HA! This is kinda funny. The Dems were backstabbing each other all over the place when it came to the 2008 election and the run-up to it. For instance, the Obama campaign kept Joe Biden out of the loop intentionally.
"The relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden grew so strained during the 2008 campaign, according to a new book, that the two rarely spoke and aides not only kept Biden off internal conference calls but refused to even tell him they existed."
Hillary supporters in Congress undermined her by channelling support through the endorsements of other Senators and Congressmen/Congresswomen.
"Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and a group of other senators who would back Hillary Clinton’s candidacy encouraged Obama to run for the White House as early as 2006. The concern over Clinton was that she would be a weak Democratic standard-bearer while Obama could energize the party. In late summer 2007, Schumer – using an Obama ally, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), as a back channel – pushed the candidate to “take a two-by-four to Hillary,” as the authors put it."
Gets better...apparently Bill Clinton still hasn't managed to keep it in his pants...
"Members of what the authors call Clinton’s “war room within a war room” became convinced in 2006 that Bill Clinton was having a serious extramarital affair, prompting Hillary Clinton to instruct her aides to be prepared to combat the story."
...and Hillary thought Bill would be a distraction to Obama.
"Following the 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton was shocked to have been offered the Secretary of State job and decided to reject the offer. She prepared a statement explaining why she would turn the new president down and remain in the Senate. But in an after-midnight call between Clinton and Obama, he persuaded her – only after Clinton expressed concerns about the problems posed by her husband, the former president."
Not to mention, Harry "The Weasel" Reid's revealing choice of words.
"Reid said Obama could fare well nationally as an African-American candidate because he was “light-skinned” and didn’t speak with a “Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.” Saturday, the majority leader said he had used “poor choice of words” and called Obama to apologize; the White House issued a statement indicating that the president had forgiven Reid."
There are others incidents regarding the Democrats, and some with the Republicans (which really were due to the McCain camp not handling Sarah Palin well, and Palin being caught completely off-guard with the whole process due to their mishandling).
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Friday, January 18, 2008
Fortune Magazine Calls Hillary's Housing Propsal "Dumb"
Jon Birger rips into Hillary Clinton's proposal to fix the mortgage problem in the nation.
Hillary Clinton is no dummy. Even her detractors know that. And yet in last night's Democratic presidential debate in Nevada, Clinton floated what is perhaps the dumbest solution to the current mortgage mess I've heard from a top presidential contender.
And why...?
Where Clinton goes awry is her proposal to freeze mortgage rates for five years, which is essentially a much broader version of a deal President Bush recently hammered out with lenders to assist some subprime borrowers. If Clinton's only goal were to bail out homeowners facing steep rate resets on adjustable mortgages, her plan would work just fine.
For everyone else though, such a freeze would be disastrous. Interest rates on new mortgages would skyrocket - perhaps past 8 percent, as the mutual funds, pension funds and other investors who typically provide capital to the mortgage market shift their money into other investments where the government isn't impairing returns. With higher mortgage rates eroding buying power, the downward pressure on home prices would only increase. Lower home prices would lead to even more defaults, as more folks who'd lost the equity in their homes choose to walk away from their mortgages.
Ouch. So Hillary's plan would hurt investments of various kinds, including my 401k. Birger continues, comparing the other Democratic frontrunner's plan.
Barack Obama, meanwhile, wants to require better disclosure by lenders (of low teaser rates, for example) and, like Clinton and Edwards, proposes a government fund to help borrowers transition from unaffordable adjustable mortgages to lower-rate fixed ones.
That's smart and at least sensible. What is interesting is that not even liberal economists find Clinton's idea as sensible policy.
However, when I discussed Clinton's plan with a more sympathetic economist - one who'd worked for Bill Clinton - his reaction was much like mine and Duncan's. "This is an ugly correction, but it's a necessary one," says Jared Bernstein, senior economist with the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute. "This kind of an idea is a little bit of untying your shoes with a buzz-saw."
Hillary Clinton...no need for on the job training in the White House, because plans like this will definitely keep her out of it.
Hillary Clinton is no dummy. Even her detractors know that. And yet in last night's Democratic presidential debate in Nevada, Clinton floated what is perhaps the dumbest solution to the current mortgage mess I've heard from a top presidential contender.
And why...?
Where Clinton goes awry is her proposal to freeze mortgage rates for five years, which is essentially a much broader version of a deal President Bush recently hammered out with lenders to assist some subprime borrowers. If Clinton's only goal were to bail out homeowners facing steep rate resets on adjustable mortgages, her plan would work just fine.
For everyone else though, such a freeze would be disastrous. Interest rates on new mortgages would skyrocket - perhaps past 8 percent, as the mutual funds, pension funds and other investors who typically provide capital to the mortgage market shift their money into other investments where the government isn't impairing returns. With higher mortgage rates eroding buying power, the downward pressure on home prices would only increase. Lower home prices would lead to even more defaults, as more folks who'd lost the equity in their homes choose to walk away from their mortgages.
Ouch. So Hillary's plan would hurt investments of various kinds, including my 401k. Birger continues, comparing the other Democratic frontrunner's plan.
Barack Obama, meanwhile, wants to require better disclosure by lenders (of low teaser rates, for example) and, like Clinton and Edwards, proposes a government fund to help borrowers transition from unaffordable adjustable mortgages to lower-rate fixed ones.
That's smart and at least sensible. What is interesting is that not even liberal economists find Clinton's idea as sensible policy.
However, when I discussed Clinton's plan with a more sympathetic economist - one who'd worked for Bill Clinton - his reaction was much like mine and Duncan's. "This is an ugly correction, but it's a necessary one," says Jared Bernstein, senior economist with the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute. "This kind of an idea is a little bit of untying your shoes with a buzz-saw."
Hillary Clinton...no need for on the job training in the White House, because plans like this will definitely keep her out of it.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Mitt Romney Wins in Michigan GOP Primary
With many projecting a possible Romney loss in his native state of Michigan, and ultimately the final blow to his campaign, Mitt Romney pulled out a very solid win in the Michigan primary yesterday.
Romney won with 39% of the vote, John McCain finished second with 30%, Mike Huckabee came in a distant third with 16%.
This was, in many minds, Romney's "must win" state to continue his campaign. It also further muddles up the GOP primary picture, as McCain and Huckabee were beginning to separate from the pack.
Hillary Clinton was the only major Dem contender on the Michigan Democratic Primary ballot...and still only pulled 56%. However, the primary was meaningless as the Democratic Party stripped Michigan of all of it's delegates to the Dem National Convention as punishment for moving up the date of the primary.
Romney won with 39% of the vote, John McCain finished second with 30%, Mike Huckabee came in a distant third with 16%.
This was, in many minds, Romney's "must win" state to continue his campaign. It also further muddles up the GOP primary picture, as McCain and Huckabee were beginning to separate from the pack.
Hillary Clinton was the only major Dem contender on the Michigan Democratic Primary ballot...and still only pulled 56%. However, the primary was meaningless as the Democratic Party stripped Michigan of all of it's delegates to the Dem National Convention as punishment for moving up the date of the primary.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Rasmussen Polls on Both Sides of the Mason-Dixon...
