the asian vote ("the influential Chinese American Democratic Club" "Obama is from Hawai'i, has Asian family members, and is beloved there" "the Democrat from Punjab" "whether he'd promote affirmative action for Asian Americans") but for latinos all he has is the endorsement point, which I could've got from CNN. As for the emergent/insurgent thing, I have no idea if he's getting that from someone else, but it doesn't make sense--what about the voters that are neither? Is he getting this distinction from someone else or is he just using buzzwords to say that immigrant populations tend to follow the more mainstream candidate when they themselves are trying to attain mainstream status? And if that's all he's saying, won't they swing over to Obama if he's perceived as the mainstream candidate?

no, you're not reading the article dude! the key to the whole article is that its about how HRC offers community leaders access to the halls of power, which barack cannot do; in return, those community leaders deliver the votes of their communities to HRC. He explains what emergent and insurgent means, and he doesnt imply that this covers all voters - he's just speaking about communities of immigrants (aka communities that do not have access to legislative power already)

whats so hard to understand?

So he's just saying that she got the latino and asian vote because she got the endorsement of community leaders? Well sure, but duh. I'll definitely agree that Obama's handling of those communities was a weak spot. I do disagree that he couldn't have gotten their endorsement, and again, if it's looking like Obama's going to be the nominee then I think community leaders might have more of an interest in backing him, at least by Chang's logic, no?

...yes but she got those endorsements early. the point of the story is that this is the ultimate reason why so many latino and asian voters went for hillary.

Does she have endorsements in OH/TX/PA yet?

I want to feel good about the upcoming election, and I'm personally elated that Obama is winning, but does anyone really believe this will be a blow out?

You mean in the GE, Fluffy? I think McCain will win it, narrowly.

if obama gets through mccain is gonna go into full bully mode, mittzings 2.0 except they won't be as funny. mccain will be at his loosest and most formidable against someone he sees as an upstart, which is the view that's getting drilled into his head right now.

My cynicism has got to stop at believing that McCain would beat Obama, because Obama has a real chance and a gift at inspiring people -- at least long enough to vote for him. But I'm sure we're still agreed that McCain would show Hillary the meaning of pain.

i cant see mccain winning the GE, even if hillary somehow pulls it off

We keep coming back to this. Understandably, I guess. Half of us think Hillary has enough support to win for whatever reason, and the other half of us keep saying, "You don't understand how many people sincerely hate this woman."

no, i do understand that, i think most people here do. i think what they dont understand is 1. mccain old lol 2. mccain crotchety (nervous.jpg) 3. this guy wants ... MORE wars??

seriously the republican party is in shitty shape for a reason and mccain is awkward, gruff and OLD. he 'sold out' in the eyes of most of the independents who once thought he was a maverick. dems are voting in record numbers (or record numbers are voting dem)

seriously no matter how the dem primary plays out i think mccain is the long shot here

I don't want to do any fundie-nutjob blogger's job for them, but why haven't we seen "insurgent candidate" deployed with a disparaging 'terrorist' connotation in regards to senator iraq hussein osama?

uh, we have, haven't we?

I don't think McCain is a long shot. I think this election will be close. I feel cautiously optimistic about Obama. If I had to bet, right now I'd probably bet on Obama.

To restate things from the last thread, I might seriously sit out the election if it's McCain/Clinton. I couldn't sleep either way, I don't think.

McCain with his war, which I think he would handle better than Bush, but that might also be like saying that the Bismark sank and the Exxon Valdez didn't. And his pro-life stance -- I said before that he wouldn't be concerned with acting on it, and he has in fact SAID exactly that, but that was a few years back, and winning that bile-filled conservative base is looking pretty important to him. To throw a juicy bone to that base, he might in fact aggressively pursue to overturn Roe v. Wade. In lieu of a thank you card. Or if not abortion, some other frightening issue that he's always been a "maverick" about, but is kinda willing to give up now that he has to get more staunch conservative love.

The best argument against Hillary was by someone else, and I'm sorry that I forgot who. Elmo? Basically that she might actually prove to be a more divisive president than W, if that is even possible. Reaching across the isle would be finished. The so-called "culture war" would feel a pretty real "surge." And the government would be just as ugly, nasty, untrustworthy, and depressing as the last eight years. Shit, McCain can as least find the aisle.

From MSNBC the night of the Florida primary:

Pat Buchanan: "What's McCain said he's for? 'The jobs aren't coming back. The illegals aren't going away. And we're going to have more wars.'"

Joe Scarborough: "John McCain's stated platform: 'Fewer jobs. More war."

A calculus-changing military/terrorism incident or an unexpected gaffe/implosion from the Dem nominee is the only way McCain has a legit shot at either Obama or Clinton.

You mean people are going to vote for a Democrat because they don't like illegal immigrants?

prob not, but they may stay home.

hillary has actually worked fairly well with republicans in congress. too well, many dems would say.

