Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

Super Tuesday looms: Who is really going to win the Presidency? (Part 5)

by Frank Schnittger Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 05:37:39 AM EST

The US Presidential race gets serious next Tuesday with a "nationwide primary" taking place across 22 states likely to largely determine the nomination process in both camps.  Hilary Clinton is still the front-runner for the Democrats with a 10% lead over Obama in the national Polls (taken before South Carolina), but her wins in Michigan and Florida were rendered largely meaningless by the decision of the Democratic National Committee to strip those states of their delegates as punishment for bringing their primary dates forward.  

Obama, on the other hand, has gained real momentum from his wins in Iowa and South Carolina where he proved he can unite most of the black vote behind him, whilst maintaining a substantial share of the white vote.  He has also secured the endorsement of influential long term Democratic old guard figures such as Senator Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy, the only surviving child of JFK.  John Edwards' hopes have now gone, having failed to win South Carolina, the state of his birth, but he could still be an influential figure as a "spoiler" candidate and as a kingmaker in a "brokered" Convention if neither Clinton nor Obama achieve an absolute majority of delegates.

The even more complex Republican race is also beginning to resolve itself.  Thompson is already gone, likely to be followed today by the long-time front runner Giuliani, who, having staked all on Florida and having lost, now has nowhere to go.  To my surprise, Romney gained real traction by winning his "home" state of Michigan and is now McCain's main challenger.  

My prediction, last December, that Huckabee would win the Republican nomination is looking very shaky in that his meteoritic rise in the polls hit a very hard ceiling when he failed to expand his appeal beyond his evangelical and southern base.  He is, however, still likely to win some southern states come Tuesday, and I wouldn't write him off yet.  McCain has been the real surprise, reversing a long-term decline in the polls to win in New Hampshire and South Carolina and now, for the first time, in an exclusively Republican Primary in Florida. He is the Democrat's worst nightmare as he is the only Republican contender with a good chance of winning against any Democratic nominee.  It would be some irony if, in this most propitious year for Democrats, a Republican were to capture the White House.


My intention had been to commentate on the election form a European perspective and to use the opinion polls as consolidated at Real Clear Politics as my guide.  However they have proved to be of decidedly mixed predictive value, largely because they have failed to measure the degree of enthusiasm for a particular candidate, and thus the differential turnout in a Primary season which has broken all records for turnout overall. Extraordinarily, there have been no national polls taken since South Carolina so it is difficult to predict how much of a bounce, nationally, Obama will get from his resounding victory there, and to what degree it can be offset by Clinton's much more hollow victory in Florida.  

The Clinton camp must be really rueing the fact that their two victories in the most populous states of Michigan and Florida have been rendered valueless in terms of delegates, and of much lesser value in terms of momentum ahead of Super Tuesday.  However, at the risk of getting this all wrong, I am still predicting that at least some of Clinton's 10% lead in the national polls prior to South Carolina will hold, and that she will reassert her lead at the national level come Tuesday.

The emergence of "race" as an issue, and Bill Clinton's combative style, will have angered many liberal Democrats, but his South Carolina victory also demonstrated how much Obama is now dependent on the black vote, a demographic which will be much less significant in many of Tuesday's primaries.  Obama has handled himself superbly, particularly when confronted by the two pronged Clintons' attacks in South Carolina which seriously backfired on them there.  But perhaps they were playing a longer game.  The closer identification with the black vote which helped him in South Carolina may prove much more of a hindrance to him elsewhere.  There may even be a subterranean "white" and Hispanic backlash, and Edwards will be much less of a factor in drawing off potential support from Clinton in the future.

We are therefore left with the peculiar irony that the most polarising Democratic contender could well win the Democratic Party's nomination despite having angered many of its black and more liberal white support base, and she may well be faced by McCain who has been, by far, the most successful Republican in drawing support from independent voters.  However, my prediction is also that the famous Clinton line "It's the Economy, Stupid" will be the decisive issue come November, and on that basis, the memory of an economically relatively successful Clinton era will outweigh the genuine attraction of McCain as a national hero to many independent voters.

