U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

August1991 · January 27, 2008

Obama was capturing 81 per cent of support from blacks, expected to make up half of all voters, compared with only 17 per cent for Clinton.
He was pulling in 24 per cent of whites compared with 39 per cent for Edwards and 36 per cent for Clinton.

Among whites, Edwards was leading among men, while Clinton had more support among women.

Overall, Obama was pulling in 51 per cent support, compared with 34 per cent for Clinton and 15 per cent for Edwards.

CP

Obama will not be able to reproduce this win so easily elsewhere. Clinton is low at 34%. I thought Bill's knocks might have had a bigger effect for her.

Edited January 27, 2008 by August1991

Carinthia · January 27, 2008

CP
Obama will not be able to reproduce this win so easily elsewhere. Clinton is low at 34%. I thought Bill's knocks might have had a bigger effect for her.

I always liked Bill Clinton. I liked him even more in a historical sense, after watching the Bush regime at work. I do not like what he has been doing the past couple of weeks. He did a lot of harm to the campaign. Hillary is quite capable of fighting a good battle and her husbands intervention on her behalf was overkill.

bush_cheney2004 · January 27, 2008

I always liked Bill Clinton. I liked him even more in a historical sense, after watching the Bush regime at work. I do not like what he has been doing the past couple of weeks. He did a lot of harm to the campaign. Hillary is quite capable of fighting a good battle and her husbands intervention on her behalf was overkill.

The only thing bigger than Bil Clinton's ego is his mouth. Hillary couldn't get him to shut up even if she wanted to.

Carinthia · January 27, 2008

The only thing bigger than Bil Clinton's ego is his mouth. Hillary couldn't get him to shut up even if she wanted to.

Ya, I noticed tonight he was doing the Witchita two step, backwards, or should I say barackwards. tee hee.

As someone said on MSNBC, this is crack for political junkies!

Edited January 27, 2008 by Carinthia

gc1765 · January 27, 2008

It doesn't matter unless their campaigns get the party nomination. That is the short term goal. Winning the general in November will include far "worse" than that. Just ask ex CBS News anchor Dan Rather.

Or ask Bob J. Perry and John Corsi...or Bob Corker....

jbg · January 27, 2008

I think JBG, Bill Clinton should have stayed completely out of this. He should have at least had the decency to be quiet. By becoming an active participant he has violated a long standing protocol that former Presidents must stay out of political campaigns and at least remain neutral to the public. By becoming a nasty, partisan shrill for Hilary he has lost a lot of respect and he;s dividing the party and causing a lot of racial tension.

This is the first time a spouse is involved. Bush Sr. stayed out of the 2000 race only because he was still a liability. Clinton left office as a popular president. I'm not clear that the tradition extends into not supporting a spouse.

August1991 · January 27, 2008

This is the first time a spouse is involved. Bush Sr. stayed out of the 2000 race only because he was still a liability. Clinton left office as a popular president. I'm not clear that the tradition extends into not supporting a spouse.

I agree. Bill Clinton was a popular president and he connects with black voters. It made sense to wheel him out in SC.

Trudeau (and his handlers) used Margaret shamelessly in 1974 to get a majority. Nixon put his wife on camera in 1952 in a Republican cloth coat to gain sympathy. Politicians will do whatever is necessary.

With hindsight, it appears that Bill didn't help much in SC. Obama "only" got 80% of the black vote whereas Hillary got most of the white women vote. Neither is a cross over candidate and either will lose miserably in November whether the Republicans choose McCain or Romney.

I'm still sticking with my prediction that it'll be McCain against Clinton and the general election will be a snoozefest after the drama of the primaries.

Visionseeker · January 27, 2008

Exactly. In fact, CPC footage of the Liberal debates was what triggered my speculation about where the Dem attacks will inevitably lead. Pubs are being smarter about what they say about each other.

The Conservatives used those ads prematurely. Now the weak leadership shtick has grown old and tired and won't help them come election time. The same will occur with any Dem on Dem or Rep on Pep attack now. Recycling character assassinations rarely ends well for the second shooter. The media (Craig Oliver excepted) tends to be a little vicious when politicos try to fool them a second time.

