News US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[G01]

So Clinton is running as a Republican now? I hope folks see through the charade.

Unfortunately, first-hand experience tells me that many Pennsylvanians aren't seeing through it. Heck, the fact that her dad was born in Scranton is enough for people around here to run to the Clinton camp without even thinking twice. Though her lead in the poles has been dropping significantly on a daily basis, so anything can still happen.

I really wish Pennsylvania can be the state that can end this drawn out battle that Hilary is probably not going to win anyway. C'mon PA, don't let me down!

This is another thing about Hilary that drives me nuts. The fact that Hilary's family is from Scranton gets people here all excited about voting for her. How many states is she going to claim as home? Arkansas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York... Don't people see she is just playing them for their votes?!

 

[lisab]

I cracked up when I heard Clinton call Obama "elitist"!

Right, a mixed-race kid raised by a single mom...that's just what I think of when I hear the word "elitist" !

 

[mheslep]

I cracked up when I heard Clinton call Obama "elitist"!

Right, a mixed-race kid raised by a single mom...

Yes, he's come a long way. He's also Ivy League Columbia / Harvard Law educated, lives in a multi million home, and gave the recent those-poor-misguided-yocals comment from a no press allowed, $2300/plate fund raiser at the Getty mansion / residence on billionaires row in SF.

 

[turbo]

Yes, he's come a long way. He's also Ivy League Columbia / Harvard Law educated, lives in a multi million home, and gave the recent those-poor-misguided-yocals comment from a no press allowed, $2300/plate fund raiser at the Getty mansion / residence on billionaires row in SF.

It's funny to watch somebody who has worked their ass off being described as "elitist" while people whose family wealth bought their entries into schools and organizations (does Bush come to mind?) are given a free pass as down-home guys because they get photo-ops cutting brush. Stupid!

 

[G01]

The local news here is really making a big deal about Obama's remarks. I think this is going to hurt him in PA.

 

[Poop-Loops]

I haven't been keeping up since it came out that he made those remarks, so I don't know what he's done since then, but I think he should have just made a speech and just stood his ground, making the people of Penn. look like the victims (he was apparently trying to portray it that way anyway) and that he was right.

It's better to be pissed off than pissed on. Right now, it's the latter for him.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We will have to see if this effects the polling data. Obama was poised to tie or pass Hillary in Pa. right about election time.

But, if Clinton or McCain continue to claim that Obama is out of touch when he says that people are angry, it will hurt them more than it will hurt Obama. Many people are feeling angry, bitter, disillusioned, and disenfranchised. Also, what Obama said was true. When people feel angry and disenfranchised, say for example when their towns are decimated by bogus "free trade" agreements, they tend to project their anger onto other issues. How dare he speak the truth!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The American Research Group showed that Clinton and Obama were tied in Pa. a week ago, but now gives Clilnton a twenty point lead.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/

 

[turbo]

Clinton NEEDS (viscerally) to be president. Her go-to bomb is that Obama cannot possibly be elected because he is black. She will only drop this clam if she is on her last legs, but make no mistake - she WILL drop it if it appears that the delegate count is unsurmountable. I can't get fired for saying that Clinton is a monster, so CLINTON IS A MONSTER, with no accountability to her party and no coat-tails for congressional candidates to ride. She has such high negatives that her election would ensure another 4 years of Bush-like gridlock in Congress and no real roll-back of his policies.

I should take this time to mention that Clinton is the richest Swift-Boat target that the Rovians have ever seen, and she stands NO chance of beating McCain in the general election. Voters are sick of her and Slick Willie, and they will accept a lot of denigration about her with no thought.

 

[chemisttree]

Obama's bitter comment.

""You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

That sounds a lot more like Obama's neighborhood than "these small towns in Pennsylvania" or "a lot of small towns in the Midwest". I really think that Obama believes what he said... that people get angry and bitter in these small towns and cling to their religion, guns and xenophobia as a result.

There is no other way to interpret this other than to say that it is elitist liberalism. I think that Barak's empty vessel is filled with some bad ju ju...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is elistist about making factual observations?

 

[drankin]

Come on, Ivan. You usually back these things up with sources, stats, etc. Don't fail us now.

