Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Especially when you have McCain, who, for better or worse, has been imprinted in the public's mind as a "maverick", something the media still harps on.

I'm just going to reserve judgment. I have my idea of where I think things will go, but given where things have gotten to this point..I'm convinced anything can happen at this point and so, we'll just sit back and watch. Because like you and others have said, we've seen groundswells of energy before that haven't bubbled to be much more than a burp come November.

So there isn't necessary any evidence that this year will be any different until we see it happen.

[path12]

I'm curious about something for those who are arguing that McCain has a good chance of prevailing in the general.

What do you make of the turnout differences so far? Record turnouts for primaries and caucuses on the Dem side, and nearly doubling the turnout on the Rep side. Both races have been competitive. You could argue that people are switching sides and voting in the Dem primaries for some sort of Machiavellian purpose of getting the weaker candidate nominated, but I don't think that explains much more than a small percentage of those numbers.

I tend to agree with Dark Cloud on this at this time, but we'll see. I'm of the opinion that the prevailing wisdom of the past 20-30 years is not going to be predictive of this election.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I'm not saying one way or the other, just sayin' that Ritter is a moderate Dem in a very politically independent state. Not every governor enthusiastically supported their party's nomination (depending where on the spectrum either falls). There is no Dem machine here in Colorado. Hickenlooper and Denver are moderates (it'll be 55/45 Dem), Boulder and Ft Collins are too small to counter the effect of the Colorado Springs, the Western Slope and the Plains.

This time next year CO is likely to have a Dem Governor and two Dem Senators. There may not be a machine, but the results are still pretty good.

[Vegas Vic]

This has the makings of a fascinating race, however it turns out. If Obama does end up winning the nomination and election, will he be the most liberal candidate to ever be elected president? I can't think of another one. LBJ perhaps, but he was actually conservative on some issues.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

This has the makings of a fascinating race, however it turns out. If Obama does end up winning the nomination and election, will he be the most liberal candidate to ever be elected president? I can't think of another one. LBJ perhaps, but he was actually conservative on some issues.

I think that's a hard statement to make, given the word liberal has morphed from the understanding of what a classical liberal is, versus the big-government modern liberal that we've come to understand it as.

And as with Supreme Court justices, people get into office and change.

GWB wasn't exactly a shining example of conservativeness IMHO.

[JPhillips]

In terms of domestic economic policy Obama doesn't hold a candle to FDR.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by path12

I'm curious about something for those who are arguing that McCain has a good chance of prevailing in the general.

What do you make of the turnout differences so far? Record turnouts for primaries and caucuses on the Dem side, and nearly doubling the turnout on the Rep side.

It's similar to the massive democratic turnout in the 1988 primaries with Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore and Dick Gephart. After the primaries, Dukakis had a 17 point lead in the polls over GHWB. That trend has been fairly consistent over the years. In 1984, Walter Mondale was actually ahead of Ronald Reagan at this point in the election season.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

It's similar to the massive democratic turnout in the 1988 primaries with Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore and Dick Gephart. After the primaries, Dukakis had a 17 point lead in the polls over GHWB. That trend has been fairly consistent over the years. In 1984, Walter Mondale was actually ahead of Ronald Reagan at this point in the election season.

But in both of those years there was a prohibitive Republican nominee -- in 1984 Reagan was the incumbent, and in 1988 there was little doubt that GHW Bush would be the nominee. So it makes sense that Dem turnout would be higher. That's not the case this time with both races starting fairly open.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by path12

But in both of those years there was a prohibitive Republican nominee -- in 1984 Reagan was the incumbent, and in 1988 there was little doubt that GHW Bush would be the nominee. So it makes sense that Dem turnout would be higher. That's not the case this time with both races starting fairly open.

That's a good point.

As for the polling that shows the democrat (Obama) with a slight lead over the republican (McCain) in the general election -- I think that's been the case with every presidential election since 1980 at this point in the election season:

1984 Mondale over Reagan (slight)
1988 Dukakis over GHWB (substantial)
1992 Clinton over GHWB (slight)
1996 Clinton over Dole (slight)
2000 Gore over Bush (slight)
2004 Kerry over Bush (slight)
2008 Obama over McCain (slight)

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

It's similar to the massive democratic turnout in the 1988 primaries with Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore and Dick Gephart. After the primaries, Dukakis had a 17 point lead in the polls over GHWB. That trend has been fairly consistent over the years. In 1984, Walter Mondale was actually ahead of Ronald Reagan at this point in the election season.

The Primary Boom.

This was published on January 17th. But it still signals how significant this year's voter turnout has been and points to the fact that this primary season has yielded higher than ever voter turnouts during the primaries.