Visionseeker · January 27, 2008

You don't understand....the "ageism" harkens back to the time of Ronald Reagan's campaign. It is far worse than character "assassination" and strikes at strength and mental faculties. Sometimes I have to remind myself that most Canadians do not have much lasting historical context in these matters. Sending "C" list celeb and TotalGym huckster Chuck Norris after McCain's age was not playing "fair", because we don't play "fair" on either side.

What we Canadians tend not to understand is how such tactics prove so effective on your side of the border. Over here, you can ask John Tory and Allen Greg about a particular anti-Chrétien ad and how badly it backfired. More recently, the Liberals' military, guns in our cities is another example.

A healthy majority of Canadians recoil at such attacks. That majority has a hard time understanding why our American cousins don't do the same.

jbg · January 27, 2008

What we Canadians tend not to understand is how such tactics prove so effective on your side of the border.

The campaigns are long and dreadfully boring. Those ads spice them up a bit.

bush_cheney2004 · January 27, 2008

What we Canadians tend not to understand is how such tactics prove so effective on your side of the border. Over here, you can ask John Tory and Allen Greg about a particular anti-Chrétien ad and how badly it backfired. More recently, the Liberals' military, guns in our cities is another example.

I remember the latter ad, and associated media publicity. That the Grits party base was already disenchanted from the festering sponsorship program didn't help.

A healthy majority of Canadians recoil at such attacks. That majority has a hard time understanding why our American cousins don't do the same.

Because it works in America, where conflict and drama are the fuel for media engines. Principled political campaign sails "in irons" will not move forward; gaining separation is far easier with negative attack ads. Emotional rather than logical responses to negative framing of issues or candidates get more traction with short attention span voters. "Nice guys" finish last when they let the opposition define them in a negative way without responding.

Visionseeker · January 27, 2008

I agree. Bill Clinton was a popular president and he connects with black voters. It made sense to wheel him out in SC.
Trudeau (and his handlers) used Margaret shamelessly in 1974 to get a majority. Nixon put his wife on camera in 1952 in a Republican cloth coat to gain sympathy. Politicians will do whatever is necessary.

With hindsight, it appears that Bill didn't help much in SC. Obama "only" got 80% of the black vote whereas Hillary got most of the white women vote. Neither is a cross over candidate and either will lose miserably in November whether the Republicans choose McCain or Romney.

I'm still sticking with my prediction that it'll be McCain against Clinton and the general election will be a snoozefest after the drama of the primaries.

McCain against Clinton is the best chance for a Republican win. SC shows that the Clintons have fractured the party on racial lines. Black and young white voters are increasingly unlikely to support a Clinton ticket come November. That loss of turn-out could be devastating to Dem fortunes.

Obama needs to make to most of his coalition and brazenly ask "if Edwards were to leave the race, which of us would you support?"

Visionseeker · January 27, 2008

Because it works in America, where conflict and drama are the fuel for media engines. Principled political campaign sails "in irons" will not move forward; gaining separation is far easier with negative attack ads. Emotional rather than logical responses to negative framing of issues or candidates get more traction with short attention span voters. "Nice guys" finish last when they let the opposition define them in a negative way without responding.

Indeed. But it can still be blunted.

Humour can go a long way towards countering attack ads. I'm just surprised that the mega-million electoral machines in the US haven't realized this. Hell, a recent poll showed that a substantial number of people in the US trust Jon Stewart more than any other "newscaster". The beer industry has long understood that if you make'em laugh, you make'em buy. That a credible political machine has never tried to tap this is really astounding.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Visionseeker

bush_cheney2004 · January 27, 2008

Indeed. But it can still be blunted.
Humour can go a long way towards countering attack ads. I'm just surprised that the mega-million electoral machines in the US haven't realized this. Hell, a recent poll showed that a substantial number of people in the US trust Jon Stewart more than any other "newscaster". The beer industry has long understood that if you make'em laugh, you make'em buy. That a credible political machine has never tried to tap this is really astounding.

But they have....Governor Jesse Ventura achieved the "impossible" doing exactly that. He even marketed his own action figure from the commercials. So did the Terminator in California. When the candidate and/or circumstances permit, humor has been used (e.g. SNL comedy sketches). Marketing a candidate is about selling more of your beer, while discouraging sales of the competition.

