DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[southsider2k5]

AP: Bill Richardson to drop out.

 

Or not:

NBC: Richardson campaign denies report he is dropping out of Democratic presidential race

 

More details: Richardson may simply suspend his campaign, thus no longer campaigning for the nomination but not endorsing anyone.

 

Its pretty telling when a guy who worked for Camp Clinton for all of those years, first of all ran against Hillary, and then won't drop out of the race, nor endorse her for President, dispite his miserably failing campaign. I'd love to hear his reasons why Clinton isn't fit for office.

[NorthSideSox72]

Its pretty telling when a guy who worked for Camp Clinton for all of those years, first of all ran against Hillary, and then won't drop out of the race, nor endorse her for President, dispite his miserably failing campaign. I'd love to hear his reasons why Clinton isn't fit for office.

All the articles out there seem to now be back to him dropping out for sure. Expect an announcement today. I still think he'll endorse Hillary out of loyalty, I'd imagine. But I think it will be very telling if he chooses to endorse no one at all, or someone else. If he wants to use his small amount of leverage (his 5%), he needs to do it soon - if he waits a month or two, his endorsement won't mean much to anyone.

 

[BigSqwert]

John Kerry to endorse Obama. No link needed. Every news site reporting it.

[southsider2k5]

OUt of curiousity, any rumblings on a Gore endorsement?

[BigSqwert]

OUt of curiousity, any rumblings on a Gore endorsement?

Not that I've heard of.

 

This Kerry endorsement was rumored to have been secured over the past weekend. I think the Obama campaign dropped the ball and got cocky waiting until after NH to announce it. The endorsement could have helped on Tuesday since he's a Senator from New England. Not sure how much people in Nevada and South Carolina care.

[BigSqwert]

List of superdelegates who have committed:

 

LINK

 

And those who have not:

 

LINK

 

 

Kerry's endorsement today gives Obama another superdelegate.

[southsider2k5]

Rasmussen tries to explain their crappy polls.

 

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...n_new_hampshire

 

What Happened to Polls In New Hampshire?

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

 

Hillary Clinton’s victory in New Hampshire was a shock to anyone who followed the pre-election polls. At Rasmussen Reports, our final numbers suggested a 7-point victory for Barack Obama. In the end, Clinton won by three. Other polls also foreshadowed a solid victory for Obama, some projecting a double digit margin. The campaigns themselves expected a significant victory for Obama (the Clinton campaign was even saying that anything less than a double-digit loss would be a victory of sorts for their candidate).

 

It is hard to remember a time when the polling and expectations were so universally different from what really happened. At the same time, It is worth remembering that polling was generally on target for the Republican race. John McCain won, as expected, by splitting the Republican vote with Romney and winning big among Independents. Independents accounted for 37% of the Republican Primary voters, a bit higher than projected.

 

So what happened with the polling on the Democratic race? There are several possibilities.

 

First, there may truly have been very late changes in the race. Hillary’s tearing-up moment may have played a role (another powerful moment came in the debate on Saturday night where the only woman in the race reminded everyone that she embodies change). There is some evidence to support this theory, even if we only recognize it in hindsight.

 

In Rasmussen Reports polling, our final trend was in Clinton’s direction—our tracking poll showed Obama’s lead declining from 10-points following the Sunday interviews to seven points after the Monday night calls. Extrapolating that trend another day would have pointed to a much closer race. Additionally, the Rasmussen Reports surveys showed that Clinton supporters were somewhat more certain that they would stick with their candidate than supporters of Obama or Edwards. If this is the case, why didn’t the late trend get more notice? Perhaps because few other firms polled on Monday night. So, the last polls reported by many continued to show an uptick for Obama.

 

Further support for this theory comes from Exit Poll data showing that an astonishing 38% of voters made up their mind in the final three days of the race (after Iowa). Of these, more than a third ended up voting for Clinton. These last minute decisions gave Clinton 14% of the vote overall (more than a third of her total vote). It’s easy to imagine that many of these voters had been leaning towards Clinton before Iowa, were impressed by Obama during his weekend “wave,” but came back to Clinton by Election Day.

 

Another possibility is that the polls simply understated Clinton’s support. At one level, Clinton’s campaign organization may have been great at getting out the vote. One analyst noted that “The Clinton turnout operation in Manchester their strongest area, was very good, and turnout soared 33% over 2000. In Rochester-Dover-Somersworth, another strong Clinton area, turnout was up 94% from 2000.” That could account for a several percentage points, but not the ten point gap between our final poll and the actual results.

