Campaign 2008

[SuperJerk 0]

I'll admire any candidate who doesn't do What's Best For The Party. Our political parties suck ass. They don't deserve loyalty. Let me enjoy Hillary Clinton, Oppressed Lone Underdog while I can before even she has to fall in line.

I've said it before, I'll say it again...Hillary owes the party more than the party owes her. They handed her a Senate seat with a bow on top, not to mentioned stuck by her husband when he was more than willing to throw Democratic congressmen under the bus at any given opportunity with his "triangulation" strategy. All she's ever done is cost them a midterm election in 1994 and spend a Senate career cozying up to Republicans.

 

Pretty good editorial piece demonstrating Hillary Clinton's total hypocrisy on the Florida/Michigan issue:

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper...in-the-end.aspx

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Couldn't have said it any better myself Super. 100% agree with you.

[Kawalimus 0]

Obama is gonna have some serious problems winning the general. I say that as a supporter of his.

 

The thing is, the primary and the general are two different things when it comes to democrats. In the primary for them, the margins matter. It matters that Obama can close gaps and win certain states by a bigger margin than normal. But in the general that's not going to matter. Cause in the general the margins are meaningless. Now don't get me wrong, the margins should mean something in the general, but the fact is they don't. It doesn't matter if you win with 51-49 percent, you take the whole thing. So if Obama can't win Ohio or Pennsylvania, it won't matter that he ran a close race, McCain would take the whole prize even if it were a very small margin of victory.

 

That's why the big state strategy failed for Hillary in the primary, and Obama's strategy worked. But Obama is gonna have to adopt more of a big state strategy cause he needs Ohio and Pennsylvania to win. If he doesn't get those, he is a major longshot, cause he's going to have to flip a ton of states that wouldn't normally go Democratic.

 

 

[godthedog 0]

agreed, with the additional possibility that obama can inspire a higher turnout from his base than mccain. mccain's major weaknesses are 1) hardcore republicans aren't that crazy about him, and 2) obama basically negates his appeal to independents.

[SuperJerk 0]

I think if last Tuesday demonstrates anything, it's that Obama's weaknesses have been vastly exaggerated by the media. And despite being more popular than the rest of his party, McCain still cannot win. Here are ten reasons why:

1. McCain's moderate positions on the environment, campaign finance reform, and corporate regulation alienates much of the conservative base.
2. McCain has a quarter-century long Congressional career as a conservative Republican that can be analyzed for a gold-mine of pro-business, anti-labor votes.
3. Contrary to the vast majority of Americans, McCain views the Iraq War as justified.
4. Contrary to the vast majority of Americans, McCain views the Iraq War as winnable.
5. McCain supports keeping the Bush tax cuts, even at a time when a popular case can be made that at least some of them should be repealed and despite the fact he originally opposed them.
6. McCain has alienated anti-Hollywood cultural conservatives due to his own appearances in "Wedding Crashers" and "Saturday Night Live."”
7. McCain's economic policy is centered around cutting government spending...an argument which is very hard to sell.
8. McCain vowed during the primaries to try to overturn Roe v. Wade, instead of evading the issue the way recent successful Republican presidential candidates had done. Given the current composition of the Supreme Court, the theoretical achievability of this goal is quite high. This will cost him at least some sizable portion of the women's vote.
9. During the fall debates with Obama, McCain will be on the loosing end of the JFK-effect.
10. McCain can very easily be linked to a president with an approval rating of less than 30%.

Individually, none of these things would cost him the election, but all 10 together make McCain's election the political equivalent of a kamikaze mission.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

I think if last Tuesday demonstrates anything, it's that Obama's weaknesses have been vastly exaggerated by the media. And despite being more popular than the rest of his party, McCain still cannot win. Here are ten reasons why:

