Presidential Primaries

^^ That's maybe a 2% swing, at most. Look how well David Dukkke did

Not like Obama's going to get that vote, either. He won't be confused with George Wallace, if you know what I mean (Democrat who ran as 3rd party and garndered about 40 electoral votes in 1968).

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080410/D8VV52QG0.html

<span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%">McCain Erases Obama Lead</span>

Apr 10, 1:39 PM (ET)

By NEDRA PICKLER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican Sen. John McCain has erased Sen. Barack Obama's 10-point advantage in a head-to-head matchup, leaving him essentially tied with both Democratic candidates in an Associated Press-Ipsos national poll released Thursday.

The survey showed the extended Democratic primary campaign creating divisions among supporters of Obama and rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and suggests a tight race for the presidency in November no matter which Democrat becomes the nominee.

McCain is benefiting from a bounce since he clinched the GOP nomination a month ago. The four-term Arizona senator has moved up in matchups with each of the Democratic candidates, particularly Obama.

An AP-Ipsos poll taken in late February had Obama leading McCain 51-41 percent. The current survey, conducted April 7-9, had them at 45 percent each. McCain leads Obama among men, whites, Southerners, married women and independents.

Clinton led McCain, 48-43 percent, in February. The latest survey showed the New York senator with 48 percent support to McCain's 45 percent. Factoring in the poll's margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, Clinton and McCain are statistically tied.

The last month has been challenging for Obama. The Illinois senator suffered high-profile losses in Texas and Ohio that encouraged Clinton, who pushed on even harder against him. Obama's campaign also suffered a blow with scrutiny of incendiary sermons delivered by his longtime pastor. The candidate responded by delivering perhaps the biggest speech of his campaign to call for racial understanding.

Obama is also facing almost daily critiques from Clinton and McCain, questioning whether the freshman lawmaker has the experience to be a wartime leader.

Despite all the conflict surrounding Obama, the Democratic contest is unchanged from February with Obama at 46 percent and Clinton at 43 percent. But the heated primary is creating divisions among the electorate - many Clinton and Obama supporters say they would rather vote for McCain if their chosen Democrat doesn't win the nomination.

About a quarter of Obama supporters say they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. About a third of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain if it's Obama.

Against McCain, Obama lost ground among women - from 57 percent in February to 47 percent in April. Obama dropped 12 points among women under 45, 14 points among suburban women and 15 points among married women.

He also lost nine points or more among voters under 35, high-income households, whites, Catholics, independents, Southerners, people living in the Northeast and those with a high school education or less.

Although the race between Clinton and Obama remained unchanged, there were a few shifts in whom voters are choosing:

- The gender gap has mostly disappeared, with Clinton losing her advantage among women. In February, 51 percent of Democratic women supported Clinton while 38 percent were for Obama. Now they're statistically tied at 44 percent for Clinton, 42 percent for Obama. That is partially offset by a decline in male support for Obama, down 7 points to 50 percent, while Clinton gained 10 points among men. She is now at 42 percent.

- Obama and Clinton are now statistically about even among households earning under $50,000. In late February, Clinton led 54 percent to 37 percent, but now it is just 48 percent to 41 percent.

- Obama now leads Clinton among self-described moderate Democrats, 51 percent to 35 percent. Previously they were 45 percent Clinton, 40 percent Obama.

The poll questioned 1,005 adults nationally. Included were interviews with 489 Democratic voters and people leaning Democratic, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.4 points; and 369 Republicans or GOP-leaning voters, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.1 points.

---

Associated Press Director of Surveys Trevor Tompson contributed to this report.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Apr 10 2008, 06:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^^ That's maybe a 2% swing, at most. Look how well David Dukkke did

Not like Obama's going to get that vote, either. He won't be confused with George Wallace, if you know what I mean (Democrat who ran as 3rd party and garndered about 40 electoral votes in 1968).</div>

I'm growing on the Condi selection. McCain still isn't pulling in money like he needs to, hasn't quite solidified his base yet. And this election, like all elections, is going to be about money. (I read a breakdown the other day and it turns out that the candidate has raised the most has won every presidential election going back to Carter. Kinda' frightening.)

