DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

btw, not sure if it has been discussed here, but I've heard rumors of a Gore/Carter call on Clinton to drop out, either publicly or privately. Not as an endorsement of Obama per-say, but as a "save the party" call.

I posted a comment, but no one really got into it. My guess is now that Clinton is saying Kerry and Gore were "elitist" and that is why they lost (even though Gore won in 2000, IMO) the general elections in 2000 and 2004, that sure is going to push Gore to get her out.

[southsider2k5]

but.... neither candidate can win without super delegate help. thus, Hillary still has a chance of winning this thing. If McCain wanted, he could go after Clinton with Obama and thus make her have to fend off 2 challengers and potentially striking the knock out blow.

 

btw, not sure if it has been discussed here, but I've heard rumors of a Gore/Carter call on Clinton to drop out, either publicly or privately. Not as an endorsement of Obama per-say, but as a "save the party" call.

 

Do you really think that the vast majority of super-delegates are going to go against the will of the Democratic voters, especially after the debacle of the 2000 election? Keep in mind most of these people are also elected officials who would like to keep their offices.

[Balta1701]

Do you really think that the vast majority of super-delegates are going to go against the will of the Democratic voters, especially after the debacle of the 2000 election? Keep in mind most of these people are also elected officials who would like to keep their offices.

The problem is, how do you define "The will of the voters" especially at the current stage? There are so many different ways of counting, and it's entirely possible to come up with ways to count them that favor Hillary. Do you go with the popular vote? If so, how do you count FL and MI? If you count them the right way to minimize Obama's numbers and increase Hillary's, then it's still possible to come up with a count that gives Hillary the lead. But that minimizes the contribution of caucus states since fewer people show up there anyway, so how do you weight those correctly? And then you can throw in arguments about the impact of the electoral college itself, and that muddies the mess even further.

 

A solid win or two by Obama to stretch the margin a little bit more would finally shut it up. But that's not going to happen until NC it looks like.

[StrangeSox]

The problem is, how do you define "The will of the voters" especially at the current stage? There are so many different ways of counting, and it's entirely possible to come up with ways to count them that favor Hillary. Do you go with the popular vote? If so, how do you count FL and MI? If you count them the right way to minimize Obama's numbers and increase Hillary's, then it's still possible to come up with a count that gives Hillary the lead. But that minimizes the contribution of caucus states since fewer people show up there anyway, so how do you weight those correctly? And then you can throw in arguments about the impact of the electoral college itself, and that muddies the mess even further.

 

A solid win or two by Obama to stretch the margin a little bit more would finally shut it up. But that's not going to happen until NC it looks like.

 

I thought she was behind no matter what you tried to do to with the numbers?

[Balta1701]

I thought she was behind no matter what you tried to do to with the numbers?

If you count Michigan and Florida exactly as polled...where Obama gets no votes in Michigan since he wasn't on the Ballot, and the ones who went for Hillary count as for Hillary, that covers the spread.

[southsider2k5]

The problem is, how do you define "The will of the voters" especially at the current stage? There are so many different ways of counting, and it's entirely possible to come up with ways to count them that favor Hillary. Do you go with the popular vote? If so, how do you count FL and MI? If you count them the right way to minimize Obama's numbers and increase Hillary's, then it's still possible to come up with a count that gives Hillary the lead. But that minimizes the contribution of caucus states since fewer people show up there anyway, so how do you weight those correctly? And then you can throw in arguments about the impact of the electoral college itself, and that muddies the mess even further.

 

A solid win or two by Obama to stretch the margin a little bit more would finally shut it up. But that's not going to happen until NC it looks like.

 

Would you buy that load of crap if anyone fed it to you? Would the vast majority of the voting public?

[Balta1701]

Would you buy that load of crap if anyone fed it to you? Would the vast majority of the voting public?

If Hillary were to start sweeping the last few states, scoring big wins in a lot of them, then you sort of start really getting in to that messy area where those loads of crap become worth wondering about. Where Hillary is winning the popular vote outright but not the delegate count, then you get in to a big argument about how much weight should be given to the caucus system, which is just a mess.

