DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[Reddy]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/Insi...aucus_poll.html

[BigSqwert]

Obama actually passed an ethics reform bill during his brief term as Senator. What has Edwards done besides vote for the Iraq war?

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/Insi...aucus_poll.html

Well now that is very interesting, I must say.

 

Anyone know more about this 15% threshold thing? And how that works, exactly?

 

Also very significant is the 7% undecided, who could go anywhere.

 

ETA: I just noticed... the poll in there has Obama in the lead among "highly likely voters", but Edwards in the lead among "likely voters". Seems like a minor distinction between them, but the result changes. Weird.

 

[Reddy]

Well now that is very interesting, I must say.

 

Anyone know more about this 15% threshold thing? And how that works, exactly?

 

Also very significant is the 7% undecided, who could go anywhere.

 

yep. in the Iowa Caucuses, there is an initial grouping where all the supporters for each candidate consolidate together. a tally is taken and if any candidate does not have at least 15% of the total number of people at that caucus site, that candidate is not "viable". Then a new round takes place and all those who's candidates aren't viable have to realign with someone else. I dont remember whether this is mandatory or not... i dont think so, but generally most people if not all choose to realign.

 

the fun thing is that it's all old school where you can try to win voters that night with arguments etc etc - you can keep trying to persuade people up until the time the realignment happens. it's a very rustic system actually. lol

[Reddy]

Obama actually passed an ethics reform bill during his brief term as Senator. What has Edwards done besides vote for the Iraq war?

 

Obama wasn't IN the senate to make that decision at the time. Convenient. I really hate that line. If he'd been there he would've done the same goddamned thing.

[NorthSideSox72]

yep. in the Iowa Caucuses, there is an initial grouping where all the supporters for each candidate consolidate together. a tally is taken and if any candidate does not have at least 15% of the total number of people at that caucus site, that candidate is not "viable". Then a new round takes place and all those who's candidates aren't viable have to realign with someone else. I dont remember whether this is mandatory or not... i dont think so, but generally most people if not all choose to realign.

 

the fun thing is that it's all old school where you can try to win voters that night with arguments etc etc - you can keep trying to persuade people up until the time the realignment happens. it's a very rustic system actually. lol

I knew about the caucusing in general, and the forum... but the 15% rule I wasn't sure on. Its optional, then? They can realign or not? That sounds right.

 

[BigSqwert]

Obama wasn't IN the senate to make that decision at the time. Convenient. I really hate that line. If he'd been there he would've done the same goddamned thing.

But what can you really point to that Edwards has accomplished? Not much as his brief term in the Senate was not memorable.

[Reddy]

I knew about the caucusing in general, and the forum... but the 15% rule I wasn't sure on. Its optional, then? They can realign or not? That sounds right.

 

right they can go to another candidate or not move or go with uncommitted.

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama wasn't IN the senate to make that decision at the time. Convenient. I really hate that line. If he'd been there he would've done the same goddamned thing.

Except that Obama was making speeches at anti-war rallies around that time, and being quite vocal against it. Maybe he would have caved - but I doubt it. It goes to the thing that, in my opinion, is the biggest difference between Obama and the other candidates - he is willing to lose. He's not one to cave on an important issue just to survive politically.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

right they can go to another candidate or not move or go with uncommitted.

Just curious... if you had to vote for someone other than Edwards (like, lets say you were in a precinct where he couldn't poll 15%), who would it be?

 

[Reddy]

Just curious... if you had to vote for someone other than Edwards (like, lets say you were in a precinct where he couldn't poll 15%), who would it be?

 

Dodd i think... or Biden.

[Reddy]

Except that Obama was making speeches at anti-war rallies around that time, and being quite vocal against it. Maybe he would have caved - but I doubt it. It goes to the thing that, in my opinion, is the biggest difference between Obama and the other candidates - he is willing to lose. He's not one to cave on an important issue just to survive politically.

 

John Edwards' main platform is Poverty... that's equivalent to political suicide.

[NorthSideSox72]

John Edwards' main platform is Poverty... that's equivalent to political suicide.

Suicide? Heck, more politicians than not say they are crusading for the poor, particularly democrats. There is nothing suicidual about it.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Fun slideshow on SI.com of Obama playing hoops with an SI sports writer.

 

[Balta1701]

Edwards, today.

Henderson: "In regards to the situation in Pakistan, if you were president, what would you be doing?"

 

Edwards: "If I were president I would do some of what I've already done. I spoke with the Pakistani Ambassador and then a few minutes ago I spoke with President Musharraf, urging him to continue on the path to democratization, to allow international investigators to come in to determine what happened, what the facts were so that there would be transparency and credibility about what actually occurred and also about the upcoming schedule of elections and that the important thing for America to do in this unstable environment is first of all focus on the tragedy that's occurred. Benazir Bhutto was a strong woman, a courageous woman, someone that I actually spoke at a conference with a few years and she talked about the path to democracy in Pakistan being baptized in blood so she understood the extraordinary risk that she was taking by going back and it's a terrible tragedy for the people of Pakistan, but it's important for America to be a calming influence and provide strength in this environment."

 

Henderson: "How did you get in touch with Musharraf? What's the relationship there?"

 

Edwards: "I met Musharraf years ago in Islamabad. We talked about many of the problems that his country was faced with including kids being educated in Madrasahs and some of the struggles that he was having within his own country and so when I spoke to the ambassador earlier today I said if Musharraf, if the president had time would you have him give me a call because I'd like to speak with him directly and he called."