I do however think she has major drawbacks -- this is a change election. Bush's approval ratings have hit historic lows; no time in history since the '30s or whenever they started keeping track. That's tough to run on. But again, if McCain isn't able to pull in real money it isn't going to happen for him. Actually, I don't know how is money compares to other years: 14 million is nothing to slouch at in pure terms; I'm not even sure that is much less than GWB at this point in the race four years ago. I wish someone would run the numbers.

I also wonder if a Condi selection would force Obama's hand in regards to HRC. There could be a lot of backlash from women voters to his campaign already. It might mean that he has to give HRC the VP slot.

Interesting.

 

FWIW, I'm more into the chess game going on behind the scenes than anything else. The "What IF?" it's Condi kind of question is fun to think about.

I actually don't know fully what to make of her. She was a protoge of Albright, but her foreign policy has been a bit more forceful, to say the least. She's clearly a smart lady, but I've got this feeling she's already a bit over her head.

The money trend may or may not be as big a factor this time around. How far does $84M get you in 8 weeks? Pretty far, I think The general election is amazingly short. If anything, McCain-Feingold is going to hurt McCain the most, since people had used their 1st amendment rights to speak out on political matters throughout the campaign in those years you looked at. This time, 8 weeks minus whatever the McCain-Feingold limits are is what 3rd party supporters or policy advocates will get.

As long as you're looking at trends, and I hate to say this, I am particularly disturbed by the underachievement of people of color in the executive branch. Like, Colin Powell's career was effectively ruined, IMO. Condi's record is as Secy. of State during wartime, and an unpopular war. Current Secy. of Education, I do believe, just resigned in a scandal. Going back to Clinton's cabinet, you'll find a similar wreckage of careers. Mike Espy comes to mind, as does Henry Cisneros, though Clinton didn't have many people of color in his cabinet.

It really sucked what happened to Cisneros, who was an outright good guy.

Ron Brown was Secy. of Commerce for part of 1993 only. It looked like he was doing well, but too short a time to really tell. He also was certain to be taken out by scandal, no doubt he had some scary skeletons in his closet.

Not that the people of non-color have done particularly better - there've just been a lot more of them. When you get such rare opportunities, you get more scrutiny.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...refer=worldwide

Obama Spending May Swamp McCain, End Republican Edge (Update1)

By Jonathan D. Salant

April 11 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama will likely overwhelm John McCain in campaign spending, if the Illinois senator wins his party's presidential nomination, in what would be the first time in four decades a Democrat will enjoy such an advantage.

And he could do it whether he accepts federal campaign- finance limits or raises all the money privately.

Obama, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, has amassed $234 million -- three times more than Republican McCain has raised. That puts Obama on the verge of shattering the fundraising mark set by President George W. Bush in 2004.

``There are not enough zeroes to define how badly we are going to be outspent,'' said Eddie Mahe, former deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee.

A look at last month's fundraising underscores the point: McCain had his best period in March, collecting $15 million; Obama brought in $40 million, following a record-busting $55 million haul in February.

Moreover, about half of McCain's supporters have given the maximum $2,300, compared with only a third for Obama, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics. That means many more of Obama's record 1.2 million donors can give again and again.

Now, Obama, 46, is faced with two choices: go private, becoming the first presidential candidate since 1976 to do so, or take public money, as he pledged to do shortly after his campaign began last year.

`Creaky'

Obama told reporters today in Indianapolis that the campaign-finance system is ``creaky'' and needs to be overhauled. He said nominees could raise more money through small online donations than through public funding, which would allow them to ``compete in as many states as possible.''

Should Obama opt out of the system, he will face only muted criticism, said Steve Grossman, a former Democratic National Committee national chairman who is a fundraiser for Obama's Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

``I don't think you get penalized when essentially you've gone from a system that was dominated by wealthy people and entities to a system where millions of people are funding it,'' Grossman said. ``That's democracy in action.''

