DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[Reddy]

I find it hard to believe that someone with a 28000 sq ft home can connect with the poor.

 

again, why cant rich people be nice? why can't rich people help the poor? his wealth has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything.

[BigSqwert]

again, why cant rich people be nice? why can't rich people help the poor? his wealth has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything.

Two people finish college and have a choice. One becomes a trial lawyer and becomes a multi-millionaire and the other becomes a civil rights lawyer who fights for impoverished people for chump change. Just saying.

[Reddy]

Two people finish college and have a choice. One becomes a trial lawyer and becomes a multi-millionaire and the other becomes a civil rights lawyer who fights for impoverished people for chump change. Just saying.

 

lol wow. which would you have picked?

 

and by the way - he only made so much money as a trial lawyer because he was DAMN GOOD. He worked his ASS off and was an incredible lawyer.

 

and remind me what barack obama has accomplished with his life? other than being in the senate for 2 damn years and deal coke.

[BigSqwert]

lol wow. which would you have picked?

 

and by the way - he only made so much money as a trial lawyer because he was DAMN GOOD. He worked his ASS off and was an incredible lawyer.

Edwards had one term as a Senator and had nothing to show for it. He voted for the war in Iraq without even reading the intelligence reports. He has zero foreign policy credentials and seems as genuine as a used car salesman.

 

and remind me what barack obama has accomplished with his life?

 

Perhaps you should read up on him a bit. He's done much more in his term as a US Senator than Edwards. Edwards was schooled by Cheney in the past presidential debates and couldn't even carry his state for Kerry. He has almost no money left after Iowa and has no chance to get the nomination.

[NorthSideSox72]

I find it hard to believe that someone with a 28000 sq ft home can connect with the poor.

 

lol wow. which would you have picked?

 

and by the way - he only made so much money as a trial lawyer because he was DAMN GOOD. He worked his ASS off and was an incredible lawyer.

 

and remind me what barack obama has accomplished with his life? other than being in the senate for 2 damn years and deal coke.

 

Alright, cool it down a bit you two. John Edwards' hipocrisy does not make him Satan, nor does Obama's drug experimentation make him nothing more than a coke dealer.

 

Back on a more political note... I'll amend my earlier analysis to say that Edwards needs to win Iowa to have a chance - because of the financial collar around his neck. The only candidates that could survive losing Iowa are Hillary (who is fine as long as she is Top 3 and close), and Obama (who has a small chance if he stays very close in Iowa, because of his strength in NH and SC).

 

[Reddy]

He has zero foreign policy credentials

 

see pakistan.

[StrangeSox]

Alright, cool it down a bit you two. John Edwards' hipocrisy does not make him Satan, nor does Obama's drug experimentation make him nothing more than a coke dealer.

 

Back on a more political note... I'll amend my earlier analysis to say that Edwards needs to win Iowa to have a chance - because of the financial collar around his neck. The only candidates that could survive losing Iowa are Hillary (who is fine as long as she is Top 3 and close), and Obama (who has a small chance if he stays very close in Iowa, because of his strength in NH and SC).

 

Which of the Republicans have taken public funds? ie who would have a massive advantage over Edwards in the general?

[StrangeSox]

again, why cant rich people be nice? why can't rich people help the poor? his wealth has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything.

 

There's nothing wrong with being succesful and helping the poor. It just seems extremely patronizing/ dishonest/ pandering when you try to be "just like them" by eating at McDonalds on your 30th anniversary while you live in a 28,000 sq. ft. home.

[BigSqwert]

Memo issued today from the Biden camp:

 

DECEMBER 31, 2007

TO: INTERESTED PARTIES

FROM: LARRY RASKY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR BIDEN FOR PRESIDENT

RE: THOUGHTS ON ELECTABILITY

 

In the closing days of this race for the Democratic nomination for President, voters and reporters alike have heard former Sen. John Edwards make the same electability case over and over again. Edwards argues that with his southern roots he can compete in more states than any other Democratic candidate in the general election.