1. McCain's moderate positions on the environment, campaign finance reform, and corporate regulation alienates much of the conservative base.
2. McCain has a quarter-century long Congressional career as a conservative Republican that can be analyzed for a gold-mine of pro-business, anti-labor votes.
3. Contrary to the vast majority of Americans, McCain views the Iraq War as justified.
4. Contrary to the vast majority of Americans, McCain views the Iraq War as winnable.
5. McCain supports keeping the Bush tax cuts, even at a time when a popular case can be made that at least some of them should be repealed and despite the fact he originally opposed them.
6. McCain has alienated anti-Hollywood cultural conservatives due to his own appearances in "Wedding Crashers" and "Saturday Night Live."”
7. McCain's economic policy is centered around cutting government spending...an argument which is very hard to sell.
8. McCain vowed during the primaries to try to overturn Roe v. Wade, instead of evading the issue the way recent successful Republican presidential candidates had done. Given the current composition of the Supreme Court, the theoretical achievability of this goal is quite high. This will cost him at least some sizable portion of the women's vote.
9. During the fall debates with Obama, McCain will be on the loosing end of the JFK-effect.
10. McCain can very easily be linked to a president with an approval rating of less than 30%.

Individually, none of these things would cost him the election, but all 10 together make McCain's election the political equivalent of a kamikaze mission.

 

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I'm really convinced that the GOP just threw in the towel for this election. Reminds me of when the Democrats nominated Walter Mondale in 1984. It was like "well we probably aren't going to beat Reagan so Walter go give it a shot." Talking to a lot of conservatives no one is very happy with the nomination of McCain. I never thought as a conservative there was really a true conservative candidate to vote for in the primary (I'm registered independent so for me that is mute). Nonetheless, I think by nominating McCain the GOP has basically said "Yea, we know this is going to be a hard election for us to win so let's give McCain his chance and we'll look for someone better next time."

 

I think the candidate the GOP will look to for 2012 or 2016 is Bobby Jindal from Louisiana. He's only 36 and comes off very polished and professional with a good background to boot. One of the few shining stars the GOP has at this point in time.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I've heard Jindal thrown around as a possible VP for McCain.

[SuperJerk 0]

I know Jindal is considered a political wunderkind, but it'd be hard for the GOP to knock Obama for being inexperienced when you pick an even VP nominee with approximately the same level of experience. I'm not saying they won't do it, just that they'd be handicapping one of their own best arguments if they did.

[Guest College Party]

The prospect of Bobby Jindal is intriguing. We'll be up to our necks in poorly veiled anti-Indian hate speech.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Can't wait!

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Great line from Countdown Wednesday night 9talking about the Rev. Wright strategy not working in the Louisiana House race):

 

Olbermann: Rev. Wright...That's not going to work for the GOP, what will? Do you then switch back to the mutally exclusive lie that Obama is a Muslim or what?

 

Rachel Maddow: Right...that his Christian pastor is so controversial that it makes us realize what a Muslim he is.

 

 

You spoke too soon...

 

Like most people in Mingo County, West Virginia, Leonard Simpson is a lifelong Democrat. But given a choice between Barack Obama and John McCain in November, the 67-year-old retired coalminer would vote Republican.

 

“I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife’s an atheist,” said Mr Simpson, drawing on a cigarette outside the fire station in Williamson, a coalmining town of 3,400 people surrounded by lush wooded hillsides.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a50425a-1f86-11...7658,s01=1.html

 

 

 

 

 

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Good ol' West Virginia.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

I think before anyone gets to vote in the GE they should answer these basic questions...

 

 

Is Obama a Muslim?

 

a) yes

b) no

 

Does Mccain have a black lovechild?

 

a) yes

b)no

 

 

Is a flag pin the biggest issue in this election?

 

a) yes

b) no

 

If they don't get those questions right, they don't get to vote...

[SuperJerk 0]

Like most people in Mingo County, West Virginia, Leonard Simpson is a lifelong Democrat. But given a choice between Barack Obama and John McCain in November, the 67-year-old retired coalminer would vote Republican.

 

“I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife’s an atheist,” said Mr Simpson, drawing on a cigarette outside the fire station in Williamson, a coalmining town of 3,400 people surrounded by lush wooded hillsides.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a50425a-1f86-11...7658,s01=1.html

 

Proving once again its a bad idea when cousins marry.

[Guest College Party]

I think before anyone gets to vote in the GE they should answer these basic questions...

 

 

Is Obama a Muslim?

 

a) yes

b) no

 

Does Mccain have a black lovechild?