No Obstacle

Yet even accepting government money, which limits each candidate to $84 million, wouldn't hinder Obama's fundraising.

That's because he'd be able to fill the coffers of the Democratic National Committee -- some political consultants say by as much as $500 million -- for the general election by asking his donors to give to the party instead of to him. The DNC would spend most of that money on his behalf anyway.

``If he were to send out an e-mail to that group of his and say, `The DNC needs $100 million this afternoon,' he would come damn close to getting it,'' Mahe said.

McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, has pledged to take public financing if the Democrat does.

His campaign noted that Obama ``promised the American people'' he would take public financing. ``Senator McCain isn't in the habit of breaking his word, and he hopes Senator Obama doesn't either,'' said Mark Salter, a senior adviser to the 71- year-old Arizona senator.

Earlier Pledge

Obama said in November that if he won the nomination, he would participate in the presidential-financing system and ``aggressively pursue an agreement'' with the Republican nominee to take federal funds.

He said today that should he win the nomination he intends ``to have conversations with Senator McCain'' about how to prevent outside groups from drowning out the candidates if they take public funds.

Clinton, unlike the other two candidates, has never said whether she would take public financing. The New York senator has also raised more money than McCain, though she lags behind Obama.

The last Democratic presidential candidate to far outspend his Republican opponent was President Lyndon Johnson in 1964. The Watergate-era campaign-finance abuses under Johnson's successor, Richard Nixon, including reports of secret slush funds, led a Democratic Congress to rewrite the rules for funding presidential races, such as providing federal funding to party nominees who agreed to forgo private money.

Republican Edge

For the first several elections after 1976, the Republican and Democratic candidates spent the same amount of money. When the political parties cranked up their fundraising, the Republicans generally gained an advantage.

Obama will erase that advantage, whether he chooses to take public money or not.

One drawback in having the party spend the money is the candidate surrenders a measure of control over strategy, because he or she can't tell the party how to spend the money.

``Obviously, they as the nominee can pretty much take over the party,'' said Peter Fenn, a Democratic consultant who isn't affiliated with any campaign. ``But sometimes things get a little muddled,'' and people start acting independently of the candidates when they move over to the party, he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan D. Salant in Washington at jsalant@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: April 11, 2008 10:37 EDT

 

I think the Bloomberg article is wrong in regards to Obama taking public funding. There's no way that he can simply redirect his fundraising efforts to the DNC. He's running as a post-partisanship candidate: I'm not sure how his supporters would feel, especially the independents, if they were redirected to the Democrats homepage; a not at all subtle reminder of his alliances, in a year when he's aiming so hard for the Reagan Democrats, Independents, and Soft-Republicans.

As per Condi, you may be right about her being over her head. If you think about it, very few policy people every make the leap to become politicians -- it's just a different bird. I think in some respects, as a political appointee, you have to take the fall whenever your boss makes a mistake or does something unpopular, and that certainly doesn't help. Seriously, I can't think of one person in the last twenty years who was an elite military leader who made the transition to politics. On the flip side, she may be green, but she handles herself so well in front of Congress: those skills have to translate over somewhat to speaking in front of an audience and in a debate. Who knows?

One more minority to add to the list of appointee failures: Alberto Gonzalez.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Apr 11 2008, 01:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think the Bloomberg article is wrong in regards to Obama taking public funding. There's no way that he can simply redirect his fundraising efforts to the DNC. He's running as a post-partisanship candidate: I'm not sure how his supporters would feel, especially the independents, if they were redirected to the Democrats homepage; a not at all subtle reminder of his alliances, in a year when he's aiming so hard for the Reagan Democrats, Independents, and Soft-Republicans.