Head-to-head matchups between Republican candidates and Democratic candidates, courtesy of Rasmussen Reports.
Maryland (as if we expect surprises here)
Obama 48%, McCain 42%
McCain 45%, Clinton 43%
Obama 55%, Romney 34%
Clinton 52%, Romney 39%
There is a surprise in Maryland...McCain has a lead over Clinton. Maryland is one of the "bluest" states in the nation, so for McCain to make a crack in the Dem foundation here is encouraging.
Oh yeah, and Martin O'Malley has a 33% approval rating as Governor, which is lower than President Bush's 36% approval rating amongst Marylanders...HA! Bring back Bob Ehrlich, Maryland, he was good for you. Moving on...
Pennsylvania
McCain 48%, Clinton 42%
McCain 46%, Obama 38%
Clinton 49%, Romney 39%
Obama 43%, Romney 38%
Clinton 46%, Huckabee 44%
Pennsylvania is a very odd state. They like their Democrats conservative and their Republicans liberal (well, to an extent). That would explain Huckabee's ability to hang with Hillary. Romney isn't doing well here, either...but his gap between himself and Obama is half of what it is with Hillary. Once again, that's The Keystone State's tendency to buck the trends, as Romney tends to match up better with Clinton than Obama.
I previously examined the battleground states, and I did not include Pennsylvania because of recent trends. However, given that McCain and Huckabee are doing so well up there, I may soon include Pennsylvania as a swing state if this trend continues.
Maryland (as if we expect surprises here)
Obama 48%, McCain 42%
McCain 45%, Clinton 43%
Obama 55%, Romney 34%
Clinton 52%, Romney 39%
There is a surprise in Maryland...McCain has a lead over Clinton. Maryland is one of the "bluest" states in the nation, so for McCain to make a crack in the Dem foundation here is encouraging.
Oh yeah, and Martin O'Malley has a 33% approval rating as Governor, which is lower than President Bush's 36% approval rating amongst Marylanders...HA! Bring back Bob Ehrlich, Maryland, he was good for you. Moving on...
Pennsylvania
McCain 48%, Clinton 42%
McCain 46%, Obama 38%
Clinton 49%, Romney 39%
Obama 43%, Romney 38%
Clinton 46%, Huckabee 44%
Pennsylvania is a very odd state. They like their Democrats conservative and their Republicans liberal (well, to an extent). That would explain Huckabee's ability to hang with Hillary. Romney isn't doing well here, either...but his gap between himself and Obama is half of what it is with Hillary. Once again, that's The Keystone State's tendency to buck the trends, as Romney tends to match up better with Clinton than Obama.
I previously examined the battleground states, and I did not include Pennsylvania because of recent trends. However, given that McCain and Huckabee are doing so well up there, I may soon include Pennsylvania as a swing state if this trend continues.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Democratic Presidential Race - News and Notes
A lot going on in the sphere of the Democratic Presidential race today...
- John Kerry has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Interesting, but not interesting at the same time. Interesting, because he didn't endorse former running mate John Edwards (of course, there is a bit of bitterness there between them). Not interesting because it was Obama, who delivered his famous keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, that brought some attention to Kerry's campaign when the Massachusetts Senator ran for President.
- Bill Richardson is going to withdraw from the race. A bit sorry to see him go, as he was actually qualified (resume-wise) for the job. However, the "big 3" just have too much star power and gravitas for him to compete with. He did have a couple of the best campaign commercials, and is rumored to be one of the top VP choices for all candidates.
- Latest South Carolina polls...
Rasmussen Reports
Obama 42%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 15%
InsiderAdvantage
Obama 40%, Clinton 33%, Edwards 15%
SurveyUSA
Obama 50%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 16%
While these were all done prior to, or on the day of, the New Hampshire primary...Clinton has some serious ground to cover here. Michigan appears, as of now, to be safely in Clinton's hands...however, I can't find a survey from up there that is any more recent than mid-November.
- John Kerry has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Interesting, but not interesting at the same time. Interesting, because he didn't endorse former running mate John Edwards (of course, there is a bit of bitterness there between them). Not interesting because it was Obama, who delivered his famous keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, that brought some attention to Kerry's campaign when the Massachusetts Senator ran for President.
- Bill Richardson is going to withdraw from the race. A bit sorry to see him go, as he was actually qualified (resume-wise) for the job. However, the "big 3" just have too much star power and gravitas for him to compete with. He did have a couple of the best campaign commercials, and is rumored to be one of the top VP choices for all candidates.
- Latest South Carolina polls...
Rasmussen Reports
Obama 42%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 15%
InsiderAdvantage
Obama 40%, Clinton 33%, Edwards 15%
SurveyUSA
Obama 50%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 16%
While these were all done prior to, or on the day of, the New Hampshire primary...Clinton has some serious ground to cover here. Michigan appears, as of now, to be safely in Clinton's hands...however, I can't find a survey from up there that is any more recent than mid-November.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Interesting Rasmussen Poll on Virginia Senate and Presidential Races
Virginia Virtucon posted and prognosticated about the latest from Rasmussen on the state of Virginia today. Currently, Mark Warner leads Jim Gilmore in the head-to-head Senate race matchup 53%-38%
I must note that Virtucon is dead on about the fact that Mark Warner, with all of his supposed popularity, should be doing better than 53%. Gilmore's 38%, however, isn't very good considering he is a high-profile politician in Virginia who has had plenty of national exposure.
On the immigration front, here's what Rasmussen found...
Eighty-four percent (84%) of Virginia voters believe English should be the official language of the United States. Seventy-four percent (74%) believe companies should be allowed to require employees to speak English while on the job.
In terms of election ballots, the voters are more evenly divided. Just over half (55%) believe ballots should be printed in English only, while 39% say they should printed in both English and Spanish.
So they have to speak English, but they don't have to vote in English. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the consensus, but you'd think there would be more consistency with those poll numbers, especially on the election ballot issue.
Speaking of Virginia, here's some head-to-head matchup polling for the Presidential race from Rasmussen...
McCain 49%, Clinton 38%
McCain 45%, Obama 43%
Romney 44%, Clinton 43%
Obama 47%, Romney 41%
This is an indicator of how the independents feel. They like Obama and McCain (yes, that's stating the obvious). However, it seems that people are warming back up to McCain a lot, even in this state.
Even I'm beginning to warm back up to McCain...not enough to abandon Fred Thompson, who I think is the best candidate. However, should Fred leave the race, it's either McCain or Romney for me right now. I began to see reasons to support McCain when I saw that, during their overlapping Senate tenures, Thompson and McCain voted the same way 81% of the time.
Maybe Thompson and McCain will be running mates, given how well they've worked together in the past. Who knows.
I must note that Virtucon is dead on about the fact that Mark Warner, with all of his supposed popularity, should be doing better than 53%. Gilmore's 38%, however, isn't very good considering he is a high-profile politician in Virginia who has had plenty of national exposure.
On the immigration front, here's what Rasmussen found...
Eighty-four percent (84%) of Virginia voters believe English should be the official language of the United States. Seventy-four percent (74%) believe companies should be allowed to require employees to speak English while on the job.
