USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[ryberg]

Well you knew something like this was already in the pipeline, right?



Then there's also . . . uh . . . this.



Steve

[MWC]

Gotta love the digital revolution!

Is the "turtles" one just silly, or is it referring to something?



Like I said before, wait until Cindy McCain gets put into the crosshairs ... I will be most interested to see how hubby reacts to that.

__________________________________________________

Made the front page of the NYTimes this morning -- Georgia Rep. John Lewis has announced that as a super delegate he will not go against the will of his constituents, so he will be supporting Obama. He didn't go as far as to endorse Obama, though. Great thing the voters did, to give the man cover! I think you will be seeing more superdelegates take that tack.

[Just Lucky]

It seems to me that if Richardson were going to endorse Obama he would have done it before Clinton won Nuevo Mexico. I expect Richardson to be in the cabinet of the next President.

Here are some Texas poll numbers:

The first publicly available poll of Texas voters was released this morning, and it shows Sen. Hillary Clinton with an eight-point lead over Sen. Barack Obama among likely Democratic voters.
The GOP side is tighter, with Sen. John McCain up four points on former Gov. Mike Huckabee — a statistical tie.
The Texas Credit Union League Poll of Texas Primary Voters, which sampled 400 members of each party, has a margin of error of five percentage points.
Now for the numbers, Democrats first:

• Clinton was ahead 49 percent to 41 percent, with 8 percent undecided.
• When asked their most important concern, Democratic voters chose the economy (28 percent), the situation in Iraq (17 percent) and health care (16 percent).
• Democratic voters are happy with their candidates, with 75 percent having a favorable opinion of Clinton, and 71 percent approving of Obama. Unfavorables were 23 percent for Clinton, 24 percent for Obama.
• Obama supporters liked his ability to foster change (43 percent) and electability (12 percent). Clinton supporters went for her experience (40 percent) and ability to bring change (14 percent).

For Republicans:

• McCain has 45 percent, followed by Huckabee with 41 and Rep. Ron Paul with 6 in his home state of Texas.
• When asked their most important concern, GOP voters chose terrorism and security (26 percent), illegal immigration (23 percent) and the economy (13 percent).
• McCain and Huckabee had identical favorable ratings of 75 percent, but McCain’s unfavorables were higher, 22 percent, versus 15 percent for Huckabee. Opinions of Paul were not sought.
• Among supporters, Huckabee scored high with voters who believe he shares their values, 64 percent. McCain supporters cited his experience (19 percent) and electability (18 percent).

A breakdown of the results — including Texas-specific questions — plus the all-important cross-tabs for the true wonks, are available here.
The credit union league commissions polls before every primary and general election. Public Opinion Strategies did the GOP survey, and Hamilton Campaigns handled the Democratic poll.

statesman.com | Postcards

[Just Lucky]

A little more information, added to the same newspaper blog, Clinton is showing strong endorsements in south Texas:

The Hillary Clinton campaign sees the Rio Grande Valley as friendly territory, and today it released a list of endorsements designed to show Clinton’s strength down south.
Backers include U.S. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa and Texas Sens. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa and Eddie Lucio Jr. State Reps. Juan Escobar, Veronica Gonzales, Ryan Guillen, Kino Flores, Armando Martinez, Rene Oliveira and Aaron Pena are also on the list.
The complete list, down to the county and city level, is here.

[roni]

Can't let Lucky inundate us with news from the South without bring some in from the North

JS Online: Clinton continues pushing Obama on debate, economics

[Just Lucky]

Ron, You say that as if there were some other center of the universe. Which as we all know is The Great Lone Star State of Texas.

Not to be ethnocentric or anythin'.

[ryberg]

MWC, that's the whole zombie kid "I like turtles" thing. Google it, or search for it on YouTube. You'll find a lot.

Those numbers you're quoting, JL, would spell doom for Clinton, if the number crunching analysts are correct. One I read the other day even upped the "she must take TX & OH with at least" number from 60% to 70%, but even 60% is a good chunk from 49%...

Also that is a gauge of popular vote, not any breakdown by district or delegates, so if that tidbit I cited back there a ways about relatively low turnout in the last election in more heavily Latino areas, and the opposite in more heavily African-American areas, and correspondingly an arguable benefit to Obama and disadvantage to Clinton due to corresponding delegate values is all accurate, well you might see results that brought the two closer together rather than split them farther apart and gave her a shot at a bigger delegate "take".

More on that here:

Clinton now faces a difficult mathematical challenge. She will need big margins in upcoming states to make up ground. A split of 52 percent to 48 percent in Ohio on March 4 would net her only about five more delegates than Obama would gain. A 60-40 victory in Ohio would give her about 30 more delegates than him. In Texas, a 55-45 split would give Clinton about 19 more than Obama, although Texas rules are so convoluted that those numbers may overstate the difference. [my emphasis]

Obama's campaign now argues that she must not only win those states but win by margins big enough to make substantial progress in the delegate hunt. The Clinton campaign may be satisfied for now with victories, hoping that defeating Obama even by a narrow margin would change the narrative of the Democratic race, give pause to other voters and especially give pause to those superdelegates needed to help Clinton win the nomination.