As per Condi, you may be right about her being over her head. If you think about it, very few policy people every make the leap to become politicians -- it's just a different bird. I think in some respects, as a political appointee, you have to take the fall whenever your boss makes a mistake or does something unpopular, and that certainly doesn't help. Seriously, I can't think of one person in the last twenty years who was an elite military leader who made the transition to politics. On the flip side, she may be green, but she handles herself so well in front of Congress: those skills have to translate over somewhat to speaking in front of an audience and in a debate. Who knows?

One more minority to add to the list of appointee failures: Alberto Gonzalez.</div>

It's one thing to run for office, which she'd be fine at, it's another to govern - highly questionable. Though as VP all she'd do is go to funerals and be ready in case something happens to McCain.

Add to the list Jocelyn Elders. An exceptional exception to the list, and probably the best qualified guy for the job of all the candidates in either party, Bill Richardson.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Apr 11 2008, 08:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Apr 11 2008, 01:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think the Bloomberg article is wrong in regards to Obama taking public funding. There's no way that he can simply redirect his fundraising efforts to the DNC. He's running as a post-partisanship candidate: I'm not sure how his supporters would feel, especially the independents, if they were redirected to the Democrats homepage; a not at all subtle reminder of his alliances, in a year when he's aiming so hard for the Reagan Democrats, Independents, and Soft-Republicans.

As per Condi, you may be right about her being over her head. If you think about it, very few policy people every make the leap to become politicians -- it's just a different bird. I think in some respects, as a political appointee, you have to take the fall whenever your boss makes a mistake or does something unpopular, and that certainly doesn't help. Seriously, I can't think of one person in the last twenty years who was an elite military leader who made the transition to politics. On the flip side, she may be green, but she handles herself so well in front of Congress: those skills have to translate over somewhat to speaking in front of an audience and in a debate. Who knows?

One more minority to add to the list of appointee failures: Alberto Gonzalez.</div>

It's one thing to run for office, which she'd be fine at, it's another to govern - highly questionable. Though as VP all she'd do is go to funerals and be ready in case something happens to McCain.

Add to the list Jocelyn Elders. An exceptional exception to the list, and probably the best qualified guy for the job of all the candidates in either party, Bill Richardson.
</div>

Bill Richardson is also an outlier on my theory that policy appointees usually don't make it as elected politicians.

 

Not so sure about Richardson. He was cabinet secretary and did his job quite well. Ambassador to the UN, which is great foreign policy exposure. Popular governor of a state, which is as much experience in the executive branch as Clinton had. Squeaky clean, too, in the most corrupt administration of my lifetime... well, there was nixon, but it was close.

 

Speaking of governors... One of the more interesting things, regardless of the outcome, is we're going to have a sitting senator elected president (almost surely). When you have a sitting Govenor elected, he'll bring in his executive branch staff from his state to help run things. Here we have no such staff for either a McCain or Obama to bring along with them.

It could be rough getting started, working with people who the president doesn't know, or working with people who are suited to managing legislation and not the executive branch, proper.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Apr 12 2008, 10:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Not so sure about Richardson. He was cabinet secretary and did his job quite well. Ambassador to the UN, which is great foreign policy exposure. Popular governor of a state, which is as much experience in the executive branch as Clinton had. Squeaky clean, too, in the most corrupt administration of my lifetime... well, there was nixon, but it was close.</div>

I agree with you . . . just didn't phrase my words correctly. I think Richardson is one of the few people who has met with success as both a policy operative and a politician. I'm really hoping he gets the VP nod, though conventional wisdom is that the Dems are going to have to pick someone white, male, and preferably old. If anything, it would signal that the Dems are going after Texas, and not as much Ohio and Penn, which I think is good for the honesty of the political rhetoric: we all know that the rest belt has and will continue to be sold up stream regardless of what the politicians say this election cycle, or any election cycle. International trade is good for our country as a whole, and even if it wasn't, it's inevitable.

 

Obama appears to have made a serious gaffe with the "bitter" remarks he made while pandering for money to the San Francisco elitists. I don't know anyway this can be spun as a good thing or in his favor.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...l_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows John McCain leading Barack Obama, 50% to 42%. In a match-up with Hillary Clinton, the results are the same--McCain 49% Clinton 41%. McCain now leads both Democrats among unaffiliated voters.