In terms of election ballots, the voters are more evenly divided. Just over half (55%) believe ballots should be printed in English only, while 39% say they should printed in both English and Spanish.
So they have to speak English, but they don't have to vote in English. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the consensus, but you'd think there would be more consistency with those poll numbers, especially on the election ballot issue.
Speaking of Virginia, here's some head-to-head matchup polling for the Presidential race from Rasmussen...
McCain 49%, Clinton 38%
McCain 45%, Obama 43%
Romney 44%, Clinton 43%
Obama 47%, Romney 41%
This is an indicator of how the independents feel. They like Obama and McCain (yes, that's stating the obvious). However, it seems that people are warming back up to McCain a lot, even in this state.
Even I'm beginning to warm back up to McCain...not enough to abandon Fred Thompson, who I think is the best candidate. However, should Fred leave the race, it's either McCain or Romney for me right now. I began to see reasons to support McCain when I saw that, during their overlapping Senate tenures, Thompson and McCain voted the same way 81% of the time.
Maybe Thompson and McCain will be running mates, given how well they've worked together in the past. Who knows.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Whoa!
The Hillary collapse continues...
As they barnstorm through New Hampshire, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband are often introduced by supporters who once backed another candidate but converted to her cause.
Today, in Dover, Francine Torge, a former John Edwards supporter, said this while introducing Mrs. Clinton: “Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually” passed the civil rights legislation.
The comment, an apparent reference to Senator Barack Obama, is particularly striking given documented fears among blacks that Mr. Obama will be assassinated if elected.
Ouch...that's got to sting for the Clinton camp. However, a few hours later came this report from Major Garrett.
Clinton also said Obama and Edwards have acted like hypocrites during the race and appeared to diminish the role Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. played in the civil rights movements, saying it wasn’t hope that King inspired that made the difference but President Lyndon Johnson’s decision to fight for and sign the Civil Rights Act into law.
So MLK's leadership in the Civil Rights Movement wasn't what led to the Civil Rights Act, it was LBJ all along! All those marches, the beatdowns by riot police...it was really pointless. Blacks could've stayed at home, because LBJ was going to give it to them, anyway!
That's American History in Hillary's world.
(h/t NY Times Caucus Blog, The Bourbon Room)
As they barnstorm through New Hampshire, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband are often introduced by supporters who once backed another candidate but converted to her cause.
Today, in Dover, Francine Torge, a former John Edwards supporter, said this while introducing Mrs. Clinton: “Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually” passed the civil rights legislation.
The comment, an apparent reference to Senator Barack Obama, is particularly striking given documented fears among blacks that Mr. Obama will be assassinated if elected.
Ouch...that's got to sting for the Clinton camp. However, a few hours later came this report from Major Garrett.
Clinton also said Obama and Edwards have acted like hypocrites during the race and appeared to diminish the role Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. played in the civil rights movements, saying it wasn’t hope that King inspired that made the difference but President Lyndon Johnson’s decision to fight for and sign the Civil Rights Act into law.
So MLK's leadership in the Civil Rights Movement wasn't what led to the Civil Rights Act, it was LBJ all along! All those marches, the beatdowns by riot police...it was really pointless. Blacks could've stayed at home, because LBJ was going to give it to them, anyway!
That's American History in Hillary's world.
(h/t NY Times Caucus Blog, The Bourbon Room)
Sunday, January 6, 2008
"New Hampshire" = "Nasty Heat" for Candidates
These were the best debates, so far. Charles Gibson did a good job moderating the debate, and the format was much more of a "debate" and less of a "question and answer" session. Kudos to ABC, and the "unity" moment of having all the candidates from both parties greet each other onstage between debates was a nice touch.
Diane Sawyer, though, really seemed out of place in the whole scheme of things. Anyway, on to my thoughts.
On the GOP side...
- Fred Thompson had an excellent debate, and even George Stephanopoulos said so in his post-debate comments. He put Romney on the spot without attacking him (and forced Romney, on one occasion, to completely waffle on a question), handled Ron Paul like nobody else has done, and had a generally good overall performance. He seemed very comfortable in this debate, was on-point with his policies, and answered questions directly. Also, I noticed that more candidates said "Yes, Senator Thompson is right..." and would go on to repeat Fred's words. That's because Fred is correct.
- Mitt Romney was attacked by everyone on stage in some way, shape, or form. I must say that Romney handled most of the criticism well, considering the bombardment of attacks from many sides, especially from John McCain. McCain, while having some good quips, seemed more intent on spitting out a "zinger", then flashing a silly grin right before they cut away from him. His performance was a bit forced, in my opinion.
- Huckabee was almost non-existant for long stretches, playing the "let them knock each other out" card. Good job by Charles Gibson not to allow that to go on forever. Giuliani had a relatively strong performance. He made his stances fairly clear, pointed to his record of law enforcement and economic turnaround in New York City, and deflecting criticism for being more liberal in his policies in the past.
- Ron Paul did a good job espousing his views, but also took more heat than normal, probably because he's a more serious threat than most of the other candidates realized. He got burned by Fred on the "money-printing/Iraq War/health care" tie-in that Paul stretched to make.
On the Dem side...
- All 4 candidates had relatively decent nights, nobody had a "bad" night. However, if anyone should come out of this looking better than before, it's Bill Richardson. He was on a much more level playing field in terms of speaking time, and made good use of it. Richardson will probably give Hillary more problems than Obama and Edwards, and Richardson appeals to the "experience" base of the Democratic Party.
- Obama is really pushing for the Independent/Republican cross-over vote. He made a point to address them as necessary to create a majority consensus for his policies. Unless someone like Huckabee gets nominated, I don't see many Republicans crossing over.
- As usual, more "anti-Republican" sentiments from the Dems than "anti-Democrat" sentiments from the GOP. In fact, the only time the GOP addressed the Dems was when they were asked to compare themselves to Barack Obama. The Dem candidates had a habit of bringing up "those horrible Republicans" when they needed a rallying point...instead of rallying around what they stand for.
- Hillary had a stronger debate than the previous few debates she took part in. However, Obama was solid and Edwards also had a stronger-than-normal debate. None of which helps her in the long run.
Diane Sawyer, though, really seemed out of place in the whole scheme of things. Anyway, on to my thoughts.
On the GOP side...
- Fred Thompson had an excellent debate, and even George Stephanopoulos said so in his post-debate comments. He put Romney on the spot without attacking him (and forced Romney, on one occasion, to completely waffle on a question), handled Ron Paul like nobody else has done, and had a generally good overall performance. He seemed very comfortable in this debate, was on-point with his policies, and answered questions directly. Also, I noticed that more candidates said "Yes, Senator Thompson is right..." and would go on to repeat Fred's words. That's because Fred is correct.
- Mitt Romney was attacked by everyone on stage in some way, shape, or form. I must say that Romney handled most of the criticism well, considering the bombardment of attacks from many sides, especially from John McCain. McCain, while having some good quips, seemed more intent on spitting out a "zinger", then flashing a silly grin right before they cut away from him. His performance was a bit forced, in my opinion.