Romney's perceived economic competence will also greatly help his candidacy in the meantime, but I will be amazed if a "non-Christian" wins the Republican nomination, however conservatively he now presents his social politics.  For a former Massachusetts Governor, he has achieved some feat of political self re-invention.  To have any chance of success, he badly needs Huckabee to continue to draw away all prospect of the evangelical vote gravitating towards McCain as the lesser of two evils.

Romney and Huckabee are still very beatable Republican candidates for either Clinton or Obama, but a McCain victory in the Republican Convention would make it a much more difficult election to call..

Poll
My PREDICTION (not my preference) for the next POTUS is
. Clinton 26%
. Obama 21%
. Edwards 0%
. McCain 47%
. Huckabee 0%
. Romney 0%
. Giulliani 0%
. None of the above 5%

Votes: 19
Results | Other Polls
Display:
European Tribune - Super Tuesday looms: Who is really going to win the Presidency? (Part 5)
but I will be amazed if a "non-Christian" wins the Republican nomination

And why not?

by Mordecai on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 07:40:51 AM EST
I'm a little more surprised at the classification of Romney as "non-Christian". The official name of the Mormon church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 07:52:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It occupies sort of a weird in-between space in the minds of most Americans, though.  Not really another religion, but not really Christianity.  For starters: Remember, Christian Jesus was from the Middle East.  Mormon Jesus was from Albany.  Christian Jesus believed in loving thy neighbor.  Mormon Jesus thought -- until 1978, when the IRS looked like it might take his tax exemption away -- blacks could only get into Heaven as slaves.

So let's be honest:  They are quite different in many ways.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 11:51:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because  such a large and active part of the Republican base are Evangelicals who don't appear to regard Mormons as "proper Christians" - although this could change as he is certainly appealing to their social conservatism despite his record as Governor of a very liberal state.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 07:55:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, Huckabee did try to play the "my God is bigger than his god" card once.

We're once again touching in the "voting is tribal" theme, in this case that the Evangelical Christian base will only come out in support of the Republicans if the nominee is "one of 'them'".

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 07:59:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, to be fair, Huckabee has only won one contest.  I have to admit that I'm quite surprised by that.  Losing New Hampshire was a given, since New Hampshire Republicans are a little different from South Carolina Republicans, but I think there is some evidence to suggest the Evangelicals vote on a few more things than we commonly believe.

Or maybe they just thought Huckabee couldn't win.  Who knows?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 11:55:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So you are saying a Jew like Joe Lieberman can't be elected President?
by Mordecai on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:11:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hasn't been so far, but then they said a Catholic couldn't be elected until JFK broke that barrier.  I'm surprised Joe Lieberman didn't run, given his high national profile and centrist almost non-party positioning.  Perhaps his private polls were telling him he didn't have a chance in a Democratic primary season where Iraq was such a negative issue...

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:20:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
was only talking about the political chances within the Republican camp in today's context. I don't think he said anything more general than that.

Given today's strong organisation and mobilisation of Christian evangelicals within the Republican party, his point is certainly arguable. It may be noted that these groups are often strongly pro-Israel - although I would not dare comment as to what this means of their position on Jews in US politics, not undertanding their positions well enough in that respect.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:46:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would not dare comment as to what this means of their position on Jews in US politics, not undertanding their positions well enough in that respect.

Well that says a huge amount in and of itself...

aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:49:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 09:09:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It implies that this group may potentially refuse or endorse candidates based on religious belief. You don't have the confidence to say that they vote based on policy. It harkens back to the question of whether an atheist could be president of the United States. It says nothing about Jews in particular though.

aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 09:35:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I didn't feel like I was going out on a limb in saying that this group (Christian evangelicals) care a lot about religion and religion-linked topics (whether that link is artificial or not is yet another issue).

