Presidential Primaries

Ohio's got a Democrat as governor these days, and governors are really good at helping the top of the ticket by getting the state machine working on it.

I think there's a trend there, as well, where normally safe republican seats aren't so safe anymore.

 

What do you know about Ohio, anyway?

 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03...alk-out-of-kos/

March 15, 2008, 3:56 pm
Blogtalk: Pro-Clinton Bloggers Boycott Kos

By Sarah Wheaton

On Friday, it got to be too much for Alegre, a diarist on the flagship liberal blog DailyKos, who frequently writes in support of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“I’ve put up with the abuse and anger because I’ve always believed in what our online community has tried to accomplish in this world,” Alegre wrote Friday evening. “No more.”

Objecting to the tone of attacks against Mrs. Clinton and her supporters on the blog, the diarist called for a “writers strike.”

“This is a strike - a walkout over unfair writing conditions at DailyKos. It does not mean that if conditions get better I won’t ‘work’’ at DailyKos again,” Alegre wrote, promising to come back only “if we ever get to the point where we’re engaging each other in discussion rather than facing off in shouting matches.”

The blogosphere has never been known for its polite, gentle discourse, and while fiercely partisan, being a Democrat does not make one immune from attacks from the lefty blogs (see Lieberman, Joseph I.). But now, the major internal divisions within the Democratic Party seem to be splitting liberal bloggers. So what happens when the unity enforcement mechanism becomes disjointed?

Alegre’s post attracted a strong reaction, both negative and positive. The comment board was shut down about 5.5 hours after it was posted, with 1258 comments.

One user, Sentient, called for a “permanent succession”:

“Why should this site and Kos profit from the traffic we add to DailyKos, and the sense by outsiders that it represents the netroots as a whole?” the blogger asked, adding later, “But I just don’t see how people come back together on a daily basis after a falling out like this.”

Another poster challenged Alegre’s assertion that “DailyKos is not the site it once was thanks to the abusive nature of certain members of our community.”

From jdodsonvls:

The only difference is now we’re attacking a candidate whom YOU feel strongly about.

Sorry. It happens. But if you don’t understand why we dislike her, if you don’t understand that she stood opposed to the blogroots for years, that this community grew into what it is today despite her, not because of her, then you’re right, perhaps this isn’t the blog for you.

You see, decentralized though we are, I’ve always felt that the vast majority of bloggers share a point of view. Out with the old way of doing politics, and in with the new. To many of us, Hillary Clinton, every bit as much as Joe Lieberman, typifies a wing of the Democratic party that is anathema, a wing that is responsible for the party’s downfall, and complicit with the rise of radical conservatism.

Markos Moulitsas, the founder of DailyKos, spoke to Jake Tapper of ABC News about the so-called strike, which he said was really more like a “boycott.”

“But whatever they call it, I think it’s great,” Mr. Moulitsas said. “It’s a big Internet, so I hope they find what they’re looking for.”

Many feel that one of the other major liberal blogs, MyDD, tends to attract bloggers more favorable to Mrs. Clinton. If the rift lingers after the primaries, the organizational value of the blogs could be compromised.

Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice blog writes: “Where progressive and moderate bloggers and commenters used to get worked up arguing about George Bush, there now a real angry, scolding tone in many comments left by Clinton and Obama supporters.”

He continues: “In short, the strike/boycott is a symptom — and with so many months to go until the Democratic convention, the prognosis for true Democratic Party unity going into the election seems ‘questionable.’”

 

I actually think the DailyKos fallout and blogger "strikes" are fascinating. There are real parallels, I think, between the evangelical-right and the blogger-left or the netroots (internet slang for grassroots on the web). Both groups are incredibly well organized and well funded. Both feel strongly about a moral grounding in their politics. Both commit to a fifty state strategy -- the evangelicals think they can take Washington; the Netroots think they can take Texas. And it's all based out of a supreme belief in their ideals. I.e. if you're right, why can't and shouldn't you be able to convince every else, through dialogue, that you're right.

It's kinda of beautiful and terrifying at the same time.