 

[drankin]

I'll tell you what rubs me the wrong way about Obama's statement, he is suggesting that it's the governments job to give people work, and that just bugs me. Let alone suggesting that because the government didn't make former jobs reappear they became bitter and began clinging to guns, religion, blah-blah-blah. So when Obama's president everyone can quit going to church, the gun range, and hug illegal immigrants (ok, I made that up). Dumb. Nothing factual about his statement. He just made this crap up and now he's eating his words. Not that they all don't say stupid crap anyway...

 

[quadraphonics]

I'll tell you what rubs me the wrong way about Obama's statement, he is suggesting that it's the governments job to give people work, and that just bugs me.

No, he's pointing out that the availability of jobs is a major factor in determining peoples' attitudes towards politicians and parties. Regardless of what anyone believes the proper role of government in the economy to be, it is a certainty that a bad job market hurts the political standing of the incumbent, and a good job market helps it. As a corollary, it is also a certainty that politicians and parties are going to try to exploit those sentiments. This is true of every polity, everywhere in the world, at all times in human history. That Obama aknowledges these dynamics does not make him some kind of socialist; it only makes him honest.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

he is suggesting that it's the governments job to give people work, and that just bugs me.

I read his statement over and over again, and I could not find that anywhere. I think you are reading that into what he did say.

 

[Poop-Loops]

I'll tell you what rubs me the wrong way about Obama's statement, he is suggesting that it's the governments job to give people work, and that just bugs me.

You have a point. I mean, it's not like the government is there to protect the welfare of the people or anything.

While we're at it, we should quit taxing foreign imports. It's not the government's job to give people incentive to buy domestic goods. That would mean people would have jobs! And we don't want to do that.

 

[drankin]

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Ok, he is saying that people get bitter because past administrations have said that, "somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not." He is saying that these administrations said these things and they didn't come true so, AS A CONSEQUENCE, the people "get bitter (and) they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Anti-trade sentiment, I can buy that, anti-illegal-immigration, I can buy that, but guns? religion? "people who are not like them"? as if that has anything to do with what any administration "said" or whether they have their old jobs or not. It suggest that if you are a gun owner or a church goer it's because you are bitter because of what an administration said. That's rediculous not to mention insulting the geniuness of peoples beliefs. I didn't want to say it but that is certainly what I would consider "Elitist", or at least condescending.

 

[drankin]

I read his statement over and over again, and I could not find that anywhere. I think you are reading that into what he did say.

Ok, probably true. It seems to suggest that to me but no it doesn't say that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...(CNN) — Despite a weekend of negative coverage following his controversial remarks about some small town Americans, Barack Obama appears to be holding steady or making gains in the next three primary states, according to a just released poll.

Most surprisingly, the new LA Times/Bloomberg poll shows Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton by 5 points in Indiana (40 to 35 percent)

... The poll also shows Clinton only holds a 5 point lead in Pennsylvania (48 to 43 percent). That margin is among the slimmest measured between to the two candidates and is significantly less than the double digit lead Clinton held there two weeks ago.[continued]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

A couple of pundits stated recently that a consensus is emerging this will be decided in Indiana.

 

[turbo]

Anti-trade sentiment, I can buy that, anti-illegal-immigration, I can buy that, but guns? religion? "people who are not like them"? as if that has anything to do with what any administration "said" or whether they have their old jobs or not. It suggest that if you are a gun owner or a church goer it's because you are bitter because of what an administration said. That's rediculous not to mention insulting the geniuness of peoples beliefs. I didn't want to say it but that is certainly what I would consider "Elitist", or at least condescending.

As you know, I am about as pro-gun as can be, and I had a very different reading about Obama's statements. When working-class people find themselves impotent to protect themselves from wage erosion, job exportations, lack of health care, etc, how do they direct their political activities? They direct them in ways that they are most passionate about. In some cases, it can be religion (not necessarily fundamentalist, but you'll find most fundamentalists in poor regions as opposed to cities), it can be in fundamental personal rights (and to many people the right to be armed is important), and it can be in reactions against legal or illegal immigration (especially if these people blame foreigners for the loss of their jobs). These may not be used as a big general paint brush against all people in areas that have lost jobs and never recovered, but Obama's comments are accurate and we need a president who can see this.