But the distate for atheists seems to run deeper in the US than only with the Evangelicals - not even a Dem atheist might get nominated.

The differences between the US and Europe on religion are very real - and even bigger with France, which has, for historical reasons, a strong secular bent.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 09:56:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The really interesting question is how Evangelicals came to become so pro-Zionist, given their history of anti-Semitism.  A lot of this seems to be not for love of Israel or Jews, per se, but because they see the re-establishment of Israel as the fulfilling of a biblical prophesy required before Armageddon and the Second Coming can happen.  The evangelical paradigm is not geared to a notion of historical progress, but rather of sinful man seriously screwing up and needing to be rescued from his own folly by divine intervention and providence.  The Pope Benedict critique of "modernism" as a peculiarly atheistic conceit that man is the author of his own destiny appears to be similar.  I don't know enough about Mormonism to be able to comment on whether it also adopts a similar paradigm.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 10:08:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Welcome to European Tribune, Mordecai!

I'm looking forward to reading many comments and diaries from you...

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

by Melanchthon on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 11:44:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My vote goes to Hillary. She'll make one hell of a president.
by The3rdColumn on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 07:56:46 AM EST
Or she'll make President of Hell. Not sure which.

Mind you, it doesn't appear to matter who wins: they're still going to pursue the default policy of short-term "national interest" trumps everything else outside the US.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 07:59:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But she won't be President from Hell, or will she?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:01:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh stop bickering, you two!  Of course she'll make a hellish President.  She got out of her kitchen because she couldn't stand the heat...

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:08:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not content with making a sectarian and racist analysis, you now embrace sexism as well.  Shows you what it means to be a "progressive" these days.
by Mordecai on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:24:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, considering the word hasn't really meant anything meaningful in the US for two generations, I can understand the confusion.
by redstar on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 11:49:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is it sexist when he's playing on Clinton's own words?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 12:01:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
US multinational corporations. (Sorry. I couldn't resist.)

aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:44:49 AM EST
I thought the US economy was mostly foreign owned these days?

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:49:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sigh. Things are so bad that even a snarky comment turns out to be understatement.

aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:54:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by redstar on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 11:52:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They cannot loose now. Edwards is out, and Dems are left with precisely the tedious choice United Corporations must have been dreaming off: potentially repulsive Hillary Clinton, and potentially unappealing Obama. Dem activists and sympathizers are being manipulated into a disappointing nomination again, and oh so easily. Way wrong time to be excited with "minority" nominees...

No doubt, big business is controlling the media and both political parties. There is no use of these Dems even when they win. All this nomination circus, with escalated primaries schedule, vague rules and voting, both nomination races "suddenly" still undecided, plus unreliable vote counting... smells like a grand set-up. I would not be surprised if the issue of Michigan and Florida Dem delegates (being excluded for now) is just another convenient lever.

People are free to know more, but they are kept clueless or unsure pretty firmly. They get no good representation in power plays, that's clear. That's what you get when you rely on "bipartisan" offers while cash flows are free to feed themselves. Brave souls like Kucinich, Edwards, and let's add Al Gore, have no vision and determination to break the corporate media-political wall.    

by das monde on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 09:17:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
PS - did anyone else see CNN give a lot of airtime to a wacko claiming that McCain was the Manchurian candidate because he had been brainwashed by the Vietcong?

I kid you not...

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:50:38 AM EST
We have "Muslim" Obama, and "brainwashed" McCain. So, how much lower can gutter politics go? (No don't answer that.)

aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:59:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, if McCain wins, the Americans will give up the fight in Vietnam and go home? Or will he encourage Nike to move its production to Vietnam?
by GreatZamfir on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 05:26:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No.  It means the COMMUNISTS will have taken over the USofA

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 05:52:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Count on the democrats to screw up.

