DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[kapkomet]

Mrs. Clinton, while trying to illustrate her experience by proxy as the First Lady, has this gem in the Trib:

So, the fact that she was allowed classified access and access to high level decision makers without ever being elected or even having a security clearance is a GOOD thing?

She wants it both ways so bad... I hate this lady. And I don't hate anyone.

[EvilMonkey]

I agree about Edwards' old sob story, its not really useful. But I still don't get your thought process that rich people giving back doesn't "impress" you. I fail to see why they shouldn't get some credit for doing so. Its not as much of a sacrifice as the others you mention of course - but that doesn't make it a bad thing.

 

And even though I think Edwards is the king of fake among these candidates, I do think that most politicians probably went into it for the right reasons. And some have even managed to maintain some degree of real desire to help people, and have put their efforts to it. Its not as simple as "they are all evil" as you seem to think, nor is it as simple as Reddy is saying that he is completely in it for the little guy.

OK, I will grant you that not all of them go into politics for selfish reasons. At least they don't start out that way. But look at some of the highlighted words you used. 'most' and 'some'. There probably are some who can maintain their desire to serve above all else, but i would bet it isn't many, at least not by the time you get to the national stage.

[Rex Kickass]

I am unimpressed when they have to publicize that they did it. "Oh, look at me, I donated $10,000 for poverty relief! Ain't I great?" If you are doing it for the right reasons, you don't shout about it to further your own agenda. You want to give back? great! Then do it. Quit telling me you are doing it. However, Reddy made a good point, I am sure the people receiving it couldn't care less.

 

You can't be the founding member and head of a poverty center without anyone knowing that you are the founding member and head of a poverty center. But this debate is pointless for you because there is no way that a guy like John Edwards can win. If he doesn't tell people what he donates, you will say he doesn't give anything to charity and doesn't contribute a serious amount so he "doesn't walk the talk."

 

Then when someone illustrates that a guy like John Edwards does give a serious portion of his income to charity, suddenly its all for a nefarious purpose. Like publicity or to get elected or whatever. But the truth is that Presidential candidates are going to have their charitable contributions exposed, whether they want to be anonymous or not. Because, if you are writing a check, its gotta be declared to the taxman. So now the question arises, if you have to disclose what you contribute to charity, doesn't it make sense to talk about the charitable issues that concern you most?

[Chet Lemon]

I didn't see this b/c I was out of town until today:

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) Endorses Obama

 

Pretty interesting b/c this is only the second U.S. Senator to endorse Obama, with Durbin (doesn't count b/c he is a homestate colleague) being the other. Conrad is far out of the establishment with his votes against the Iraq War Resolution and a vote for Justice Alito. In addition, he promised to resign from the Senate earlier in his career if the deficit did not go down. Consequently he resigned while he could have easily broken his promise and been re-elected. This is his first Presidential endorsement since being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986.

[Reddy]

New Poll from Insider Advantage taking out the lower tier candidates:

 

 

 

Insider Advantage

12/28 - 12/29 788 LV

 

Clinton 30%

Edwards 29%

Obama 22%

 

Clinton +1.0

[kapkomet]

Obama has lost a lot of traction in the last few days. I wonder why?

[NorthSideSox72]

New Poll from Insider Advantage taking out the lower tier candidates:

Insider Advantage

12/28 - 12/29 788 LV

 

Clinton 30%

Edwards 29%

Obama 22%

 

Clinton +1.0

Except that Iowa isn't taking out the lower tier candidates. How is that a realistic model?

 

All the polls I have seen published that are valid on their face (large enough sample, not oddly biased like ARG, not sloppy methods like Zogby) show a 3-way statistical dead heat. Edwards has momentum. I am not sure why Obama's momentum stagnated recently. Clinton hasn't had any for some time.

 

 

[kapkomet]

Except that Iowa isn't taking out the lower tier candidates. How is that a realistic model?

 

All the polls I have seen published that are valid on their face (large enough sample, not oddly biased like ARG, not sloppy methods like Zogby) show a 3-way statistical dead heat. Edwards has momentum. I am not sure why Obama's momentum stagnated recently. Clinton hasn't had any for some time.

Yea, but wouldn't this be exactly what happens using the 15% factor? The lower tier would essentially get thrown out, right?

[NorthSideSox72]

Yea, but wouldn't this be exactly what happens using the 15% factor? The lower tier would essentially get thrown out, right?

No. If you don't get 15% in a given precinct, you have the option of standing pat, not polling with anyone, or moving to another candidate. Some will do each, and its impossibly to say which ones and for whom. And in some precincts, candidates like Richardson and Biden will indeed have 15%, so why have the other precincts simply give up the votes when it would be better to leave them out of the pool?