 

a) yes

b)no

 

 

Is a flag pin the biggest issue in this election?

 

a) yes

b) no

 

If they don't get those questions right, they don't get to vote...

i think there should be a question "is yous a negro"

 

and if you answer "yes" you fail

[EricMM 0]

I hope the correct answer is, "who is yous?"

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Interesting article I came across this morning while reading the LA Times online:

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...ronpaulgop.html

 

Ron Paul's forces quietly plot GOP convention revolt against McCain

 

Virtually all the nation's political attention in recent weeks has focused on the compelling state-by-state presidential nomination struggle between two Democrats and the potential for party-splitting strife over there.

 

But in the meantime, quietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in Minnesota at the beginning of September.

 

Paul's presidential candidacy has been correctly dismissed all along in terms of winning the nomination. He was even excluded as irrelevant by Fox News from a nationally-televised GOP debate in New Hampshire.

 

But what's been largely overlooked is Paul's candidacy as a reflection of a powerful lingering dissatisfaction with the Arizona senator among the party's most conservative conservatives. As anticipated in late March in The Ticket, that situation could be exacerbated by today's expected announcement from former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia for the Libertarian Party's presidential nod, a slot held by Paul in 1988.

 

Never mind Ralph Nader, Republican and Democratic parties both face

potentially damaging internal splits that could cripple their chances for victory in a narrow vote on Nov. 4.

 

Just take a look at recent Republican primary results, largely overlooked because McCain locked up the necessary 1,191 delegates long ago. In Indiana, McCain got 77% of the recent Republican primary vote, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, who've each long ago quit and endorsed McCain, still got 10% and 5% respectively, while Paul took 8%.

 

On the same May 6 in North Carolina, McCain received less than three-quarters of Republican votes (74%), while Huckabee got 12%, Paul 7% and Alan Keyes and No Preference took a total of 7%.

 

Pennsylvania was even slightly worse for the GOP's presumptive nominee, who got only 73% to a combined 27% for Paul (16%) and Huckabee (11%).

 

As Politico.com's Jonathan Martin noted recently, at least some of these results are temporary protest votes in meaningless primaries built on lingering affection for Huckabee and suspicion of McCain.

 

Given the long-since settled GOP race, thousands of other Republicans in these states, who might have put up with a McCain vote, crossed over to vote in the more exciting Democratic primaries, on their own for Sen. Barack Obama or at the urging of talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, who sought to support Hillary Clinton and prolong Democratic bloodletting.

 

According to a recent Boston Globe tally, Paul has a grand total of 19 Republican delegates to Romney's 260, Huckabee's 286 and McCain's 1,413.

 

In the last three months, Paul's forces, who donated $34.5 million to his White House effort and upward of a million total votes, have, as The Ticket has noted, been fighting a series of guerrilla battles with party establishment officials at county and state conventions from Washington and Missouri to Maine and Mississippi. Their goal: to take control of local committees, boost their delegate totals and influence platform debates.

 

Paul, for instance, favors a drastically reduced federal government, abolishing the Federal Reserve, ending the Iraq war immediately and withdrawing U.S. troops from abroad.

 

They hope to demonstrate their disagreements with McCain vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt to get Paul a prominent speaking slot. Paul, who's running unopposed in his home Texas district for an 11th House term, still has some $5 million in war funds and has instructed his followers that their struggle is not about a single election, but a long-term revolution for control of the Republican Party.

 

So eager are they to follow their leader's words, that Paul's supporters have driven his new book, "The Revolution: A Manifesto," to the top of several bestseller lists.

 

While Paul has consistently refused a third-party bid, he has vowed not to endorse McCain, a refusal mirrored by hundreds of his supporters who have left comments on The Ticket in recent weeks. And, no doubt, they'll flock back here today to spread the gospel below.

 

-- Andrew Malcolm

 

Photos: Associated Press and RonPaul.com

 

Interesting idea but I'm skeptical that it will amount to much. However, there have been reports that Paul's supporters have been overwhelming local convention sites, even making one close down in Nevada.

