U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

bush_cheney2004 · February 13, 2008

CNN has just demonstrated that neither Obama or Clinton can win their party nomination outright given proportional delegate wins, and it will go to super-delegates to put one over the top. This sets the stage for the so called "trainwreck" in Denver, with bitter resentment for supporters of the loser (even if their candidate is nominated as Veep).

The Democrats would not want to extinguish the enthusiasm (i.e. voter turnout) demonstrated for Obama so far in the general, as the objective is to win the election.

Republicans can sit back and watch the cat fight.

August1991 · February 13, 2008

CNN has just demonstrated that neither Obama or Clinton can win their party nomination outright given proportional delegate wins, and it will go to super-delegates to put one over the top. This sets the stage for the so called "trainwreck" in Denver, with bitter resentment for supporters of the loser (even if their candidate is nominated as Veep).
....

Republicans can sit back and watch the cat fight.

The real "trainwreck" will be in seating the Michigan and Florida delegates.

They say that the superdelegates will likely go for the winner - but who knows? And who knows who would win in November?

Denver may well turn into another Chicago.

Something else. The polls show that Hillary is holding in Ohio. Why? Older, white women. These are the wives of the Reagan Democrats (Redneck Women). I wonder if they'll rally behind Obama?

BubberMiley · February 13, 2008

Republicans can sit back and watch the cat fight.

They could if they weren't involved in an even worse fight themselves.

BubberMiley · February 13, 2008

The real "trainwreck" will be in seating the Michigan and Florida delegates.

There are hints of potential "re-do" caucuses in Michigan and Florida, paid for by the DNC.

BubberMiley · February 13, 2008

These are the wives of the Reagan Democrats.

They, uh, don't qualify to be actual Reagan Democrats in their own right?

bush_cheney2004 · February 13, 2008

They could if they weren't involved in an even worse fight themselves.

No, there is no comparison, not even including talk radio. Republicans have no place else to go except to stay home if they won't support Senator McCain. Huckabee will not bring a large block of delegates to broker in St. Paul.

BubberMiley · February 13, 2008

No, there is no comparison, not even including talk radio. Republicans have no place else to go except to stay home if they won't support Senator McCain.

It's the staying home I think they're worried about.

bush_cheney2004 · February 13, 2008

There are hints of potential "re-do" caucuses in Michigan and Florida, paid for by the DNC.

That would just add more fuel to the fire. Senator Obama leads now in all metrics. The DNC has a huge problem if it steps on Obama's throngs.

bush_cheney2004 · February 13, 2008

It's the staying home I think they're worried about.

The Republicans are suppose to lose this election....that we are even having this discussion reveals just how easily the Democrats can screw it up (again).

jbg · February 13, 2008

No, there is no comparison, not even including talk radio. Republicans have no place else to go except to stay home if they won't support Senator McCain. Huckabee will not bring a large block of delegates to broker in St. Paul.

True, and the red-meat conservatives will get to select the VP candidate. Given McCain's age, not a bad job.

August1991 · February 13, 2008

Exit Polls in Virginia:

Among women, typically Clinton’s most loyal supporters, Obama picked up 59 percent of the vote. And while voters 65 and older have come out strong for Clinton in other states, in Virginia Obama garnered 52 percent of their vote.
Obama also won the low-income vote — another category Clinton has typically dominated. Among voters making less than $50,000 a year, Obama took 59 percent of the vote, with 40 percent going for Clinton. He also won high-income Democrats, who have typically fallen in his favor.

Obama closed the margin of white voters in Virginia, taking 50 percent of the vote. Obama also dominated among men, getting support from 65 percent.

Obama also dominated among his other typical supporters, convincingly taking the black vote — a bloc that makes up almost a third of the state’s party — by 90 percent compared to Clinton’s 10 percent.

Young voters came out 75 percent for Obama and 25 percent for Clinton. New voters — young and old — went almost 2 to 1 for Obama.

Because Virginians could vote in either primary today, independents played a role for the Democrats and Obama. Sixty-six percent of independents voting in the Virginia Democratic primary voted for him.

Some Democrats are also feeling a bit unenthusastic about Clinton. Most voters said they’d be satisfied with either Democrat, but 34 percent said they would be dissatisfied with Clinton, compared to just 19 percent for Obama.

Fox News

But in Virginia and Maryland Tuesday night, exit polls showed that Ms. Clinton's base is melting away, at least in the Chesapeake. The two candidates split the white vote evenly, with Ms. Clinton outpolling Mr. Obama among white women by only nine points, less than half her previously typical lead, according to The Associated Press. Mr. Obama led among white men.
And a Fox News exit poll put seniors, another core Clinton constituency, into Mr. Obama's column, by 53 per cent to 47 per cent. The Fox News poll also had Mr. Obama winning the Latino vote, 55 to 45 per cent. And among African Americans, Mr. Obama took nine votes out of 10.

G & M

This is devastating for Clinton - she's losing her base. Her hope now is that Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania are more traditional.

jbg · February 13, 2008

Exit Polls in Virginia:Fox News
G & M

This is devastating for Clinton - she's losing her base. Her hope now is that Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania are more traditional.

