DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

And again, that running average includes an ARG poll that is worthless, and an LA Times poll that is using half the normal pool size. You have to throw those out to feel any sort of confidence in the numbers. Run the average without them and tell me what you see.

 

I know that since you are working for Edwards, you are getting all that positive hype from the camp... but take a look at the real numbers. Clinton is not that high. Edwards is surging no doubt, but, I think you're delusional if you choose to focus on polls that are clearly flawed.

 

 

[YASNY]

And again, that running average includes an ARG poll that is worthless, and an LA Times poll that is using half the normal pool size. You have to throw those out to feel any sort of confidence in the numbers. Run the average without them and tell me what you see.

 

I know that since you are working for Edwards, you are getting all that positive hype from the camp... but take a look at the real numbers. Clinton is not that high. Edwards is surging no doubt, but, I think you're delusional if you choose to focus on polls that are clearly flawed.

 

You are right. This will be between Hillary and Obama. Edwards is just the tallest midget.

[Balta1701]

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.

While, as we all know crowds prove essentially nothing, today both Edwards and Obama are in Davenport.

At least 850 Iowans showed up to hear Barack Obama speak.... and not more than 350 are hearing John Edwards speak at the same time in the same town...

 

There may be external reasons why the crowd sizes differ (proximity to Illinois?), but I'll bet the Edwards campaign would have enjoyed a larger crowd.

[EvilMonkey]

While, as we all know crowds prove essentially nothing, today both Edwards and Obama are in Davenport.

You mean size DOESN'T matter?

[Reddy]

While, as we all know crowds prove essentially nothing, today both Edwards and Obama are in Davenport.

 

850 iowans. real numbers or obama numbers?

[EvilMonkey]

850 iowans. real numbers or obama numbers?

What, is it 2.4 Iowans to equal 1 Obamamaniac?

[Heads22]

What, is it 2.4 Iowans to equal 1 Obamamaniac?

 

Heavy action in SW Iowa has pushed it to 2.1.

[Reddy]

i'm just saying the obama camp exaggerates their numbers at events. kinda annoying but whatever, doesn't really affect anything.

[Reddy]

Edwards to Campaign for 36 hours STRAIGHT

 

Over 36 Hours, Edwards Will Discuss 36 Bold Ideas for Strengthening the Middle Class

 

Des Moines, Iowa – In the final hours leading up to the Iowa caucuses, Senator John Edwards will hold a 36-hour "Marathon for the Middle Class." Starting January 1st, 2008, Edwards will campaign across Iowa for 36 hours to talk to thousands of caucus goers and share 36 ideas to strengthen the middle class. As he makes his closing argument to Iowans, Edwards will highlight his bold plans to stand up to the powerful special interests and give hard working, middle class families a voice in Washington.

 

EDIT: in case you don't feel like doing the math, that's 16 events in 36 hours. talk about unprecedented.

 

just goes to show that he can outwork anyone. he did the same thing as a lawyer working all-nighter after all-nighter to defend people who didn't have a voice and now he's doing it for us. To me, having a progressive workaholic in the White House is exactly what we need. And what a change it'll be.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2007 by Reddy

[KipWellsFan]

And again, that running average includes an ARG poll that is worthless, and an LA Times poll that is using half the normal pool size. You have to throw those out to feel any sort of confidence in the numbers. Run the average without them and tell me what you see.

 

I know that since you are working for Edwards, you are getting all that positive hype from the camp... but take a look at the real numbers. Clinton is not that high. Edwards is surging no doubt, but, I think you're delusional if you choose to focus on polls that are clearly flawed.

 

I don't really like Edwards either but wouldn't any pollster tell you that sample size isn't really the issue, but whether its a good representation of that population.

[EvilMonkey]

Edwards to Campaign for 36 hours STRAIGHT

 

 

he did the same thing as a lawyer working all-nighter after all-nighter to defend people who didn't have a voice and now he's doing it for us.

You need to put down the Koolaide. He is doing it for the power, perks and priveledges that come with the office, like all the rest. That, and his ego (like allt he rest) makes him believe he is the best person for the job. YOU, nor anyone else, do not figure into that formula.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't really like Edwards either but wouldn't any pollster tell you that sample size isn't really the issue, but whether its a good representation of that population.

Any good statistician would tell you it is both. Obviously the sample size value does tend to go down after some certain point of ridicolousness - the error margin is a boundary condition at zero. But if the typical 500-700 respondants are used and generate an error margin of 3 to 4 percent, then the 300 people in some other poll will probably have a much higher margin of error - one that makes the poll a lot less valid.

 

[StrangeSox]

Any good statistician would tell you it is both. Obviously the sample size value does tend to go down after some certain point of ridicolousness - the error margin is a boundary condition at zero. But if the typical 500-700 respondants are used and generate an error margin of 3 to 4 percent, then the 300 people in some other poll will probably have a much higher margin of error - one that makes the poll a lot less valid.