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Clinton has gained a statistically-insignificant one-point advantage over Obama, 46% to 45%. Obama led by a significant margin for most of the past week, but his advantage had declined slightly even before his controversial remarks from San Francisco made news (see recent daily results).

Rasmussen Reports is surveying voters this weekend for reaction to Obama’s remarks. Preliminary indications from interviews with 400 Likely Voters suggest that the comments are troublesome for Republicans and unaffiliated voters. However, there is less of an impact among Democrats. That tends to confirm the growing consensus that the comments may have more impact on the General Election than the Primaries.

Overall, among all voters nationwide, McCain is viewed favorably by 55% and unfavorably by 42%. Obama’s ratings have fallen to 48% favorable and 50% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 46% favorable, 51% unfavorable.

 

Yeah, those were some seriously ****ing stupid remarks. I kinda' can't believe that he made those statements, semi-public or otherwise. Big picture though, Obama's gaffe isn't going to make any difference long term. Even the Wright "scandal" hasn't made any difference in his short term numbers (though that story will reshow itself again at a later time.) I think what's more worrisome, as an Obama supporter, is how much his numbers fluctuate when he takes a bad news cycle. There will be more bad news cycles and his supporters still seem to be reticent ones. If Obama is going to win, he is going to have to solidify his base at some point.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Apr 13 2008, 11:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, those were some seriously ****ing stupid remarks. I kinda' can't believe that he made those statements, semi-public or otherwise. Big picture though, Obama's gaffe isn't going to make any difference long term. Even the Wright "scandal" hasn't made any difference in his short term numbers (though that story will reshow itself again at a later time.) I think what's more worrisome, as an Obama supporter, is how much his numbers fluctuate when he takes a bad news cycle. There will be more bad news cycles and his supporters still seem to be reticent ones. If Obama is going to win, he is going to have to solidify his base at some point.</div>

Both sets of remarks have a big effect if you look at the polling data MINUS the democrats' expected partisan responses.

That is, the polling data I just presented shows McCain widening his lead in the national polls, though there's likely zero effect on the Democrats' views in the polls due to the gaffe. It shows in the unfavorables numbers, too.

 

Here's a crazy thought. McCain selects Hillary to be his VP candidate.

The pitch: Unite the country, reach across the aisles, choose someone strong on domestic policy, choose a woman.

The effects:
1) Republicans hate the woman. A big hunk of the republican base stays home.
2) Will Hillary's supporters vote for McCain if she's #2 on his ticket? I think so, but only because it is McCain.
3) Because of #2, Obama gets a fractured Democratic Part base/core.
4) Instant money (fundraising) for McCain. Maybe Obama outraises her by $40M to $30M, but can he outraise the $30M plus whatever McCain draws?

If my figuring is correct, Obama would be demolished in the general election. It could be the biggest landslide in history, especially on the popular vote side. He's looking at 25% of the entire popular vote, tops (and probably less than that), from the base, plus whatever independents he can attract. Reagan's 2nd term landslide was 56% of the popular vote - I see 70% in this scenario.

Why Hillary does it? She's an old bag. If Obama wins, she'll be near 70 when she gets the next opportunity to run. McCain would likely serve one term, leaving her to run as incumbent VP with the Unity theme in place. I think her rejection by the establishment (e.g. Richardson and other super delegates) means the Clintons lose control of the party. She's not used to being a bit player, nor is her husband.

Why McCain doesn't do it? Bill's got a big mouth and hurts their chances every time he makes a speech

 

As per the polls and the gaffe, again I think it is way too early to size up this race and the mess up just isn't going to have any affect six months from now . . . It will be replaced by other Obama gaffes. Sad but true. Only the really horrendous stuff sticks at this time of year: I.e. crazy pastors and 100 year wars.