I doubt the veracity of these "exit polls"; voters often give "politically correct" answers to pollsters, and there is little way to know what voters did in the booth. I find it unlikely that female voters gave 52% of their votes to Obama, for example, since there is a thrill to electing the "first woman President". Overall, though, it could be that Clinton is running a lackluster, error-filled campaign. More likely, she "peaked too early" and that Obama may similarly be peaking. This bodes poorly for the Democrats in November.

BubberMiley · February 13, 2008

This bodes poorly for the Democrats in November.

Someone tell Obama he's got to start losing if he ever wants to be president. :lol:

August1991 · February 15, 2008

First of all, while the Dems are still sorting this out, McCain is right to venture in every so often and score a point. Second, I think we now have a glimpse of how the Fall campaign will unravel.

“The Senator from Illinois, who says that he wants transparency in government, will not reveal the number of earmarks that he received in 2006 and 2005. Is that transparency in government? I don’t think so. I don’t think so,” McCain said during rally in Vermont–a March 4th primary state. “So I call on the Senator, Senator Obama from Illinois, to go ahead and tell people how much money in earmarked projects and pork barrel projects that he got for his state and what they were for.”
“One of the reasons the American people have lost trust and confidence in us. One of the reasons is because of earmark projects, the pork barrel spending,” McCain added. “My friends, examine my record on pork barrel projects and you will see a big fat zero.”

Fox News

“I respect him and the campaign that he has run,” Mr. McCain said of Mr. Obama, after a question about his decision to focus on Mr. Obama and his message of hope in his victory speech on Tuesday night. “But there is going to come a time when we have to get into specifics, and I’ve not observed every speech that he’s given, obviously, but they are singularly lacking in specifics.”
“It’s not an accident that he has, I think, according to National Journal, the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate,” he said. “I have one of the most conservative.”

NYT

----

It looks now as if Obama will win the Democratic nomination.

Hillary's Youtube Ad (So stretchpants Walmart.)

(So leather cool.)

Looks? The Democratic Party is obsessed with image and identity politics. It's the victory of style over substance.

----

I doubt the veracity of these "exit polls"; voters often give "politically correct" answers to pollsters, and there is little way to know what voters did in the booth.

I disagree. I'm a fan of exit polls particularly when they're used to analyze group voting patterns. Edited February 15, 2008 by August1991

bush_cheney2004 · February 15, 2008

First of all, while the Dems are still sorting this out, McCain is right to venture in every so often and score a point. Second, I think we now have a glimpse of how the Fall campaign will unravel....

Perhaps, but only a short glimpse. There are still many twists and turns to come as the full dynamic of a US presidential election cycle unfolds. Cue James Brown's "Living In America" from Rocky V.

There is no equivalent anywhere in the world.

Edited February 15, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

BubberMiley · February 15, 2008

It looks now as if Obama will win the Democratic nomination.

I still feel like it's tottering. Hillary apparently still has a big lead in Ohio, and I wouldn't be surprised to see her do very well in Texas. She certainly isn't going to drop out before then.

August1991 · February 16, 2008

I still feel like it's tottering. Hillary apparently still has a big lead in Ohio, and I wouldn't be surprised to see her do very well in Texas. She certainly isn't going to drop out before then.

Some time ago, I predicted that it would be McCain vs. Clinton and I`m sticking with that prediction (if I'm far less sure now than before).

My comment above about "Obama winning" pertained to the relative quality of their music videos.

BTW,

(based on a song by Celine Dion who apparently endorses Clinton).

----

We have Wisconsin this Tuesday and then Ohio & Texas in March and finally Pennsylvania. Polls show that Hillary is well in advance in Ohio and Pennsylvania:

Start with Pennsylvania, which votes April 22. Quinnipiac today released a poll showing Clinton leading Obama there 52 to 36 percent. Whites back Clinton 58 to 31; blacks back Obama 71 to 10. Since Pennsylvania's population is only 10 percent black, that accounts for Clinton's big lead.
Then look at Ohio, which votes March 4. Here Quinnipiac shows Clinton ahead 55 to 34 percent. Whites back Clinton 64 to 28; blacks back Obama 64 to 17. Ohio's population is 11 percent black. Quinnipiac's Peter Brown (whom veterans of the campaign trail will remember as a first-rate reporter) explains why Clinton seems to be doing so well in Ohio (and, by implication, demographically similar Pennsylvania) after losing eight straight contests:

Ohio is as good a demographic fit for Sen. Clinton as she will find. It is blue-collar America, with a smaller percentage of both Democrats with college educations and African-Americans than in many other states where Sen. Obama has carried the day. If Clinton can't win the primary there, it is very difficult to see how she stops Obama.

Michael Barone

Democrats in Pennsylvania and Ohio are Hillary's voters - and they are also the voters that a Democrat nominee critically needs in November. (This is one reason I suspect that Obama would be a disaster as a nominee.)