While the huge turnouts would appear to be a big plus for the Democrats, they may not necessarily be a favorable harbinger for the party in November. The nationwide primary record for the Democrats of 23 million votes was set in 1988, a year the party went on to lose the presidential race. The primary record for the Republicans of 17.2 million votes was set in 2000, a year the GOP went on to win the White House (albeit narrowly).

In short, when it comes to presidential primaries, high voter involvement can have either a positive or a negative connotation depending on the tenor of the party's nominating campaign.

The Democrats in particular have had a number of "negative" high turnouts, where friction between various wings of the party produced substantial voter interest but a badly scarred nominee with little chance of winning the general election.

It happened in 1972, when the controversial anti-Vietnam War campaign of George McGovern barely prevailed over more moderate elements in the party. It happened again in 1984, when former Vice President Walter Mondale could not shake off primary challenges from Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson. And to a degree, it happened a third time in 1988 when Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and Jackson kept fighting weeks beyond that year's large Super Tuesday vote before Dukakis finally nailed down the Democratic nomination.

[Butter]

I wish we could talk more about the Republicans in this thread. Less Obama and Hillary, more McCain!

[mattlanta]

Barack Obama for President 2008!

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In general I agree, with the caveat that I think CO could go to Obama. They have a strong Senate Candidate in an open seat and the state is adding more traditionally Dem voters. It may be another cycle before a Dem wins, but it wouldn't be a surprise this year.

edit: And a Dem Governor which means a built in infrastructure.

Colorado:

Obama 46
McCain 39

McCain 49
Clinton 35

Missouri:

McCain 42
Obama 40

McCain 43
Clinton 42

New Hampshire:

Obama 49
McCain 36

Clinton 43
McCain 41

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Libid21

Barack Obama for President 2008!

That's the spirit.


Edit: Beaten on the polls, plus I missed the Missouri one. Still more good signs for Obama, hopefully superdelegates and elderly women don't screw it up.

[Jas_lov]

You mean they're interesting given the same exact polls given one post back!

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think that's a hard statement to make, given the word liberal has morphed from the understanding of what a classical liberal is, versus the big-government modern liberal that we've come to understand it as.

And as with Supreme Court justices, people get into office and change.

GWB wasn't exactly a shining example of conservativeness IMHO.

+1

I think the office of Presidency moves liberals and conservatives alike to very similar decisions. I think many a candidate has made campaign promises, believing them to be true at the time, only to realize they must change those viewpoints upon receiving the full picture.

[Vegas Vic]

To put things in some perspective here on February 13, 2008, here is a poll from February 13, 2004.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

To put things in some perspective here on February 13, 2008, here is a poll from February 13, 2004.

Obama is going to dominate because of all the meta factors in his favor, not because of any polling done in February. Looking solely at poll numbers to draw comparisions to past candidates is pointless.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

This has the makings of a fascinating race, however it turns out. If Obama does end up winning the nomination and election, will he be the most liberal candidate to ever be elected president? I can't think of another one. LBJ perhaps, but he was actually conservative on some issues.

And sorry to pick on you here Vic, but could you use words other than conservative and liberal to describe what you mean?

[Young Drachma]

How the Texas primary election will work:

* Texas has a two step process that is open to all registered voters.

* When you cast your vote in the Texas primary, in essence it’s only 75% of a full vote.

* 126 of Texas’ 168 votes will be allocated to candidates based on the ballots cast.

* 15 minutes after the polls close (7:00 p.m.) those who voted must return to their precinct.

* This “precinct convention” is how Texas will decide how to divide the remaining 42 delegates.

* The rules were originally put in place to insure that the Democratic hierarchy would have more say.

How the delegate count breaks out in Texas

The primary election will choose 126 of them, but it's really 31 separate elections — one in each state Senate district. Each district gets from two to eight delegates based on the Democratic turnout there in past elections.

The delegates in each state Senate district primary will be allocated proportionally among the candidates, with a minimum of 15 percent of the vote required to qualify for any delegates.

Big city districts in Houston, Dallas and Austin with large Democratic turnout in the 2004 and 2006 general election have more delegates to offer than some predominantly Hispanic districts in the Rio Grande Valley and El Paso, which could pose a problem for Hillary Rodham Clinton who has enjoyed solid Hispanic support during earlier primaries.

For instance, a state Senate district in Austin, where 30 percent of residents are Hispanic, will have eight delegates, but a state Senate district in the border city of Brownsville, where the population is 91 percent Hispanic, gets only three.

This explains the entire process in detail. But it's head spinning.

