DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[mr_genius]

Which candidate is he using phrases from?

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8570.html

[Texsox]

Which candidate is he using phrases from?

 

Edwards from 2004

 

Obama's more recent words are undergoing similar study, including lines that parallel rhetoric Edwards used in 2004. In some cases, it is standard political white noise like creating "a new kind of politics" -- a signature phrase of Obama's that Edwards used three years ago.

n the candidates' announcement speeches, the parallel was even more striking. "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington," Obama said as he launched his campaign last month, "but I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." That carries a distinct echo of a line in Edwards' announcement speech in 2003: "I haven't spent most of my life in politics, which most of you know, but I've spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change Washington." As another example, consider Obama's stirring tale for the Selma audience about how he had been conceived by his parents, Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham, because they had been inspired by the fervor following the "Bloody Sunday" voting rights demonstration that was commemorated March 4. "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala.," he said, "because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Ala. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Ala."

 

Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march occurred four years later, in 1965. The New York Times reported that when the senator was asked about the discrepancy later that day, he clarified: "I meant the whole civil rights movement."

 

This is like pointing to $500 in unpaid rent from the Clinton campaign and then leqarning Obama delayed almost a million dollars worth. Routine stuff that doesn't really amount to anything.

 

 

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Hillary: It'll be over by February 5th...

 

Wrong Iraq... Wrong on Lobbyists... Wrong on February 5th.

[kapkomet]

Why is it, Athomeboy_2000, that Obama can do no wrong, and Hillarity does everything wrong? You do realize that they have almost identical stances on the major policies in their campaign?

 

It's just the package. Hillarity is the old school old bag, Obama is refreshing and new...

 

Whatever. They both suck. And so do the Re-pube-licans, just so there's equal time in this post.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Why is it, Athomeboy_2000, that Obama can do no wrong, and Hillarity does everything wrong? You do realize that they have almost identical stances on the major policies in their campaign?

I completely understand that they are almost identical on the issues. That is part of what pisses me off about her and the right attack machine. "oh, he's just words. Just speeches". Hey, check out BarackObama.com and read the issues if you don't think you are getting enough from him. To call him "just words" is idiotic. Yet another reason I despise her.

 

Obama needed to differentiate himself from Hillary since they are nearly identical on the issues. He knows he is a better speaker than she is. He knows he is a better at being inspirational. So, he chose that angle to campaign. What most people DONT see is him talking at rallies and townhall meetings about the issues. Why? It's not nearly "sound bite" worthy as his well writen speeches. The substance there.

 

I don't have a short concise explanation of why I don't like her. i just don't. She's slimy, self-important, and a lier. Ask my wife, there are very few people I hate. In fact I cant think of any except Hillary Rodham Clinton. I legitimately hate her.

 

I am a pretty good judge of people. I can normally tell within 2-3 minutes of talking with someone or seeing them talk if I like them or if there is something about them that makes me go "I cant trust this person". 90% of the time I am right. With Hillary, she really rubs me the wrong way. From the way she fake "clap clap point point" at rallies to the "yes, you should be applauding me" head node she uses during rallies.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

Another reason I hate Hillary:

Oh, well.. the voters dont matter. We'll wooh over the pledged delegates so they dont vote like they pledged to...

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.

This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. And I am not talking about superdelegates, those 795 party big shots who are not pledged to anybody. I am talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides.

“I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates,” a senior Clinton official told me Monday afternoon. “All the rules will be going out the window.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html

 

Yes there is the argument that these are not 100% committed delegates, but trying to make people flip is not in the spirit of the pledged delegate. It was my understanding that they can flip so that when a candidate leaves the races, the delegates can be moved to another candidate. They were not intended to be bribed into supporting a candidate.

 

Best Line:

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told me Monday he assumes the Obama campaign is going after delegates pledged to Clinton, though a senior Obama aide told me he knew of no such strategy.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[bmags]

I'm reading this theory about looking at presidency's in political time. I'm not sure I can see where we stand right now. Either George Bush is the end of the Reagan political dynasty, and with Clinton you can argue he would be the Eisenhower sandwich during a democratic political reign, or or if Clinton brought this new party of democrats. I don't really see that with clinton b/c he didn't really institutionally change anything, (imo), so that means we could possibly be on the cusp of a new democratic dynasty or an even more official end to the Reagan Republicans, their party is too fragmented in fiscal conservativism and domestic issues. But that said if Obama wins, I can see him as more of a Jackson, one who has some institutional changes (immigration/health care), but is more effective as a party builder. With Clinton, i could see her doing more institutional changes in the ilk of FDR, but fragmenting her party's conservatives (and yes there are those). But if McCain wins, he's really be in for a tough presidency, imo, there'd be lines drawn in the party in addition to major issues in the country that he'd be fighting to get whatever policy he has through.