- Huckabee was almost non-existant for long stretches, playing the "let them knock each other out" card. Good job by Charles Gibson not to allow that to go on forever. Giuliani had a relatively strong performance. He made his stances fairly clear, pointed to his record of law enforcement and economic turnaround in New York City, and deflecting criticism for being more liberal in his policies in the past.
- Ron Paul did a good job espousing his views, but also took more heat than normal, probably because he's a more serious threat than most of the other candidates realized. He got burned by Fred on the "money-printing/Iraq War/health care" tie-in that Paul stretched to make.
On the Dem side...
- All 4 candidates had relatively decent nights, nobody had a "bad" night. However, if anyone should come out of this looking better than before, it's Bill Richardson. He was on a much more level playing field in terms of speaking time, and made good use of it. Richardson will probably give Hillary more problems than Obama and Edwards, and Richardson appeals to the "experience" base of the Democratic Party.
- Obama is really pushing for the Independent/Republican cross-over vote. He made a point to address them as necessary to create a majority consensus for his policies. Unless someone like Huckabee gets nominated, I don't see many Republicans crossing over.
- As usual, more "anti-Republican" sentiments from the Dems than "anti-Democrat" sentiments from the GOP. In fact, the only time the GOP addressed the Dems was when they were asked to compare themselves to Barack Obama. The Dem candidates had a habit of bringing up "those horrible Republicans" when they needed a rallying point...instead of rallying around what they stand for.
- Hillary had a stronger debate than the previous few debates she took part in. However, Obama was solid and Edwards also had a stronger-than-normal debate. None of which helps her in the long run.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Iowa Results and Fallout
Dem Caucus
- Obama 38%, Edwards 30%, Clinton 29%, Richardson 2%
GOP Caucus
- Huckabee 34%, Romney 25%, Thompson 13%, McCain 13%, Paul 10%, Giuliani 4%, Hunter 1%
Note: Thompson edged out McCain in the number final number of votes each received, which gives Fred a third-place finish.
Last night was a spectacle to behold, really. While the GOP is smart to keep it simple and plain in their caucus (which really makes it more like a primary), it is notable that the Dems have a much more interesting way of going about their caucusing because it involves a lot more interaction and stumping by caucus-goers for their candidate.
- Clinton was destined to lose, here...but not by 9 percent. With New Hampshire a total dogfight between Obama and Clinton, Hillary has a lot of making up to do and only a few days to do it.
- Fred Thompson got the 3rd place finish that he needed to move forward with some momentum heading towards South Carolina (Fred isn't getting much in New Hampshire, and never really will). If Huckabee gets stomped in New Hampshire, that helps Fred...but also helps Mitt Romney in South Carolina. The next 2-3 weeks are key for Fred's campaign.
- Ron Paul polled a solid 10%, it will be interesting to see the effects that will have.
- Joe Biden and Chris Dodd both have dropped out of the running for the Dem nomination. Somewhere, Johnny Camacho is weeping gently over a piece of Biden's hairplugs.
- ABC has dropped Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich from Saturday night's GOP and Dem debates. The reason was due to the fact that none of the 3 met any of the requirements to debate. There are 3 requirements, and a candidate must reach one...those requirements are: Finishing 4th or better in Iowa, poll 5 percent or better in New Hampshire, or poll 5 percent or better in one of the major national surveys. This, combined with the dropouts of Biden and Dodd, leave 4 Democrats and 6 Republicans to debate on Saturday.
- Obama 38%, Edwards 30%, Clinton 29%, Richardson 2%
GOP Caucus
- Huckabee 34%, Romney 25%, Thompson 13%, McCain 13%, Paul 10%, Giuliani 4%, Hunter 1%
Note: Thompson edged out McCain in the number final number of votes each received, which gives Fred a third-place finish.
Last night was a spectacle to behold, really. While the GOP is smart to keep it simple and plain in their caucus (which really makes it more like a primary), it is notable that the Dems have a much more interesting way of going about their caucusing because it involves a lot more interaction and stumping by caucus-goers for their candidate.
- Clinton was destined to lose, here...but not by 9 percent. With New Hampshire a total dogfight between Obama and Clinton, Hillary has a lot of making up to do and only a few days to do it.
- Fred Thompson got the 3rd place finish that he needed to move forward with some momentum heading towards South Carolina (Fred isn't getting much in New Hampshire, and never really will). If Huckabee gets stomped in New Hampshire, that helps Fred...but also helps Mitt Romney in South Carolina. The next 2-3 weeks are key for Fred's campaign.
- Ron Paul polled a solid 10%, it will be interesting to see the effects that will have.
- Joe Biden and Chris Dodd both have dropped out of the running for the Dem nomination. Somewhere, Johnny Camacho is weeping gently over a piece of Biden's hairplugs.
- ABC has dropped Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich from Saturday night's GOP and Dem debates. The reason was due to the fact that none of the 3 met any of the requirements to debate. There are 3 requirements, and a candidate must reach one...those requirements are: Finishing 4th or better in Iowa, poll 5 percent or better in New Hampshire, or poll 5 percent or better in one of the major national surveys. This, combined with the dropouts of Biden and Dodd, leave 4 Democrats and 6 Republicans to debate on Saturday.
Monday, December 24, 2007
IHT's Early Odds on the Presidential Candidates
A lot of BS being shucked around in this one, but worth a look anyway. This is the International Herald Tribune's odds on who will be the 44th President of the United States as of right now.
Hillary Clinton: 3-1
Barack Obama: 7-2
Mitt Romney: 5-1
John McCain: 8-1
Rudy Giuliani: 10-1
John Edwards: 10-1
Mike Huckabee: 12-1
Fred Thompson: 20-1
All Other Republican Party Candidates: 25-1
All Other Democratic Party Candidates: 40-1
Hillary Clinton: 3-1
Barack Obama: 7-2
Mitt Romney: 5-1
John McCain: 8-1
Rudy Giuliani: 10-1
John Edwards: 10-1
Mike Huckabee: 12-1
Fred Thompson: 20-1
All Other Republican Party Candidates: 25-1
All Other Democratic Party Candidates: 40-1
Friday, December 21, 2007
Dem Polls Gone Crazy
Let's start with Iowa...
CNN
- Clinton 30%, Obama 28%, Edwards 26%, Richardson 7%, Biden 3%
Rasmussen
- Clinton 31%, Obama 27%, Edwards 22%, Richardson 9%, Biden 5%
ABC/WaPo
- Obama 33%, Clinton 29%, Edwards 20%, Richardson 8%, Biden 4%
Strategic Vision
- Obama 30%, Clinton 27%, Edwards 27%, Biden 5%, Richardson 3%
Clinton...Obama. Obama...Clinton. This has been a two-horse race for quite a while, but it seems that John Edwards has started to really gain some traction in the lower-20 percent range after a long and steady slide downward, and is overall looming as a threat to both Obama and Clinton, even tying Clinton for 2nd place in the Strategic Vision poll (can you imagine that? Clinton finishing 3rd?). In the CNN poll, only 4 points separate the "big 3" in the Democratic Party race.
