DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[BigSqwert]

From an NPR interview today:

 

Obama takes another jab at his rivals when asked about a response he gave to a question at a recent Democratic debate.

 

At a debate in Nevada, Obama was asked about his weaknesses. He confessed that his greatest weakness is a lack of organization — a messy desk and office. At the debate, Obama answered the question first, followed by Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC).

 

"I think Sen. Edwards said he was too passionate about helping poor people, and Sen. Clinton said she was too impatient to mover the country forward," Obama tells NPR. "I was trying to answer the question 'What's your greatest weakness?' as opposed to 'What's your greatest strength disguised as a weakness?'"

 

"I should have said I like to help old ladies across the street," he says.

 

But Obama says he would not want to redo his response.

 

"I think one of the hallmarks of our campaign is that I actually answer questions honestly and try not to engage in too much spin," he says.

[HuskyCaucasian]

From an NPR interview today:

I've read other people say the same thing. It's true. One thing I REALLY like about Obama is he'll look you in the eyes and tell you the truth. I think what a LOT of people miss is that Obama is about hope, but he has also said the next 4-8 years wont be all fun and games. He has said we will need to make sacrifices... specifically when it comes to

. I respect someone who will tell me "this is gonna suck, but we're better in the end". Edited January 17, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

The Las Vegas Review Journal has given a heads up about poll results to be released tomorrow for NV:

On Friday the Review-Journal will publish the results of our statewide pre-caucus presidential preference poll conducted Monday through Wednesday by Mason-Dixon Polling & research.

 

On the GOP side former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads his closest opponent by 15 points.

 

On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton outdistances Barack Obama by 9 points.

[NorthSideSox72]

The Las Vegas Review Journal has given a heads up about poll results to be released tomorrow for NV:

Those results are quite different than the other two NV polls out.

 

Basically, we have no idea what will happen in that caucus.

 

[Balta1701]

Mason Dixon polls South Carolina:

Democrats:

Obama 40%

Clinton 31%

Edwards 13%

[HuskyCaucasian]

Those results are quite different than the other two NV polls out.

Other 2 are pre-debate.

[Balta1701]

Other 2 are pre-debate.

While true, I wonder if the more important factor is the debate or simply the likely caucus goer screen. I'd put my money on the latter, but we'll see. It could be that the likely voter screen is off and Clinton still wins. Who knows.

[NorthSideSox72]

Other 2 are pre-debate.

Not exactly - the Debate was Tuesday night, so the new poll is two-thirds pre-Debate as well.

 

[kapkomet]

Hillarity is going to be our next president. There's pretty much no one who can stop the machine. I think I called this about two years ago.

 

Praying I'm wrong,

Kap

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Not exactly - the Debate was Tuesday night, so the new poll is two-thirds pre-Debate as well.

ohhh I didnt catch the time frame.

[Rex Kickass]

Hillarity is going to be our next president. There's pretty much no one who can stop the machine. I think I called this about two years ago.

 

Praying I'm wrong,

Kap

 

You could be. If its super close in NV or Obama wins, and Obama wins in SC. What happens after that is really unclear. Hillary wins NY, but maybe not NJ. CA becomes an even draw... and the other states who knows?

[Reddy]

nah i'm actually pretty certain Hillary's gonna win this thing too, which, if it can't be Edwards, I'd rather have.

 

i know... scary right?

 

but honestly, i think she's less likely to screw things up than he is. kind of a risk/reward ratio thing. in the same vein, if Obama wins the nom, and McCain's the GOP pick - I think I'd vote McCain. At least then you'd know what you're getting. I just don't want any reactionary "uh... let's bomb pakistan" coming from the next President and I worry about something like that with Obama.

[NorthSideSox72]

nah i'm actually pretty certain Hillary's gonna win this thing too, which, if it can't be Edwards, I'd rather have.

 

i know... scary right?

 

but honestly, i think she's less likely to screw things up than he is. kind of a risk/reward ratio thing. in the same vein, if Obama wins the nom, and McCain's the GOP pick - I think I'd vote McCain. At least then you'd know what you're getting. I just don't want any reactionary "uh... let's bomb pakistan" coming from the next President and I worry about something like that with Obama.

You do realize that your man Edwards has even less experience in elected office that Obama, right?

 

Obama: 7 years State Senate, 3 years US Senate

 

Edwards: 6 years US Senate

 

Clinton: 7 years US Senate

 

Now, clearly, the US Senate work is more valuable that state level. But I find it amusing you'd rather have Edwards, or Clinton for that matter, because "you know what you are getting". Neither of them have significantly more experience in elected office than Obama does.

 

Ultimately though, I am thinking more and more that the Dems are going to Denver without a nominee. No one will get 50%. So Former Senator Edwards, ultimately, will decide the nominee, by deciding where to put his chips. Sort of funny, isn't it? The one person of the three left who is almost sure not to win, will end up with the ultimate say.

 

[BigSqwert]

I just don't want any reactionary "uh... let's bomb pakistan" coming from the next President and I worry about something like that with Obama.

I don't recall him saying "uh....let's bomb pakistan". Way to parse and take things out of context. Your guy actually did an "uh....lets bomb Iraq" without reading the NIE reports beforehand so I'm not so sure he's got the judgment we are looking for.

Edited January 18, 2008 by BigSqwert

[BigSqwert]

Another superdelegate endorses Obama. This one is pretty important as his campaign is making an effort to make inroads with females and Hispanics.

[HuskyCaucasian]

RealClearPolitics Poll Update...

 

 

Interesting Note: If Edwards is below 15% in many of the areas, that is possibly a HUGE bump for Obama.