But frankly, Romney has a good chance of beating McCain, and he'll be much easier to beat for the dems.

So you have this situation were Romney only has a small chance of victory if he becomes the Republican nominee, but if he does win the result will be (continued) disaster.

And then you have McCain who has a much greater chance of victory in the presidential election and who is a decent, honourable non-insane man, but who still is a Republican.

So, as someone who supports the democrats, who should you be rooting for? The reasonably good guy with a good chance of beating the dems, or the walking disaster who will very probably lose (but if he wins will release much more havoc than McCain would)?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 09:16:19 AM EST


Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 09:16:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know what I would think if I were American, but from a European POV I think I can live with McCain. while hawkish, his foreign policy ideas don't seem to differ too much from the Dems.
by GreatZamfir on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 05:22:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Edwards to withdraw at 18:00 GMT (in case it effects your vote)

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 09:33:11 AM EST
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Edwards 'quits' White House race
Democrat John Edwards is exiting the race for the White House after failing to win any of the four party nomination contests held so far, officials say.

Members of his team said the former North Carolina senator had decided not to continue to Super Tuesday next week.

He lost Iowa's caucuses, came third in New Hampshire, admitted getting his "butt kicked" in Nevada and came third in his native South Carolina.



Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 09:34:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought he wouldn't leave before Super Tuesday.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 09:38:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm very surprised, too.  He was in the middle of a pretty successful fundraiser, as I understand it.  I'm hoping this doesn't mean his wife has taken a turn for the worse.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 11:59:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... news cycle on bogus primary win ... payback, perhaps, for her robocalling against him on the last day, and for the "branch stacking" and other breaches that robbed him of delegates in Nevada.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 06:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Crushing the bogus FL win might've had something to do with it, but I'm not sure.

Any idea what the robocalls actually said?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 07:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Blaming Clinton for a bogus win seems a bit harsh.  It was the DNC who disenfranchised all Florida/Michigan Dem voters for the heinous crime their State party leaders committed when they wanted to share some of the early limelight Iowa and Newhampster traditionally get - for no good reason other than tradition.  (If anything dates should be randomly assigned, or in rotation, or the colder Northerly states should be later in spring).

The Republican approach of reducing the state delegate count seems a bit more proportionate.  In any case the DNC action cost Clinton the huge momentum (and delegate counts) she would otherwise have gotten from those wins - always assuming her large margin of victory would have survived an active campaign in those states.  You really can't blame Clinton for trying to make something of it - she got more votes in Florida for hew "bogus" victory than McCain did for his real victory, and aren't Florida Dem voters entitled to some recognition for their votes?

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 07:39:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not the point.

It was understood by all of the candidates that Florida would not count.  All of the candidates pledged to not campaign in the state.  Clinton, after losing badly in South Carolina and getting hit for her husband's idiocy, then decided that Florida should count only a couple days before the primary, thereby ensuring that Obama and Edwards could not campaign there.

Further, she was supposed to take her name off the ballot in Michigan, as Edwards and Obama did.  She waited for them to do so, and then promptly...didn't.

It's more than a bit sad, really.  And, frankly, as someone who is from Palm Beach County and has witnessed true disenfranchisement in my hometown, I find it insulting to hear this nonsense about "disenfranchisement" from people.

It's not an attempt to stand against disenfranchised voters.  It's an attempt to change the rules when your opponents cannot properly counter it.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 07:47:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If Florida doesn't count, why hold a primary at all and waste people's time voting?  It's hard enough to improve voter turnout levels without telling them they're wasting their time.  Clinton is entitled to feel aggrieved at losing a lot of delegates and a lot of momentum because of an internal party spat that as far as I know, she had no part in.  Also, its not an attempt to change the rules, as I see it, simply an attempt to rescue some momentum from an otherwise entirely ruined opportunity to gain the upper hand.  