With the news that the Clinton campaign has advised it's staffers to "lower expectations" for Iowa, could they be bracing for impact as their campaign grinds to a halt?
Heading down to South Carolina...
CNN
- Clinton 42%, Obama 34%, Edwards 16%, Biden 3%, Richardson 2%
Insider Advantage
- Obama 28%, Clinton 22%, Edwards 14%, Biden 10%, Richardson 2%
Rasmussen
- Obama 33%, Clinton 33%, Edwards 17%, Biden 4%, Richardson 2%
Edwards' performance in South Carolina is, for the lack of a better term, piss-poor. He's from neighboring North Carolina, his southern accent is real (unlike Clinton's), he should be doing a lot better than this. It actually should speak volumes about his true viability as a candidate to be doing well in Iowa (where anything goes), but stinking up the joint in South Carolina. By the way, look at the Insider Advantage poll, and see where Joe Biden is getting 10% and only 4 points behind Edwards...is it an anomaly or a sign of things to come?
Clinton and Obama are in a dogfight here, and Edwards' generally poor showing here allows them to each claim larger shares of support, but neither one has gained a decisive advantage over the other.
To the national stage we go...
Rasmussen
- Clinton 40%, Obama 24%, Edwards 15%, Richardson 3%, Biden 3%
Reuters/Zogby
- Clinton 40%, Obama 32%, Edwards 13%, Richardson 3%, Biden 3%
FOX News
- Clinton 49%, Obama 20%, Edwards 10%, Biden 3%, Richardson 2%
Interesting, Clinton polling anywhere from 40 to near 50 percent nationally. Obama polling an average in the mid-20's, and Edwards unable to break out of the low-teens. This is more in line with what the pundits expected. However, this may change dramatically if Obama wins Iowa and/or South Carolina. Right now, Clinton's popularity nationally rides on name recognition more than anything. Many primary voters won't pay serious attention until after Iowa, especially on the Dem side, where things are so hot and heavy.
Unless he finishes 2nd in Iowa, Edwards is cooked. Biden and Richardson are most likely positioning themselves for a VP slot at this point.
CNN
- Clinton 30%, Obama 28%, Edwards 26%, Richardson 7%, Biden 3%
Rasmussen
- Clinton 31%, Obama 27%, Edwards 22%, Richardson 9%, Biden 5%
ABC/WaPo
- Obama 33%, Clinton 29%, Edwards 20%, Richardson 8%, Biden 4%
Strategic Vision
- Obama 30%, Clinton 27%, Edwards 27%, Biden 5%, Richardson 3%
Clinton...Obama. Obama...Clinton. This has been a two-horse race for quite a while, but it seems that John Edwards has started to really gain some traction in the lower-20 percent range after a long and steady slide downward, and is overall looming as a threat to both Obama and Clinton, even tying Clinton for 2nd place in the Strategic Vision poll (can you imagine that? Clinton finishing 3rd?). In the CNN poll, only 4 points separate the "big 3" in the Democratic Party race.
With the news that the Clinton campaign has advised it's staffers to "lower expectations" for Iowa, could they be bracing for impact as their campaign grinds to a halt?
Heading down to South Carolina...
CNN
- Clinton 42%, Obama 34%, Edwards 16%, Biden 3%, Richardson 2%
Insider Advantage
- Obama 28%, Clinton 22%, Edwards 14%, Biden 10%, Richardson 2%
Rasmussen
- Obama 33%, Clinton 33%, Edwards 17%, Biden 4%, Richardson 2%
Edwards' performance in South Carolina is, for the lack of a better term, piss-poor. He's from neighboring North Carolina, his southern accent is real (unlike Clinton's), he should be doing a lot better than this. It actually should speak volumes about his true viability as a candidate to be doing well in Iowa (where anything goes), but stinking up the joint in South Carolina. By the way, look at the Insider Advantage poll, and see where Joe Biden is getting 10% and only 4 points behind Edwards...is it an anomaly or a sign of things to come?
Clinton and Obama are in a dogfight here, and Edwards' generally poor showing here allows them to each claim larger shares of support, but neither one has gained a decisive advantage over the other.
To the national stage we go...
Rasmussen
- Clinton 40%, Obama 24%, Edwards 15%, Richardson 3%, Biden 3%
Reuters/Zogby
- Clinton 40%, Obama 32%, Edwards 13%, Richardson 3%, Biden 3%
FOX News
- Clinton 49%, Obama 20%, Edwards 10%, Biden 3%, Richardson 2%
Interesting, Clinton polling anywhere from 40 to near 50 percent nationally. Obama polling an average in the mid-20's, and Edwards unable to break out of the low-teens. This is more in line with what the pundits expected. However, this may change dramatically if Obama wins Iowa and/or South Carolina. Right now, Clinton's popularity nationally rides on name recognition more than anything. Many primary voters won't pay serious attention until after Iowa, especially on the Dem side, where things are so hot and heavy.
Unless he finishes 2nd in Iowa, Edwards is cooked. Biden and Richardson are most likely positioning themselves for a VP slot at this point.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Excuse Me, Could You Say That Into My Good Ear?
From CNN...
Former President Bill Clinton said Monday that the first thing his wife Hillary will do when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, on an around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America's reputation by the current president — Bush's son, George W. Bush.
"Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again," Clinton said in response to a question from a supporter about what his wife's "number one priority" would be as president.
A spokesman for the George H.W. Bush was not immediately available to comment on whether the former president would chip in some diplomatic help after his son leaves office next year.
What in the blue hell...? Either Clinton is lying or Bush Sr. is going senile. The RNC replied to this with a disturbingly benign response.
"In 2009, a Republican president will be working with our friends and allies abroad to continue to keep our nation safe," said RNC spokesman Danny Diaz. "The American people expect our leaders — both current and former — to present serious solutions to the very real challenges confronting our nation."
Ugh...can we get beyond Bushes and Clintons after 2008?
UPDATE: Bush replies by nicely saying, "no chance, Bill."
Former President Bill Clinton said Monday that the first thing his wife Hillary will do when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, on an around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America's reputation by the current president — Bush's son, George W. Bush.
"Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again," Clinton said in response to a question from a supporter about what his wife's "number one priority" would be as president.
A spokesman for the George H.W. Bush was not immediately available to comment on whether the former president would chip in some diplomatic help after his son leaves office next year.
What in the blue hell...? Either Clinton is lying or Bush Sr. is going senile. The RNC replied to this with a disturbingly benign response.
"In 2009, a Republican president will be working with our friends and allies abroad to continue to keep our nation safe," said RNC spokesman Danny Diaz. "The American people expect our leaders — both current and former — to present serious solutions to the very real challenges confronting our nation."
Ugh...can we get beyond Bushes and Clintons after 2008?
UPDATE: Bush replies by nicely saying, "no chance, Bill."
Monday, December 17, 2007
Bill the Revisionist
From an AP article today...
Bill Clinton says Sen. Barack Obama is a callow, highly ambitious political prodigy who is asking voters to "roll the dice" and elect him president.
He should know — that's a fair description of Clinton when he sought the presidency in 1992.
