2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

i dont think those head to head polls are very useful in predicting the way the election will ultimately fall - they are better at showing how dems would fair against one person than giving you an idea of how close it would actually be

could a time-traveling Internet board have contained posts like yours?

NEVER.

Not sure what you mean, Deej. If you're saying it's way too early to focus on head-to-head polls, I agree. But to the extent you believe that Obama is peaking (e.g., Tom Brokaw saying Obama's momentum is "nuclear" at this point), then I think it's instructive to note that -- even now -- he's polling nationally only about 4% above McCain.

kind of weird, since john lewis gave hillary an official endorsement a couple of months ago

McCain trying very hard to distance himself from the ''100 Years in Iraq'' comment by saying he meant (a) like our continuing presence in countries like Korea or Germany (i.e., not a large-scale fighting force) and (b) only for the length of time and to the extent approved by the Iraqi Gov't. Who knows if it will work. Certainly, McCain's boxed himself in on the issue: The Democratic nominee will want a quick withdrawal from Iraq on a specific timetable, and McCain will vehemently oppose that.

I dunno, seems to me the Dems are also in danger of boxing themselves in a bit over Iraq. After all, how likely is a quick withdrawal, whoever gets elected? Given that at this stage it would probably lead to Iraq completely falling apart. There's no good move for a Democratic president.

how likely is a quick withdrawal, whoever gets elected

about as likely as flowers growing out of my ass

Well, that's partly the point. McCain -- like Bush -- having created a mess, is going to exploit the dificulties that the Democratic nominee will have in realistically proposing an alternative to (a) call Democrats ''weak,'' and ''without real convictions,'' ''negative,'' and ''defearist,'' while (b) using the muddle to drive the debate back to where the GOP is comfortable (displays of strength without demanding public sacrifice).

I dunno, seems to me the Dems are also in danger of boxing themselves in a bit over Iraq. After all, how likely is a quick withdrawal, whoever gets elected? Given that at this stage it would probably lead to Iraq completely falling apart. There's no good move for a Democratic president.

And make no mistake: McCain wants this debate. It's the whole focus of his candidacy. Maybe he badly miscalculated, but I doubt it.

American voters like STRENGTH. They may, on occassion, want an inspirational, transformative figure -- like Obama might be -- but normally, they like the toughest looking and sounding guy in the room.

We'll see.

uh yeah carter reagan bush clinton all real tough guys

-- jhøshea, Thursday, 14 February 2008 21:14 (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

So, I guess I'll say it again: Yes, except for Carter (which was an unusual election cycle), all the people named in that string were -- in their GE's -- the toughest looking and sounding candidates. (n.1)

____________________________
(n.1) And please don't give me Bob Dole v. Bill Clinton as an example. Yes, Dole may have been actually tougher than Clinton, I guess. But Clinton looked and sounded, at the time, tougher, more savvy, and more like your daddy than Dole did. Same with Kerry/Bush.

Daniel, I understand the point your trying to make, but I don't think your unifying theory of toughness holds up very well and there's not a lot of evidence for it beyond broad generalities. besides that, I don't think it's particularly useful to generalize the psychology of 'the average american voter' especially since the general electorate who voted reagan into the white house is of a different generation that the one who re-elected george w.

DUDE PLZ STOP IT THERE IS NOTHING TOUGH ABT BILL CLINTON OK GOD

You're right, it's wrong to overgeneralize. But some observations can and must be made, at a minimum in order to plan and strategize: We're all making them on this thread, on blogs, on news shows, and certainly by the candidates themselves. I'm sure, for instance, that HRC carefully considered how her Iraq (and Iran) votes would play with voters -- on a whole series of levels, specific and broad -- before she cast them.

And Jhoshea, you can all-cap it if you like, but you're 100% wrong.

Clinton was also very tough in a all-important "meta" catagory. He wasn't passive or a shrinking violet or let attacks just pass him by; he fought, not just defensively but aggressively/offensively, which made lots of Democratic voters' hearts leap.

Anyway, Elmo, I understand your point, and there's obviously a lot to it, I admit.

bill clinton's a hard lobster claw sheathed in the velveteen glove of a pimp.

yah yah blah blah all the winners look tough the losers look weak after the fact - mcain looks absolutely nothing like any recent president - hes an angry old man w/none of the ability to connect on the heart level that carter reagan clinton or gwb had - hes a second tier candidate whos abt to be completely exposed

im not sure how long youve been on these threads daniel but id guess if we went back a little way youd be a strong supporter of the hillary inevitability concept eh?

Clinton...wasn't passive or a shrinking violet or let attacks just pass him by; he fought, not just defensively but aggressively/ offensively

For NOTHING but his own viselike grip on power.

No, but not for the reasons you apparently think. HRC's negatives were always sky-high, and her support was always thin. She made herself out to be the "inevitable nominee," and had great name-recognition, and that's what drove voters to her for awhile. It might have worked, if she prevented anyone else from appearing to be viable. Once Obama emerged, and people weren't drifting to HRC just based on her name and branding, she was headed for trouble.