If the DNC move had been seen to disadvantage a progressive anti-establishment candidate, all the "progressives" would have been shouting conspiracy and bloody murder at the scandalous gerrymandering and hijacking of the nomination process by the DNC.  But because its works out against Clinton, that's ok then?

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 07:59:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Clinton has every right to feel however she wants to feel, but she knew the facts of this, and she agreed to them.  Don't tell me you're aggrieved when you signed the pledge agreeing that Florida and Michigan would not count.  If she believed it was wrong, she should've protested back when those states were stripped of their delegates.  She did not.  She signed the pledge.

It's an attempt to gain momentum and delegates.  Of course it is.  And a shameless one.  But there's no dispute here:  It is a fact that it is an attempt to change the rules she agreed to.

It would be wrong, regardless of the winner.  If Obama or Edwards had won and tried to pull this stunt, it'd be equally shameless and ridiculous.  But how is it fair to Obama and Edwards to change the rules after the fact?  They had no chance to sell their campaigns to the people of Florida.  If they'd had a chance to do so, would the results have been the same?  We don't know.  That's the point.

This isn't disenfranchisement.  This is Hillary Clinton changing her position on the rules she agreed to in an effort to stop what she clearly thinks is momentum for Obama.

If you're arguing that Florida should be allowed to have another shot later, allowing the candidates to campaign there, it'd be fine.  Except that Edwards is then screwed in a state he looks quite strong in, at least on paper.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:11:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Lets not over egg this pudding.  She called a "victory" rally after it was clear she was going to win - one media event amongst thousands in this campaign - and yes - to try to get back some positive publicity and momentum after a bad week.  If there is an attempt to make the Florida vote count for delegates retrospectively, then of course I agree with you because that would be an attempt to change the rules after the event - and would be absolutely unfair and wrong.  But is there actually a serious attempt to do this - its news to me if there is.  Perhaps some commiseration with the Floridians over their misfortune, perhaps some assurances that their views will be taken into account at convention time, perhaps some playing to the gallery.  But a capital political offence?  We're getting very po faced about politics if this is the height of her crime.  It simply isn't in the same league as preventing real votes being counted in a real election.  She spun it for what it was worth at a media event.  Thats all there is to it.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:25:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And she's perfectly welcome to have a silly rally over nothing in an effort to gain some momentum.  I don't know how far she's going to take this, but either way I find it shameless.  And you can rest assured that if FL and Michigan can flip the nomination, she'll howl like nothing you've ever heard.

A capital political offense?  Hardly.  (Voting for war with Iraq and Iran?  Yes, but that's another comment.)  I'm simply stating that serious arguments -- and by "serious," I simply mean that they believe what they say -- by Clinton supporters in favor of counting those delegates are based on shameless opportunism, obvious dishonesty and general silliness.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:47:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
on that we can agree

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 09:02:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... decided to break the calendar and destroy any chance of coming up with a reformed system, because they wanted the states with unfair influence to be THEM, Senator Clinton panders to it because she expects that she won, and ...

... now I got lost. Somehow in this process the culprits are the aggrieved party?


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:04:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes.

Just found the text of the robocalls.  Pretty tame, all things considered, but still pretty funny, given the whole pot/kettle element.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 08:15:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The main point of the Robocalls was to take advantage of the lazy reporting of US media, who confuse the so-called "trade deals" that are swapping trade preferences if lower income nations surrender the right to restrict corporate wealth flows into and out of their countries, and entry of China into normal trade relations ...

... but the absurd thing is a Clinton attacking a candidate for supporting a pro-corporate trade decision. Its like Bush attacking someone for being a warmonger.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 10:51:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bruce, you're smart enough to realize that consistency has no place among Clintonistas.  But she had to do something, because Edwards was stripping her older white vote away.

I wanted Edwards, but with his exit this race, to me, has essentially become Ned Lamont vs Joe Lieberman.