BubberMiley · January 27, 2008

Neither is a cross over candidate and either will lose miserably in November whether the Republicans choose McCain or Romney.

Obama has a lot of crossover appeal and has been tracking well with independents. I think having either Clinton or Obama (or both) on the ticket will also inspire a record turnout in the general elections. They appeal to a lot of people who have been disenchanted with the process in general and have not turned out to vote in recent years (particularly youth). I think you will be surprised by not only a Dem victory, but a landslide.

August1991 · January 27, 2008

Hell, a recent poll showed that a substantial number of people in the US trust Jon Stewart more than any other "newscaster". The beer industry has long understood that if you make'em laugh, you make'em buy. That a credible political machine has never tried to tap this is really astounding.

Humour works well with young adolescent males - precisely the target audience of beer advertisers (and Jon Stewart).

Politicians have the almost impossible task to seek votes across the entire spectrum. And BTW, young people (and blacks) generally don't vote or they vote in lower percentages than other demographics.

A politician who relies on the votes of blacks and young people is bound to lose in a general election.

Edited January 27, 2008 by August1991

BubberMiley · January 28, 2008

Humour works well with young adolescent males - precisely the target audience of beer advertisers (and Jon Stewart).

It works particularly well with those who have a sense for it.

A politician who relies on the votes of blacks and young people is bound to lose in a general election.

And one who captures those demographics as well as many others, and does well in the rest, is unbeatable.

Edited January 28, 2008 by BubberMiley

jbg · January 28, 2008

And one who captures those demographics (blacks and young people) as well as many others, and does well in the rest, is unbeatable.

That's a tough accomplishment, managed only by Reagan and Bill Clinton. Obama's too far left to manage that straddle.

BubberMiley · January 29, 2008

By allowing Jesse Jackson to play a pivotal role in his campaign.

Jesse Jackson isn't playing a pivotal role in Obama's campaign. Where did you hear that?

Edited January 29, 2008 by BubberMiley

BubberMiley · January 29, 2008

Obama's too far left to manage that straddle.

You mean how he said the GOP was the party of ideas?

August1991 · January 29, 2008

You mean how he said the GOP was the party of ideas?

Obama didn't say that the Republicans were the party of good ideas. He just said that since Reagan, the Republicans had dominated the discussion of ideas in America. I think that's true.

Obama wants to pull troops unilaterally out of Iraq and he wants to socialize medicine in the US. He's a tax-and-spend liberal who is proud that he got the endorsement of Ted Kennedy. That makes him not just a Democrat - it makes him left wing.

----

Obama's win in SC has predictably made the Eastern press (NYT et al) go ga-ga but like it or not, the NYT and Ted Kennedy don't choose the US president. Everyone seems to forget that about half of SC Democrats are black and they voted by over 80% for Obama.

I'm sure that Obama is happy to see Edwards stay in the race and take votes away from Clinton. Nevertheless, she should do well in Florida (no delegates on offer) and then on Super Tuesday where NY and California will be decisive. She has the money and the organization to get out the vote.

Obama is too young, too unprepared and too poor to win now. He's well placed to run in 2012 or 2016.

On the Republican side, polls show now that Florida will eliminate both Huckabee and Giuliani. I think McCain will do (marginally) better than Romney in Florida. McCain polls well among Hispanic Republicans because of immigration. Romney is wide-open to criticsm for flip-flops. McCain's not a jugular kind of candidate but he'll have to get more vicious if Romney does better.

The results tomorrow night in Florida will give us a hint of what will happen on Super Tuesday.

bush_cheney2004 · January 29, 2008

Obama wants to pull troops unilaterally out of Iraq and he wants to socialize medicine in the US. He's a tax-and-spend liberal who is proud that he got the endorsement of Ted Kennedy. That makes him not just a Democrat - it makes him left wing.

Agreed....Obama represents the extreme left that has been Ted Kennedy's hallmark for decades, and the sure sign of a presidential campaign loser. Comparisons to JFK are only superficial (cult of personality).