Clinton's team also will press harder to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan, states that were stripped of their delegates after they moved up their primaries, on the theory that she will grab the lion's share of those delegates. But that could be an ugly fight that party leaders hope to avoid -- and it's unlikely to be resolved without some adjustment in the delegate split that would come out of the results of those states.

But of course a lot could still happen between now and then and the voters could surprise the pollsters again, as we well know from this year. As the New York Post puts it in typically colorful, all-caps fashion (one ponders the lack of exclamation points ): DO NOT WRITE HILL OBIT JUST YET.

Black leader and superdelegate Lewis Leads also has made the headlines here with his switch from Clinton to Obama.

And Robert Kuttner says here that Obama is successfully channeling Edwards:

And on Wednesday, unveiling an explicit and far-reaching economic program at a GM plant in Janesville, Wis., Obama declared, "The fallout from the housing crisis that's cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle" but of policy made in Washington and on Wall Street.

This is strong stuff. Coming from Edwards, similar words were often criticized as divisively populist. But Obama manages to be a unifier - yet around a very progressive critique of what ails America.

Steve

[roni]

If Clinton wins Texas, Ohio and PA the superdelegates will be more likely to flock to her, giving her the nomination regardless of the margins or number of so-called "pledged" delegates from those states.

[Just Lucky]

I have problems with this quote from the article:

This is strong stuff. Coming from Edwards, similar words were often criticized as divisively populist.

Who cares whether the truth is divisive? After all we sorta have two political parties because we see things somewhat differently. Or as Michael Moore said years ago "The richest ten percent of this country have two political parties to protect their interests. When do I get one?" I didn't look up the quote but that's the gist of it.

Or as another quote I was reading to today said:"Ignorance and obscurantism have never produced anything other than flocks of slaves for tyranny." Emiliano Zapata

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

If Clinton wins Texas, Ohio and PA the superdelegates will be more likely to flock to her, giving her the nomination regardless of the margins or number of so-called "pledged" delegates from those states.

Yes, that's precisely the sort of concern that has been expressed about them ever since people realized they might come into play

I mean, unless you did not actually intend to exclude from such a scenario a corresponding lead in pledged delegates from the results of the popular vote in all the states that have been involved so far, that is...

Steve

[Just Lucky]

I found this amusing I hope y'all do too:

Dear Mr. Stumped,
I never thought I would find myself writing to you, but here I am. My problem is the Texas Democratic primary. I'm a native Texan and pretty much a lifelong Democrat. In all these years of doing my patriotic duty, I've never had to even think about voting in a primary -- the race had always been decided long before. Now, as I contemplate heading into the voting booth, I'm concerned about procedure. Not only will this be my first time voting in a meaningful primary, but it will also the first time I can remember where the choice is not between the lesser of two evils, but between two darn good candidates. So, my question is -- what should I do with my left hand? In the past I've always used it to hold my nose.
Thanks and best wishes,
Geoff in Big D
Dear Geoff,
I was going to tell you to take a young child with you into the booth, and to use your left hand to hold hers as you vote, thereby instilling in her a sense of civic pride, even awe, as she witnesses democracy unfold. But then I thought: Who am I kidding? It's probably best not to let that left hand to acquire any new voting-booth habits. You will need it again soon enough. There will be plenty more elections unlike this one.

Stumped - (washingtonpost.com)

[MWC]

Originally Posted by roni

If Clinton wins Texas, Ohio and PA the superdelegates will be more likely to flock to her, giving her the nomination regardless of the margins or number of so-called "pledged" delegates from those states.

I'm a little slow on the uptake. Do you mean the SuperDels from TX, OH and PA -- or more a general national trend?

[MWC]

Originally Posted by roni

Can't let Lucky inundate us with news from the South without bring some in from the North

JS Online: Clinton continues pushing Obama on debate, economics

Her argument gets just a bit specious for me when she says "If Obama would agree to a debate in Wisconsin, I'd be in Wisconsin." If I were a cheesehead, I might just plunge into an abyss of low self-esteem with that. (Yum, fondue)

What are the voters, chopped liver?

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by MWC

Her argument gets just a bit specious for me when she says "If Obama would agree to a debate in Wisconsin, I'd be in Wisconsin." If I were a cheesehead, I might just plunge into an abyss of low self-esteem with that. (Yum, fondue)

What are the voters, chopped liver?

That's what I was on about back here... At least there are 2 people (possibly 3 if your comments reflect this, too, Sol) who think this approach sounds strangely dismissive of voters, and mighty oddly dismissive for somebody who's suggesting that her opponent is somehow trying to hide from those same voters...

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by MWC

I'm a little slow on the uptake. Do you mean the SuperDels from TX, OH and PA -- or more a general national trend?

national trend.