 

Last week in New Hampshire, Edwards said: “I think people want someone they know can win in the general election. I think the evidence is overwhelming that I’m very strong, the strongest general election data. . . . I’m the one Democrat who has won in a Red State, who can go into any place in America and be successful.”

 

However, the evidence that Edwards is more electable is at best thin and is probably misleading.

 

The first question mark is that Edwards was unlikely to hold onto to his North Carolina Senate seat in 2003 when he decided not to run for re-election. In short, if John Edwards is so electable, why couldn’t he be re-elected in his home state?

 

Indeed, Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report noted at the time, “Edwards is not that strong.” [The Herald-Sun (Durham, NC), 2/16/03] Research 2000’s poll for the Raleigh News and Observer taken from July 13-16, 2003 showed that Edwards’s re-election number stood at 34 percent. In that same poll, only 45 percent of North Carolinians approved of Edwards’s job as their junior Senator.

 

Edwards fared no better as the Democratic Party’s Vice Presidential candidate in 2004. After being selected as John Kerry’s running mate, Edwards said, “I think we will be very competitive in the South, particularly in those states in which national Democrats need to be competitive to be successful.” [Associated Press, 7/10/04] Unfortunately, Edwards failed to carry his home state. Edwards lost his home county—Moore County—by more than eleven thousand votes, 24,714 to 13,555. He also lost his hometown by more than 300 votes, 506 to 191.

 

At the end of the day, despite repeated assurances, Kerry-Edwards also failed to win a single southern state. So it’s understandable that this time around, even John Edwards’s own people are acknowledging his vulnerability: Rob Tully, a former state party chairman and Edwards backer, said “if he doesn't win Iowa or come very close this time, ‘we're done.’” [uSA TODAY, 12/12/07]

 

In addition, there are serious doubts about Edwards’ message. A recent Edwards ad asserts, “It’s time to tell the truth. These big corporations and their greed, they are stealing your children’s future. We will never change this country unless we are willing to take those people on.” Some are arguing that this will not go over well with general election voters. In a column, respected political analyst Stuart Rothenberg wrote, "Edwards certainly would dispute that there is an inherent contradiction between his populist rhetoric and his alleged middle class appeal. But his approach to problems is likely to frighten many voters, including most middle class Americans and virtually all Republicans." [The Rothenberg Political Report, 12/31/07]

 

So who has what it takes to carry the southern vote? Well, with so much riding on his southern electability argument, “native son” John Edwards actually fares only 4 points ahead of Joe Biden in the most recent Insider Advantage poll out of South Carolina. And if one thing is certain in the 2008 race, it’s that no Democrat will win using the same 20-plus-five strategy that has failed in the last two elections. In this general election, Joe Biden has set a 15-18 red state strategy, which not only sets him apart from the top tier, but gives him the most realistic shot at victory next November.

 

Furthermore, Joe Biden has historically and consistently won by large margins. In 1972, Joe Biden staged a huge upset, unseating two-term Sen. Caleb Boggs, a popular former congressman and governor. Since then, Joe Biden has consistently won re-election by over 15 percentage points, and always garnering more than 57 percent of the vote.

 

Sen. Biden’s victories have also come during times of strong Republican presence in the Delaware, in the form of both a Republican Senator (William Roth) and Republican Governors (du Pont, Castle and Wolf). Rep. Mike Castle consistently wins statewide, earning 57 percent in the last election. The Delaware State House has split leadership, with Democrats controlling the Senate and Republicans controlling the House.

 

These are the facts.

 

Wishing you all a happy and thoughtful New Year.

 

Larry

[kapkomet]

Hmmmm....

[BigSqwert]

Obama leading in the final Des Moines Register poll.

 

http://tinyurl.com/28jvwy

[Reddy]

seems to me to a be a pretty big outlier - none of the other polls are anywhere near those numbers. but regardless, maybe he's bouncing back. who knows. all of this really is entirely up in the air.

[BigSqwert]

seems to me to a be a pretty big outlier - none of the other polls are anywhere near those numbers. but regardless, maybe he's bouncing back. who knows. all of this really is entirely up in the air.