The Netroots are overwhelmingly ardent supporters for Obama. He's a better version of Howard Dean: a politician who will reject triangulation, in both running for election and governing, and try to fundamentally move the country towards a progressive politic. It's the Reagan paradigm, as contrasted to Clinton I and Bush II. Government by political movement instead of by winning two out of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

I think it's interesting to an extent. If the Netroots would reject some of the the economic platforms I can't take (class warfare, opposition to free trade, 1920's view of corporations) I'd probably be on board with their message. For what it's worth, I think both of the candidates -- Clinton and Obama -- are decidedly more centric in their views of the market, despite their rhetoric otherwise.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Mar 17 2008, 08:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I actually think the DailyKos fallout and blogger "strikes" are fascinating. There are real parallels, I think, between the evangelical-right and the blogger-left or the netroots (internet slang for grassroots on the web). Both groups are incredibly well organized and well funded. Both feel strongly about a moral grounding in their politics. Both commit to a fifty state strategy -- the evangelicals think they can take Washington; the Netroots think they can take Texas. And it's all based out of a supreme belief in their ideals. I.e. if you're right, why can't and shouldn't you be able to convince every else, through dialogue, that you're right.

It's kinda of beautiful and terrifying at the same time.

The Netroots are overwhelmingly ardent supporters for Obama. He's a better version of Howard Dean: a politician who will reject triangulation, in both running for election and governing, and try to fundamentally move the country towards a progressive politic. It's the Reagan paradigm, as contrasted to Clinton I and Bush II. Government by political movement instead of by winning two out of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

I think it's interesting to an extent. If the Netroots would reject some of the the economic platforms I can't take (class warfare, opposition to free trade, 1920's view of corporations) I'd probably be on board with their message. For what it's worth, I think both of the candidates -- Clinton and Obama -- are decidedly more centric in their views of the market, despite their rhetoric otherwise.</div>

I've seen no evidence that Obama would reject trianulation. In fact, he's a product of the Clinton organization - his senatorial campaign was run by those people. A perfect example is his health care plan, which has no mandates and doesn't require people to even have coverage. It is hard to differentiate his plan from McCain's, in fact.

That aside, the whole political movement among bloggers is an interesting thing, but I don't see it as anywhere near as powerful as those people think they are. When the religious right turns out with the rest of republican voters, republicans win big. There's probably more to republicans feeling disaffected by Bush's mishandling of PR over the war in Iraq, his immigration proposals, and big spending ways than there is to anything the blogosphere is doing.

Don't confuse fundraising over the Internet with efforts by bloggers. Spending money through the Internet on all things has become a regular part of peoples' activities. Amazon is huge, eBay, too, and so on. Yet in spite of that, the amounts raised this time around aren't out of line with the last few election cycles - those cost between $500M and $1B each in presidential election years.

As far as the extreme left vs. extreme right goes, it's pretty obvious to me that the extreme left is far more a "danger" to everyone than the extreme right. The extreme left may have gone through the Red Scare era here, but that was short lived. Generally, there's plenty of tolerance for the extreme left, while anything less than the far right is vilified. The 1920s view of corporations, as you put it, is extreme left though they don't actually oppose anything that's extreme right. Corporations, even at their most "evil," are not far right; the extreme right would be outright fascists or the David Dukkke types.

The odd thing is that Dukkke was pretty handily rejected outside his tiny sphere of influence, while his counterparts in the KOS party (George Wallace, Robert Byrd) win electoral votes and are lionized.

"if you're right, why can't and shouldn't you be able to convince every else, through dialogue, that you're right."

At some point, those who can't be convinced through dialog are taken out and shot in big numbers.

The left wing and populism combined for the worst governments and situations for people. To establish these institutions, "revolution" is required. Revolution is bloody violent, to begin with. It doesn't end with killing the Tzar and everyone with a drop of Tzar family blood, the killing continues right up to the fall of the new regimes. Mao killed 40,000,000 of his people, at least. Stalin, similar numbers. The Khmir Rouge 6,000,000 but 80% of the population.

Those kinds of people aren't even the extreme left wing, they're considered mainstream by the editor of the Nation magazine

The concept of corporations, in general, is obviously a good thing. Capital formation and voluntary associations they represent could not be possible without protection from liability. In practice, the really big corporations employ 25% of the workforce. Without 'em, you have an employment problem greater than during the Great Depression.

Even in moderate terms, some people seem intent on building the biggest, baddest, government possible. I have no idea why people buy into it. Government isn't the solution to many problems, and really big organizations have real issues with acting rational as a whole.

In terms of economics, I'm quite convinced that some redistribution of wealth is required for society to be healthy. The ultra rich aren't well served by starving masses burning down their mansions, and there really is plenty of wealth for there to be ultra rich and well fed masses. That's speaking rhetorically.

Building huge government bureaucracies isn't the means to wealth redistribution. Collecting big checks from the uber rich and writing checks to the less wealthy is all that is required.