 

Margin of error calculation isn't too complicated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

[NorthSideSox72]

Margin of error calculation isn't too complicated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

Yup.

 

[Reddy]

You need to put down the Koolaide. He is doing it for the power, perks and priveledges that come with the office, like all the rest. That, and his ego (like allt he rest) makes him believe he is the best person for the job. YOU, nor anyone else, do not figure into that formula.

 

sorry, it tastes pretty good.

 

if you EVER saw him speak you'd agree. he feels passionately. he legitimately cares about real people and i don't care if you believe me or not.

 

he was down cleaning up after katrina. he's started a poverty center in NC. he has fought for the disenfranchised his whole life. he plans to restore the middle class. he is personally sickened when he hears stories about people having to watch spouses die because they didnt have the health insurance to help them.

 

the man cares. like i said, i dont give two s***s whether you think i'm blowing this out my ass but if you even took the time to see him or speak with him you'd understand this.

[NorthSideSox72]

3 new polls out in the last few days. One is Zogby which is of course useless, one is ARG who we seem to have established is almost as useless. That leaves Mason Dixon, who says...

 

Edwards: 24%

Clinton: 23%

Obama: 22%

Richardson: 12%

 

Yowza. Not only are the big 3 still neck-and-neck, but this poll indicates a surge from Richardson. That's 3 candidates within 2%, and 4 within 12% - which is shooting distance, with as weird as the Iowa caucus tends to be.

 

[EvilMonkey]

sorry, it tastes pretty good.

 

if you EVER saw him speak you'd agree. he feels passionately. he legitimately cares about real people and i don't care if you believe me or not.

 

he was down cleaning up after katrina. he's started a poverty center in NC. he has fought for the disenfranchised his whole life. he plans to restore the middle class. he is personally sickened when he hears stories about people having to watch spouses die because they didnt have the health insurance to help them.

 

the man cares. like i said, i dont give two s***s whether you think i'm blowing this out my ass but if you even took the time to see him or speak with him you'd understand this.

I believe that YOU think that, but I don't believe he thinks that. Rich people who can afford the time and money to help poor people do not impress me. Poor to middle class people who spend thier time and money to help people impress me. It's nothing for him to take a few weeks off to go to help work in NO. The firefighters from all over the country that used thier vacation time to go down there and help in the relief effort. Those guys impress me. The guys who fund and run food banks themselves, they impress me with their passion to help those less fortunate. Tell me, in all his fighting for the 'disenfranchised', did he do it for free? Any pro bono work there? Or did he pocket some huge ass fees? When he fights for infants born with brain damage or other serious conditions that entail a lifetime of expensive medical care, does he lessen or forgo his usual 1/3? It's easy to help the downtrodden when you can pocket a million bucks in the process. As for hearing him speak, I have heard that the Reverend Jim Jones was a pretty persuasive speaker as well, but I would not care to have found out. I am glad you have a passion for politics, but to think that any of these guys (or the gal) are in this simply for altruistic reasons is absurd.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Well, I have to share a quick story. My wife and I are in iowa with her family for a late christmas, and the phone wont stop ringing. There seems to be a trend. It's either a "poll" (could be legit, or a push, we don;t know, we hang up) or a call from the Hillary campaign. We were gettng calls at her grandma's as well. We just got home and had 3 voice mail messages from the Hillary campaign.

 

The clinton campaign must REALLY be worried.

[Reddy]

I believe that YOU think that, but I don't believe he thinks that. Rich people who can afford the time and money to help poor people do not impress me. Poor to middle class people who spend thier time and money to help people impress me. It's nothing for him to take a few weeks off to go to help work in NO. The firefighters from all over the country that used thier vacation time to go down there and help in the relief effort. Those guys impress me. The guys who fund and run food banks themselves, they impress me with their passion to help those less fortunate. Tell me, in all his fighting for the 'disenfranchised', did he do it for free? Any pro bono work there? Or did he pocket some huge ass fees? When he fights for infants born with brain damage or other serious conditions that entail a lifetime of expensive medical care, does he lessen or forgo his usual 1/3? It's easy to help the downtrodden when you can pocket a million bucks in the process. As for hearing him speak, I have heard that the Reverend Jim Jones was a pretty persuasive speaker as well, but I would not care to have found out. I am glad you have a passion for politics, but to think that any of these guys (or the gal) are in this simply for altruistic reasons is absurd.

 

but to suggest they're only in it for the fame/glory/money/power/etc is also just absurd.

 

Look, John didn't start out rich ok? he was f***ing poorer than you or me. by a long shot. the guy had to work and fight for everything he has EVER achieved. what is SO WRONG with succeeding? so he achieved the American Dream. Should he be vilified for that? that's ridiculous. Yes he became a trial lawyer, yes he made a s*** ton of money, but he did it while helping people. There are a lot of worse ways to make yourself rich.