...a little too quiet.

Joe Scarborough: "John McCain's stated platform: 'Fewer jobs. More war."

It's true, conservatives want to win this war, because RAH RAH, but they don't want any more of them. A lot of that base is wanting "real" conservatism back, and by "real" they mean isolationism. You have to go pretty far back to get to a time when conservatives really devoutly wanted that, before Bush (because, terrorists!), before the Cold War (because, Communists!), maybe all the way back to, say, NEVER.

WWII though...

hillary has actually worked fairly well with republicans in congress. too well, many dems would say.

oh bull, Hillary works well with corporations who have shit-tons of money. Learned the trade from Bill, dontcha know.

WWII though...

Heh. Yes. Everyone now understands that getting involved in that war was totally foolish.

You mean people are going to vote for a Democrat because they don't like illegal immigrants?

No -- economy and war -- I just used the full quote, which was pretty lol when Buchanan delivered it.

a history prof pal put it like this:

prolonged obama vs. hillary fight allows gop to concentrate on congress in 2008
+
even if hillary wins, she'll stir up the base of army ants
=
2010 gop gush in congress
+
2012 gop candidate true succesor... "savior".

strange equations but...

the funny thing about obama is that i think the gop hasn't figured out how to wreck on him yet.

gopper g. guppy: oh shit, he's black, what are we going to say?
trent lott: oh i know!
gopper g. guppy: shut up trent.

it's weird cause the other night on conservative talk radio i hear phil valentine, a conservative's conservitive, say, "obama is a nice guy. he really is. i don't agree with his politics, but i can't help but like him." it's one of those rare moments where i find myself mildly shocked. (or is it a trick? "oh see, i thought obama was nice, but look at this shitwtfombg?!?"

OK. The non-cheap part of my post is that if conservatives hate McCain for being too far left (which is mostly what it's about, apart from the war), that's not necessarily going to benefit the Dems. Maybe people will stay home, I don't know.

xpost

NOBODY wants fewer jobs and more war. It's what they said -- and the truth of it -- not who said it.

It's what they said -- and the truth of it -- not who said it.

On the surface, and of course most people vote on the surface, so yeah. But man, the baggage that comes with "we want jobs and not war" when it comes from those two guys. "We want jobs, but we want the same old jobs we're used to, even if it means that American businesses can't be competitive in a world market in the long-term. And we want no war because it feels too much like a slippery slope down to treaties, agreements, concessions, trade agreements, GOD KNOWS WHAT HORRORS! We have found that the insides of our own asses are much warmer than hats."

*cue flashy Fox News graphic of a bar graph of the median temperatures of each, with one long fat red bar labeled "Your own ass" and one sad short blue bar labeled "A hat"*

The actual quotes from Buchanan and Scarborough were lotsa laffs in a schadenfreude kinda way.

The basic, obvious point is that the two biggest issues are likely to be the economy and Iraq and this is a candidate on the record as saying he doesn't know much about the economy and he wants to stay in Iraq 100 years and that there will be more wars.

Not scared of the scary old man. He's not winning the general.

here we go

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/clinton_counts.html

By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.

The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in "pledged'' delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses.

But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson.

"I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates,'' Wolfson told reporters in a conference call.

"We don't make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,'' Wolfson said. "And we don't make distinctions when it comes to elected officials'' who vote as superdelegates at the convention.

"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period,'' he added.

Clinton advisers rejected the notion that the candidate -- and the party -- would be badly wounded in the general election if the nominee were essentially selected by a group of party insiders.

"This is a nomination system that exists of caucuses, primaries, superdelegates and also the issue of voters in Florida and Michigan,'' states whose delegates currently will not be seated at the convention because they broke party rules by moving up their primaries to January, said Mark Penn, senior strategist for the Clinton campaign. But "whoever the nominee is, the party will come together behind that nominee,'' he said.

oh it's like that.

http://www.soulstrut.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/snapgraem26wuch9.gif

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

"We don't make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,"

You tell it. There is not a PRIMARY America and a CAUCUS America. There is a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

AMIRITE, VOTERS?

Enh, i dunno. I get the feeling they gettin' despit'. If Obama continues to blow out these contests, then hopefully all the superdelegates that the clinton camp can either con, cajole, or strong-arm into supporting them won't matter as much.

Gunna be a long year regardless. The Congressional election fun hasn't even begun in earnest yet.

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/040819/125922__election_l.jpg

You see, you can't interfere with destiny. That's why it's destiny.

It's weird that they would put this out before Texas & Ohio. Is everyone really that certain by now that she's going to lose the elected delegate count?

Seems to be the buried message, doesn't it?

I think the buried message is that Howard Wolfson is pretty fucking sad at his job. Jesus Christ, man.

Yeah, that too. Seems a bit much that he's ready to just chuck in the rest of the primary elections just to favor whatever backroom arm-twisting they can pull off.