Progressive. Progress. Progress toward what? That's the scary thing... the toward what. Replace corporations with govt? Won't work, been tried, hundred million murdered to try and make it work. Big government and rigid control of industry? That's fascism.

Social Democracy? It's an oxymoron by definition. Nations try it, but it only works until the nation's stockpiled resources run out (that can take decades). While they're burning through those resources, 12% unemployment is typical and the mediocrity of DMV style public services (which could be private) leave the people fed up with it. I'd point to Germany and France and who they elected and on what platforms.

The good news is that there is more to just getting elected, there's the afterthought about having to govern. The bad news is that in governing as rationally as possible, a GW Bush pisses off the religious right, and an Obama is going to piss off plenty of his constituencies, including the blogoleft.

 

Hey, SST

How do the KOSers feel about the:
856,944 + 568,930 + 248,575 voters who turned out in Florida not getting their votes counted?
Florida Democrats Drop Proposal For A New Vote

How about the
328,151 + 236,723 + 21,708 voters who tunred out in Michigan?
Democratic Re-do Likely Won't Happen

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 18 2008, 08:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Hey, SST

How do the KOSers feel about the:
856,944 + 568,930 + 248,575 voters who turned out in Florida not getting their votes counted?
Florida Democrats Drop Proposal For A New Vote

How about the
328,151 + 236,723 + 21,708 voters who tunred out in Michigan?
Democratic Re-do Likely Won't Happen</div>

The Kozacks are really serious about the whole 50 state strategy -- a strong commitment by the Democratic party to every state, not just the swing states. Part and parcel to that strategy is the importance of being able to control the dates of the early primaries. The posters, as a whole, are pretty sick of the Iowa-New Hampshire-South Carolina trifecta, and the only way the party can control the dates on the primaries is through doing what they're doing right now -- penalizing the states that move their primaries ahead.

There are some lingering sympathies for Michigan, though. All of them hate Florida. There's really no reason Florida should not be a relatively strong blue state with its changing demos. It's just the local Democratic party there is the most dysfunctional of perhaps any state party. For comparison, I think there are strong parallels between the Illinois Republican party and the Florida Democratic party. There's no reason Illinois should be as blue as it is right now. The suburbs should be strongly Republican, especially when combined with the whole bottom half of the state; which mirrors Indiana. It's just that we haven't had a strong Republican local official since. . . well since big Jim Thompson, and to a lesser extent Jim Edgar. The Republican party is in such disarray that hack Rod Blagovoic won a second term.

Mike: I wasn't on Koz back them, but I'm not surprised by your reports of the Edwards love. His politics are more representative of the netroots. I think part of the reason they like Obama is because of what he can provide, not necessarily his politics -- which are either too nuanced (lack of health care mandate, denial of affirmative action for upper income minorities) or too mainstream (embracing of free trade and refusal to speak in terms of class warfare before campaigning in the rust belt states).

Obama offers a new and attractive victory path. The easiest way for Obama to grab the presidency is by winning across the middle of the country: Virginia, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Colorado, Iowa, substantive showing in Nebraska (which is the only state that divides their electoral delegates proportionately), New Mexico, and Nevada. If you believe above all in a fifty-state strategy, that's a whole lot more exciting than pushing all of your money into Florida and Ohio and hoping for the two Republican leaning states to some how swing in your direction.

 

Obama is about to hit two million individual donors since the 1st of the year. He's been pulling in roughly a 100,000 new donors (not donations from previous donors) a day since his speech on race in America.

I've seen a lot of press that has cast the speech as a failure, and I'm not quite sure the pundits understand the target audience. Was Obama successful in ending the news story: absolutely not. I don't think there's anything he could do to help his four or five point loss in the polls. Only time -- months not days -- will change that. Was he successful in changing the media narrative: I would have to say yes. I've seen a dramatic change in the way both local and MSM have been covering the narrative since the speech. Secondly, he was trying to sure up his base. And, if the donor numbers are any indication, it was pretty successful.

As a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the new donors are defectors from camp Clinton as the race appears to be increasingly out of reach.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Mar 23 2008, 01:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama is about to hit two million individual donors since the 1st of the year. He's been pulling in roughly a 100,000 new donors (not donations from previous donors) a day since his speech on race in America.

I've seen a lot of press that has cast the speech as a failure, and I'm not quite sure the pundits understand the target audience. Was Obama successful in ending the news story: absolutely not. I don't think there's anything he could do to help his four or five point loss in the polls. Only time -- months not days -- will change that. Was he successful in changing the media narrative: I would have to say yes. I've seen a dramatic change in the way both local and MSM have been covering the narrative since the speech. Secondly, he was trying to sure up his base. And, if the donor numbers are any indication, it was pretty successful.