[southsider2k5]

If Hillary were to start sweeping the last few states, scoring big wins in a lot of them, then you sort of start really getting in to that messy area where those loads of crap become worth wondering about. Where Hillary is winning the popular vote outright but not the delegate count, then you get in to a big argument about how much weight should be given to the caucus system, which is just a mess.

 

Better question... if you are a candidate who is at a severe funding disadvantage, would it be worth your time to spend money attacking someone with those kind of odds, or going after the well-established leader of the pack?

[jasonxctf]

for proper disclosure, i am in obama's camp on this... but i do see a strategic electoral college advantage to Hillary.

 

if it's Hillary vs McCain, i come up with the following numbers... Hillary 278, McCain 260. Swing states such as Iowa, Wisconsin, FLorida and Colorado go McCain's way. Other states such as PA, NH, NV, Ohio and Arkansas go Hillary's way.

 

if it's Obama vs McCain, i come up with the following numbers McCain 264 Obama 238 with the following states undecided... PA and NJ. Swing states such as NH, OH, FL go McCain's way. Swing states such as Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada go Obama's way. Which means that he has to win both PA and NJ to secure a 274-264 win.

 

bottom line is that Hillary adds OH and safely keeps NJ, NH and PA. While Obama opens up those 4 to competition, but can win in swing states such as Iowa, Wisconsin and Colorado where Hillary cant.

[jasonxctf]

From Realclearpolitics.com, here are the major pollsters averages per state...

 

McCain vs Clinton

FL: McCain + 0.3%

PA: Clinton + 8.5%

OH: Clinton + 2.8%

NM: McCain + 3.0%

WI: McCain + 4.7%

IA: McCain + 9.7%

NJ: Clinton + 2.4%

 

McCain vs Obama

FL: McCain + 0.4%

PA: Obama + 3.5%

OH: McCain + 5.2%

NM: Obama + 3.0%

WI: Obama + 2.0%

IA: Obama + 10.0%

NJ: Obama + 1.3%

[Heads22]

I still think that's amazing how big the swing is in Iowa.....McCain leading by 10% against Hillary and trailing Obama by 10%. Amazing with the amount of elderly people here.

[southsider2k5]

It looks like the "bitter" bomb might be working...

 

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

 

April 14, 2008 - Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Preference

Pennsylvania

Democrats Mar

7-8 Mar

26-27 Apr

5-6 Apr

11-13

Clinton 52% 51% 45% 57%

Obama 41% 39% 45% 37%

Someone else 1% 2% 4% 2%

Undecided 6% 8% 6% 4%

 

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 48% to 44% among men (45% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 64% to 31%.

 

Clinton leads 64% to 29% among white voters (82% of likely Democratic primary voters). Obama leads 79% to 18% among African American voters (14% of likely Democratic primary voters).

 

Clinton leads 52% to 43% among voters age 18 to 49 (50% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads 62% to 31% among voters age 50 and older.

 

10% of all likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary and 24% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.

 

23% of likely Democratic primary voters say that excessive exposure to Obama's advertising is causing them to support Clinton.

 

For details, click on the R or D for each state in the column on the left under 2008 Presidential Polls.

[southsider2k5]

Also interesting with the ads that we in the Indiana markets have been getting hammered with...

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ob..._oil_spill.html

 

Obama's Oil Spill

March 31, 2008

Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick.

Summary

In a new ad, Obama says, "I don’t take money from oil companies."

 

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

 

We find the statement misleading:

 

* Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

 

* Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

 

Analysis

Sen. Barack Obama's ad began running late last week in Pennsylvania and Indiana. In it, Obama talks about the United States' reliance on foreign oil and the need for energy independence and alternative fuels.

 

Only Legal Contributions, Please

 

Obama's right on both counts when he says that "Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas." ExxonMobil's profits in 2007 hit $40.6 billion, the highest ever recorded by any company.

Obama '08 Ad: Nothing's ChangedObama

 

Obama: Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.

I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.