 

Obama has lost momentum to Edwards. the unfortunate thing is, those two tend to vie for a similar pool of voters, partially. Its possible that could result in handing it to Clinton. Its hard to say. This will be interesting to watch.

 

[Reddy]

No. If you don't get 15% in a given precinct, you have the option of standing pat, not polling with anyone, or moving to another candidate. Some will do each, and its impossibly to say which ones and for whom. And in some precincts, candidates like Richardson and Biden will indeed have 15%, so why have the other precincts simply give up the votes when it would be better to leave them out of the pool?

 

Obama has lost momentum to Edwards. the unfortunate thing is, those two tend to vie for a similar pool of voters, partially. Its possible that could result in handing it to Clinton. Its hard to say. This will be interesting to watch.

 

actually, something like this is perfectly valid because the people that actually respond to this pollster are people who obviously would switch to one of those three if theirs isn't viable.

 

why have the other precincts simply give up the votes when it would be better to leave them out of the pool?

 

that makes sense BUT those individual voters would rather have their votes count and so they'll go with someone else.

Edited December 31, 2007 by Reddy

[NorthSideSox72]

As a follow-up, I found that poll Reddy is referring to. And actually, those numbers are not removing the other candidates - there is a valid choice of "another canididate" that got 14%. So actually, that poll is really:

 

Clinton: 30%

Edwards: 29%

Obama: 22%

All Others: 14%

 

So Obama really does appear to be falling back. But, again, that 14% is mystery. There is a secondary question there, which asks who their choice would be if they had to vote for someone else failing the 15%, just as Reddy had cited in a previous poll - and that is very heavily towards Edwards:

 

Edwards: 62%

Clinton: 21%

Obama: 17%

 

On the one hand, that seems to point heavily to Edwards for those votes. But, its not that simple. In some precincts, Biden or Richardson could get 15%. In other ones, one or more of the big 3 will NOT get 15%. And further, a lot of people (who knows how many) won't budge at all if they fail to get 15% (or not show up for the 2nd vote at all).

 

Basically, its still a big mess.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

actually, something like this is perfectly valid because the people that actually respond to this pollster are people who obviously would switch to one of those three if theirs isn't viable.

No... read the question in the poll. They were not given an option of not polling with one of them - it was forced 1 of the 3. They may or may not switch.

 

[Reddy]

oh ok cool i didnt see that part.

 

well that makes me even happier!

[mr_genius]

It's funny that the same people who defend the building of wealth so fervently are so unimpressed when someone who is wealthy tries to give back. It's a trend I've tended to notice with a lot of people.

 

Well, it is kinda funny when Edwards talks about two Americas, then goes out and gets $800 hair cuts and charges $50,000 to give a speech about poverty.

[NorthSideSox72]

With the caucus on Thursday, and looking at how things look in NH and SC down the line, here is the official NSS72 take on what the Iowa caucus means for each candidate...

 

If Clinton wins Iowa, then she has the nomination in hand, as long as Edwards and Obama are still splitting the others. If after Iowa one of Obama or Edwards drops and endorses the other, then game on. If Clinton finishes 2nd in Iowa, no biggie, she is still right in it - especially if Edwards wins (because Edwards is far behind in NH). If she finishes 3rd, she's in deep trouble, but not dead. She needs to win or come close to winning.

 

If Edwards wins Iowa, that will help him in NH, but maybe not enough. A win in Iowa probably makes it a 3-way race going into NH for the first true primary (depending on how others do). If he finishes 2nd, still beating Obama or Clinton, he's a long shot (because again of NH), but he's still got a chance. If he's 3rd or worse, he's done.

 

If Obama wins IA, like Clinton, that would probably ensure a lead in NH, so he becomes the clear leader and likely to win the nomination. If he loses to Clinton but beats Edwards, and its a close race, then he still has a remote shot. If he comes in second to Edwards, similar - still has a shot, and NH is probably a true scramble. If he finishes 3rd, especially if its a distant 3rd, then I think he is pretty much done.

 

For Richardson, its all on Iowa. If he wins Iowa, which is highly unlikely (but not impossible), he's got a decent shot. If he finishes 2nd or maybe a close 3rd, displacing one of the big 3, he may still have an outside shot - especially if its Clinton he beats out. Anything 3rd or lower, he's toast, basically. At that point, his influence could be big on the race if he drops out then and endorses someone.