[Young Drachma]

Here's a NY Times story, talking about how Hillary is already planning to challenge to get the Michigan and Florida delegates seated. And how her people are already trying to convince the superdelegates to go her way, believing her to be more electable, etc.

Seems history may again repeat itself in the Democratic Party.

[Jas_lov]

Wisconsin- Obama 47 Hillary 43

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...imary-270.html

Ohio- Hillary 51 Obama 37

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...imary-263.html

Two polls in a row that show Hillary with a big lead in Ohio and within striking distance in Wisconsin. She needs to win Ohio big so maybe a close win in Wisconsin would put her back on track.

[Young Drachma]

Wall Street Journal columnist on Obama's Wonder Land.

Repeats a lot of the mantras we've heard in here (go FOFC Political Journal) about how Obama is giving speeches that once you strip them down to their core, could've been given in decades past, when times were more bleak than they are now.

The piece wonders aloud when people will get tired of hearing the same ol' thing from him.

[JPhillips]

It's hardly surprising that the WSJ op-ed page is anti-Obama. At least they aren't saying he traffics in coke or kills his colleagues yet.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

How the Texas primary election will work:



How the delegate count breaks out in Texas



This explains the entire process in detail. But it's head spinning.

Yes, it's a bit odd here it seems.

Still, Mrs. Clinton was down here (The Rio Grande Valley) yesterday, and is already scheduled to come back for two more events on one day in a week or so I think it is.

What really drives me nuts about politicians is the ass kissing they do. What is even worse is that people either act surprised by it or don't even notice it. She was down here yesterday with spanish versions of music playing, promising a VA Hospital down here, and just being a twat IMO. Came off as normal BS from a politician to me. I am pretty sure she will win down here though, since she has the support of a good number of the elected officials down here who are pretty popular.

Obama is supposed to come down sometime soon as well which I didn't really expect. The Valley has never had this kind of attention.

http://www.themonitor.com/articles/o...ton_texas.html

[Jas_lov]

New Quinnipac Ohio Poll:

Hillary 55
Obama 34

Pennsylvania:

Hillary 52
Obama 36

When matched up with McCain in Florida and Ohio, McCain has slight leads over both. In Pennsylvania, Hillary was 46-40 over McCain, Obama was 42-41 over McCain.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...lls/index.html

[albionmoonlight]

I think that, after running a very very very very poor campaign up through the D.C. area primaries, Clinton seems to be making some smart moves.

She has played Wisconsin/Hawaii smart. She let the momentum of Virginia/Maryland form the natural media narrative of "She won't win anything until March 4th." Then, after that became conventional wisdom, she started sending a ton of ads into Wisconsin and her daughter into Hawaii. No one is polling Hawaii, and Wisconsin is almost within the margin of error. If she manages to win one of these states--even by a little bit--then she has all of the positive press.

Now, most years it would be silly to talk about momentum and expectations after Super Tuesday, but I do think that momentum and expectations can matter for the next set of races--Ohio and Texas. At the least, it can't hurt. And she has managed to find the best way to try to make a win in a state with a 4 point difference in the polls seem like a Douglas Beats Tyson level upset.

And, she is going all out in Ohio and Texas--and right now the polls seem to be favoring her. She seems to have enough money. She has the support of a lot of local leaders (inc. the governor of Ohio who has been working like a dog for her).

Also, her ad spots in Wisconsin have slanted just a bit to the negative--going after Obama for refusing to debate (and then responding to his response to her first ad). I don't think that those ads are designed to help her win Wisconsin (though that would be a great side effect). I think that they are designed to see how they work. I think that a lot of research and polling will go into measuing their effect to see if it is worth going negative in Ohio/Texas.

Since Obama is the candidate of hope and change, and she is the candidate of "the name you know," it always made sense for her to go negative against him. If he responds, then he is no longer about hope; if he does not, then he is weak and the ads start to have an effect.

Their huge problem (worth about two of the "very"s listed above) was the manner in which they went negative early--Bill Clinton doing the functional equivalent of putting on war paint and screaming the N-word at the top of his lungs. That was such a stupid move that it forced them to stop all negative campaigning for a while. Now, I think that it is coming back out slowly and carefully. And it will stick. And it will work.

I'm not saying that Clinton can win after the hole she dug for herself. But I am saying that she is playing the expectations game well, has started to make the race about mud-slinging (her turf) instead of hope (his turf), and leads in the next big state races on the calendar.

Oh--and Obama really needs to start pointing out that four states are voting on March 4th--not two. Why let the media only talk about the states you are least likely to win?

[Vegas Vic]

The latest round of polls released in the past two days have Clinton up by double digits in Texas,Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Obama is up slightly in Wisconsin.