As a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the new donors are defectors from camp Clinton as the race appears to be increasingly out of reach.</div>

That figure on Obama's site is misleading. It's the number of donations, not donors.

Remember LBMatrix? The guy would get banned at bbb and come back as different usernames over and over anyway? A number like 2M in under 3 months is highly suspicious.

As for Obama's speech, as good/great as it might have been, its effect has been to widen Clinton's lead in the polls in PA and to make No. Carolina a much closer race than it's been. McCain has passed Obama in the national polls, and more importantly, in the three key states of Ohio, PA, and FLA. In the national polls, McCain's lead over Obama now represents an 18 point swing in short order.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-D...ad-Clinton.aspx

Both Democrats have inched closer to John McCain in the latest update on registered voters' general election preferences. McCain holds just a two percentage point edge over both -- 46% to 44% over Obama and 47% to 45% over Clinton.</div>

Tho gallup is a really sucky polling company anymore.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...l_tracking_poll
Looking ahead to the General Election in November, John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents. McCain leads Barack Obama 49% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 49% to 43% (see recent daily results). New polling shows McCain leading both Democrats in Georgia and Arkansas. In Minnesota, the race is very close.

On Saturday, Obama’s favorable ratings slipped a little further—46% favorable, 51% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. McCain is viewed favorably by 54% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 54% unfavorable (see recent daily results).

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats leading in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. When “leaners” are added, the Democrats lead 247 to 229. Over the past month, McCain has gained ground in Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. Both Democrats continue to lead in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and California (see summary of recent state general election polling).</div>


That 247-229 with leaners was over 280 a couple of weeks ago. 271 are needed.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content..._state_snapshot

OH: McCain 46%, Obama 40%
PA: McCain 43%, Obama 42%
FL: McCain 47%, Obama 43%</div>

Add those 68 electoral votes to the 229 above and it looks like a pretty big victory in the electoral college. Those three states aren't the only ones to consider, though the past few elections have come down to winning 2 of 3 of those three. Michigan's 17 EVs are in play, tho it has been safely democratic the past few elections.

Finally, there's this. Note that it's dated March 13, BEFORE the pastor flap.

PA:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...ential_election

McCain is viewed favorably by 55% of voters in the state, Obama by 53%, and Clinton by 45%. For Obama, that figure reflects a ten-point decline from last month. In that previous poll, conducted at the height of Obamamania, the Senator from Illinois had a ten-point lead over McCain.</div>

 

As a quick response, the counter on the website is actually donors not donations -- camp Obama had made clear of that earlier. But I agree with you that it must be a mistake. Some computer glitch somewhere. If it isn't, then we are seeing a ground shift like we have never seen before.

 

I think it best to wait for the FEC report. Quarterly, right? So due in about a week.

I was looking at Hillary's site, and they allow people to donate automatically, monthly. If they're counting those as donors, the numbers are ridiculously skewed.

On the other hand, if they stick to the claim of 2M donors, we may be seeing some serious campaign finance fraud.

Matrix, like I said. Now consider how they have phone banks? How about donor banks! Got a $million you want to donate but can't because the limit is $2300? 10,000 "donors" at $100 each.

On a side note, it could be Hillary's strategy to torpedo Obama at this point and look forward to her opportunity to run again in 4 years. McCain might server one term if elected anyway.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 23 2008, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think it best to wait for the FEC report. Quarterly, right? So due in about a week.

I was looking at Hillary's site, and they allow people to donate automatically, monthly. If they're counting those as donors, the numbers are ridiculously skewed.

On the other hand, if they stick to the claim of 2M donors, we may be seeing some serious campaign finance fraud.

Matrix, like I said. Now consider how they have phone banks? How about donor banks! Got a $million you want to donate but can't because the limit is $2300? 10,000 "donors" at $100 each.

On a side note, it could be Hillary's strategy to torpedo Obama at this point and look forward to her opportunity to run again in 4 years. McCain might server one term if elected anyway.</div>

I feel like I should clarify the above link. On the run up after Super Tuesday, the campaign posted that link off of their website as they pushed towards a half million donors, and later when they pushed towards a million. After they hit the million marker, they took all the hyperlinks to it off their website but kept it active. So, theoretically it still should be good. But Obama himself said in a release that he didn't expect to hit 55 million again this month because donations are event driven and there were no primaries this month -- of course; he had the largest even of his campaign earlier this week, in many respects so I don't know how it factors in. The dorks over at the Koz have been monitoring the link even though it is no longer hyperlinked and say that the increase was relatively modest until the Speech on Tuesday. Since then it's gone up around 100,000 new donors a day -- which is pushing any limits of reason. So, it's very possible that the link is malfunctioning, but it is supposed to a) report on the number of donors not donations and should be numerically accurate.