The fact that the former president is stealing a page from the same Republican playbook used against him 15 years ago underscores the threat Obama poses to the candidacy of Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
It also illustrates Clinton's penchant for rewriting history.
Actually, that is a pretty accurate description of Clinton in 1992. But, it goes on...
As a first-time presidential candidate, Clinton cast himself as an "agent of change" in troubled times, and faced criticism from Republicans about his youth and inexperience.
Obama finds himself in the same boat, with Clinton manning the torpedoes.
Well, Clinton had been Governor of Arkansas for a decade or so by the time he started his run at the White House. However, he still was a relatively unknown political figure outside of Little Rock and Democratic pundit circles in 1991, when he started building towards his candidacy.
However, this statement from Clinton makes me laugh.
"Even when I was a governor and young and thought I was the best politician in the Democratic Party, I didn't run the first time. I could have," Clinton said on PBS's "The Charlie Rose Show," referring to the 1988 presidential campaign.
"And I had lots of Democratic governors encouraging me to. I knew in my bones I shouldn't run — that I was a good enough politician to win, but I didn't think I was ready to be president," Clinton said.
No, Bill...you might've won the nomination, but I know you would not have won the Presidency in 1988. Ronald Reagan was still popular, George H. W. Bush was the Veep and the "heir apparent", and America was going well with the Republicans in the White House. There is no chance in hell that Bill Clinton would have won in 1988. Hey Bill, it's the economy, stupid...and the economy was going along very well in 1988, which means your campaign theme would've been shot.
Bill Clinton says Sen. Barack Obama is a callow, highly ambitious political prodigy who is asking voters to "roll the dice" and elect him president.
He should know — that's a fair description of Clinton when he sought the presidency in 1992.
The fact that the former president is stealing a page from the same Republican playbook used against him 15 years ago underscores the threat Obama poses to the candidacy of Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
It also illustrates Clinton's penchant for rewriting history.
Actually, that is a pretty accurate description of Clinton in 1992. But, it goes on...
As a first-time presidential candidate, Clinton cast himself as an "agent of change" in troubled times, and faced criticism from Republicans about his youth and inexperience.
Obama finds himself in the same boat, with Clinton manning the torpedoes.
Well, Clinton had been Governor of Arkansas for a decade or so by the time he started his run at the White House. However, he still was a relatively unknown political figure outside of Little Rock and Democratic pundit circles in 1991, when he started building towards his candidacy.
However, this statement from Clinton makes me laugh.
"Even when I was a governor and young and thought I was the best politician in the Democratic Party, I didn't run the first time. I could have," Clinton said on PBS's "The Charlie Rose Show," referring to the 1988 presidential campaign.
"And I had lots of Democratic governors encouraging me to. I knew in my bones I shouldn't run — that I was a good enough politician to win, but I didn't think I was ready to be president," Clinton said.
No, Bill...you might've won the nomination, but I know you would not have won the Presidency in 1988. Ronald Reagan was still popular, George H. W. Bush was the Veep and the "heir apparent", and America was going well with the Republicans in the White House. There is no chance in hell that Bill Clinton would have won in 1988. Hey Bill, it's the economy, stupid...and the economy was going along very well in 1988, which means your campaign theme would've been shot.
Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich May Not Make It To Virginia
According to Jack Landers at Rule .303, John Edwards managed to submit 10,081 signatures to get onto the Virginia primary ballot...while Richardson and Kucinich each slid in with 10,000 signatures even. However, since there is bound to be a variable amount of invalid/disqualified signatures, none of those 3 may actually make it onto the ballot if the signatures are challenged. If any candidate challenges the signatures, they are reviewed one-by-one.
As Jack also points out, it would be in Barack Obama's best interests to challenge the signatures, because if he knocks Edwards off of the ballot, the race boils down to a two-candidate race in Virginia, and Obama will take all of the support he can get (most Edwards supporters, in my estimation, would prefer Obama to Clinton).
Richardson and Kucinich are pretty far down on the ladder, support-wise. However, John Edwards is polling a solid 3rd in all reputable Dem polls and is still considered to be a potential "Hillary spoiler".
As Jack also points out, it would be in Barack Obama's best interests to challenge the signatures, because if he knocks Edwards off of the ballot, the race boils down to a two-candidate race in Virginia, and Obama will take all of the support he can get (most Edwards supporters, in my estimation, would prefer Obama to Clinton).
Richardson and Kucinich are pretty far down on the ladder, support-wise. However, John Edwards is polling a solid 3rd in all reputable Dem polls and is still considered to be a potential "Hillary spoiler".
Monday, December 10, 2007
Candidate Jokes
From the Media Blog at the National Review Online. Here are some jokes from presidential candidates in both parties. I cut out the bad ones.
- Hillary Clinton (smiling): "I'm not going to tell you" - Call it a wild guess, but I think her favorite joke has got to be named "Bill".
- John Edwards (gesturing, Southern accent in full fly): "This guy's driving down a country road and he looks over and there's this farmer holding his hog, holding his hog up to an apple tree. And the guy pulls over — he's a city guy — he pulls over and walks over and he says, 'What are you doing?' And the guy's straining. He's holding the hog. His face is red and he said, 'Feeding my hog.' And he said, 'Feeding your hog?' He said, 'Now dunnit take a lot of time? Holding the hog up to an apple tree to feed him, dunnit take a lot of time?' He says, 'Time don't mean nothing to a damned old hog."
- Barack Obama (reacting to word that he and Dick Cheney might be distant relatives): "He's the black sheep of the family."
- Bill Richardson: "My wife told me I'm doing well in a recent poll in New Mexico. I asked her how, since I'm never there. I'm always out of the state campaigning for president. And she told me that's exactly why I'm doing well."
- John McCain: "Long story about a guy walking into a bar and noticing another guy at the end. They strike up a conversation and notice many similarities. Another guy walks in later and asks the bartender about the commotion. 'Oh, that's just the O'Reilly brothers getting drunk again.'"
- Mitt Romney (I'm paraphrasing this one to tell the joke as Romney would tell it): Romney asks his wife "Ann, did you in your wildest dreams see me running for president?" Ann Romney replies "You weren't in my wildest dreams."
- Fred Thompson: "Presidential debates." (ZING)
Fred rules.
- Hillary Clinton (smiling): "I'm not going to tell you" - Call it a wild guess, but I think her favorite joke has got to be named "Bill".
- John Edwards (gesturing, Southern accent in full fly): "This guy's driving down a country road and he looks over and there's this farmer holding his hog, holding his hog up to an apple tree. And the guy pulls over — he's a city guy — he pulls over and walks over and he says, 'What are you doing?' And the guy's straining. He's holding the hog. His face is red and he said, 'Feeding my hog.' And he said, 'Feeding your hog?' He said, 'Now dunnit take a lot of time? Holding the hog up to an apple tree to feed him, dunnit take a lot of time?' He says, 'Time don't mean nothing to a damned old hog."
- Barack Obama (reacting to word that he and Dick Cheney might be distant relatives): "He's the black sheep of the family."
- Bill Richardson: "My wife told me I'm doing well in a recent poll in New Mexico. I asked her how, since I'm never there. I'm always out of the state campaigning for president. And she told me that's exactly why I'm doing well."