If you take the "Reuters/CSpan/Zogby" poll. 42% for Clinton and 37% for Obama. If 8% of the Edwards supporters go to Obama it's 46% Clinton, 45% Obama, 9% undecided/other.

 

It's going to be a CLOSE race.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Another quick point... MSNBC or CNN (i forget which) just mentioned there is some "pressure" from Culinary work union heads to the workers to vote for Obama.

[NorthSideSox72]

RealClearPolitics Poll Update...

 

 

Interesting Note: If Edwards is below 15% in many of the areas, that is possibly a HUGE bump for Obama.

If you take the "Reuters/CSpan/Zogby" poll. 42% for Clinton and 37% for Obama. If 8% of the Edwards supporters go to Obama it's 46% Clinton, 45% Obama, 9% undecided/other.

 

It's going to be a CLOSE race.

Zogby and ARG should be trashed in any sort of analysis of the polls, as we've established previously. So that leaves 2 Jan polls, which are Mason-Dixon (Clinton 41, Obama 32, Edwards 14), and Research 2000 (Obama 32, Clinton 30, Edwards 27). And those two polls are not even that close to each other, except on Obama. Plus its a caucus. So its a close race without the Edwards swing - and there is no telling where that will go either.

 

ETA: I think that since Edwards isn't ready to pick a side yet, they won't push for a certain candidate, so they'll split. The union worker types would likely go Obama, but in rural areas, they'd likely go Clinton. I think Clinton wins, in a close one, like NH. But I hope I am wrong.

 

[kapkomet]

Zogby and ARG should be trashed in any sort of analysis of the polls, as we've established previously. So that leaves 2 Jan polls, which are Mason-Dixon (Clinton 41, Obama 32, Edwards 14), and Research 2000 (Obama 32, Clinton 30, Edwards 27). And those two polls are not even that close to each other, except on Obama. Plus its a caucus. So its a close race without the Edwards swing - and there is no telling where that will go either.

 

ETA: I think that since Edwards isn't ready to pick a side yet, they won't push for a certain candidate, so they'll split. The union worker types would likely go Obama, but in rural areas, they'd likely go Clinton. I think Clinton wins, in a close one, like NH. But I hope I am wrong.

And Hillarity's bus to the White House will run on.

[NorthSideSox72]

And Hillarity's bus to the White House will run on.

She's not nearly the lock you keep saying she is. If Obama wins SC (which it appears he will), and at least stays very close in NV (which is very possible), with the look of things in national polls, I think we'll see Obama and Clinton in a near dead-heat after Super Tuesday. That means likely an Edwards crowns nominee event in Denver. And I really do think that Edwards is more likely to endorse Obama than Clinton.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

ETA: I think that since Edwards isn't ready to pick a side yet

Oh I dont think it's that, I think he is just stubborn. He HAS to know he has no chance to win right now and to think he will run this all the way to the convention is ignorant. He needs to endorse Obama or NEITHER of them wins.

[Reddy]

She's not nearly the lock you keep saying she is. If Obama wins SC (which it appears he will), and at least stays very close in NV (which is very possible), with the look of things in national polls, I think we'll see Obama and Clinton in a near dead-heat after Super Tuesday. That means likely an Edwards crowns nominee event in Denver. And I really do think that Edwards is more likely to endorse Obama than Clinton.

 

unfortunately i think so too. but as far as Obama and Clinton being in a dead heat after super tuesday... i'm not sure. I think she'll take a majority of them - certainly California and New York - the two w/ the most delegates. In the others, I think since they haven't gotten to see Obama speak and get brainwashed, they're not going to be as likely to vote for him. Like i said, people know what they're getting with Clinton and that helps her. On top of that you have to think about how the south is going to vote once in the privacy of a voting booth. We'll see, but i think Clinton - if she wins NV - has this thing in the bag.

[Reddy]

You do realize that your man Edwards has even less experience in elected office that Obama, right?

 

Obama: 7 years State Senate, 3 years US Senate

 

Edwards: 6 years US Senate

 

Clinton: 7 years US Senate

 

Now, clearly, the US Senate work is more valuable that state level. But I find it amusing you'd rather have Edwards, or Clinton for that matter, because "you know what you are getting". Neither of them have significantly more experience in elected office than Obama does.

 

Ultimately though, I am thinking more and more that the Dems are going to Denver without a nominee. No one will get 50%. So Former Senator Edwards, ultimately, will decide the nominee, by deciding where to put his chips. Sort of funny, isn't it? The one person of the three left who is almost sure not to win, will end up with the ultimate say.

 

I never said i 'know what i'm getting' with edwards. I mentioned Clinton and McCain. If we DONT get the change that Edwards would bring, I'd rather not have change for the worse - and thats what i think would happen with Obama.

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh I dont think it's that, I think he is just stubborn. He HAS to know he has no chance to win right now and to think he will run this all the way to the convention is ignorant. He needs to endorse Obama or NEITHER of them wins.

Actually, despite my dislike for Edwards as a candidate, I don't think he's stubborn or ignorant on this - I think he's smart. He knows he's got enough support to do exactly what I suggested - make the next President. And if he can't BE the next President, then getting to choose that person is the next best thing. Plus he'll probably get a cabinet post out of it.

 

[BigSqwert]

I think she'll take a majority of them - certainly California and New York - the two w/ the most delegates.

You do realize that none of the Democratic primaries are "winner take all"? Even if she wins California she may only get a few more delegates than Obama. Just look at NH as a great example. She and Obama each received 9 delegates.