karn wrote:Has it been mentioned there is a Libertarian candidate named George Phillies?

Bakestar wrote:

momadance wrote:Obama with 13 point lead in CA?

And SurveyUSA has Clinton up by 10 in CA.

I think Hillary wins by a point or two.

TenuredVulture wrote:Early reports from Arkansas indicate a big turnout for Democrats, not so much for Republicans, even in traditional Republican strongholds. On the surface, this would indicate a lack of enthusiasm for the Republican candidates here, despite Huckabee's presence on the ballot (which would offset some of the Hillary enthusiasm.

Digging deeper, it might be worse than that. In many parts of the state, you vote in the Democratic primary because it's where county and local (and even some statewide) elections are usually decided. But this Feb 5th primary is only the Presidential primary--there are no other races. So people aren't voting in the Democratic primary because of an important sheriff election.

This suggests that the Republican Presidential nominee may have a hard time in Arkansas, which does not bode well for them in the general.

The Red Tornado wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Early reports from Arkansas indicate a big turnout for Democrats, not so much for Republicans, even in traditional Republican strongholds. On the surface, this would indicate a lack of enthusiasm for the Republican candidates here, despite Huckabee's presence on the ballot (which would offset some of the Hillary enthusiasm.

Digging deeper, it might be worse than that. In many parts of the state, you vote in the Democratic primary because it's where county and local (and even some statewide) elections are usually decided. But this Feb 5th primary is only the Presidential primary--there are no other races. So people aren't voting in the Democratic primary because of an important sheriff election.

This suggests that the Republican Presidential nominee may have a hard time in Arkansas, which does not bode well for them in the general.

A bit early aren't we? There's lots of time for the republicans to get fired up- never underestimate them, they awlays come out for the Presidential elections.

jerseyhoya wrote:If Georgia is tough, we might as well not even have the election. Bush won Georgia by about as much as Kerry won New York.

If Hillary is the nominee, I can see Arkansas being tricky. Otherwise, I think Arkansas is sort of like West Virginia. States that voted Dem for a long time, and still do locally and congressionally, but at the presidential level are default R +5-10 points.

I'm concerned about the turnout gap in the primaries. It's why I'm pulling for Hillary to win the Democratic nomination, because we need something to be enthusiastic about, and the base loves to hate the Clintons.

[Consider] Clinton’s unwillingness to break from the larger conservative (and even nationalist) narratives that currently define our political debates.
...
Issues like the war or immigration bubble up from the ground and eventually get translated into some broader narrative or schema that helps people digest it. While Lakoff is wrong about a lot (especially remedies), he's right that narratives matter – and can be stubbornly resistant.

The problem though is not so much the existence of narratives, but that narratives are skewed in nationalist ways – “evil Adobes,” if you will. For instance, it bothers me that we as a nation translate willingness to go to war into signs of personal courage and strength. It bothers me that diplomacy is translated into lovey-dove appeasing of teh enemy. It bothers me that legal protections that people spent centuries fighting for are translated into, and casually dismissed as, terrorist sympathy measures. It bothers me that any tax increase – no matter how limited or progressive – is translated into robbing working people.

These narratives are greater obstacles to progress than the individual issues they encompass. Even if people are convinced that, say, Iraq was a blunder, it will have exactly zero benefit if the larger narratives (problem = war) (war = awesome) remain firmly in place. The key is to break the translation – to reject the premises. Otherwise, tactical victories are ultimately worthless.

The problem with Clinton then is that she seems hopelessly frozen in these narratives – a byproduct of 1994 and coming of political age in Arkansas. Regardless of her disagreement with Republicans on individual issues, she cedes ultimate political victory to them because she accepts the terms of the debate they establish. Her stances on Iraq and Iran are objectionable to be sure, but what really concerns me is that they reveal a worldview that will result in more future bad decisions. Similarly, while her immigrant-bashing might help her tactically, it’s a long-term loser because it solidifies the view that (1) legal process is something one must earn; and (2) immigrants are bad. On the taxes front, her bashing of Obama’s payroll tax suggestion falls into this same category.

VoxOrion wrote:The GOP is done for a while. That doesn't mean McCain can't win the presidency.

Monkeyboy wrote:Huckabee is playing the kingmaker. Without him, I think Romney would be winning, or at least it would still be wide open.

Monkeyboy wrote:Huckabee is playing the kingmaker. Without him, I think Romney would be winning, or at least it would still be wide open.

Monkeyboy wrote:Huckabee is playing the kingmaker. Without him, I think Romney would be winning, or at least it would still be wide open.

LAExile wrote:Today Huckabee might cost Romney votes in Missouri, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. While it's possible that Romney would have gotten enough Huckabee votes those aren't states with a lot of delegates. Huckabee may have an impact in California in some congressional districts, but it might not be enough to affect that many delegates.