- John McCain: "Long story about a guy walking into a bar and noticing another guy at the end. They strike up a conversation and notice many similarities. Another guy walks in later and asks the bartender about the commotion. 'Oh, that's just the O'Reilly brothers getting drunk again.'"
- Mitt Romney (I'm paraphrasing this one to tell the joke as Romney would tell it): Romney asks his wife "Ann, did you in your wildest dreams see me running for president?" Ann Romney replies "You weren't in my wildest dreams."
- Fred Thompson: "Presidential debates." (ZING)
Fred rules.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Rasmussen: South Carolina Turned Upside Down
Wow, and wow some more.
In the latest Rasmussen Polls, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton's 13 point lead from two months ago has shrunk to 2 points over Barack Obama in the key early primary state of South Carolina. At the end of September, Hillary was up 43%-30% on Obama. As of today, her lead is now a slim margin of 36%-34%.
On the GOP side in South Carolina, whose primary is a week earlier than the Dems, Mike Huckabee has surged to 1st place with 25%, which gives the former Arkansas governor a 7 point lead over both Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, who both pulled in 18% apiece. At the end of September, Thompson led Romney by a margin of 24%-15% (and led Giuliani by 3 points, but Giuliani has also slipped 9 points in South Carolina since then), and Huckabee was in 5th place with only 3%!
With less than a month to go until the Iowa caucus, what other surprises are in store for us?
In the latest Rasmussen Polls, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton's 13 point lead from two months ago has shrunk to 2 points over Barack Obama in the key early primary state of South Carolina. At the end of September, Hillary was up 43%-30% on Obama. As of today, her lead is now a slim margin of 36%-34%.
On the GOP side in South Carolina, whose primary is a week earlier than the Dems, Mike Huckabee has surged to 1st place with 25%, which gives the former Arkansas governor a 7 point lead over both Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, who both pulled in 18% apiece. At the end of September, Thompson led Romney by a margin of 24%-15% (and led Giuliani by 3 points, but Giuliani has also slipped 9 points in South Carolina since then), and Huckabee was in 5th place with only 3%!
With less than a month to go until the Iowa caucus, what other surprises are in store for us?
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Dem Poll Bits and Bites
Breaking down the Dem Polls.
RealClearPolitics(RCP) National Average...
- Clinton 41.3%, Obama 23.%%, Edwards 13.0%, Richardson 4.2%, Biden 2.7%.
Rasmussen Reports latest Dem poll...
- Clinton 34%, Obama 24%, Edwards 16%, Richardson 7%, Biden 3%.
The RCP average is based on almost a month's worth of poll data...the Rasmussen poll was done over the previous 3 days. Since Obama has pulled ahead in Iowa and the anti-Clinton backlash started only recently, that is why their poll is more reflective of lower Hillary numbers. Notice that Clinton lost voters to Edwards and Richardson, and not Obama. Interesting.
Let's go to the early states, the amount of delegates at stake, and their RCP averages...
Iowa (45 delegates)
- Obama 26.6%, Clinton 26.6%, Edwards 22.8%, Richardson 7.4%, Biden 5.4%
Interesting that Edwards once led in Iowa for 4 months...now sits in third.
New Hampshire (22 delegates)
- Clinton 32.6%, Obama 23.0%, Edwards 16.0%, Richardson 9.2%
Clinton once held an average lead of over 20 points here just 2 months ago.
Michigan (128 delegates)
- Clinton 44.7%, Obama 21.7%, Edwards 13.0%, Richardson 4.3%
Nevada (25 delegates)
- Clinton 44.3%, Obama 20.7%, Edwards 12.7%, Richardson 6.3%.
South Carolina (45 delegates)
- Clinton 38.0%, Obama 25.5%, Edwards 11.3%.
You'd think Edwards would be doing better here, given his Carolina roots. Clinton's 19 point lead is now down to 12.5 points in 1 month.
Florida (185 delegates)
- Clinton 47.0%, Obama 17.5%, Edwards 11.5%.
Despite Obama pulling even (and ahead in individual polls) in Iowa, Clinton still has the commanding lead, here.
Obama's best shot at getting a big momentum boost is parlaying a victory in Iowa into a victory in New Hampshire, where he is still in relative striking distance. Otherwise, if Clinton pulls out a win in New Hampshire, she can roll downhill with victories in the other states.
However, if Iowa and New Hampshire both fall to Obama (which they are trending that way), the Clinton campaign will have some ground to make up and some momentum to regain, especially since another key early state (South Carolina) is also trending back towards Obama as well.
UPDATE: Since Kenton was nice enough to explain that Dem delegate math is more complicated than the GOP's, I removed the delegate count from here. It's too hard to project delegates for the Dems without a certain amount of research that I have neither the time nor the monetary incentive to do.
RealClearPolitics(RCP) National Average...
- Clinton 41.3%, Obama 23.%%, Edwards 13.0%, Richardson 4.2%, Biden 2.7%.
Rasmussen Reports latest Dem poll...
- Clinton 34%, Obama 24%, Edwards 16%, Richardson 7%, Biden 3%.
The RCP average is based on almost a month's worth of poll data...the Rasmussen poll was done over the previous 3 days. Since Obama has pulled ahead in Iowa and the anti-Clinton backlash started only recently, that is why their poll is more reflective of lower Hillary numbers. Notice that Clinton lost voters to Edwards and Richardson, and not Obama. Interesting.
Let's go to the early states, the amount of delegates at stake, and their RCP averages...
Iowa (45 delegates)
- Obama 26.6%, Clinton 26.6%, Edwards 22.8%, Richardson 7.4%, Biden 5.4%
Interesting that Edwards once led in Iowa for 4 months...now sits in third.
New Hampshire (22 delegates)
- Clinton 32.6%, Obama 23.0%, Edwards 16.0%, Richardson 9.2%
Clinton once held an average lead of over 20 points here just 2 months ago.
Michigan (128 delegates)
- Clinton 44.7%, Obama 21.7%, Edwards 13.0%, Richardson 4.3%
Nevada (25 delegates)
- Clinton 44.3%, Obama 20.7%, Edwards 12.7%, Richardson 6.3%.
South Carolina (45 delegates)
- Clinton 38.0%, Obama 25.5%, Edwards 11.3%.
You'd think Edwards would be doing better here, given his Carolina roots. Clinton's 19 point lead is now down to 12.5 points in 1 month.
Florida (185 delegates)
- Clinton 47.0%, Obama 17.5%, Edwards 11.5%.
Despite Obama pulling even (and ahead in individual polls) in Iowa, Clinton still has the commanding lead, here.
Obama's best shot at getting a big momentum boost is parlaying a victory in Iowa into a victory in New Hampshire, where he is still in relative striking distance. Otherwise, if Clinton pulls out a win in New Hampshire, she can roll downhill with victories in the other states.
However, if Iowa and New Hampshire both fall to Obama (which they are trending that way), the Clinton campaign will have some ground to make up and some momentum to regain, especially since another key early state (South Carolina) is also trending back towards Obama as well.