And, as I say, normally HRC's thought-process (cast votes showing strength and hawkishness) is generally a smart move. But this election may be different. And that doesn't happen often, so I'm not just defining it ad-hoc.

Dr. M: You're right. But that's a kind of strength, too, and voter see it.

economist has a cover story on obama, offering a positive, if wary, overview, stopping short of endorsing him.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=10689547

Clinton taking on a more anti-corporate tone to her campaign, even calling out Obama by accussing him of caving in to special interests.

does she really want to pick this fight? isn't she pretty vulnerable herself on this front? (obama's camp responded to the charges by stating that she's "taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any Republican running for president."

You're right, it's wrong to overgeneralize.

not always

dude i hate to be the one to break this to you but the giants are one of the worst superbowl teams ever and the pats are one of the best - this shit will not be close.

-- jhøshea, Sunday, 3 February 2008 16:31 (1 week ago) Bookmark Link

First of all, Clinton co-sponsored that nuclear regulatory bill that she's using to criticize Obama, and the nuclear energy company Excelon Corp. in question had also hired Mark Penn. I don't think she can push this very far without it backfiring.

And this is besides the fact that she's talking directly out of her ass.

I caught some of McCain on Larry King last night. You can tell already that national security, the "War on Terrorism", and not letting the terrorists defeat us in Iraq are going to be the great themes of this campaign. I think if Clinton were smart, she would play up the fact that voters trust her more than Obama on national security issues, and point out that McCain is going to run on that.

enemies list: tracer hand

honestly, i don't think that's an option for her. as soon as she mentions iraq and national security, she would be pressed by team obama to give another unconvincing explanation about why she authorized the war in the first place. it may be someone spun into a strength for use against mccain, but even then she comes up extremely short -- does any of her vaunted 35 years contain any military experience? -- and it's a huge vulnerability for obama to exploit.

basically she's going to continue running on the economy and healthcare and hope to god that nothing horrible happens in iraq in the next 3 weeks.

Whereas McCain has to hope nothing horrible happens in Iraq by November.

Bets?

No way to know, at this point, who benefits politically from further deterioration in Iraq. It depends (a point that you've made, more broadly, to me on this thread).

Precisely.

lol @ Michael Reagan:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25026

Is that what the let’s-stay-home-on-election-day conservatives want? Do they want the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama, as their president? Do they want the pseudo-Marist Barack Obama -- who reportedly has a photo of the murderous Castroite thug Che Guevara hanging in his Houston, Texas campaign headquarters -- hanging that photo in the Oval Office?

Do they want Hillary Clinton, the duplicitous former first lady, back in the White House enjoying all those furnishings she and her husband tried to swipe from the mansion?

Do they want a Democrat spending even more money that the government doesn’t have on scores of programs right out of Karl Marx’s playbook?

That’s exactly what they’ll get if they sit out the election and stay home on Election Day. That’s called biting off your nose to spite your face. Or even more to the point, political suicide.

The furniture thief story is still circulating?

"scores of programs right out of karl marx's playbook"

"enjoying all those furnishings she and her husband tried to swipe from the mansion"

"a photo of the murderous Castroite thug Che Guevara hanging in his Houston, Texas campaign headquarters -- hanging that photo in the Oval Office"

lol

the elephant never forgets, kenan.

does any of her vaunted 35 years contain any military experience?

Not sure what you mean by "military experience" - she was never in the military, but she is on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

I'm about to go hear some reps from the Clinton campaign speak about health care at my work. Will report back.

(I think the Obama campaign is coming to speak on another day, hopefully)

And Obama's on Foreign Relations, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs committees -- that doesn't mean he's got any military experience either.

But the idea the HRC is 'stronger on national security' than obama seems to have come from nowhere. Is there any evidence to suggest that she'd be a better commander in cheif, apart from public perception?

she appears to enjoy cluster-bombing little children, that should count for something

pseudo-Marist?

http://www.marists.org/

http://www.maristsociety.org/

HRC's Iraq/Iran votes were supposed to bolster her hawkish bona fides, FWIW.

But the idea the HRC is 'stronger on national security' than obama seems to have come from nowhere. Is there any evidence to suggest that she'd be a better commander in cheif, apart from public perception?

It's the public perception that I'm talking about - a public perception which she seems to be unable (or unwilling) to capitalize on - despite the fact that McCain is bound to make it a major issue in the fall. It just seems unusually clumsy for someone who's considered to be such a smart campaigner. Perhaps Obama has really got her terrified to bring it up by constantly bashing her with the Iraq vote.

she's a hawk?

NY Times Editorial sez: Show Us The Money

HRC's Iraq/Iran votes were supposed to bolster her hawkish bona fides, FWIW.

so you think getting on the wrong side of the most important issues of the day was a "strategy"?