DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[Heads22]

Four political calls since lunch. These got old fast.

[Balta1701]

Four political calls since lunch. These got old fast.

LOL.

 

FWIW, there's still no earthly reason for 100,000 or so voters from your state to basically decide the entire nomination from both parties, so hopefully this'll be the last time.

[Heads22]

LOL.

 

FWIW, there's still no earthly reason for 100,000 or so voters from your state to basically decide the entire nomination from both parties, so hopefully this'll be the last time.

 

We like to be schmoozed.

[mr_genius]

LOL.

 

FWIW, there's still no earthly reason for 100,000 or so voters from your state to basically decide the entire nomination from both parties, so hopefully this'll be the last time.

 

All states should have their presidential primaries on the same day IMO

[Reddy]

All states should have their presidential primaries on the same day IMO

 

but then how do you calculate it? is it a system that goes solely on the popular vote? because in that case candidates will only show up in NY, CA, TX, IL, PA and FL

 

kinda lame...

[Balta1701]

but then how do you calculate it? is it a system that goes solely on the popular vote? because in that case candidates will only show up in NY, CA, TX, IL, PA and FL

 

kinda lame...

So, why does it make more sense to have the candidates spending all their time in a state that's hardly urban, mostly rural, and has a population that is much more racially homogeneous than the rest of the U.S.?

[Reddy]

also interesting - newest poll has Clinton at 31, Edwards at 25 and Obama at 22.

 

so now the averages are:

 

Clinton 29.8

Obama 25.5

Edwards 24.5

 

this stuff is so interesting. really there's NO way to predict what happens...

[Reddy]

So, why does it make more sense to have the candidates spending all their time in a state that's hardly urban, mostly rural, and has a population that is much more racially homogeneous than the rest of the U.S.?

 

oh believe me i dont think it should stay with iowa - that's honestly just kinda absurd. i love it, dont get me wrong, but it doesnt make any sense. but then i'm not really sure theres ANY method that makes any sense.

[mr_genius]

but then how do you calculate it? is it a system that goes solely on the popular vote? because in that case candidates will only show up in NY, CA, TX, IL, PA and FL

 

kinda lame...

 

Even lamer is them spending all the time on Iowa,SC and NH. Look at the candidates they have given us in past elections, very weak IMO.

[NorthSideSox72]

also interesting - newest poll has Clinton at 31, Edwards at 25 and Obama at 22.

 

so now the averages are:

 

Clinton 29.8

Obama 25.5

Edwards 24.5

 

this stuff is so interesting. really there's NO way to predict what happens...

That LA Times poll used 389 respondants, roughly half what other polls are using. I wouldn't put much stock in it.

 

Strategic Vision used 600, here are there latest:

 

Obama: 30

Clinton: 29

Edwards: 28

 

That is one very tight race.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Vote Ron Paul.

 

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

 

and

 

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog...n_online_polls/

BE- as Mr. Paul is a GOP candidate (though he is of course really a Libertarian), this should really be in the GOP Candidates thread. We've been trying to keep the discussions of the candidates for each party in these threads that way - tends to keep them less messy. No big deal though.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

So, why does it make more sense to have the candidates spending all their time in a state that's hardly urban, mostly rural, and has a population that is much more racially homogeneous than the rest of the U.S.?

While I agree that always having IA and NH first is dumb, I don't think the fact that it is rural should have anything to do with the decision. Iowa was chosen for a number of reasons before, some of which are still valid. It makes a good bellweather state because it doesn't tend to lean heavily to one party or the other, has an unusually well educated population, and is culturally and geographically central. It also represents that rural population you speak of in a prototypical way, which is not something to ignore.

 

Perhaps the best idea is to choose a handful of states that tend to be centrist, maybe say 6 to 10 of them, but which represent different dynamics otherwise - some heavily urban, some rural, some from each region of the country, some of different racial backgrounds... and have that be the list of states who always go first. Among that list, the order changes each year. And every 6 to 10 years, once each has gone first, you re-evaluate which states should stay on the list, or add new ones. Or heck, just go get a different 6 to 10 that have that same variety.

 

[Reddy]

While I agree that always having IA and NH first is dumb, I don't think the fact that it is rural should have anything to do with the decision. Iowa was chosen for a number of reasons before, some of which are still valid. It makes a good bellweather state because it doesn't tend to lean heavily to one party or the other, has an unusually well educated population, and is culturally and geographically central. It also represents that rural population you speak of in a prototypical way, which is not something to ignore.

 

Perhaps the best idea is to choose a handful of states that tend to be centrist, maybe say 6 to 10 of them, but which represent different dynamics otherwise - some heavily urban, some rural, some from each region of the country, some of different racial backgrounds... and have that be the list of states who always go first. Among that list, the order changes each year. And every 6 to 10 years, once each has gone first, you re-evaluate which states should stay on the list, or add new ones. Or heck, just go get a different 6 to 10 that have that same variety.