Obama worked for church groups organizing displaced steel-workers after graduating from Harvard Law School and he knows something that many Americans do not. Having a secure and well-paying job pulled out from under you (especially if you went into the steel mills directly out of HS, and were middle-aged when the mill closed) is the most traumatic thing that can happen to you, as a bread-winner - apart from the death of your wife or children. You have lost the ability to provide for your family and have no reasonable prospect of regaining that income, so you have to consider selling your house (in a depressed local market due to the factory closings) and chasing a job somewhere else, with no relevant skills or training, since steel mills aren't exactly clamoring to hire and you don't have post HS education. To cap it off, you can't afford to help put your children through college and get the education that you never got. Obama is no fool, but his comments are being portrayed as if he is elitist and out-of-touch. Clinton is a Republican.

 

[drankin]

Personally, I've always liked Obama despite that some of his views are contrary to mine. If he could reitterate his statement and explain what he meant to say I'd be happy to hear it. I'm not even from the East coast and I was a bit offended. I'd like to think he didn't mean it the way it came out. I know he said just that but it will require a little more explanation to satisfy a lot of folks.

Clinton is a whatever she needs to be to win. Some would call that a *****. At least Randi Rhodes thought so! LOL

 

[G01]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

A couple of pundits stated recently that a consensus is emerging this will be decided in Indiana.

I really hope this is over soon. If it keeps up it will really hurt the democrats.

On the topic of the poll numbers, does it annoy anyone else that if Hilary wins PA by 5 points, she's going to claim it as a major victory, even though she was initially shooting for a 20 point win?

 

[turbo]

I really hope this is over soon. If it keeps up it will really hurt the democrats.

On the topic of the poll numbers, does it annoy anyone else that if Hilary wins PA by 5 points, she's going to claim it as a major victory, even though she was initially shooting for a 20 point win?

I don't give a damn about the polls or the PA results. Hillary cannot blow out Barak and if she does not, there is no chance that she can win the nomination. My biggest fear is that when she fails to pull off the PA miracle that she needs (and even 20 points would not get her there), she will pursue a scorched Earth policy to try to make him look unelectable, further damaging the party, so she can make a "comeback bid" in 2012. Make no mistake - if there was a conservative Republican in the race that wanted to end the Iraq war and try to restore the economy of the US, he or she would probably get my vote. I could not possibly vote for McCain (4 More Years of Bush!) and Clinton has demonstrated that she is ready to continue Bush's policies, so she's not getting my vote. She attended Wellesley and was a member of the Young Republicans, she was on the staff of the Rose law firm (one of the most anti-union law-firms in the country), and she was on the board of Wal-Mart, which pays slave wages with no benefits and requires "associates" to work uncompensated overtime, and she claims to be for working people? I gag when I hear her say that. Obama isn't the best we could have, but he's the best out of the three choices that we've got. Sorry. I'm getting bitter.

 

[BobG]

Personally, I've always liked Obama despite that some of his views are contrary to mine. If he could reitterate his statement and explain what he meant to say I'd be happy to hear it. I'm not even from the East coast and I was a bit offended. I'd like to think he didn't mean it the way it came out. I know he said just that but it will require a little more explanation to satisfy a lot of folks.

A lot more explanation? I don't know if Obama's elitist, but "bitter" seems to be the most popular word on TV the last few days. Or maybe no explanation. Maybe only TV analysts care about the comments.

Funny which things actually wind up having an effect. Wright's comments and Obama's response didn't affect the polls much. Clinton's Bosnia comments did more than I would have expected, but Bill seemed bent on extracting the maximum amount of pain from Hillary's comment.

Even in PA, I don't think his comments affected the polls by more than a point or two. Nationally, he picked up a point since his comment. He seems to be riding the wave of the Audacity of Bitterness.

I think we need the primary to hurry. Obama and Clinton bowling? Clinton knocking back shots? If the break between primaries goes on any longer, Chris Matthews will declare he's running for Arlen Specter's seat in the Senate.

 

[Poop-Loops]

On the topic of the poll numbers, does it annoy anyone else that if Hilary wins PA by 5 points, she's going to claim it as a major victory, even though she was initially shooting for a 20 point win?

I just heard on Countdown about that. Keith thought it would be more like before she would have won by 5 points, but now it will be "Obama only lost by 5 points? Not bad." since people are expecting him to bomb.

 

[turbo]

I just heard on Countdown about that. Keith thought it would be more like before she would have won by 5 points, but now it will be "Obama only lost by 5 points? Not bad." since people are expecting him to bomb.

