DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[BigSqwert]

New Strategic Vision poll:

 

Obama 32%

Edwards 29%

Clinton 27%

 

Link

[Reddy]

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?

 

because Edwards is closest to them in ideology and Kucinich supporters are smart people who care about the issues. Obama and Kucinich are about as far apart on the issues as possible. The statement Kucinich made was out of a personal dislike for Edwards - not a policy move.

[BigSqwert]

because Edwards is closest to them in ideology and Kucinich supporters are smart people who care about the issues. Obama and Kucinich are about as far apart on the issues as possible. The statement Kucinich made was out of a personal dislike for Edwards - not a policy move.

Nice attempt at spin. I'm not buying it.

 

If the final Des Moines register poll had Edwards at 32% then it would be a good poll that has been historically accurate. Since it had Obama in the lead it's faulty.

 

If Kucinich asked his supporters to choose Edwards as a 2nd choice candidate then it would be a big deal for the Edwards campaign. Since he chose Obama it's irrelevant and his supporters probably wouldn't listen to his request anyway.

[Reddy]

Nice attempt at spin. I'm not buying it.

 

If the final Des Moines register poll had Edwards at 32% then it would be a good poll that has been historically accurate. Since it had Obama in the lead it's faulty.

 

If Kucinich asked his supporters to choose Edwards as a 2nd choice candidate then it would be a big deal for the Edwards campaign. Since he chose Obama it's irrelevant and his supporters probably wouldn't listen to his request anyway.

you got it.

 

except for the Register Poll. in that i'm actually right - it's not spin. 60% were new voters and 45% were independents or republicans. That is NOT a good basis for an accurate poll. not even you can deny that.

[KipWellsFan]

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.

 

Interesting. Does whomever with the most convention votes become the Presidential nominee or does a candidate need 50% of the delegates? From my example selecting the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, a candidate needed 50% of the delegates, ie candidates who were last place in delegates kept dropping out freeing their delegates to go to the other candidates, until someone had 50%.

 

And who are these voting delegates? And do they actually vote at the final convention?

[NorthSideSox72]

you got it.

 

except for the Register Poll. in that i'm actually right - it's not spin. 60% were new voters and 45% were independents or republicans. That is NOT a good basis for an accurate poll. not even you can deny that.

Where are you seeing this 60% new voters thing? And what exactly do you mean by new voters? All I see is 800 likely DEMOCRAT voters in the poll (per the article from the DMR).

 

[Reddy]

A few quick observations. What "will raise some eyebrows among party pros," as Yepsen puts it, is the fact that a "whopping" 60% of the Democratic caucus goers say this will be their first caucus and only 54% say they are Democrats (40% identify as independents and 5% as Republicans). Compare these results to what other polls have shown earlier in 2007 and it becomes clear that this Register sample predicts a very different set of caucus participants than in years past.

 

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_des_moi...terselzer_1.php

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_des_moi...terselzer_1.php

Interesting.

 

On the one hand, it sure does seem bizarre to have your results rely on something so unusual.

 

On the other hand, as it says in that article, the Register is looked at as the most reliable poll in Iowa. And of course with this year's Dem race so tight, there is certainly an argument that if such a turnout ever happened, this might be it.

 

I don't know. Hard to say. I certainly wouldn't throw it out, given its the Register, has a larger pool than most other polls, and the race is so sensitive this year. But I would take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Reddy]

Interesting.

 

On the one hand, it sure does seem bizarre to have your results rely on something so unusual.

 

On the other hand, as it says in that article, the Register is looked at as the most reliable poll in Iowa. And of course with this year's Dem race so tight, there is certainly an argument that if such a turnout ever happened, this might be it.

 

I don't know. Hard to say. I certainly wouldn't throw it out, given its the Register, has a larger pool than most other polls, and the race is so sensitive this year. But I would take it with a grain of salt.

 

i just severely doubt that this election will defy history. that's what everyone said last time and yes, turnout was up, but not by all that much - and not specifically in any one demographic either. There is really NO WAY that 60% of caucus goers will be first timers, and even LESS likely that 45% will NOT be democrats. I mean, really?

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Well I for one can't wait till Friday morning. All this bickering and nitpicking in Iowa is getting tiresome.

[BigSqwert]

Interesting read on the lower tiered Dems.

 

LINK

[BigSqwert]

except for the Register Poll. in that i'm actually right - it's not spin. 60% were new voters and 45% were independents or republicans. That is NOT a good basis for an accurate poll. not even you can deny that.

 

Today's Iowa poll is out. You're assuming that 60 percent of the voters in the Democratic caucuses will be first-time caucus attendees. How did you assume that? Why did you assume it?