 

that actually sounds like an interesting idea. because i really wouldn't like it if like i said before the candidates only focused on the urban areas because then all the needs/voices of the rural folks wouldn't be heard. but yeah, your idea there is the first i've seen that doesn't have some giant flaw... cept maybe that it's too much work for our incompetent congress to handle. lol

[BigSqwert]

She's turning into George Bush Lite.

[YASNY]

She's turning into George Bush Lite.

 

And if she wins the nomination, you'll be supporting Ms. GB Lite 100%.

Edited December 28, 2007 by YASNY

[HuskyCaucasian]

Ok, i want to piece together a few things.

1) a few months ago Obama had a private lunch meeting with Michael Bloomberg.

2) Bloomberg seems to be floating the idea of running as an independent.

 

I am wondering if Obama wins the primary and names Bloomberg VP

Edited December 28, 2007 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

She's turning into George Bush Lite.

Wouldnt want to actually make her take a stand on something... that would be totally against her policy.

[YASNY]

Wouldnt want to actually make her take a stand on something... that would be totally against her policy.

 

Now that you mention it ....

 

Clinton's "don't ask" policy

 

As she races through Iowa in the days before next week's caucuses, Hillary Clinton is taking few chances. She tells crowds that it’s their turn to “pick a president,’’ but over the last two days she has not invited them to ask her any questions.

 

Before the brief Christmas break, the New York senator had been setting aside time after campaign speeches to hear from the audience. Now when she’s done speaking, her theme songs blare from loudspeakers, preventing any kind of public Q&A.

 

She was no more inviting when a television reporter approached her after a rally on Thursday and asked if she was “moved’’ by Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. Clinton turned away without answering.

 

Her daughter, Chelsea, had the same reaction when a reporter approached her with a question.

 

Hillary Clinton’s no-question policy didn’t sit well with some of the Iowans who came to see her speak.

 

“I was a little bit underwhelmed,’’ said Doug Rohde, 46, as he left her a rally in a fire station in Denison. “The message was very generic -- and no questions.’’

 

Clinton campaign officials said that she may take questions in the coming days. But her focus is on seeing as many voters as possible before the caucuses next Thursday -- and spotlighting the messages she wants to deliver.

 

Spokespeople for her two main rivals in the Hawkeye State -– John Edwards and Barack Obama -– said the candidates would continue fielding questions as they troll for support.

 

-- Peter Nicholas

[HuskyCaucasian]

We have been talking a lot about Clinton and Obama, but with Edwards surging in Iowa, who do YOU think would be his VP?

[NorthSideSox72]

Things couldn't get much tighter in Iowa. There are two polls out post-Christmas. Here are the results:

 

Strategic Vision (12/26-27, 500 LV):

Obama: 30%

Clinton: 29%

Edwards: 28%

 

Research 2000 (12/26-27, 600 LV):

Obama and Edwards: 29%

Clinton: 28%

 

No one else in double digits in either case. Undecided is 4% in SV, 2% in R2000, so those numbers are dropping quick. Its going to be very close.

 

[BigSqwert]

And if she wins the nomination, you'll be supporting Ms. GB Lite 100%.

Don't speak for me because I won't.

[Reddy]

Things couldn't get much tighter in Iowa. There are two polls out post-Christmas. Here are the results:

 

Strategic Vision (12/26-27, 500 LV):

Obama: 30%

Clinton: 29%

Edwards: 28%

 

Research 2000 (12/26-27, 600 LV):

Obama and Edwards: 29%

Clinton: 28%

 

No one else in double digits in either case. Undecided is 4% in SV, 2% in R2000, so those numbers are dropping quick. Its going to be very close.

 

 

the RCP Average now reads:

 

Clinton 29.3%

Edwards 27.3%

Obama 27%

 

Feel the surge baby!

 

was just helping run an Edwards event tonight in Tipton, IA. small place, 30 or so people were invited and we crammed 80 people into a tiny back room in a restaurant. it was pretty great. John's really connecting to voters one on one here and it's pretty incredible.

 

what i'm not a fan of is this Obama spin - there were about 450 people at his event in Coralville and now they're touting that 900 people were there. This was my old middle school, 900 people wouldnt FIT in that freaking gym... talk about lame.

[BigSqwert]

The other candidates wish they could get the crowds Obama has been getting. No one has generated as much excitement this campaign season even without Oprah at the events.

[BigSqwert]

Edwards backer funds questionable gift of $495K to 527 group.

Edited December 29, 2007 by BigSqwert

[Reddy]

The other candidates wish they could get the crowds Obama has been getting. No one has generated as much excitement this campaign season even without Oprah at the events.

 

they are getting the crowds dude. the events i mentioned were:

 

Edwards: Tipton, IA pop. 3,100

 

Obama: Iowa City/Coralville: 62,000

 

 

so in doing that math... IC/Coralville is 20 times larger than Tipton. Even if you take that 900 number Edwards outdrew Obama per capita. If you go with the real number of 450... well... Edwards crushes Obama.