At this point, it's all about managing expectations. Clinton has a lead in poorly-educated poor and middle-income people (the same idiots that shoot themselves in the foot by voting in Reagan and the Bushes) while Obama has a lead in well-educated, higher income people. PA has a whole lot of people who are HS (at best) educated so the polls show Clinton well in the lead. There may be a surprise in the wings, though. Pollsters call voters on published numbers on land-lines. Obama has solid support among well-educated young people, especially on college campuses, and his campaign knows how to get these young people to the polls. The pollsters will never know what these kids are going to do because they are increasingly wireless (with their computers on campus) and cell-based, with no land-lines. What does a poll with 850 likely Dem voters tell you in a college town where most of the young voters cannot be surveyed? Not much. We'll have to wait until Tuesday next.

 

[Poop-Loops]

That's why I love The Internets. Complete paradigm shift for the 21st century with things like Google and Youtube by themselves, which aren't even the main goal of the internet.

 

[BobG]

I don't give a damn about the polls or the PA results. Hillary cannot blow out Barak and if she does not, there is no chance that she can win the nomination. My biggest fear is that when she fails to pull off the PA miracle that she needs (and even 20 points would not get her there), she will pursue a scorched Earth policy to try to make him look unelectable, further damaging the party, so she can make a "comeback bid" in 2012.

She trails by around 140 (depending on which website you check) and she should gain 10 delegates or less in PA, unless she or Obama do something really spectacular this week.

As far as who would do better in the general election against McCain, check this comparison. You have to actually move your cursor over the state to get the story. For instance, Obama's listed as doing >5% better than Clinton in Texas and Texas isn't listed as a shoo-in for McCain, but in reality Obama has some shot against McCain in Texas while Clinton has none.

In Michigan, Obama is in a dead heat with McCain while Clinton gets whomped by McCain (do you think she'd really like a do-over in Michigan?). In Florida, Clinton is in a dead heat with McCain while Obama gets whomped by McCain, so she could at least make some case Florida's primary reflected voter opinions even if the rules say Florida shouldn't count.

The page is kind of fun, but regardless of the polls right now, neither are really likely to beat McCain in Texas, nor do I believe McCain could beat Obama in New York. It would be interesting to get an idea how the candidates might do in a general election in the battleground states, but I don't think this page does it, yet. It might just be too early for anyone to really give a good idea of what might happen in November.

 

[turbo]

Interesting map, Bob! With Pat Buchanan predicting a 50:50 chance that the US would have attacked Iran by the fall of 2008, I wonder where this would put the polls. There are a lot of red-state, knee-jerk "patriots" that would vote for McCain in the general election just because he's a "hero", but I'm hoping that there are a lot of US voters who will take a hard look at our foreign policies and determine that we can't keep attacking people and killing them because the policies of our administrations and theirs don't dovetail. The Bush administration refuses to talk to the people that they label as "our enemies" but that's an ignorant view. We don't need to engage in high-level diplomacy with governments that already agree with our administration - we desperately need to engage in diplomacy with governments that DON'T agree with our administration's policies. Bush is like a playground bully who lacks the wisdom and tact to deal with another kid, and instead decides to round up a group of mouth-breathing thugs to help him attack a kid that he doesn't dare attack on his own. Our current government and it's pretense at "foreign policy" is a shameful shell-game. The gutless Democrats will never address the international laws that Bushco has broken and the war crimes that they have committed, and we will forever be diminished by that.

 

[quadraphonics]

The Bush administration refuses to talk to the people that they label as "our enemies" but that's an ignorant view. We don't need to engage in high-level diplomacy with governments that already agree with our administration - we desperately need to engage in diplomacy with governments that DON'T agree with our administration's policies.

True; however, given that Bush doesn't understand diplomacy, and isn't good at getting qualified people to fill positions, it may actually be a good thing that he's not pursuing high-level diplomacy with adversaries. I suppose what I'm saying is that no diplomacy may well be preferable to bad diplomacy...

Anyway, it's high time we shifted our foreign policy debate away from "what's wrong with Bush" to "what are we going to do?" Saying "do some diplomacy" is a good start and all, but it's not some panacea that's going to give us everything we want. Unless the incoming President is provided with some ideas about what sorts of compromises the public might accept, and what sort of time frame they have the patience for, there's a very real risk of him getting stuck in a reactionary posture that ends up not much different than Bush. I fear that focussing all our attention on Bush's failures is a distraction from the much harder task of coming to grips with what are options really are, and then having a meaningful discussion of what the costs and benefits of each option are. And unless we do that, the new president isn't going to be able to get us anywhere satisfactory.