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

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Frankly, it smacks of cowardace to me. No principles on who he'd rather support, but wanted to play up a position in the administration.

The joke, of course, is on him. The Edwards support this late in the primary doesn't mean anything really. So Obama doesn't have to be beholden to put him as AG or something else.

To be fair to Edwards, I think Obama and he are closer on policy and priorities than he is to HRC.

Edwards's support, I think, does have meaning. It got folks to stop talking about the butt-kicking he received from WV voters, for one. Also, 28 delegates (which I believe was JE's total) is 28 delegates. It is like winning a medium-sized primary.

[wbatl1]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

To be fair to Edwards, I think Obama and he are closer on policy and priorities than he is to HRC.

Edwards's support, I think, does have meaning. It got folks to stop talking about the butt-kicking he received from WV voters, for one. Also, 28 delegates (which I believe was JE's total) is 28 delegates. It is like winning a medium-sized primary.

Are those delegates required to follow Edwards' endorsement? I think that the vast majority would, but I didn't think they were required to support Obama.

Edit: CNN states that it is 19 delegates.

[ISiddiqui]

No, Edwards can just released the delegates. He can suggest they vote for Obama, but they can vote for Edwards or Clinton or even Kucinich if they wanted.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

You say coward. I say smart politician. He doesn't owe anybody anything. He shopped for the best deal and will get it if Obama wins.

And as much as I don't care one hoot for Edwards, there's also the possibility that he genuinely believes that he would be the best choice for whatever post he's angling for. And by doing what he can to put himself into position to get that appointment, he's doing what he believes is "best for America" (for lack of a better phrase).

While I can't personally imagine any position where he would actually do something good for the country, I can't rip on the guy for following a logic something along the lines I described. (Yeah, I know, the odds of any politician actually thinking of the country before themselves is kind of slim these days, but it's still theoretically possible)

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Warren was a looong time ago, back when you didn't have justice subject to ABA rankings and scrutiny over their legal backgrounds. Things have changed greatly since then.

Things have changed greatly just in the last 15 years. My understanding up until Bork, all nominees were rubber-stamped with token opposition.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Things have changed greatly just in the last 15 years. My understanding up until Bork, all nominees were rubber-stamped with token opposition.

That's not entirely true. A lot went sailing through, but few were denied:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

As you can see Nixon had two rejected in trying to replace Abe Fortas (Haynesworth and Carswell... both were rumored to support segregation for one). Though interestingly, Blackmun, who was the 3rd choice was unanimously approved.

[Buccaneer]

Didn't know that, Immy, thanks.

[chesapeake]

You are also looking at 2 sets of delegates. 28 superdelegates pledged to JE, and I've seen 16 pledged delegates for him (8 in SC and 4 each in NH and IA). As of this morning, apparently, 14 of this total (7 from each set) have now pledged to Obama and 2 to HRC. If my count is accurate, then 28 are still undecided.

According to the National Journal, Obama picked up 6 of the 8 SC delegates and 1 of the 4 NH. I'm not entirely sure that IA has selected human delegates yet. As a caucus state, I don't think they select the people to fill the delegate slots until their state convention, which I think is still pending.

[-apoc-]

Actually the 28 is his number if you include Florida where he has 12 delegates 7 of which have stated that they will go to Obama if (when) FL is seated.

[Buccaneer]

Did you notice? Among all of the typical political bullshit yesterday and today, Clinton was marginalized?

[Young Drachma]

What went wrong, How Hillary lost from the people within the campaign.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

What went wrong, How Hillary lost from the people within the campaign.

I love reading stuff like this, which I why eagerly anticipate the special Newsweek issue that comes out after the election that gives all of the behind-the-scenes stuff that we don't know about at this time.

I found this to be really funny, "She should have kept Bill chained in the basement at Whitehaven with a case of cheese curls and a stack of dirty movies."