[Buccaneer]

Obama certainly has work to do in Texas and Ohio.

[Young Drachma]

I think the media is playing out of Hillary's hand at this point. They're pulling the same "Hillary is dead" stuff they did back after Iowa and she came back and pulled into a victory. The only difference is, Obama's people clearly have learned from that and given she was leading there huge not too long ago, the fact that he has a lead there at all has to be good news for those people on his side.

The real question is whether or not they can win one of the "big two" that she's already claimed are her firewall. I think she will, in the sense that she's controlling the media conversation at this point. She's got them eating out of her hand and I think if when this all settles, she'll manage to get things where she wants them.

Here's her new ad. Second negative ad in as many days in Wisconsin. No rebuttal from the Obama squad, yet. Wonder how it'll all play out.



McCain wants him to take public financing if he's the nominee with McCain, as he promised last year back when he was still a huge underdog.

Given he's raised over $100-150 million so far, restricting himself to just $85 million in the general would be insane. Sure, he'll take a hit. But no way he can do that. Premature discussion, but he's getting it from all sides now, so it'll be interesting to see how they'll deal with it all going forward.

[SirFozzie]

.... WTF?


This can't be right.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

TX Primary

Obama 48%
Clinton 42%

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

.... WTF?


This can't be right.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

TX Primary

Obama 48%
Clinton 42%

Polling is, how shall we say it, an inexact science?

Polling Data

Poll Date Sample Clinton Obama Spread RCP Average 02/11 - 02/14 - 50.3 40.0 Clinton +10.3 Rasmussen 02/14 - 02/14 577 LV 54 38 Clinton +16.0 InsiderAdvantage 02/14 - 02/14 403 LV 48 41 Clinton +7.0 TCUL/Hamilton 02/11 - 02/13 400 LV 49 41 Clinton +8.0 See All Texas Democratic Primary Polling Data

[path12]

I actually think Hillary is backed into a corner here. She's got Ohio by 20 points and Texas by 8. If Obama comes closer (especially once he starts campaigning in the states) and loses both by say 10 and 4, the narrative is that Hillary is not winning by enough. It's hard to see those margins widening before those primaries.

[tarcone]

I voted for Bush the last two elections, but am now looking at Obama in a serious light.
I would have some serious thinking if its McCain-Obama.
If its McCain-Clinton its a no-brainer. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.

[SackAttack]

Agree with all of the above there, tarcone.

New York Times, after endorsing Hillary, has a story today about some discrepancies in the New York primary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyregion/16vote.html

Apparently there were something like 80 districts where the "official" vote count had 0 for Obama, including districts in Harlem and Brooklyn. It's not going to change who "won" the state, but it might have a minor impact on the delegates Obama gets from the state. Current count is 139-93 for Senator Clinton, but that might end up changing somewhat.

[JPhillips]

To be fair it appears that there were also a few districts that had zero votes for Clinton. It doesn't seem like there is any conspiracy. From what I've read it looks like a one or two delegate pickup for Obama.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

To be fair it appears that there were also a few districts that had zero votes for Clinton. It doesn't seem like there is any conspiracy. From what I've read it looks like a one or two delegate pickup for Obama.

Yeah, not calling it a conspiracy. It's just a funny happenstance.

And I don't expect it to have a major impact, but in a race as close as this, picking up even a couple of delegates is a boost.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I voted for Bush the last two elections, but am now looking at Obama in a serious light.
I would have some serious thinking if its McCain-Obama.
If its McCain-Clinton its a no-brainer. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.

And this is why Obama *has* to be the democratic nominee. The DNC - are you listening Howard Dean? - must realize that there is a small yet steadfasty percentage of voters out there who will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstance. Doesn't really matter what this is based on - sexism, Clinton-weariness, astrology - it is real and must be respected.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

And this is why Obama *has* to be the democratic nominee. The DNC - are you listening Howard Dean? - must realize that there is a small yet steadfasty percentage of voters out there who will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstance. Doesn't really matter what this is based on - sexism, Clinton-weariness, astrology - it is real and must be respected.

# of people who could never be convinced to vote for Clinton < # of people who could never be convinced to vote for Obama. Its just that the former group has been around longer, and you're more familiar with their arguments. There's also a large group of people who would never vote for, say, Russ Feingold - but why would anybody express that opinion? Obama is still new to the national scene, so the opposition to him hasn't coalesced.

[JPhillips]

Do you have any evidence to support that? Most polls show the opposite. Obama has done far better with independents than Clinton and has much lower negatives. He's also done very well with first time voters and donors.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

# of people who could never be convinced to vote for Clinton < # of people who could never be convinced to vote for Obama.