As to why Obama did it, I really think it was a moment of frustration. The real clip heard in context was in some ways even worse than the clip that is getting repeated ad nausea. Something along the lines of, these people see someone with a funny name and a different complexion and they just have a hard time trusting. . . they've been mistreated by administrations for so long, and have lost all faith in government.

Absolutely true. Absolutely something you should never say. My only hope is that this makes him a stronger candidate, and there are none of these type of gaffes in the last three weeks before election when they could actually cost you the entire race.

As to Clinton, I don't know how the rest of you feel, but this race has been a real eye opener for me. I was such a fan of the Clinton's during their presiding years -- especially the first four. I was young, and didn't have the context to know any better. But this race, this drawn out primary, has allowed me to revisit those days. The Clinton administration acted as a precursor to the Bush administration; scratch that: all I hate about the Bush administration: a complete apathy towards governmental structure and a method of operation that plays to the worst part of American society. I came to the conclusion yesterday that I hate Senator Clinton. I really do. It's amazing how things change.

I'm not going to take up arms with your comment about the Clinton administration being the most corrupt ever. It's not a contest. And if it were, I think that Nixon would be raising his hand from the grave. But, why is the bar set so low? How could we ever condone the clemency's Clinton granted in his final year? It's unconscionable, just like what Bush did to the justice department.

I think it's time to purge that section of our elected officials, from the Democrats and the Republicans.

 

I mentioned Nixon as the most corrupt. His VP plead nolo contendre to racketeering charges and resigned (Ford took his place). Of course, Nixon resigned and would have been impeached. However, all of his illegal activities were tied to just one incident - Watergate, and represented the cover up of a "3rd rate burglary."

Clinton's administration was #2 in my lifetime, if not all-time.

The #2 man in the justice dept., a Clinton cronie, went to prison. Clinton's business partners in Arkansas went to prison.

You're a lawyer, and know better that an acquittal isn't the same thing as the accused being innocent. Think OJ!

The man lied under oath to deny Paula Jones justice in her civil case. He was disbarred by the state of Arkansas and SCOTUS, and settled for $900K with Jones when it was all said and done - hardly "innocent."

He was impeached. The trial was political and the pressure was to acquit, vs. deciding on the evidence. Nixon's impeachment articles fit Clinton like a glove.

http://www.watergate.info/impeachment/impe...-articles.shtml

In fact, 33 Clinton administration officials and associates plead guilty or were found guilty of crimes. There were 61 indictments. 122 people plead the 5th or fled the country to avoid testifying in these cases or congressional investigations.

When it came to campaign fundraising, Gore and Clinton raised a record amount of illegal campaign donations. 25 people were indicted for activities in the 1996 campaign, with 19 being found guilty or plead guilty. 79 people plead the 5th or fled the country in the investigations into these activities.

Clinton donor James Riady paid a record $8.5M fine for violating campaign finance laws.

I haven't even gotten to any of the abuses of office that made Nixon look like a good guy. Like firing the travel office staff so a Clinton cousin could get the job and revenues - and to make it look legit, they sicked the FBI and IRS on Billy Dale to make it look like HE was corrupt or a criminal (charges against him were summarily dismissed).

Or like using thousands of FBI files to build an enemies list/database for the White House bimbo patrol to use.

Cattle futures. PBS' Frontline did a bio of GHW Bush and Clinton during the 1992 campaign, and outright accused Clinton of doing political favors for Don Tyson of Tyson Chicken. Tyson's company polluted the waterways and water tables of Arkansas with chicken shit, literally, and were the only chicken farming company in the state to not be even fined for it. Tyson is linked to numerous scandals in the Clinton administration over the 8 years as well.

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-g...ary/002252.html

And lots more. It's been well documented in the public record.

FWIW.

 

^^^ I would point out that Nixon and Clinton were the two smartest people to serve as president

Also, being a criminal doesn't make a person a bad president. Richard J. Daley was mayor of Chicago for 30 years or so, and he was an outright great mayor. Horrible person tho.