There is also no mention of 2 million anywhere on his website. But I think, to some extent, he might be better off keeping his donations on the down and low. Especially since he probably isn't going to win Pennsylvania even if he outspends her 4 to 1 and since her donations have dramatically fallen off -- no point in reinspiring her base.

As to your comment about Hillary torpedoing Obama for a shot in four years -- I've heard people say that and I just don't buy it. We follow these elections so closely that we don't realize how fast time passes in the world of politics. By the time November roles around -- let alone four years from now -- all but the most major events in this campaign will be forgotten. I still believe that the drawn out campaign -- and all of it's inherent mud slinging -- is the best thing that could have possibly happened to the Dems. Most of the vetting will be done by June, five months (fifty years in politics) before the general.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/030..._this_year.html

Closing in on 2 million donors this year [CORRECTED]

Obama's campaign has stopped promoting its fundraising success, but the ticker is still ticking, and the growth doesn't seem even to have stopped accelerating, according to this graphic on his site: He's close to an unprecedented 2 million donors this year, source of many millions of dollars already and, likely, even more to come.

UPDATE: Obama aides say the graphic is inaccurate, due to a technical glitch. Clearly the frame is out of date, but that automated ticker does seem to be ticking something. I'll add more detail if I get it.
</div>

This is probably closer to reality, even tho the article is from 9 months ago. I'd venture an educated guess that Obama has 1.25 unique donors, tops, since day 1.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../28/247388.aspx

PERSPECTIVE ON OBAMA'S DONOR NUMBERS

Posted: Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:43 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Democrats, 2008

From NBC's Mark Murray and Carly Zakin

As we mentioned earlier today, the Obama camp announced that 138,000 new donors have contributed to the campaign in this second fundraising quarter, up from the 104,000 donors who contributed in the first. And by the time the second quarter comes to an end on Saturday, Team Obama is expecting that a total of 250,000 donors will have given to the campaign in the first six months of this year.

To put those numbers in perspective, the Obama folks handed First Read a research document of past newspaper clippings showing that Howard Dean -- Mr. Grassroots/Netroots of the 2003-4 cycle -- had about 59,000 donors in the second quarter of 2003 and approximately 70,000 donors in the first six months of that year.

And for the entire year of 2003, it was reported that about 280,000 people donated to his campaign -- a figure which Obama will seem to almost equal in just half a year.</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder)</div><div class='quotemain'>As to your comment about Hillary torpedoing Obama for a shot in four years -- I've heard people say that and I just don't buy it. We follow these elections so closely that we don't realize how fast time passes in the world of politics. By the time November roles around -- let alone four years from now -- all but the most major events in this campaign will be forgotten. I still believe that the drawn out campaign -- and all of it's inherent mud slinging -- is the best thing that could have possibly happened to the Dems. Most of the vetting will be done by June, five months (fifty years in politics) before the general.</div>

McCain gave GW Bush a good run for his money in 2000, and then came So. Carolina... He bided his time over the past 8 years and was the good soldier the whole time. He positioned himself well for this 2008 run for the nomination.

In that same light, Hillary is "entitled" to the office... If 2008 is not her turn, I'm pretty sure she doesn't want to wait around until 2016 (should Obama win). And I don't think that she's unlike most Democrats in office who put their own interests above country.

 

I want to add that 1.25M donors since day 1 is a remarkable figure.

Daily KOS needs a dose of reality

Speaking of bias...

I've been watching CNN for most of the past day and they're reporting the 4,000th US soldier death in Iraq every 2 minutes, and rather gleefully, I add. Not even Fox News reports the surge is working every 2 minutes And the surge is working. Where's the every two minute report about kids safely making their way to school every day, or more electricity in Iraq than before the overthrow of Saddam, the remarkable success of the Kurds in the north, the introduction of basic services in the South? Etc.

Just to show how propaganda works, CNN had an online poll during one of the shows, and 87% of the people said the war can't be won and that we should bring our troops home immediately. Just how out of touch is CNN and its viewers?

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...roop_withdrawal

When it comes to the war in Iraq, the US should...

Withdraw 23%
Home in 1 year 36%
Stay 35%

 

SST -

There's this:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=...89-ee15290e6e96

By a left-wing-ish mag.

Thoughts?