So why isn't Hillary also doing well in Wisconsin? Obama leads (barely) in Wisconsin and I think the explanation for this is that Wisconsin is like Minnesota and Massachusetts, honourary Canadian provinces. White Democrats in Wisconsin are smug liberals who will vote for a black candidate to prove to themselves that they're not racist.

Nevertheless, Wisconsin would be a big win for Obama because it would be the first white state primary (not a caucus) that he won. It would be to Obama what (Protestant) West Virginia was to (Catholic) John Kennedy in 1960.

Texas fits Hillary's demographics and so she should do well there. But this primary season for the Democrats has been overtaken by the MSM's love affair with Obama's charisma. (Obamaphilia.) So, if Obama wins Wisconsin, he may be on a roll and he'll suck everything in. I reckon that's his strategy now.

----

I think it would be worth looking at the red and blue states in 2000. Gore got Ohio, Pennsylannia and critically he lost Florida. In 2004, Ohio (and Florida) went for Bush. I don't think Obama could duplicate Gore, not against McCain. Even Hillary would have a hard time.

Last point: Michael Barone is one really smart guy.

Edited February 16, 2008 by August1991

Carinthia · February 16, 2008

In 2004, Ohio (and Florida) went for Bush.

Florida went for Bush? Well, that's a matter of opinion.

BubberMiley · February 16, 2008

White Democrats in Wisconsin are smug liberals who will vote for a black candidate to prove to themselves that they're not racist.

Wouldn't they just as soon vote for Hillary to prove they're not sexist, or for McCain to prove they're not ageist?

August1991 · February 16, 2008

Wouldn't they just as soon vote for Hillary to prove they're not sexist, or for McCain to prove they're not ageist?

Bubbler, that's the American liberal, Democrat, North American leftist identity politics.

Feminism vs. Racism vs. Ageism.

Who's the greatest victim? In America, black men had the right to vote before women (black or white). In federal elections, blacks (black men) could first vote after 1865. Women (black or white) could first vote in 1919.

So, you tell me who is "oppressed" - women or blacks?

Florida went for Bush? Well, that's a matter of opinion.

In 2000, it was a matter of opinion decided by the Supreme Court. In 2004, it was not. Edited February 16, 2008 by August1991

Visionseeker · February 17, 2008

Who's the greatest victim? In America, black men had the right to vote before women (black or white). In federal elections, blacks (black men) could first vote after 1865. Women (black or white) could first vote in 1919.
So, you tell me who is "oppressed" - women or blacks?

How many people died in the securing and exercising of the women’s’ vote in the US compared to those who advanced the suffrage of blacks?

Your measure of oppression is severely wanting.

August1991 · February 17, 2008

How many people died in the securing and exercising of the women’s’ vote in the US compared to those who advanced the suffrage of blacks?
Your measure of oppression is severely wanting.

I dunno. I'm not one to play this "oppression game" of "identity politics". That's what the North American Left does.

I was merely pointing out that in the US, black men obtained the right to vote before white women did. (One might quibble that southern states denied black voter rights until 1960s civil rights legislation.)

Visionseeker, you seem to argue that "oppression" should be measured by how many people died. Tell me. How many women died in childbirth or suffered violence over the centuries? How many girls are aborted now in China?

Frankly though, I think the North American Left is going down a dead end with this "identity politics" and "oppression" schtick. Both Hillary and Obama are running campaigns based essentially on the idea that a woman or a black man must be president.

This is designer label politics and at first it seems sexy, but the Democrats will go nowhere with it.

----

In realpolitik terms (more my preference), there are a heck of lot more white women than there are blacks - and white women turn out to vote more than blacks. Moreover, the US electoral college is skewed to favour white women in rural states - precisely the group that turns out to vote. Urban Blacks are under-represented in the electoral college and they also tend not to vote.

A campaign based on blacks and youth might win the Democratic nomination but it'll be failure in November. Blacks and youth don't vote - at least relative to other demographics.

And the demographic that votes most of all is old people. The United States has alot of old people now (compared to previous elections) and they're old people who are less inclined to cede power to the younger folk. Older Americans don't like to be reminded that they're old. They don't litigate ageism - they'll simply vote for the old guy.

Edited February 17, 2008 by August1991

BubberMiley · February 17, 2008

They don't litigate ageism - they'll simply vote for the old guy.

Just like they did for Bob Dole.

margrace · February 17, 2008

Somebody must be getting stirred up about Obama, now there are some pretty nasty email fwds attacking Oprah and Maryanne Williamson. Evidently they are both backing Obama. These are the types of post one is requested to pass on and Oprah has suddenly become a devil worshipper in them.

August1991 · February 17, 2008

Just like they did for Bob Dole.

If you consider Ross Perot to be an old guy (he was 66 in 1996 and he certainly was crotchety), then the young/old vote split was 50/50 in 1996.

More pertinently, take a look at the 1996 electoral college map results.

Bill Clinton won Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York and California. These are all states where Obama has not done well against (or won't do well) against Hillary.

McCain will keep all the states that Dole won and he'll likely add the five above if he's running against Obama. Obama is far too left wing to win places like Tennessee, Arkansas or Kentucky.