[Narcoleptic Jumper 0]

They were going to win the Nevada convention. The establishment couldn't have that of course so they shut it down. pretty amusing (the notion that we still live in a democracy that is)

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Interesting article I came across this morning while reading the LA Times online:

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...ronpaulgop.html

 

Ron Paul's forces quietly plot GOP convention revolt against McCain

 

Virtually all the nation's political attention in recent weeks has focused on the compelling state-by-state presidential nomination struggle between two Democrats and the potential for party-splitting strife over there.

 

But in the meantime, quietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in Minnesota at the beginning of September.

 

Paul's presidential candidacy has been correctly dismissed all along in terms of winning the nomination. He was even excluded as irrelevant by Fox News from a nationally-televised GOP debate in New Hampshire.

 

But what's been largely overlooked is Paul's candidacy as a reflection of a powerful lingering dissatisfaction with the Arizona senator among the party's most conservative conservatives. As anticipated in late March in The Ticket, that situation could be exacerbated by today's expected announcement from former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia for the Libertarian Party's presidential nod, a slot held by Paul in 1988.

 

Never mind Ralph Nader, Republican and Democratic parties both face

potentially damaging internal splits that could cripple their chances for victory in a narrow vote on Nov. 4.

 

Just take a look at recent Republican primary results, largely overlooked because McCain locked up the necessary 1,191 delegates long ago. In Indiana, McCain got 77% of the recent Republican primary vote, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, who've each long ago quit and endorsed McCain, still got 10% and 5% respectively, while Paul took 8%.

 

On the same May 6 in North Carolina, McCain received less than three-quarters of Republican votes (74%), while Huckabee got 12%, Paul 7% and Alan Keyes and No Preference took a total of 7%.

 

Pennsylvania was even slightly worse for the GOP's presumptive nominee, who got only 73% to a combined 27% for Paul (16%) and Huckabee (11%).

 

As Politico.com's Jonathan Martin noted recently, at least some of these results are temporary protest votes in meaningless primaries built on lingering affection for Huckabee and suspicion of McCain.

 

Given the long-since settled GOP race, thousands of other Republicans in these states, who might have put up with a McCain vote, crossed over to vote in the more exciting Democratic primaries, on their own for Sen. Barack Obama or at the urging of talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, who sought to support Hillary Clinton and prolong Democratic bloodletting.

 

According to a recent Boston Globe tally, Paul has a grand total of 19 Republican delegates to Romney's 260, Huckabee's 286 and McCain's 1,413.

 

In the last three months, Paul's forces, who donated $34.5 million to his White House effort and upward of a million total votes, have, as The Ticket has noted, been fighting a series of guerrilla battles with party establishment officials at county and state conventions from Washington and Missouri to Maine and Mississippi. Their goal: to take control of local committees, boost their delegate totals and influence platform debates.

 

Paul, for instance, favors a drastically reduced federal government, abolishing the Federal Reserve, ending the Iraq war immediately and withdrawing U.S. troops from abroad.

 

They hope to demonstrate their disagreements with McCain vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt to get Paul a prominent speaking slot. Paul, who's running unopposed in his home Texas district for an 11th House term, still has some $5 million in war funds and has instructed his followers that their struggle is not about a single election, but a long-term revolution for control of the Republican Party.

 

So eager are they to follow their leader's words, that Paul's supporters have driven his new book, "The Revolution: A Manifesto," to the top of several bestseller lists.

 

While Paul has consistently refused a third-party bid, he has vowed not to endorse McCain, a refusal mirrored by hundreds of his supporters who have left comments on The Ticket in recent weeks. And, no doubt, they'll flock back here today to spread the gospel below.

 

-- Andrew Malcolm

 

Photos: Associated Press and RonPaul.com

 

Interesting idea but I'm skeptical that it will amount to much. However, there have been reports that Paul's supporters have been overwhelming local convention sites, even making one close down in Nevada.

Nothing but good can come from this.

[Gary Floyd 0]

RON PAUL!

RON PAUL!

[NoCalMike 0]

If the media covers it the same way they cover the public's dissatisfaction with Bush, expect the coverage to be underwhelming.