 

The problem may also have resulted from the greatest challenge in polling--determining who will actually show up and vote. This is especially difficult in a Primary Election. It is possible, perhaps likely, that the polling models used by Rasmussen Reports and others did not account for the very high turnout experienced in New Hampshire. Rasmussen Reports normally screens out people with less voting history and less interest in the race. This might have caused us to screen out some women who might not ordinarily vote in a Primary but who came out to vote due to the historic nature of Clinton’s candidacy. The final Rasmussen Reports poll anticipated that 54% of the Democratic voters would be women while exit polls showed that number to be 57%.

 

A third possibility is that John McCain may have taken some independent voters away from Barack Obama. On Tuesday, Rasmussen Reports noted this two-front challenge but at the time thought it might represent a greater threat to McCain than Obama.

 

Given the fact that everyone was surprised, it’s likely that no one factor can explain why. It is quite possible that each of the factors mentioned above—and others—may have played a role.

 

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

 

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdgeâ„¢ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.

 

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

[YASNY]

List of superdelegates who have committed:

 

LINK

 

And those who have not:

 

LINK

Kerry's endorsement today gives Obama another superdelegate.

 

Kerry threw his former running mate under the bus. If Edwards isn't worthy of being president, how the hell do you choose him for vice-president?

[NorthSideSox72]

Kerry threw his former running mate under the bus. If Edwards isn't worthy of being president, how the hell do you choose him for vice-president?

I've read some things about Kerry's selection of Edwards in '04. Kerry received a lot of pressure from within the Democratic Party to choose Edwards, who they saw as making Kerry more electable. And from what I have read, Kerry actually like Edwards at first... until he got to know him better. Then he wanted nothing to do with him.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Kerry threw his former running mate under the bus. If Edwards isn't worthy of being president, how the hell do you choose him for vice-president?

I wonder if this will be a trend of sorts... will Richardson shun the Clintons who gave him a cabinet post, and endorse Obama?

 

[YASNY]

I've read some things about Kerry's selection of Edwards in '04. Kerry received a lot of pressure from within the Democratic Party to choose Edwards, who they saw as making Kerry more electable. And from what I have read, Kerry actually like Edwards at first... until he got to know him better. Then he wanted nothing to do with him.

 

So Kerry didn't get elected and he had a candidate for vp that he wanted nothing to do with. I think I'll vote for a Democrat this time.

[NorthSideSox72]

So Kerry didn't get elected and he had a candidate for vp that he wanted nothing to do with. I think I'll vote for a Democrat this time.

Kerry ran a lousy campaign in '04 - with Bush as weak as he was, Kerry could have won that election if his campaign had been halfway competent. I wouldn't put Kerry's blunders on the whole party any more than I put Bush's blunders on the whole Republican party.

 

And I've said before, though others disagree... I think this is the best field of candidates either party has put up in some time. That isn't saying a lot, but... as an example, this field of Dems was much better than the field in '04, or 2000, etc.

 

[YASNY]

Kerry ran a lousy campaign in '04 - with Bush as weak as he was, Kerry could have won that election if his campaign had been halfway competent. I wouldn't put Kerry's blunders on the whole party any more than I put Bush's blunders on the whole Republican party.

 

And I've said before, though others disagree... I think this is the best field of candidates either party has put up in some time. That isn't saying a lot, but... as an example, this field of Dems was much better than the field in '04, or 2000, etc.

 

Maybe it's because I don't trust any of the bastards that have a chance to win, but I think the field is for s***. Over fertilized, to put it another way. Both parties.

[southsider2k5]

Kerry threw his former running mate under the bus. If Edwards isn't worthy of being president, how the hell do you choose him for vice-president?

 

Geesh. I hadn't even put that one together. Nice catch.

[kapkomet]

Maybe it's because I don't trust any of the bastards that have a chance to win, but I think the field is for s***. Over fertilized, to put it another way. Both parties.

Yeppers. What are these assholes really going to do for our country? I don't want the f***ing rhetoric anymore. What are they going to do? And none of them can DO anything.

[BigSqwert]

You'd think we live in Communist Russia by looking at some of the comments in here.

[southsider2k5]

You'd think we live in Communist Russia by looking at some of the comments in here.

 

I felt the same way about listening to the last 7 years...

[NorthSideSox72]

You'd think we live in Communist Russia by looking at some of the comments in here.