Oh hell no. http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_p...electable.aspx

"...Hillary Clinton is a highly unpopular figure. In the last Gallup survey, 50% of respondents have a favorable view of her, and 46% negative. Sometimes her averages goes higher, but sometimes it veers into negative territory. Obama has very high ratings. In the most recent poll, 59% view him favorably, 32% negatively. The difference between plus 4 and plus 27 is enormous--a Detroit Lions v. New England Patriots-size gap.

On top of that, independents who vote in the primaries and caucuses have shown a very strong preference for Obama over Clinton. That is the closest available approximation of a swing voter."

[Buccaneer]

Clinton's negatives have not budged since the beginning of the primary campaign. In other words, despite all of her/his campaigning over the past 8 months, no one (generally speaking) have gained a more favorable impression of her that was originally negative. Now I know that it includes all types of voters but you would think that with all those tens of millions of dollars, it would make some difference?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Do you have any evidence to support that? Most polls show the opposite. Obama has done far better with independents than Clinton and has much lower negatives. He's also done very well with first time voters and donors.

None whatsoever, its just my gut based on the reading I've done of him. He's going to get torn to bits by the GOP, unless this country has moved WAY left in the last four years, always a possibility I guess.

[Young Drachma]

People in both threads are severely underestimating what sort of media frenzy will occur when Hillary or Barack wins the nomination. Throw all of your 'past' information out, because no matter what you think...nothing is going to stop history from happening.

And I didn't feel that way before, but I'm convinced now that the stakes are too high for people who want to see something happen like this and this is going to be the year for it.

John McCain is just the perfect backdrop for them to run against. War hero or not, soundbyte America will just turn him into an old white guy and "everything that is wrong with America" or part of the "good old boys" club.

Whether it's true or not, won't matter. Obama isn't that liberal. He might vote that way for his Chicago district, but no guy who open courts Republicans and refuses to be a populist in a Democratic race that would call for it is that at all.

Voter turnout is higher right now than it's been at any other point in history during the primaries. If that's not the clarion call that "things are different" this year, nothing is.

Especially with no credible third party candidate to steal enough votes to be formidable, the bottom line is, the media is going to beat the history drum before it's all said and done and that'll be the end of that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ouchie, nasty bit of headlining done to Obama by AP at the moment (and despite my feelings about him, it's not the first time I've seen him really get the worst end of something from them.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8URN8EO0.html
Headline reads:
Obama Wears Iraqi Soldier's Bracelet

Of course, the story is actually about a wristband given to him by the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq.

But damn, AP's anti-Obama bias is getting pretty obvious even to me.

[Bubba Wheels]

Many Republicans are already supporting Obama. They are called 'Obamacans." http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Many Republicans are already supporting Obama. They are called 'Obamacans." http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476

They're not influential people, it's folks with last names we might recognize or folks like Lincoln Chafee who have defected from the party anyway.

I'm sure he gets some crossover votes, but none of that matters right now. I think the percentage will stay the same if he were in the general. His wild card is keeping turnout high and keeping the folks who have been key to his ground game activated and engaged through November.

[JPhillips]

Cronin: I think you're putting too much credit into "policy". It's a likability contest and Obama has likability by the bucket load.

While nothing is certain, there are some trends that seem to benefit Obama.

1) The previously mentioned likability. Since FDR (and mass media) the most likable candidate has won the general.

2) Surveys show 30-40% saying they wouldn't consider voting for someone 72+ years of age. Way more than racial, gender or religious categories of any flavor.

3) Only once since Eisenhower was elected has one party held the White House more than 2 consecutive terms.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Cronin: I think you're putting too much credit into "policy". It's a likability contest and Obama has likability by the bucket load.

While nothing is certain, there are some trends that seem to benefit Obama.

1) The previously mentioned likability. Since FDR (and mass media) the most likable candidate has won the general.

2) Surveys show 30-40% saying they wouldn't consider voting for someone 72+ years of age. Way more than racial, gender or religious categories of any flavor.

3) Only once since Eisenhower was elected has one party held the White House more than 2 consecutive terms.

"Likability" sounds like post facto analysis. If Obama wins, its because he's "likable." If he loses, he wasn't "likable" enough.

But, you might be right, I just have a feeling that Obama would get absolutely destroyed in a GE. At this point nobody really knows.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Throw all of your 'past' information out, because no matter what you think...nothing is going to stop history from happening.

Do you have any opinion as to why Obama is barely ahead of McCain in head to head polls at this time? Given the voter dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, he should be at least 20 points ahead. Historically, the potential Democrat nominee is well ahead of the potential Republican nominee at this point, and that tends to change drastically during the summer and fall.