Oh God...I think I'm going to lose my lunch. It's the blonde girl and the Breck girl!
Apparently, someone is trying to release a sex tape made between disgraced former Presidential candidate John Edwards and his ex-mistress and baby mama, Rielle Hunter. Hunter is trying to stop the release of this tape via restraining order.
Apparently, the tape belongs to Andrew Young, the Edwards staffer who falsely claimed to be the one sleeping with Hunter and the father of the child. You know, the guy that Edwards attempted to shield himself with. It seems Young came into possession of the tape when she asked Young to get her passport out of a box where she had hidden the tape as well.
This whole drama surrounding Edwards, his wife, his staff, and his ex-mistress just gets weirder and weirder.
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Friday, January 29, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Amusing, Riveting, Saddening, and Disgusting
The John Edwards affair in detail, from the upcoming book "Game Change" that has everyone talking.
The moral of that story is that neither John or Elizabeth Edwards can be described as "likeable", among other things.
The moral of that story is that neither John or Elizabeth Edwards can be described as "likeable", among other things.
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.
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.
Monday, December 17, 2007
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.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Comparing The Campaign Ads
Let's have some media fun, shall we?
Fred Thompson - "Revolution"
- The ad that stopped the GOP CNN/YouTube debate dead in it's tracks. It's a hammer-dropper of an ad.
Rudy Giuliani - "One Hour"
- Rudy does a good job invoking history, but the connection between that moment and Rudy is pretty vague.
Mitt Romney - "Historic Choice"
- Pretty generic stuff, really. This is where Romney's "presidential image" could work in his favor.
Chris Dodd - "White Hair"
- I liked this ad, actually, gets the point across with a slight bit of camp. One of the better ones I've seen from the Dems.
Bill Richardson - "When I Began"
- I liked the "job interview" and "resume" ads better. It was a better portrayal of his strong points.
John Edwards - "Rigged"
- Washington hates you, I love you...blech! And people say Mitt Romney looks and acts fake...
Your thoughts?
Fred Thompson - "Revolution"
- The ad that stopped the GOP CNN/YouTube debate dead in it's tracks. It's a hammer-dropper of an ad.
Rudy Giuliani - "One Hour"
- Rudy does a good job invoking history, but the connection between that moment and Rudy is pretty vague.
Mitt Romney - "Historic Choice"
- Pretty generic stuff, really. This is where Romney's "presidential image" could work in his favor.
Chris Dodd - "White Hair"
- I liked this ad, actually, gets the point across with a slight bit of camp. One of the better ones I've seen from the Dems.
Bill Richardson - "When I Began"
- I liked the "job interview" and "resume" ads better. It was a better portrayal of his strong points.
John Edwards - "Rigged"
- Washington hates you, I love you...blech! And people say Mitt Romney looks and acts fake...
Your thoughts?
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.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Candidate Analysis: John Edwards
Candidate: John Edwards
Party: Democratic
Political Background: Former Senator from North Carolina, 2004 Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate
Campaign Website: http://johnedwards.com/
Dem Appeal: Staunch populist liberal, anti-poverty platform, supports universal health care and universal Pre-K education funding, vocal anti-Iraq War position, previous presidential race experience, pro-union, anti-Guantanamo and terrorist detainment/interrogation, pro-gay marriage and civil rights protections and enhancements, anti-lobbyist, pro-globalization, supports massive funding to Africa for various projects, foreign policy - "extend a hand, not a fist", supports national public-smoking ban.
Cross-over Appeal to Republicans: Supports 2nd Amendment to certain extents, promises tax cuts to 95% of Americans.
Cons: Wife seen by voters in both parties as meddling and hiding behind her cancer to avoid being countered in her attacks, anti-poverty populism contradicted by large hedge-fund paycheck for part-time work as well as his South Carolina mansion, "prissy" image does not play well with middle- and working-class voters, slightly flip-flopped on NAFTA - was against it and now wants to renegotiate it, pro-globalized economy contradicted by anti-trade agreement stances.