I'm just hoping we don't wind up with the same result, even though I'd bet we will.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 12:24:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Anyone got a take on how the Edwards' vote will break between Clinton, Obama, and "a plague on both your houses?"

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 05:11:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
i suspect it breaks differently in different states, since edwards' support came from a pretty wide range of voters.
by wu ming on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 05:25:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Most will go to Clinton I guess.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 06:15:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... go to Obama ... how his support breaks down varies from state to state, and I have no hard info, just a gut feeling that it breaks more progressive than conservative in CA, which will favor Obama.

Obviously, a large number of those who found Obama to be a perfectly acceptable alternative change candidate had already moved over to Obama, so its not surprise if the AP says that its 40 Clinton, 25 Obama, 35 undecided. I'm just saying I would not be at all surprised if its 25 Clinton, 40 Obama, 35 undecided in CA.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 12:49:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm surprised he's pulling out quite so early - he could still have had a major impact by pulling support from Clinton and acting as king maker at the convention.  However his numbers were going to go south anyway as he had lost all serious hope of winning and most voters won't vote for a loser or spoiler candidate.  From his own point of view this is probably his best move, but will he endorse Obama?  He's hardly likely to want thew VP nomination again, and he is no longer a Senator.  Is this the end of he road for him?

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 09:44:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
well looking at other news pages it's suggested that he isn't going to put his support behind either of the others yet.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 09:48:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... Republican decision, following McCain's strong showing in Florida, on the back of Hispanic preferences, and therefore an expected strong showing in CA ... and the fact that his route to the nomination went through the convention, he decided that it would cause too much damage.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 12:51:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We seem to have reached the position that there are only two significant Democratic candidates left.

There seems to be wide agreement on Daily Kos that one is the messiah and the other the anti-christ, but not as to who is playing which part. There is also a current of opinion which sees both Clinton and Obama as "corporate shills" and would rather not vote or vote for McCain or Bloomberg (Mayor of New York and potential third party candidate - Democrat turned Republican turned Independent).

The only former New York Mayor who got as far as the general election for President, was DeWitt Clinton (presumably no relation as neither President or Senator Clinton was actually born a Clinton) in 1812. Clinton ran as an Independent Republican with Federalist support, on a platform of opposing Mr Madison's war (known to the British as the War of 1812). He lost.

I would think the Clinton machine will probably come out ahead on Super Tuesday, but it may well take a bit longer for the nomination to be sewn up.

The Republicans seem to be down to two and a half significant candidates. Huckabee seems likely to accumulate a few more delegates, but not to do so well as to gain the nomination. On the basis that the key to US politics is usually follow the money, Romney seems best placed to defeat McCain and then lose to Senator Clinton.  

by Gary J on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 10:52:36 AM EST
I find it interesting that so far Romney has not gotten a single vote in the polls asking readers to predict the next POTUS at the bottom of each of this series of pieces on the US election.  For the first time McCain has now gotten some votes... it loks like the ET certainty in a Democratic victory is beginning to slip slightly.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 11:52:28 AM EST
I switched my vote from Huckabee to McCain...

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 11:56:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I switched mine from Clinton to McCain.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 12:00:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I switched mine from Romney to McCain.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 12:16:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A good choice, I think.  The GOP seems poised to line up behind McCain.  Romney fundraisers are going to moves to McCain, according to all the reporters on the ground.  Romney can try to self-finance for a while, unlike Edwards (who's rich but ain't Romney-rich) on the Dems' side, but I don't see it going anywhere for him.  McCain has every Rep beat on name recognition, and, while they don't love him, they'll get behind the Fuhrer and march.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 12:42:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Can someone please explain to me why people on average incomes would donate hard earned money to a multi-millionaire to promote his own ambitions?  Do people out there really believe e.g. Romney is doing it for their benefit? Why not let him spend his own money first?