[SuperJerk 0]

From Newsweek's Jonathon Alter:

 

For all the talk of numbers, there's one that will be most important for superdelegates: 1.5 million. That reflects the 1.5 million names of donors that the Obama campaign has on file. Because no contribution below $200 is publicly reported, the vast majority of those names are in Obama's exclusive possession, to be shared as he wishes. As Graham Richard, the longtime mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., explained it to me last week, it's all about the Benjamins. Local officials (that's who most superdelegates are) need the tens of thousands of Democratic donors on that list who come from their states. Their re-election depends on successful fund-raising. No Obama at the top of the ticket, no list. No list, and you may be back selling insurance after November.

 

To keep that trickle of superdelegate commitments from turning into a flood, Hillary will likely continue the delightful and uplifting argument that she made to USA Today that she has a large and expanding base among "hardworking Americans, white Americans." This is code for "America isn't ready for a black man," but it's also unsubstantiated. Her share of white, working-class voters actually diminished considerably from Ohio and Pennsylvania to North Carolina and Indiana, largely because the more recent primary states are younger. It's "the granny gap," stupid. For all her claims of a broad coalition, Hillary's only reliable base is older white women with no college education. She obviously doesn't crush Obama among white voters more generally or she would already be the nominee.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/136315

 

 

And a post-mortem on Mrs. Clinton's campaign from The New Yorker...

Hillary Clinton's wrong course: When and where, it is not too soon to ask, did she go wrong?

 

If she had opposed authorizing the Iraq war, the activists—grassroots and netroots—might have mobilized for her rather than against her. She might have cruised to the nomination, and the Democratic Party might now be basking in the warm glow of being about to make history by electing the first woman President.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I don't think it was so much her vote for the war. Progressive activists mobilized behind John Kerry in the last general election and behind Edwards in this primary--both of whom voted for the war. It was the fact that she was unwilling to acknowledge that the vote was a mistake and that she seemed to continue to push a bellicose, republican-lite foreign policy vision.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Obama wouldn't have been able to even get his foot in the door if she had voted no, though. So, I think that was her biggest mistake in hindsight because it gave him an opening.

 

She would probably be the nominee if she'd voted no. Ironically, it was likely she only voted yes because she thought voting no would wreck her chances at the presidency.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Just another reason why politicians should vote how they believe rather than vote based on how well they will perform at the polls. I agree that Hillary's vote for the war gave Obama an opening that his campaign was only happy enough to exploit. I also agree that Hillary would've done herself some favors by doing what Edwards did on his war vote and say "Hey I made a mistake and I'm sorry." However, she stuck by it which only angered the liberal base and allowed Obama to get those people aboard his candidacy and build the infrastructure that has served him well so far (but could still doom him in the general).

 

I think I'll avoid the election coverage tomorrow night over West Virginia so I don't have to hear the Clinton pundits argue that she's on comeback #3,215 or whatever number we're on now since she won the state by about 40 points.

 

[SuperJerk 0]

Since I don't expect consistency or intellectual honesty from the Clinton campaign at this point, it was morbidly amusing to see how the Clinton campaign tried to spin the results of the primary in, of all places, West Virginia as a crucial win. I hope someone in the media remembers to mention that only 28 delegates are at stake tomorrow, and that West Virginia is worth 5 electoral votes in November. Tomorrow's victory will somehow show that white people won't vote for Obama, even though he won primary victories in Wisconsin, Connecticut, Delaware, and Utah.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

RON PAUL!

RON PAUL!

And your point would be.....?

 

 

Oh wait. You're Gary Floyd right? OK, I feel better now.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

some early exit polls from WV...looks brutal for Obama

 

70% say Clinton shares the same values

45% say Obama does

 

63%Clinton is honest

47% Obama is honest

 

68% Clinton qualified to be CIC

29% Obama qualified to be CIC

 

51% Obama shares Rev. Wrights views

47% he doesnt

 

61% Clinton more likely to beat McCain

27% Obama more likely to beat McCain

 

 

 

Wow. Hillary found the one state that still thinks she's honest.

[SuperJerk 0]

The demographics are brutal as well.

 

Population, 2006 estimate 1,818,470

White persons, percent, 2006 94.9%

Black persons, percent, 2006 3.3%

Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2006 21.4%

Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2006 15.3%

Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 0.6%

High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 75.2%

Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 14.8%

 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54000.html