[Balta1701]

Bayh: Bhutto's killing shows why we need Hillary.

In Iowa, when reporters pressed a Clinton campaign spokesman about whether the New York senator she would take any questions from the press about Bhutto's assassination, he said she did not want to be seen as exploiting it.

 

But that didn't stop Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D) -- campaigning here on Clinton's behalf -- from arguing that the assasination showed the need for a president with “seasoning.”

 

Bayh, a red-state Democrat who endorsed Clinton in September, actually learned of Bhutto’s killing when one of the two-dozen voters gathered here asked him for his reaction. “There is a deep strain of radicalism,” he said, “and this assassination is a manifestation of that.”

 

Bayh then related his experience on a trip to the region with Clinton, saying she had already met several of the leaders the congressional delegation was meeting with. “I have seen firsthand in that very country the knowledge that she brings to the table, the respect with which she is held by people across the political spectrum," he said. "Knowing these individuals, knowing their background, their strengths and their weaknesses, and it just gives you a tremendous leg up in dealing with some of the problems that we face.”

 

He added that in a general election, Republicans would likely raise the specter of international attacks in attempt to garner votes. “When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans [will say], ‘See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who’s strong to defend America at a time of concern.’ Well, Senator Clinton is strong,” he said. “And she’s experienced. And she’s tough enough to defend this country and do it in a way that’s true to our values, the civil liberties we cherish, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m supporting her.”

 

Speaking after the event, Bayh again emphasized the need for experience. “I think they know we live in a dangerous world, and tragedies like this just remind us that we need someone with the seasoning, the experience and the strength to be commander in chief during uncertain times,” he said. “The job of the next president is not to be entertainer in chief. The job of the next president is to move our country forward to make the substantive changes that will matter in our daily lives, and to protect us in an uncertain and dangerous world. And that’s why in a field of very good candidates, I believe Senator Clinton has the right combination of experience and strength to accomplish all of those things.”

[Balta1701]

And to finish off the triad...here's an Obama Adviser.

REPORTER: But looking ahead, does the assassination put on the front burner foreign policy credentials in the closing days?

 

AXELROD: Well, it puts on the table foreign policy judgment, and that's a discussion we welcome. Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that. Al Qaeda's resurgent, they're a powerful force now in Pakistan, they may have been involved -- we've been here, so I don't know whether the news has been updated, but there's a suspicion they may have been involved in this.

 

I think his judgment was good. Senator Clinton made a different judgment, so let's have that discussion.

[Heads22]

I think you are missing something here, about the dynamics of the Iowa population. College kids are transient, and are often not polled because their primary address may be on campus (where the pollsters won't call), or be elsewhere but they won't be at home to get it (because they are at school). What that means is, the polls that show Obama and Clinton in a virtual dead heat (or maybe a slight lead for Obama) are ALREADY missing the youth voters. And at least some of them WILL vote, even though they weren't likely to be polled. So actually, even if only a small number of those college kids vote, that is still a small number that isn't even yet reflected that will probably be heavily for Obama.

 

I am aforementioned transient.

 

I have no idea how many people plan to caucus from down yonder in Ames, but Obama is the only candidate with buzz down there. Students didn't go out of their way to see Clinton when she was in town, but I was with a few thousand over the noon hour at Central Campus for Obama.

 

It'll hurt Obama some that caucuses won't happen when classes are in session.

 

I'll let you guys know about the experience at the caucus here at home.

 

On a side note, its interesting to see just how many people like Richardson the best, but don't think he has any shot. Most of those people that I have talked to are leaning towards Obama.

 

I agree with Reddy to an extent though, that the overall laziness of college students will hurt Obama.

[Heads22]

On an interesting side note, the Des Moines Register gives the wrong directions to the democratic caucus in my ward.

[kapkomet]

Bayh: Bhutto's killing shows why we need Hillary.

I think I just threw up a little.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I had noticed that too - ARG tended to be notably far off from other polls at any given time (usually, interestingly, giving Clinton and McCain greater leads than anyone else). Those results from previous elections are a good find.

 

Thanks for the link. I was starting to wonder about ARG's polls.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesnt belong... hell, not even close to the other....

 

[kapkomet]

Well... aside from all the "news" posts... I still just cannot get a good feeling about Obama. I saw his "closing arguements" speech, and it's all the same "hoopla"... all feel good, no real substance. Since the "younger" folks tend to support Obama, he's going to lose Iowa. Edwards might surprise (again, I think I just threw up).

 

If Obama does win Iowa (which I hope he does) he will hopefully gain enough momentum to throw Hillarity a scare. But I still think she wins the nomination because she's just too much of a old school candidate, and when people scream they want change, they don't vote that way. That's why we have the idiot in the White House that we do right now...

[Reddy]

new poll by Strategic Vision:

 

Obama 30%

Clinton 29%

Edwards 28%

 

i'm telling you theres a surge coming.

[EvilMonkey]

Vote Ron Paul either way.

 

No taxes, neutrality, no income tax, no tips tax, makes all health expenses tax deductible, taking out HMOs that only benefit the gov't.

 

Why vote for the 'lesser of two evils' between the REP. and DEM. ?

 

Just vote Libertarian if you like to have money. If you like to have ppl take your money, vote REP/DEM

I would instead vote for Chululu (did I spell that right?), the greaer of two evils, in fact, the greatest of all evil!!!!! Hahahahaha!

[BigSqwert]

Just vote Libertarian if you like to have money. If you like to have ppl take your money, vote REP/DEM

Sometimes money isn't all that matters to people.