 

Biden is a non-factor for himself, but his 5 or 7% draw could be meaningful to someone else if he endorses someone after Iowa. Dodd and Kucinich, well, forget about it.

 

[Reddy]

Well, it is kinda funny when Edwards talks about two Americas, then goes out and gets $800 hair cuts and charges $50,000 to give a speech about poverty.

 

really? you've gotta be kidding me.

 

a) $400 haircut - but how much do you think Hillary spends? and Romney has a PAID makeup entourage following him around. He doesn't use the ones provided him by the News networks etc etc, but he needs to use his own. And what about Hillary chartering a HELICOPTER to visit all 99 counties in 5 days... i think thats a worse use of money.

 

b ) Where'd you find that 50 grand figure? And how much does Bill ask for to speak? How much does Obama ask for?

Edited December 31, 2007 by Reddy

[BigSqwert]

One thing the polls aren't showing is how many Republicans will vote for a Dem candidate. When I canvassed in Iowa I met quite a few families that had mixed Dems/Republicans in households and the entire household was planning to caucus for Obama. He does very well with Independents as well as Republicans who are fed up with their party and weak choice of candidates.

Edited December 31, 2007 by BigSqwert

[mr_genius]

really? you've gotta be kidding me.

 

a) $400 haircut - but how much do you think Hillary spends? and Romney has a PAID makeup entourage following him around. He doesn't use the ones provided him by the News networks etc etc, but he needs to use his own. And what about Hillary chartering a HELICOPTER to visit all 99 counties in 5 days... i think thats a worse use of money.

 

b ) Where'd you find that 50 grand figure? And how much does Bill ask for to speak? How much does Obama ask for?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274513,00.html

 

He is making his campaign about "two americas", he is fair game for charging these fees for talking about poverty and his 'supercuts'.

[Reddy]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274513,00.html

 

He is making his campaign about "two americas", he is fair game for charging these fees for talking about poverty and his 'supercuts'.

 

yeah ok. well lets just keep using the SAME two attacks for months and months. if that's all you've got against the guy well then i'm ok with that. he spent a lot of money on a haircut. well damn him. if he's gonna win back the white house and pull our country out of its current nosedive well i'll take it.

 

and Big Sqwert - I've run into a ton of that canvassing for Edwards. It's not just your guy - sorry.

Edited December 31, 2007 by Reddy

[NorthSideSox72]

I just saw something on Edwards that I had completely forgotten about - he took public funding. He's already spent so much of it, that he has only a small amount left for everything after Iowa. So small that he won't really be competitive. Edwards is basically throwing everything on Iowa.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Here is another random thought, not Edwards-related. If you look at the Dem polls carefully, there is a recent trend in Iowa. Richardson seems to be sharing a pool of voters with Obama. The polls where Richardson picks up a few, inevitably, Obama loses a few. And vice versa.

 

Yet another reason why I'd love to see Richardson drop out after Iowa and join Obama. Unfortunately, I think that's unlikely.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Here is another random thought, not Edwards-related. If you look at the Dem polls carefully, there is a recent trend in Iowa. Richardson seems to be sharing a pool of voters with Obama. The polls where Richardson picks up a few, inevitably, Obama loses a few. And vice versa.

 

Yet another reason why I'd love to see Richardson drop out after Iowa and join Obama. Unfortunately, I think that's unlikely.

They don't seem likely to be sharing the same pool of voters. Do you have a theory as to why that seems to be so? (serious question, btw, not some kinda snark)

Edited December 31, 2007 by Alpha Dog

[EvilMonkey]

OMG, I made one post without some sort of personal attack. Oops! Blew that streak at one, I guess.

[BigSqwert]

He is making his campaign about "two americas", he is fair game for charging these fees for talking about poverty and his 'supercuts'.

I find it hard to believe that someone with a 28000 sq ft home can connect with the poor.

[NorthSideSox72]

They don't seem likely to be sharing the same pool of voters. Do you have a theory as to why that seems to be so? (serious question, btw, not some kinda snark)

Well, you wouldn't think much of it - Richardson is more moderate fiscally, Obama more moderate on some social issues. But there are some common threads there. For one thing, they are the two racial minorities running - which may not matter to your or me, but may matter to some. Particularly, for example, Hispanics - which is a quickly growing minority in Iowa. But also, I think both of them are seen as not quite mainstream Dems. Clinton is a Clinton and is wishy-washy as can be, Edwards is a very liberal Dem... Richardson and Obama are more centrist than Edwards, but are outsiders unlike Hillary. Most of all, I think Edwards and Clinton are seen as the same old same old from past Prez elections. Obama and Richardson are new. I can see a few threads there.