 

ANN SELZER, Des Moines Register: Well, actually, I assumed nothing. That's what my data told me.

 

We put our method in place, and we let the voters speak to us. And we found that 60 percent of the people who told us they were definitely or probably going to the caucus indicated that it would be their first time at caucus.

 

It's not all that much bigger than 2004. It was 45 percent then. But this stands to be a historic caucus, in terms of turnout.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: I'm asking this because both the Clinton and the Edwards campaign are questioning your methodology.

 

ANN SELZER: Well, of course they're reacting, because they're not in the lead. And I would expect them to find criticisms.

 

In terms of the first-time caucusgoers, even if we statistically play with the data and say, "OK, well, let's make it look like 2004," Barack Obama still wins. So that's a pretty robust finding, and we feel pretty good about it.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: You're also saying that 40 percent of the voters in the Democratic caucuses are going to be independents. How do you know that?

 

ANN SELZER: Well, again, that's what our data is telling us. And is that a surprise? Sure. It's something that would raise an eyebrow, because that's more independents than would have come to any previous caucus.

 

But as you know in this campaign, just keeping your ear to the ground, there are a lot of people who are independent who are planning to come to caucus. The campaigns are certainly courting independents.

 

And the trick with all of this is that Democrats, to people who proclaim that they are Democrats, are more for Hillary Clinton. And so, people who are more independent are more likely to vote for Barack Obama.

 

So you try playing with those numbers, and you can come up with any different scenarios. But, again, this is what our data is telling us, and we feel comfortable with it.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, again, you were looking at voters who say they are either definitely or...

 

ANN SELZER: Or probably...

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: ... probably.

 

ANN SELZER: ... going to attend. And that gives us the advantage, Judy, also to take a look at just those definite attenders and say, "OK, well, what's the core of what's going to happen here?" And when you look only at those, it is still a Barack Obama win.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: You also are being criticized because this polling was done over a holiday, between Christmas and New Year's, and it was done over a weekend. What do you say to those who say that skews your results?

 

ANN SELZER: Well, our polling before caucuses traditionally included some weekend interviewing, because the caucuses come typically on a Monday. So there's no greater skew here.

 

We were in a huge predicament, when they announced the caucuses on January 3rd, is when exactly can you poll? If we finish before Christmas, we just thought too much could be happening. And, obviously, there's a point where you have to stop.

 

And we thought we don't want to be polling on New Year's Eve. So we had four days so it would be the freshest data we could have. I mean, we took our best shot.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: Ann Selzer, thanks very much.

 

ANN SELZER: You're very welcome.

 

LINK

Edited January 2, 2008 by BigSqwert

[Reddy]

shocking - the guy who did the poll backing his poll...

[DBAHO]

So who's going to win, if anyone wants to make a prediction?

 

I'm probably rooting for Obama just over Edwards.

[Reddy]

Edwards

Clinton

Obama

 

those are my predictions.

[Balta1701]

Ron Paul.

 

Why would you vote otherwise?

 

He stands by the Constitution, and wants the uneccessary government programs out of your life. Why would you NOT want that?

Because I'm fully convinced there are things that the government can and must do for Americans to maintain and improve upon their current quality of life, and eliminating the government would be a gigantic step backwards. I'll leave it at that level, the principle level, without elaborating here.

 

I would also find it to be very difficult for him to win the Democratic primary, btw.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Balta1701

[Reddy]

Because I'm fully convinced there are things that the government can and must do for Americans to maintain and improve upon their current quality of life, and eliminating the government would be a gigantic step backwards. I'll leave it at that level, the principle level, without elaborating here.

 

I would also find it to be very difficult for him to win the Democratic primary, btw.

well said sir.

[kapkomet]

Because I'm fully convinced there are things that the government can and must do for Americans to maintain and improve upon their current quality of life, and eliminating the government would be a gigantic step backwards. I'll leave it at that level, the principle level, without elaborating here.

 

I would also find it to be very difficult for him to win the Democratic primary, btw.

Why does the GOVERNMENT have to do this for you, Balta? I find it to be better if government leaves us the hell alone. Now, not to the levels that RP is talking, but... certainly, I don't want my government telling me what doctors I can or cannot see, for example. And if you think that is not what is going to happen, don't kid yourself.

[Balta1701]

Why does the GOVERNMENT have to do this for you, Balta? I find it to be better if government leaves us the hell alone. Now, not to the levels that RP is talking, but... certainly, I don't want my government telling me what doctors I can or cannot see, for example. And if you think that is not what is going to happen, don't kid yourself.