 

you're saying that any altruistic behavior from a rich person means LESS than if it comes from a middle class citizen? ya know what? i'll bet you that to the person they're helping it doesn't matter ONE DAMN BIT. John's lived his life helping people. you can try and slant that any way you want but at the end of the day that's what it is.

[EvilMonkey]

but to suggest they're only in it for the fame/glory/money/power/etc is also just absurd.

 

Look, John didn't start out rich ok? he was f***ing poorer than you or me. by a long shot.

Whoa there, sparky. Don't let all the glorification of his 'poor, humble roots' rot your brain. Dad was a manager at a textile place, and mom had her own business, then worked for the post office. Now I know that textile mills are not exactally flowing with money, but the managers are sure nor 'poor'. And I know postal workers are well paid, even back then. My parents lived in my grandparents basement for a year because they had no money. Boo f***ing hoo. Mill housing wasn't like a mansion, but they didn't live there his whole life, they soon graduated to a ranch-style brick home on a tree-lined street. Somehow he afforded college, without scholarships. Not cheap, even when he transfered to NSCU, so I guess they weren't too dirt poor by then. He even had a union job with UPS! $10 per hour in the 70's was pretty damn good! I worked 10 hour days on the weekends and 2, 4 hour shifts during the week at $7 per hour to pay for mine college education. And stories about the family leaving restaurants because the prices were too high? Been there.

 

I am not saying they are ONLY in it for the non-altruistic things, just that they are the main reason. The fact that they may be able to help someone in the process is what helps them sleep at night. You, however, seem to think his s*** don't stink. They all stink to some degree. I have met several politicians in person, Jim Edgar, Jessie White, Gary Hart, Paul Simon and even Bill Clinton. (I only got to shake his hand and say hi, but listened to him talk to a friend's dad for about 10 minutes. Now there was a guy who could talk when he wanted to.) The only guy I have met whom I think was more into it for the good than the bad was Paul Simon. But boy did he look funny in those bow ties.

 

As for "you're saying that any altruistic behavior from a rich person means LESS than if it comes from a middle class citizen?" I am saying it costs them less, as they are in a position to afford it more. It is easy to care when you have millions. Try caring when you only have thousands, or hundreds.

 

[Rex Kickass]

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.

[NorthSideSox72]

Whoa there, sparky. Don't let all the glorification of his 'poor, humble roots' rot your brain. Dad was a manager at a textile place, and mom had her own business, then worked for the post office. Now I know that textile mills are not exactally flowing with money, but the managers are sure nor 'poor'. And I know postal workers are well paid, even back then. My parents lived in my grandparents basement for a year because they had no money. Boo f***ing hoo. Mill housing wasn't like a mansion, but they didn't live there his whole life, they soon graduated to a ranch-style brick home on a tree-lined street. Somehow he afforded college, without scholarships. Not cheap, even when he transfered to NSCU, so I guess they weren't too dirt poor by then. He even had a union job with UPS! $10 per hour in the 70's was pretty damn good! I worked 10 hour days on the weekends and 2, 4 hour shifts during the week at $7 per hour to pay for mine college education. And stories about the family leaving restaurants because the prices were too high? Been there.

 

I am not saying they are ONLY in it for the non-altruistic things, just that they are the main reason. The fact that they may be able to help someone in the process is what helps them sleep at night. You, however, seem to think his s*** don't stink. They all stink to some degree. I have met several politicians in person, Jim Edgar, Jessie White, Gary Hart, Paul Simon and even Bill Clinton. (I only got to shake his hand and say hi, but listened to him talk to a friend's dad for about 10 minutes. Now there was a guy who could talk when he wanted to.) The only guy I have met whom I think was more into it for the good than the bad was Paul Simon. But boy did he look funny in those bow ties.

 

As for "you're saying that any altruistic behavior from a rich person means LESS than if it comes from a middle class citizen?" I am saying it costs them less, as they are in a position to afford it more. It is easy to care when you have millions. Try caring when you only have thousands, or hundreds.

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.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, I have to share a quick story. My wife and I are in iowa with her family for a late christmas, and the phone wont stop ringing. There seems to be a trend. It's either a "poll" (could be legit, or a push, we don;t know, we hang up) or a call from the Hillary campaign. We were gettng calls at her grandma's as well. We just got home and had 3 voice mail messages from the Hillary campaign.

 

The clinton campaign must REALLY be worried.

She should be. She has two candidates right there with her, both of which having some positive momentum. Then there was this little incident - another Clinton lacky making a boneheaded statement. She's really not doing well.

 

[EvilMonkey]

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.

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.

[NorthSideSox72]

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

 

Clinton, who has stressed her experience, used a recorded interview on ABC's "This Week" to say she was "intimately involved in so much that went on in the White House" while she was first lady.

 

While she did not hold a security clearance, Clinton said she was "often provided classified information" and had "direct access to all of the decision-makers."

 

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?