[Buccaneer]

I think one of the themes that I pick up is the 'delusional' element (for the lack of a better term). She is still doing that today when she is insisting that she has a lead in popular votes. Someone is telling her to say (and keep saying that) while everyone know she doesn't, no matter how they justify it.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I think one of the themes that I pick up is the 'delusional' element (for the lack of a better term). She is still doing that today when she is insisting that she has a lead in popular votes. Someone is telling her to say (and keep saying that) while everyone know she doesn't, no matter how they justify it.

Agreed. There is an obvious disconnect for her, because I don't think she saw this coming. I don't think she imagined she'd be in a position NOT to win the nomination.

[SFL Cat]

Never count a Clinton out...even after the fat lady sings

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

To be fair... this is a Democratic PRESIDENTIAL nominee thread. So I can see the confusion.

Well, I tried to keep the Republican nominee thread alive with updates on McCain's flip-flops, temper tantrums and senior moments, but Bucc and Cam just made fun of me.

Jerks.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

All the justices on the courts are highly respected jurists and have been on the bench for a while before going to SCOTUS.

With the exception of Clarence Thomas, of course.

[Young Drachma]

Obama becomes the first presidential candidate ever to visit the Crow Nation in Montana. .
And if you've ever driven past there on the way to Billings, it's indeed a sad, sad sight. I'm amazed he made the trip.

And apparently, he got 75,000 to come see him in Portland the day before. What?

[chesapeake]

Montana has gotten into the strange habit of electing Democrats statewide lately, most recently dumping Senator Conrad Burns for Jon Tester. Obama winning MT is a stretch, but I've said it before and I'll say it again -- the voters are angry this year.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Agreed. There is an obvious disconnect for her, because I don't think she saw this coming. I don't think she imagined she'd be in a position NOT to win the nomination.

I think this mindset infected her campaign team, too. They saw the chance of Obama or Edwards emerging as a challenger to be so remote, they failed to do the fieldwork that even a front runner needs to do. They blew ridiculous amounts of money on high-priced consultants, and when the thing tunred out not to be over on Super Tuesday, she was essentially running a front runner's campaign underfunded and from behind.

One of the anonymous respondents made the point that Harold Ickes had a comprehensive understanding of the proportional delegate math, but the plan was based on winning big states rather than winning delegates. She had a GOP plan in a Dem primary.

[Young Drachma]

Kentucky projected to Clinton. MSNBC has Pat Buchanan talk about how Clinton has a "case for the nomination" and of course, Obama goes and tries to take Oregon and use that as his declaration that the game is almost over. Buchanan is saying that Clinton would want to be VP bringing her coalition of white blue collar voters to the fold. But I can't believe she wants to be VP, but then, I suppose better to put the heat on him and add to the agenda than not.

Should be intriguing to see how the spin goes for all of this tonight. But I can't imagine he wants her or needs her and I don't believe it'll happen.

[Young Drachma]

I think he's made a mistake by completely avoiding Appalachia. Sure, they lose. But I say that he has a message for them and to avoid them was a really silly tackle decision.

[Young Drachma]

Claire McCaskill is out in front and has been an Obama early adopter forever. She has to be on his short list for some sort of cabinet gig. I doubt she'd be his VP choice, but...I wouldn't rule it out either. She's been on his scream team since Day 1 it seems...and she seems to be on TV for him more than anyone. Though I've seen John Kerry doing it a lot lately too.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I think this mindset infected her campaign team, too. They saw the chance of Obama or Edwards emerging as a challenger to be so remote, they failed to do the fieldwork that even a front runner needs to do. They blew ridiculous amounts of money on high-priced consultants, and when the thing tunred out not to be over on Super Tuesday, she was essentially running a front runner's campaign underfunded and from behind.

One of the anonymous respondents made the point that Harold Ickes had a comprehensive understanding of the proportional delegate math, but the plan was based on winning big states rather than winning delegates. She had a GOP plan in a Dem primary.

The short version:

Hillary lost because she hired Mark Penn.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The short version:

Hillary lost because she hired Mark Penn.

I have a shorter version: High Negatives

[-apoc-]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The short version:

Hillary lost because she voted for the war.

.