I approve this message because it’s time that Washington worked for you. Not them.

The national average price for a gallon of gas in the week ending March 24, the most recent data available, was $3.26, but prices are higher than the average in some areas.

 

Our problem comes with this statement:

 

Obama: I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore.

 

It's true that Obama doesn't take money directly from oil companies, but then, no presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can't: Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907.

 

Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount.

 

Here's a chart we made, using the OpenSecrets.org database, of contributions to Obama from individuals employed by some of the largest oil companies in the U.S. Our numbers are conservative because the database doesn't include donations of less than $200 (federal law doesn't require the reporting of donations below that amount), and we haven't included sums donated by the spouses or other immediate family members of the employees. Additionally, we haven't included donations from people who work at smaller firms in the industry.

 

 

When the Clinton campaign criticized Obama's ad, calling it "false advertising," Obama's campaign quickly noted that he didn't take money from political action committees or lobbyists.

 

We'd say the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company's or an organization's individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC's donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually.

 

In addition, two oil industry executives are bundling money for Obama – drumming up contributions from individuals and turning them over to the campaign. George Kaiser, the chairman of Oklahoma-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., ranks 68th on the Forbes list of world billionaires. He's listed on Obama's Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the candidate. Robert Cavnar is president and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC, an oil exploration and production company. He's named as a bundler in the same category as Kaiser.

 

We're not making any judgments about whether Obama is influenced by campaign contributions. In fact, we'd note that he singles out ExxonMobil in this ad, even though he's received more than $30,850 from individuals who work for the company. But we do think that in theory, contributions that come in volume from oil industry executives, or are bundled by them, can be every bit as influential as PAC contributions, if not more so.

 

Lobbyist Loopholes?

 

We've noted before that Obama's policy of not taking money from lobbyists is a bit of hair-splitting. It's true that he doesn't accept contributions from individuals who are registered to lobby the federal government. But he does take money from their spouses and from other individuals at firms where lobbyists work. And some of his bigger fundraisers were registered lobbyists until they signed on with the Obama campaign.

 

Even the campaign has acknowledged that this policy is flawed. "It isn’t a perfect solution to the problem and it isn’t even a perfect symbol," Obama spokesman Bill Burton has said.

[HuskyCaucasian]

It looks like the "bitter" bomb might be working...

 

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

I've said it before and I'll say it again. i have no faith in any poll ARG does. They had Clinton +9 in Iowa the day before the election. She lost by 7.8 and finished 3rd. They had Obama +9 before NH and Clinton won +2.6.

Their Chief polster also has connections to Hillary Clinton.

 

RealCealrPolitics.com doesnt include ARG in their Penn poll averages at all.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Looks like the Clinton attacks MIGHT backfire on her... she's getting booed for bringing it up.

 

I believe the same groups she spoke in front of also cheered Obama.

 

And in NC, it seems to have fallen flat at recent rallies.

Edited April 14, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

New Penn Poll:

Clinton +3 on Obama. 40%-37%

 

Now we know why she has been hammering the bitter comment. She sees her lead vaporizing before her eyes.

[NorthSideSox72]

ARG is indeed a large bit pro-Clinton, but more importantly they are just really bad. Taking a look at other PA polls that took place after the "bitter bomb" (LOL), there are two I can find. One is Clinton +4, but that is Zogby, who is also awful.

 

That leaves one other - Susquehanna. It shows Clinton +3, with the poll being taken 4/6 to 4/10. I think the comment hit the airwaves on the 5th or 6th, right?

 

Give another few polls a chance to show up. Much like the Wright issue, I think people will react to it a bit. Then, the voters who are actually on the fence (not the super Obamatons or Clintonites or GOP'ers) in the Dem race will do what they did last time - realize its pretty irrelevant. And heck, I'd say the Wright situation was a lot more relevant than this piece of garbage "news" story anyway. The polls will swing back again, and Clinton will hold onto a 3 or 5 point lead going into 4/22.

 

It will be a tight race, but I think Clinton will pull it out.

 

[Balta1701]

It will be a tight race, but I think Clinton will pull it out.