Sticking with the platitude level of discussion, I'll give you this example. I think it makes more sense for a government who's main goal is to provide me with appropriate health care to tell me which doctor to go to than it does for an insurance company to tell me which doctor to go to when their main goal is to make sure that they make money regardless of whether or not I get the best treatment. If I wanted to get more detailed, I could provide examples of how easily people are able to move between doctors in other systems, but I'll stick with that level for now.

[Balta1701]

It's from Huffington Post, it's anonymous, it's online, I have no idea how reliable the person is. But here you go.

For days, the rumors have been flying between the campaigns about which of the top three candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination will benefit from the second tier non-viable candidates - Joe Biden and Bill Richardson - to be specific.

 

The Biden national and state campaign honchos met at 4 p.m. Monday in a Des Moines attorney's office to discuss their strategy and decide if they would encourage their non-viable voters to choose either Obama, Edwards, or Hillary Clinton's caucus contingents.

 

At a crowded and noisy Star Bar on Ingersoll Avenue, where the Biden campaign staffers were sipping champagne - or harder stuff - and waiting for their candidate, his wife, and the Biden Family to arrive for a New Year's Eve informal gathering, Offthebus chatted with one of the Biden's national consultants who wanted to remain anonymous:

 

"A decision will be made tomorrow about who we'll encourage our supporters to stand behind if we aren't viable in a precinct. Right now, I'd guess Obama gets our support because we're more inline with his vision of foreign policy than any of the other candidates, and besides, we like him and how he's run his campaign."

 

"Is Biden angling for a Secretary of State position in an Obama Administration?"

 

The Biden consultant told Offthebus, "Well, Joe would make a great Secretary of State, wouldn't he?"

 

Biden's son, Joseph R. Biden, III is the current Attorney General for Delaware. Should Joe Biden resign his seat and accept a major post in the next Democratic Administration in Washington, his son is positioned to replace him in the U.S. Senate.

 

After attending the press party at the Temple for the Performing Arts, I headed over to Dos Rios, to pick up any additional bar talk conversations and dangle the Biden scoop.

 

Off-the-bus spoke with a national Obama staffer who confirmed, "We've heard that Richardson may also be telling his supporters to caucus for Barack if they aren't viable. Nothing definitive but there's a trend going on," she added with a smile. Ah, that's an understatement.

 

All of this off-the-record conversation and backroom pol talk could be nothing or something.

 

But the fact that the rumors are flying and top aides are willing to discuss their thinking with Offthebus, albeit without disclosing their names, is still enough smoke to detect yet another spark that could ignite a fire under the Obama campaign's fortunes in the Iowa caucuses.

[mr_genius]

Because I'm fully convinced there are things that the government can and must do for Americans to maintain and improve upon their current quality of life, and eliminating the government would be a gigantic step backwards. I'll leave it at that level, the principle level, without elaborating here.

 

I guess it comes down to how much control someone thinks the government should have over their life. How far should the governments role be limited, or how much should it be increased. Do we want a regressive tax system in which even the middle class is taxed 40% of annual income? Most would agree that would be a bad idea. Should there be no income tax, safety net, or defense spending? Probably another bad idea. Should State's rights be important?

 

While I disagree with a some of Paul's stances, there are some very important issues I agree with him on. Like limiting the US role as world overlord/cop, limiting government control over peoples free will to make bad/good decisions, protecting US citizens from overbearing government authoritarianism, and limiting income tax to the lowest possible levels. However, I think Ron Paul and Libertarians in general, take a much more radical approach to limiting government than I am comfortable with.

Edited January 3, 2008 by mr_genius

[jasonxctf]

Because of 2nd choice ballots...

1. Obama 35%

2. Edwards 32%

3. Clinton 30%

4. Non-Vote/Other 3%

 

In first run ballots, I'd think it goes...

1. Clinton 27%

2. Obama 25%

3. Edwards 23%

4. Richardson 9%

5. Biden 6%

6. Dodd 5%

7. Kucinich 4%

8. Gravel

[Reddy]

actually i'm going to take mine back.

 

 

Edwards 41%

Obama 32%

Clinton 24%

 

I don't think it's gonna be as close as people think.

[Heads22]

actually i'm going to take mine back.

Edwards 41%

Obama 32%

Clinton 24%

 

I don't think it's gonna be as close as people think.

 

You willing to give me the points on that spread?

 

 

 

[Reddy]

You willing to give me the points on that spread?

 

dont worry, if i have to eat crow tomorrow i will in the biggest of ways. i'm good for it.