I do know that their final poll in 2004 had the top 4 predicted correctly. This one may be too jumbled and close to pick correctly though. As long as Hillary finishes 4th or worse I'll be happy. I've become an ABC (anyone but Hillary) person in the last 2 months.

[NorthSideSox72]

I do know that their final poll in 2004 had the top 4 predicted correctly. This one may be too jumbled and close to pick correctly though. As long as Hillary finishes 4th or worse I'll be happy. I've become an ABC (anyone but Hillary) person in the last 2 months.

The Register certainly tends to have the pulse of Iowa. But Reddy is also right about this 7 point lead for Obama looking like a possible outlier. In any case, its going to be very, very close.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

But... this CNN poll shows that maybe Barack's support isn't entirely out of the picture...

 

Clinton: 33%

Obama: 31%

Edwards: 22%

 

[Reddy]

But... this CNN poll shows that maybe Barack's support isn't entirely out of the picture...

 

Clinton: 33%

Obama: 31%

Edwards: 22%

 

wow.

 

literally ANYTHING could happen.

 

this is insane.

[BigSqwert]

Kucinich asks supporters to choose Obama as 2nd choice.

[Reddy]

Kucinich asks supporters to choose Obama as 2nd choice.

 

And Nader endorsed Edwards so that'll split that wacko left wing vote btw Obama and Edwards

[Balta1701]

The Register certainly tends to have the pulse of Iowa. But Reddy is also right about this 7 point lead for Obama looking like a possible outlier. In any case, its going to be very, very close.

Well, the other potential issue is that a lot of the polls showing Obama weakening and Clinton/Edwards gaining were taken during the Christmas period, where there's huge potentials for selection biases due to some types of people being more likely to be at home and poll-a-ble than others over that period. So for those polls you actually have to add additional salt to the usual analysis of the polling data simply because of the timing.

 

Overall though...right now it's totally anyone's game.

[KipWellsFan]

What exactly is on the line at the Iowa caucuses? Obviously momentum, but what is actually happening here that helps make someone a president. Are people being elected as delegates who will go to the convention at the end? I tried looking on wikipedia for an explanation of all this but it was still confusing.

[Balta1701]

What exactly is on the line at the Iowa caucuses? Obviously momentum, but what is actually happening here that helps make someone a president. Are people being elected as delegates who will go to the convention at the end? I tried looking on wikipedia for an explanation of all this but it was still confusing.

In 2004, the Iowa Caucuses for the Dems determined how the convention votes of 45 of the 4,366 voting delegates to the party convention will vote. As a practical matter, that is what is on the line, roughly 1% of the convention delegates.

[Reddy]

so the Des Moines Register poll can be essentially be thrown out because out of those polled, 60% were new voters. That's insanity. Of course that makes it swing for Obama but there is NO WAY that that many new voters will ever turn out. Nothing of that magnitude has ever happened in the history of the United States so why would it happen now?

[BigSqwert]

And Nader endorsed Edwards so that'll split that wacko left wing vote btw Obama and Edwards

If Kucinich only gets 1 or 2% support in a precinct and they all wind up going to Obama then that is huge. Nadar isn't even on the ballot so his endorsement is irrelevant since there is no 2nd choice opportunity.

[Reddy]

If Kucinich only gets 1 or 2% support in a precinct and they all wind up going to Obama then that is huge. Nadar isn't even on the ballot so his endorsement is irrelevant since there is no 2nd choice opportunity.

 

my point is that Kucinich people wont all go to Obama. Many will just leave, many will be to stuck in their ways to go to Obama and will probably go Edwards, and then some WILL go to Obama.

[BigSqwert]

my point is that Kucinich people wont all go to Obama. Many will just leave, many will be to stuck in their ways to go to Obama and will probably go Edwards, and then some WILL go to Obama.

So now you are an expert on what Kucinich supporters will do on Thursday? What evidence do you have that they "will probably go Edwards" as you say....other than the fact that you support Edwards?