 

Was just thinking about this. Largely based off of Skowronek's model. I'm studying too much actual stuff so I figured I should waste time theorizing in the Texas Primary thread.

[mr_genius]

I'm reading this theory about looking at presidency's in political time. I'm not sure I can see where we stand right now. Either George Bush is the end of the Reagan political dynasty, and with Clinton you can argue he would be the Eisenhower sandwich during a democratic political reign, or or if Clinton brought this new party of democrats. I don't really see that with clinton b/c he didn't really institutionally change anything, (imo), so that means we could possibly be on the cusp of a new democratic dynasty or an even more official end to the Reagan Republicans, their party is too fragmented in fiscal conservativism and domestic issues. But that said if Obama wins, I can see him as more of a Jackson, one who has some institutional changes (immigration/health care), but is more effective as a party builder. With Clinton, i could see her doing more institutional changes in the ilk of FDR, but fragmenting her party's conservatives (and yes there are those). But if McCain wins, he's really be in for a tough presidency, imo, there'd be lines drawn in the party in addition to major issues in the country that he'd be fighting to get whatever policy he has through.

 

Was just thinking about this. Largely based off of Skowronek's model. I'm studying too much actual stuff so I figured I should waste time theorizing in the Texas Primary thread.

 

McCain pretty much has the GOP totally with him. The main split is with the radical neo-cons on the radio and stuff (who admittedly have a lot of pull with certain voting blocks of the party). The Dems seem a lot more split, with Obama and Clinton running neck and neck, in what could turn out to be the nastiest primary in history (super delegate controversy).

 

Even with the long primary battle, I think this will be a good year for the Dems at the polls. It's going to be really hard for them to blow this election.

Edited February 19, 2008 by mr_genius

[Heads22]

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/

 

Some interesting polls, especially here in Iowa.

 

IA-Pres

Feb 19 SurveyUSA - McCain ® 52%, Clinton (D) 41%

IA-Pres

Feb 19 SurveyUSA - Obama (D) 51%, McCain ® 41%

WI-Pres (D)

Feb 18 ARGObama 52%, Clinton 42%

WI-Pres ®

Feb 18 ARGMcCain 51%, Huckabee 43% ...

 

[kapkomet]

McCain pretty much has the GOP totally with him. The main split is with the radical neo-cons on the radio and stuff (who admittedly have a lot of pull with certain voting blocks of the party). The Dems seem a lot more split, with Obama and Clinton running neck and neck, in what could turn out to be the nastiest primary in history (super delegate controversy).

 

Even with the long primary battle, I think this will be a good year for the Dems at the polls. It's going to be really hard for them to blow this election.

Which brings me to a question. If you think about it, the "superdelagates" is the epitome of old school. These were put in place after Goldwater got his ass blown out by Nixon. It is to basically fly in the nose of the voter block and give the "superdelegate" the power to overthrow a more popular candidate should the need arise. Well, it looks like the Clintons are about to denonate the nuclear bomb, even if Obama is more popular by delegate count. You know damn well they will, because this is all about Hillary getting her due.

 

It really cracks me up (read: it's hypocritical as hell) when all I heard back in 2000 "LET EVERY VOTE COUNT" to watch this whole superdelegate thing come up in the Democrat arena now. Or am I totally missing something here? I'm not trying to throw stones, I'm being serious when I ask this.

[Balta1701]

Which brings me to a question. If you think about it, the "superdelagates" is the epitome of old school. These were put in place after McGovern got his ass blown out by Nixon. It is to basically fly in the nose of the voter block and give the "superdelegate" the power to overthrow a more popular candidate should the need arise. Well, it looks like the Clintons are about to denonate the nuclear bomb, even if Obama is more popular by delegate count. You know damn well they will, because this is all about Hillary getting her due.