A tight race is a huge win for Obama. Penn is the last real chance she has to boost her popular vote totals and close the delegate gap. Anything closer than say 7-8 is a huge Obama win because it goes from having 80% of the votes counted to closing in on 90 without having her close the gaps.

[HuskyCaucasian]

It looks like the "bitter" bomb might be working...

 

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

More on ARG:

But there are reasons to question ARG polling numbers. In a polling report card of 2008 primary accuracy issued by a rival survey company, ARG ranked in the bottom half of more than three dozen polling firms, among 2008 primaries through late February. It also ranked near the bottom in another ranking of pollster accuracy at fivethirtyeight.com, a Web site that tracks the Electoral College. And, as I wrote last month, the widely tracked polling averages at the political Web site Real Clear Politics don’t include ARG numbers, because of concerns about transparency. Like they’ve been in Pennsylvania, ARG polls also were volatile in previous primaries, notably in Wisconsin, which saw a 16-point swing in just two days.

 

[Heads22]

So, I haven't been following overly closely with the exception of Iowa, but have the more local pollsters done the best jobs?

[Balta1701]

So, I haven't been following overly closely with the exception of Iowa, but have the more local pollsters done the best jobs?

This campaign has been defined by the concept that Survey USA = good, there are a few that are pretty good most of the time, the local ones tend to be all right, and a few like ARG and Zogby have just been trash.

[HuskyCaucasian]

So, I haven't been following overly closely with the exception of Iowa, but have the more local pollsters done the best jobs?

They seem to be in the range of accurate...

Local Poll to the best of my ability:

(parentheses are actual results)

IA: Des Moines Register - Obama +7 (Obama +7.8)

NH: Suffolk/WHDH- Obama +5 (Clinton +2.6) This poll was the "closest "to the real result

NV: no local polls listed on RCP (RealClearPolitics)

SC: Clemson- Obama +7.0 (Obama +28.9) No polls were even close here

VA: no local polls listed on RCP

MD: no local polls listed on RCP

WI: Research 2000/WISC-TV- Obama +5.0 (Obama +17.4) this poll was in line with other WI polls

OH: Ohio Poll/Univ of Cin.- Clinton +9.0 (Clinton +10.1)

TX: WFAA/Belo Tracking- Clinton +1.0 (Clinton +3.5)

TX: M-D/Star-Telegram- Obama +1 (Clinton +3.5) taken 5 days before election

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

This campaign has been defined by the concept that Survey USA = good,

I was a little "leery" of this, but the facts prove it correct...

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

This cant be good for hillary:

Chatty Crowd Forces Clinton to Cut Speech Short

 

Hillary Clinton was forced to cut her normal stump speech short when a chatty and meddlesome crowd kept her from grasping their attention. Clinton, who was addressing the Philadelphia County Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, spoke for just over five minutes, despite having the press arrive almost two hours beforehand.

 

The crowd never settled down during her remarks. A spokesman for Clinton denied that she cut the speech short, and told reporters that Clinton was advised by her Pennsylvania team to deliver “a short speech" given the set up of the event.

 

In previous party dinners, most recently in Butte, Mt., Clinton spoke for almost an hour to a crowd that seemed to be paying attention. The aide said this was a “different type” of J-J Dinner, primarily because people were not seated at tables, and were “milling around” the banquet hall.

 

Whether or not Clinton’s reception at the dinner had anything to do with her recent attacks on Barack Obama remains unclear. Clinton has never delivered a formal speech in such a short amount of time. The most recent abbreviated speech was back on February 15 when Clinton spoke to a crowd at a Lockheed Martin plant in Akron, Ohio. The speech lasted for just 12 minutes, with the first applause line coming 11 minutes into the speech.

 

I'm not buying their excuse that it was a planned short speech. She isnt going to go off the campaign trail to speak fro only 5 minutes.

[southsider2k5]

I was a little "leery" of this, but the facts prove it correct...

 

Fox News is one of the most accurate? Interesting... sure doesn't fit the propaganada hurled at it, that's for sure.