UPDATE: Since Kenton was nice enough to explain that Dem delegate math is more complicated than the GOP's, I removed the delegate count from here. It's too hard to project delegates for the Dems without a certain amount of research that I have neither the time nor the monetary incentive to do.
Monday, December 3, 2007
In Case You Missed It
Which you probably didn't, I did a "Candidate Analysis" last week on all of the candidates that are still in that race for the presidential nomination in both major parties. Here's a list and link to each of the remaining 17 candidates.
Republicans...
- Rudy Giuliani
- Fred Thompson
- Mike Huckabee
- Mitt Romney
- John McCain
- Ron Paul
- Tom Tancredo
- Duncan Hunter
- Alan Keyes
Democrats...
- Barack Obama
- Hillary Clinton
- Joe Biden
- Chris Dodd
- John Edwards
- Dennis Kucinich
- Mike Gravel
- Bill Richardson
I also added the websites for each individual candidate to their profile, so you can check them out further if you feel inclined to do so.
Republicans...
- Rudy Giuliani
- Fred Thompson
- Mike Huckabee
- Mitt Romney
- John McCain
- Ron Paul
- Tom Tancredo
- Duncan Hunter
- Alan Keyes
Democrats...
- Barack Obama
- Hillary Clinton
- Joe Biden
- Chris Dodd
- John Edwards
- Dennis Kucinich
- Mike Gravel
- Bill Richardson
I also added the websites for each individual candidate to their profile, so you can check them out further if you feel inclined to do so.
Friday, November 30, 2007
BREAKING NEWS: Hostages Taken at Hillary's Clinton's Campaign HQ in New Hampshire
This is NOT a joke.
A man has strapped a bomb to his chest, taken two hostages at Hillary's New Hampshire HQ in Rochester, and states that he wants to speak with Hillary Clinton herself.
Barack Obama's Campaign offices, just 4 doors down from Hillary's, have been evacuated as well.
Developing...
UPDATES:
-According to the front page at Fox News, the man has released the two hostages.
- In a show of bitter and disgusting partisanship, liberals over at NLS are posting that basically stating that this nutjob is obviously a Republican, because Republicans "have only anger and fear", and that only Republicans have histories of mental instability. Meanwhile, some Republicans believe this was a staged event to gain sympathy for Hillary. Both sides should be ashamed to put their partisanship above the safety of these people.
A man has strapped a bomb to his chest, taken two hostages at Hillary's New Hampshire HQ in Rochester, and states that he wants to speak with Hillary Clinton herself.
Barack Obama's Campaign offices, just 4 doors down from Hillary's, have been evacuated as well.
Developing...
UPDATES:
-According to the front page at Fox News, the man has released the two hostages.
- In a show of bitter and disgusting partisanship, liberals over at NLS are posting that basically stating that this nutjob is obviously a Republican, because Republicans "have only anger and fear", and that only Republicans have histories of mental instability. Meanwhile, some Republicans believe this was a staged event to gain sympathy for Hillary. Both sides should be ashamed to put their partisanship above the safety of these people.
Candidate Analysis: Hillary Clinton
Candidate: Hillary Rodham Clinton
Party: Democratic
Political Background: U.S. Senator from New York, Former First Lady of the United States.
Campaign Website: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/
Dem Appeal: Immense name recognition, husband still popular amongst Democrats, pro-choice, increased spending on welfare/entitlement programs and other social initiatives, creator of modern universal health-care movement amongst liberals, pro-environment, pro-gun control, embodiment of feminist movement, pro-amnesty/legalization for illegal aliens, pro-union, anti-Iraq War,
Cross-over Appeal to Republicans: Foreign policy and business/commerce stances somewhat moderate, supports "3 strikes" laws, fairly hawkish on anti-terrorism measures compared to Dem Party as a whole, has working relationship with Newt Gingrich, state's rights on gay marriage.
Cons: Incredibly polarizing politician - may be worse than Bush in that regard, is more socialist/progressive than husband who advocated "third way", supported "No Child Left Behind" as part of "village", has many image issues with both Dems and Republicans...Dems see her as "more of the same" and GOPers see her as part of the problems with government, has fairly long list of issues she has flip-flopped on, hated by anti-corporate liberals.
My Personal Thoughts: The Democratic front-runner has issues. She is wildly popular with the Democratic Party base, but fares badly elsewhere. Republicans and "change" voters hate her. Independents are indifferent to her. Radical leftists have luke-warm support for her. If you think George W. Bush was a polarizing figure, image what Hillary could do.
There are those who see an advantage if Hillary makes Bill part of her campaign and they use the 1992 strategy of "two for the price of one" and make a better appeal for independent voters. However, that would increase the polarization as Bill is too centrist for many hardline progressives and is a villainous figure in the eyes of many Republicans.
The question remains about Hillary...how well would she hold up against Republicans? She's already launching the attack dogs in campaign ads against the "Republican smear machine", which may play well now...but if this remains her theme for the next 11 months, she's going to lose. Period.
The time has long-been right for "a" woman (or a minority) to be President of the United States. However, it remains to be seen whether or not the majority of the voting public believes that Hillary is going to be "the" right person for the job.
Party: Democratic
Political Background: U.S. Senator from New York, Former First Lady of the United States.
Campaign Website: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/
Dem Appeal: Immense name recognition, husband still popular amongst Democrats, pro-choice, increased spending on welfare/entitlement programs and other social initiatives, creator of modern universal health-care movement amongst liberals, pro-environment, pro-gun control, embodiment of feminist movement, pro-amnesty/legalization for illegal aliens, pro-union, anti-Iraq War,
Cross-over Appeal to Republicans: Foreign policy and business/commerce stances somewhat moderate, supports "3 strikes" laws, fairly hawkish on anti-terrorism measures compared to Dem Party as a whole, has working relationship with Newt Gingrich, state's rights on gay marriage.
Cons: Incredibly polarizing politician - may be worse than Bush in that regard, is more socialist/progressive than husband who advocated "third way", supported "No Child Left Behind" as part of "village", has many image issues with both Dems and Republicans...Dems see her as "more of the same" and GOPers see her as part of the problems with government, has fairly long list of issues she has flip-flopped on, hated by anti-corporate liberals.
My Personal Thoughts: The Democratic front-runner has issues. She is wildly popular with the Democratic Party base, but fares badly elsewhere. Republicans and "change" voters hate her. Independents are indifferent to her. Radical leftists have luke-warm support for her. If you think George W. Bush was a polarizing figure, image what Hillary could do.
There are those who see an advantage if Hillary makes Bill part of her campaign and they use the 1992 strategy of "two for the price of one" and make a better appeal for independent voters. However, that would increase the polarization as Bill is too centrist for many hardline progressives and is a villainous figure in the eyes of many Republicans.
The question remains about Hillary...how well would she hold up against Republicans? She's already launching the attack dogs in campaign ads against the "Republican smear machine", which may play well now...but if this remains her theme for the next 11 months, she's going to lose. Period.
The time has long-been right for "a" woman (or a minority) to be President of the United States. However, it remains to be seen whether or not the majority of the voting public believes that Hillary is going to be "the" right person for the job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