This is a really strange phenomenon for a European to understand.  We give lots of money to charity and to the state but seem to be much too cynical to actually do a lot of fund raising for an establishment political party or candidate.  Those who do are almost presumed to be either rich, stupid, or looking to buy influence.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 01:07:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
None of the Reps are raising much money.  McCain's broke.  Romney would be broke but for his personal wealth.

The three big Dems are all millionaires, but are all very much "new money," and none of them compare with the enormous wealth of Romney.  Edwards is a millionaire via his work as a lawyer.  Clinton is a millionaire mainly due to Bill's speaking fees, I believe.  Obama is a millionaire because of his Senate run feeding sales of his second book.

None of the three have the kind of money needed to finance a campaign.  Romney has roughly enough, I'd guess, to finance his race in the primaries and the general, but that's about it.

I don't quite follow why anyone would donate to one of the Reps, because none of them are terribly inspiring, whereas I gather that people really feel like they're supporting something important when they give to one of the three Dems.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 01:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I guess the democrats are a good example that being a millionaire just isn't a good criterion for 'very rich' anymore.
by GreatZamfir on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 05:31:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
in the US election from the "your chance to vote" contest I did a few weeks back.
by redstar on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 11:54:05 AM EST
I'm a litle surprised to find Obama leading in California by three points ("leading" within the MoE) and tied in Connecticut, post-South Carolina.

According to exit polls last night, 50% of Florida Dems thought the Kennedy endorsement was important.  And usually those affirmatives on endorsements are thought to be understatements, since few want to openly say "Yeah, his endorsement mattered."

I don't know what it is about Boomers and the Kennedys (can anyone explain it to me?), but maybe Ol' Teddy carries more weight than I thought.  And he hasn't even begun campaigning yet.

I'd certainly agree with TBG that it's going to be close, but I'm curious to see what the effect of JRE getting out will be.  (I'd still like to know why he's getting out, too.)

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 12:47:47 PM EST
Real Clear Politics still has Clinton with a 12% lead.

Ted Kennedy has always been big in Ireland, but then so is Bill Clinton. His endorsement of Obama is important, in my view, because it shows that even the very old guard of the Dem establishment is warming to Obama.  Ted Kennedy was a big supporter of Bill, so switching to Obama now is a big blow for her, particularly in terms of influencing Super delegates.  Whether Ted Kennedy still has much clout with the average dem voter I really don't know.  But Obama has been campaigning heavily on camelot style hope and aspiration and Ted's endorsement effectively legitimises that - unlike Dan Quale who was ridiculed for trying to act like Jack Kennedy - "I knew Jack Kennedy, and you're no Jack Kennedy..."

See Barack Obama, Camelot's New Knight - washingtonpost.com

Barack Obama, Camelot's New Knight


"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 01:23:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Lasthorseman on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 01:19:12 PM EST
This looks like a xenophobic conspiracy theory video which could have made its point in 5 minutes, not in over 2 hours!!!

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 02:06:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes it's the same amount of time pre-programmed people take to dismiss it as "nonsense".

I did like the part about the wait staff being briefed so as not to look a Bildeburg in the eye, lower you heads.  God, bow like they are royalty.

by Lasthorseman on Wed Jan 30th, 2008 at 03:17:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the race almost never gets this far, and most of the campaigns haven't bothered to realy campaign at al in the feb 5th states until quite recently, assumin that they'd sweep the early primaries and get the momentum. buit they split the early ones, and now the sleeping giants of california illinois and new york are rubbing their eyes and trying to figure out what is happening.

i have not gotten a single phone call, a single mailer, or a single canvasser, and i live in the biggest state in the nation. the election doesn't seem to even be happening, by and large.

my guess is that in addition to the 25% undecided in caliofrnia we also have a significant % who might say they favor one candidate or the other, but might swing in the last day or the voting booth.

it could be crazy. polling is a fool's errand.

by wu ming on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 05:29:43 AM EST
Which is why the media framing of the issues is so vital and why Edwards had so little chance...

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 05:54:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]