 

It really cracks me up (read: it's hypocritical as hell) when all I heard back in 2000 "LET EVERY VOTE COUNT" to watch this whole superdelegate thing come up in the Democrat arena now. Or am I totally missing something here? I'm not trying to throw stones, I'm being serious when I ask this.

Fixed that for you.

 

And yes, you should cackle hysterically if the party that has made such a big deal of voting rights, Hell not just in 2000 but if you throw in the whole civil rights movement on top of that, would put itself in a position where party insiders would subvert the will of those same voters.

[bmags]

McCain pretty much has the GOP totally with him. The main split is with the radical neo-cons on the radio and stuff (who admittedly have a lot of pull with certain voting blocks of the party). The Dems seem a lot more split, with Obama and Clinton running neck and neck, in what could turn out to be the nastiest primary in history (super delegate controversy).

 

Even with the long primary battle, I think this will be a good year for the Dems at the polls. It's going to be really hard for them to blow this election.

 

I don't mean to look like I'm giving legitimacy to Rush Lumbaughs and they must be a voice of the Republicans, but I think there is some truth to it in the low Republican voting for McCain, but I don't doubt that Republicans are going to vote and fight full force for McCain in the face of a Clinton or Obama ticket. It's just I believe that liberalism can take the offensive right now in a way that conservatism is not (not to say that conservatism has no agenda, it's just they aren't seen as proactive like in the past). With a dem. congress, Obama/Clinton can make the fight for more control of the banks with the mortgage crisis, fight for health care, ending war v. fighting war, etc. These goals seem like they are going to do something, as opposed to the Democratic candidates of past where their only goals were "Stop doing what they are doing". I'm not going to argue it's merits because I don't care to, I'm just looking at the situation of the Republicans and it seems after about 2 decades their policies have become outmoded, and you are starting to see them say "we're going to bring it back to Reagan", Reagan, new party founder and builder, but McCain doesn't have the charisma or respect IMO in the party to lead it in any real way. Looking at it like this, I wonder if the democrats realize how much is at stake with their election. The goals and policies of this next president will likely guide the party for probably the next decade at least, if that is indeed where we are at.

[AngelasDaddy0427]

I have a feeling Hillary will have landslide victories today which will set her up to coasting to the nomination. Which sucks because I can't stand her.

[bmags]

Which brings me to a question. If you think about it, the "superdelagates" is the epitome of old school. These were put in place after Goldwater got his ass blown out by Nixon. It is to basically fly in the nose of the voter block and give the "superdelegate" the power to overthrow a more popular candidate should the need arise. Well, it looks like the Clintons are about to denonate the nuclear bomb, even if Obama is more popular by delegate count. You know damn well they will, because this is all about Hillary getting her due.

 

It really cracks me up (read: it's hypocritical as hell) when all I heard back in 2000 "LET EVERY VOTE COUNT" to watch this whole superdelegate thing come up in the Democrat arena now. Or am I totally missing something here? I'm not trying to throw stones, I'm being serious when I ask this.

 

See, I just really disagree that a primary is the same as a general election. The party has the right to choose their own candidate in a situation this close. The primary is nice and lets the party see who can engage the voters to vote, but right now you have 2 candidates who are doing that, and they have the right to decide which will be leading their party. This is different than an election, this wouldn't be like 1824, primaries help the party pick a candidate that people will like in the general election, this isn't the government deciding the president based on politics after the people voted in plurality between 3 presidential candidates. After this, they still have another election to choose their president, it isn't handing over power to another person for 4 years.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I have a feeling Hillary will have landslide victories today

based on what?

[BigSqwert]

I have a feeling Hillary will have landslide victories today which will set her up to coasting to the nomination. Which sucks because I can't stand her.

I doubt you are correct. If she even wins they will be by small margins.

[bmags]

well, i think it's certain she will lose Hawaii and Wisconsin at least.