Seriously. I have some major problems with things going on and people in the system, but, the position that everything is awful in here sometimes rivals the negativity in PHT.

 

[YASNY]

You'd think we live in Communist Russia by looking at some of the comments in here.

 

More like Socialist Germany. We are headed in that direction like a snowball headed toward hell.

[kapkomet]

Seriously. I have some major problems with things going on and people in the system, but, the position that everything is awful in here sometimes rivals the negativity in PHT.

Seriously, what has anyone done in the office of president since Reagan that makes that much of a POSITIVE difference? It's (our government) a cesspool of s***.

[Texsox]

 

 

Hi Texsox,

 

 

 

 

Martin Luther King said, “The time is always right to do what is right.” So I'm choosing this time to share an important decision I've made, one I believe is right for this country.

 

The JohnKerry.com community has been very important to me and very important to the Democratic resurgence over the last couple of years, so I wanted to let all of you know my decision before I confirm it with anyone else. I want to share with you my conviction that in a field of fine Democratic candidates, the next President of the United States can be, should be, and will be Barack Obama. Each of our candidates would make a fine President, and we are blessed with a strong field. But for this moment, at this time in our nation's history, Barack Obama is the right choice.

 

Please join me in supporting Barack Obama’s candidacy.

 

I’m proud to have helped introduce Barack to our nation when I asked him to speak to our national convention, and there Barack's words and vision burst out. On that day he reminded Americans that our “true genius is faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles.” And with his leadership we can build simple dreams, and we can turn millions of small miracles into real change for our country.

 

At this particular moment, with our country faced with great challenges in our economy, in our environment, and in our foreign policy, and with our politics torn by division, Barack Obama can bring transformation to our country. With Barack, we can build a new majority of Americans from all regions who can turn the page on the politics of Karl Rove and begin a new politics, one worthy of our nation's history and promise. We can bring millions of disaffected people – young and old – to the great task of governing and making a difference, child to child, community to community.

 

Please click here to give what you can to Barack Obama’s campaign for President and help build this future for our country.

 

The moment is now, and the candidate for this moment is Barack Obama. Like him, I also lived abroad as a young man, and I share with him a healthy respect for the advantage of knowing other cultures and countries, not from a book or a briefing, but by personal experience, by gut, by instinct. He knows the issues from the deep study of a legislator, and he knows them from a life lived outside of Washington. His is the wisdom of real-world experience combined with the intellect of a man who has thought deeply about the challenges we face.

 

History has given us this moment. But we need to decide what to do with it. I believe, with this moment, we should make Barack Obama President of the United States.

 

Please join me in supporting his campaign.

 

Thank you,

John Kerry

[Texsox]

Seriously. I have some major problems with things going on and people in the system, but, the position that everything is awful in here sometimes rivals the negativity in PHT.

 

For Republicans, anything that moves us away from 1950 is terrible. Abortion was illegal, Mexicans were legal. No dirty words on the radio, no homosexuals flaunting their lifestyle down mainstreet. We supported wars dammit and we won them! Everyone knew there was one True GOD, the only enemy was communists and we knew where they were, and Joe was going to find the rest. None of this Make Love, Not War Hippie nonsense. Factories could send pollutants into the air and water and keep Americans employed. Kept the government out of the workplace.

 

Ahh, the good old days.

[BigSqwert]

Are the floodgates opening?

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...for-obamas-run/

[Balta1701]

Are the floodgates opening?

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...for-obamas-run/

No. For example, Clinton received an endorsement yesterday from a Congressperson in Nevada that was clearly timed well enough to get it put in local articles about Obama's union endorsement. And Johnson's endorsement, while well timed, was not unexpected, as Johnson-Daschle-Obama is decently well reported path of mentors/friends.

[Balta1701]

For Republicans, anything that moves us away from 1950 is terrible. Abortion was illegal, Mexicans were legal. No dirty words on the radio, no homosexuals flaunting their lifestyle down mainstreet. We supported wars dammit and we won them! Everyone knew there was one True GOD, the only enemy was communists and we knew where they were, and Joe was going to find the rest. None of this Make Love, Not War Hippie nonsense. Factories could send pollutants into the air and water and keep Americans employed. Kept the government out of the workplace.

 

Ahh, the good old days.

Except of course those darn tax rates were too high, and that crazy socialist Ike spent all that government money on those highways. What we need is more like the 1950's with tax cuts.