My Personal Thoughts: John Edwards has spent his entire campaign missing the target he is trying to hit. For example, Edwards makes very loud overtures to the poverty-stricken, working-class, and minority families of America...but seems to get the bulk of his support from guilt-stricken white liberals who are more affluent that the people Edwards is trying to motivate and reach out to.
He wants to cut taxes for 95% of the population, but wants to push very expensive legislation as President. He wants to provide primary school education to 100 million children in Africa. He wants to introduce universal health care. He wants to make college/university education free to everyone. What he hasn't done, however, is explain exactly how he plans to pay for this if he is going to cut most people's taxes...the only thing left to cut out of the budget is national security funds and increase corporate and upper-class taxes, which then affects jobs.
I think many Democrats even sense a bit more style-than-substance with Edwards, and that's why those who are looking for a "change candidate" are drifting towards Barack Obama instead, who has campaigned with a suprising measured amount of "style" as to shine more focus on his substance.
Also, independents do not seem to support Edwards, and the prevailing wisdom in my mind is that he is the least likely of the major Dem candidates to make any attempts to "work across the aisle" and would add fuel to the fire of bitter partisanship. Even Hillary Clinton, whose name is divisive in it's own right, has tried to work with Republicans like Newt Gingrich on health care reform.
Nonetheless, his populist liberalism does resonate with enough people to have him poll a solid 3rd place in most polls. However, after 2004 and this year, I think his time as an "upper tier" political figure will have come and gone.
Party: Democratic
Political Background: Former Senator from North Carolina, 2004 Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate
Campaign Website: http://johnedwards.com/
Dem Appeal: Staunch populist liberal, anti-poverty platform, supports universal health care and universal Pre-K education funding, vocal anti-Iraq War position, previous presidential race experience, pro-union, anti-Guantanamo and terrorist detainment/interrogation, pro-gay marriage and civil rights protections and enhancements, anti-lobbyist, pro-globalization, supports massive funding to Africa for various projects, foreign policy - "extend a hand, not a fist", supports national public-smoking ban.
Cross-over Appeal to Republicans: Supports 2nd Amendment to certain extents, promises tax cuts to 95% of Americans.
Cons: Wife seen by voters in both parties as meddling and hiding behind her cancer to avoid being countered in her attacks, anti-poverty populism contradicted by large hedge-fund paycheck for part-time work as well as his South Carolina mansion, "prissy" image does not play well with middle- and working-class voters, slightly flip-flopped on NAFTA - was against it and now wants to renegotiate it, pro-globalized economy contradicted by anti-trade agreement stances.
My Personal Thoughts: John Edwards has spent his entire campaign missing the target he is trying to hit. For example, Edwards makes very loud overtures to the poverty-stricken, working-class, and minority families of America...but seems to get the bulk of his support from guilt-stricken white liberals who are more affluent that the people Edwards is trying to motivate and reach out to.
He wants to cut taxes for 95% of the population, but wants to push very expensive legislation as President. He wants to provide primary school education to 100 million children in Africa. He wants to introduce universal health care. He wants to make college/university education free to everyone. What he hasn't done, however, is explain exactly how he plans to pay for this if he is going to cut most people's taxes...the only thing left to cut out of the budget is national security funds and increase corporate and upper-class taxes, which then affects jobs.
I think many Democrats even sense a bit more style-than-substance with Edwards, and that's why those who are looking for a "change candidate" are drifting towards Barack Obama instead, who has campaigned with a suprising measured amount of "style" as to shine more focus on his substance.
Also, independents do not seem to support Edwards, and the prevailing wisdom in my mind is that he is the least likely of the major Dem candidates to make any attempts to "work across the aisle" and would add fuel to the fire of bitter partisanship. Even Hillary Clinton, whose name is divisive in it's own right, has tried to work with Republicans like Newt Gingrich on health care reform.
Nonetheless, his populist liberalism does resonate with enough people to have him poll a solid 3rd place in most polls. However, after 2004 and this year, I think his time as an "upper tier" political figure will have come and gone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