[mr_genius]

I don't mean to look like I'm giving legitimacy to Rush Lumbaughs and they must be a voice of the Republicans, but I think there is some truth to it in the low Republican voting for McCain, but I don't doubt that Republicans are going to vote and fight full force for McCain in the face of a Clinton or Obama ticket. It's just I believe that liberalism can take the offensive right now in a way that conservatism is not (not to say that conservatism has no agenda, it's just they aren't seen as proactive like in the past). With a dem. congress, Obama/Clinton can make the fight for more control of the banks with the mortgage crisis, fight for health care, ending war v. fighting war, etc. These goals seem like they are going to do something, as opposed to the Democratic candidates of past where their only goals were "Stop doing what they are doing". I'm not going to argue it's merits because I don't care to, I'm just looking at the situation of the Republicans and it seems after about 2 decades their policies have become outmoded, and you are starting to see them say "we're going to bring it back to Reagan", Reagan, new party founder and builder, but McCain doesn't have the charisma or respect IMO in the party to lead it in any real way. Looking at it like this, I wonder if the democrats realize how much is at stake with their election. The goals and policies of this next president will likely guide the party for probably the next decade at least, if that is indeed where we are at.

 

I would attribute low GOP voting turnout to a massive dept, unpopular war, and slumping economy under a Republican president. Republicans just aren't as fired up as the Dems are, and it's obvious when you look at voter turn out in the primaries. I don't think McCain is going to run into problems of getting support from the GOP if he is president.

 

But this is definitely a big opportunity for the Democrats to get some of their programs in place. If they can't beat the GOP in the current atmosphere, they really have some problems. I think you are right about a turn in direction for a while, but a big issue is going to be if these Democrat programs actually work or not. The Democrats last political dominance was coming off a big WWII win, which left much of the world in shambles and the US basically untouched and ready to take the lead in the world economy. It will be interesting to see if these new big social programs end up working.

[BigSqwert]

well, i think it's certain she will lose Hawaii and Wisconsin at least.

Other than that she might have a landslide tonight.

[bmags]

I would attribute low GOP voting turnout to a massive dept, unpopular war, and slumping economy under a Republican president. Republicans just aren't as fired up as the Dems are, and it's obvious when you look at voter turn out in the primaries. I don't think McCain is going to run into problems of getting support from the GOP if he is president.

 

But this is definitely a big opportunity for the Democrats to get some of their programs in place. If they can't beat the GOP in the current atmosphere, they really have some problems. I think you are right about a turn in direction for a while, but a big issue is going to be if these Democrat programs actually work or not. The Democrats last political dominance was coming off a big WWII win, which left much of the world in shambles and the US basically untouched and ready to take the lead in the world economy. It will be interesting to see if these new big social programs end up working.

 

True, but it also depends on how well they build their party or how charismatic Obama ... or clinton, can establish it the party anyways. I'm looking at Jackson, whose policies weren't that effective (looking at the bank) but his party kept power largely because of him for decades.

 

edit; good show, this might help me on my test.

Edited February 19, 2008 by bmags

[Balta1701]

well, i think it's certain she will lose Hawaii and Wisconsin at least.

We thought the same thing before New Hampshire too.

[HuskyCaucasian]

A very good friend of mine had the chance to interview Hillary Clinton for WTMJ in Milwaukee. Apparently the Clinton campaign called the news office, asked if they wanted to do an interview and she was the only one around. Vicky and I went to High School and College together. She was my producer when I co-hosted election day coverage for WCRX (Columbia College's radio station) back in 2004.

 

Take a Listen

Edited February 19, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

Pure rumor mongering, but hey, it's the internet, and this campaign is built on hope right?

Democratic officials with access to exit polls say Sen. Obama looks like he’s headed for a huge win in today’s Wisconsin primary. The polls could turn out to be off, as they have in the past. But the officials’ revelation reflects the chatter in the campaigns in advance of the 9 p.m. Eastern poll closing.

 

The party officials said that if the trends reflect in the interviews with hundreds of Badger State voters, the news out of the primary will be: Obama encroached deeply into three of Clinton’s core groups of voters — women, those with no college degree and those with lower incomes — while giving up none of his own. However, Clinton looked to be winning senior citizens, the officials said.

[HuskyCaucasian]

 

Working late into the night on a piece of legislation or a lawsuit at Wal-Mart is NOT any where NEAR the same as working a printing press all night long just to feed your children.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

Fox Preliminary Wisconsin Exit Poll Results

Among Democrats

Women: Obama 51%, Clinton 49%

Families with income under 50,000: Obama 51%, Clinton 49%

Independents: Obama 63%, Clinton 34%

Seniors: Clinton 60%, Obama 39%

Top quality — experience: Clinton 95%, Obama 5%

Union households: Clinton 50%, Obama 49%

Time.com with some demographic exit polls.

 

If Obama actually won amongst women...this one likely won't even be close.