[JPhillips]

Obama only raised 31 mil in April! A staggering 94% of donations were under 200$. I don't know if he can win in November, but he's got a fundraising revolution going on.

[JPhillips]

dola

Guys, it's simple logic.

Mark Penn always loses.

Hillary hired Mark Penn.

Ergo, Hillary lost because she hired Mark Penn.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

Guys, it's simple logic.

Mark Penn always loses.

Hillary hired Mark Penn.

Ergo, Hillary lost because she hired Mark Penn.

Here's part of his wiki

Penn's strategy in the primary elections was to concentrate on winning the largest states, assuming that delegates would be awarded as a winner-take-all, and predicted that the campaign would score a decisive victory on Super Tuesday. He summed it up by saying "Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”^[11] has led to questions and jokes about the apparent irrelevancy of much of the country on liberal blogs such as Daily Kos.^[12] However, the rules in the Democratic primaries stated that delegates would be roughly proportional to a candidate's vote total, as opposed to electoral votes in the general election, yet the campaign maintained Penn's strategy. Consequently, while Clinton won the large states, she wound up splitting the delegates albeit getting a majority of them, due to Obama's strong showing in urban areas with large Afro-Amerian concentrations.[2]. However in small states and caucuses which Clinton neglected, Obama won them by overwhelming margins and received the big majority of delegates there.

[BishopMVP]

It's probably worth noting that in the 3.5 big battleground states (FLA, Ohio, PA, Michigan) Hillary is killing Obama when it comes to head to head polls vs. McCain - double digit differences in most. Maybe they'll swing back by November, but IMO there's enough bad blood against the DNC and Obama if he has to prevent the seating of delegates that Florida would go solidly GOP and Michigan would be in play.

[CamEdwards]

Interesting map by the NYTimes... probably some fascinating things to take a look at with this tool, but Rich Lowry points out if you look at the Kentucky county-by-county votes, there are more than a few (particularly in the southeastern part of the state) where Obama ended up in the single digits.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election...map/index.html

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Interesting map by the NYTimes... probably some fascinating things to take a look at with this tool, but Rich Lowry points out if you look at the Kentucky county-by-county votes, there are more than a few (particularly in the southeastern part of the state) where Obama ended up in the single digits.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election...map/index.html

I also noticed that there are counties where just a few hundred people voted. That's insane (or typical, I don't know what voter turnout is like in counties outside of...well, NJ and Philly).

[CamEdwards]

I don't know what the population of those counties might be either, or party affiliation. Certainly a lower turnout can skew statistics. But look at Pike County (it's in SE Kentucky). 14,000+ votes and Obama grabbed 6% of them. That's pretty amazing.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

...SE Kentucky...14,000+ votes and Obama grabbed 6% of them. That's pretty amazing.

I completely agree it's amazing.

[Buccaneer]

I know of Pike County. Go look up the demographics. I don't, however, suspect it's much different than some of the WV counties.

[Young Drachma]

Wonder if Chuck Hagel might play to the Obama folks as a candidate for them, with turncoat Joe (Lieberman) hanging out with McCain.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Wonder if Chuck Hagel might play to the Obama folks as a candidate for them, with turncoat Joe (Lieberman) hanging out with McCain.

No, every single politician should be pigeon-holed into a predicatable niche and have straight party-line affiliation.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

No, every single politician should be pigeon-holed into a predicatable niche and have straight party-line affiliation.

I certainly don't think that. But Lieberman lost his party primary and was campaigned for by Obama. So he turns against the party that gave him his seniority, committee assignments and a guy that helped him save his hide, by going with a guy who can't keep his ideas straight?

I'm not rooting for a dog in this one, but as someone who REALLY liked McCain and respected him circa 2000, I'm appalled at how much he's completely turned into a conventional GOPer.

[ISiddiqui]

Saved his hide? Liebermann was going to win big in CT regardless and if he didn't get the committee assignments from the Dems, the Republicans would have given their spots to him if he switched over. Believe me, the Dems figured that they need Libermann.

[Young Drachma]

He's not a superdelegate. After he endorsed McCain, he was stripped of his super delegate status. He's pissed a lot of people off by going so far out of pocket on this one.

They can't take him out of the fold now, given they've got such a narrow lead in the Senate, but if they pick up seats in November, it's been widely rumoured that they'd send him packing for good from the party tent. And sure, the Republicans might give him love. But he wont be in the majority party and he won't be hurting them from within.

[ISiddiqui]

And then, of course, they lose that seat in CT for as long as he's alive. And as the Republicans figured out, there can be dramatic swings in as little as a few years.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And then, of course, they lose that seat in CT for as long as he's alive. And as the Republicans figured out, there can be dramatic swings in as little as a few years.

He won't get reelected again in CT. He duped them last time, but not in '12. This is his last go-round. I doubt they'll really boot him, but his influence won't be what it was after this year, for sure. Obviously depends on what happens. McCain would likely rescue him and give him a cabinet spot, if he wins.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

He won't get reelected again in CT. He duped them last time, but not in '12. This is his last go-round. I doubt they'll really boot him, but his influence won't be what it was after this year, for sure. Obviously depends on what happens. McCain would likely rescue him and give him a cabinet spot, if he wins.

I think you've seriously drank the Kool-Aid if you don't think he'll get re-elected. Liebermann is incredibly popular in CT to the point that even when the Dems in CT booted him, he won by a good margin in the general election. He's like Ted Kennedy (well before the brain tumor) in that Kennedy could have run on the Fascist party of Massachusetts and won big.

[JPhillips]

Leiberman has every right to believe whatever he wants. Ho doesn't, however, have a right to consistently attack his party and the likely nominee for President and then expect to retain his chairs.

[JPhillips]

From April 7, 2008:

If you could vote again for U.S. Senate, would you vote for Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?

All

Lamont (D) 51
Lieberman (I) 37
Schlesinger (R) 7

Democrats

Lamont (D) 74
Lieberman (I) 19
Schlesinger (R) 2

Republicans

Lamont (D) 4
Lieberman (I) 74
Schlesinger (R) 19

Independents

Lamont (D) 53
Lieberman (I) 36
Schlesinger (R) 6

[flere-imsaho]

Obama appears to have won the working-class white vote in Oregon. From electoral-vote:

Something odd happened Tuesday: Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton solidly among working class white voters in Oregon. He won in all age groups except over 60 and he won among voters making under $50,000 a year and he won among voters without college degrees. Given the demographics of Oregon, nearly all these people are white. Thus it indeed seems he has an Appalachia problem rather than a generic blue-collar problem.

Obama's also won a bunch of other predominantly white states from Clinton that haven't been in Appalachia (Idaho, Maine, etc...)

I'm not sure what this means, yet, but offer it as fuel for the discussion.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From April 7, 2008:

If you could vote again for U.S. Senate, would you vote for Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?

Aren't we decrying the polls for being too early in the Presidential race?

[JPhillips]

I just think it's clear he isn't, "incredibly popular in CT."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I just think it's clear he isn't, "incredibly popular in CT."

I have no doubt that you were trumpeting the same tune when Zell Miller spoke at the Republican convention.

This kind of partisan party group-think has always been present. I hope there's a trend away from it, but I won't hold my breath.

[JPhillips]

Mizzou, you really need to have your reading comprehension checked out. Above, I stated clearly that Lieberman can hold whatever policy positions he wishes. However, when he attacks his party and his party's presidential candidate, and the same would be true IMO for a Republican attacking his/her own party, he has no right to rewards granted by that party. Socially and economically he's on my side most of the time, so I can forgive the differences with foreign policy, but the lengths to which he's gone to hurt his party should carry some consequences.

The poll cited above isn't proof that Leiberman will lose in 2012, but it is proof that he's considerably less popular in CT now than two years ago and is in real danger of losing his seat.

[ISiddiqui]

IIRC, his approval rating in CT is around 50% even while getting hammered in the press by the Dem Party (in fact, his approval/disapproval rating is similar to Senator Chambliss of GA, and he's going to sweep to victory).