Teh new hotness politics thread (good thru Fantastic Friday)

by **Trent Steele** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 15:29:18

Latest Polls:

NC: 50-40 - Obama
Wis - 50-39 - Obama
Ohio: 56 - 39 - HRC

by **The Red Tornado** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 15:29:56

why is she dominating in OH?

by **Trent Steele** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 15:32:17

The Red Tornado wrote:why is she dominating in OH?

Hillary Clinton tops Barack Obama 56% to 39%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for WCPO-TV Cincinnati, WCMH-TV Columbus, and WEWS-TV Cleveland. Clinton's lead comes entirely from women, where she leads by 29 points. She and Obama are tied among men. Whites vote 3:2 Clinton. Blacks vote 3:1 Obama. Obama runs strongest in Western Ohio, where he holds Clinton to 50% and trails her by 5 points. In Eastern Ohio Clinton leads by 18; in Central Ohio she leads by 30.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 15:32:34

The insane part about Puerto Rico is in the past it has been winner take all, while everything else is proportional. I have no idea why that's the case, but I believe everything Michael Barone says so I have no reason to look into the matter any further. In any case, winning Puerto Rico would give more of a delegate bump than last night's primaries.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 15:40:37

Trent Steele wrote:
The Red Tornado wrote:why is she dominating in OH?

Hillary Clinton tops Barack Obama 56% to 39%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for WCPO-TV Cincinnati, WCMH-TV Columbus, and WEWS-TV Cleveland. Clinton's lead comes entirely from women, where she leads by 29 points. She and Obama are tied among men. Whites vote 3:2 Clinton. Blacks vote 3:1 Obama. Obama runs strongest in Western Ohio, where he holds Clinton to 50% and trails her by 5 points. In Eastern Ohio Clinton leads by 18; in Central Ohio she leads by 30.

I checked the marginals on that poll, and something like 60% of the likely Democratic voters were women.

I know there's a gender gap, but I'm not sure it's that big

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 15:45:23

According to the VA exit polls last night, the electorate was 57-43 female.

According to the MD exit polls last night, the electorate was 62-38 female.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 15:49:12

jerseyhoya wrote:According to the VA exit polls last night, the electorate was 57-43 female.

According to the MD exit polls last night, the electorate was 62-38 female.

If the exit pollsters were hotter, you could change those numbers.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 15:51:55

TenuredVulture wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:According to the VA exit polls last night, the electorate was 57-43 female.

According to the MD exit polls last night, the electorate was 62-38 female.

If the exit pollsters were hotter, you could change those numbers.

That would be a hell of an experiment.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 15:56:21

jerseyhoya wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:According to the VA exit polls last night, the electorate was 57-43 female.

According to the MD exit polls last night, the electorate was 62-38 female.

If the exit pollsters were hotter, you could change those numbers.

That would be a hell of an experiment.

Get me funding. I'll do it.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 16:04:42

Apparently the Governor of Puerto Rico is endorsing Obama. I don't know how much control he has over the apportionment of his delegates, but I'd imagine that's a pretty big thing for him.

by **Laexile** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 16:41:57

jerseyhoya wrote:C) If McCain was able to have 30-40 million to blow on a couple of weeks of national advertising in key states trying to define Obama as a liberal a week or two after the Dem primary wrapped up, that would be phenomenal. Bush went up on TV in March of 2004 after Kerry locked it up and was able to make big strides in setting the tone for the general election.

For the first time since Super Tuesday I got a fundraising email from the McCain campaign. They want it for Wisconsin, Vermont, Washington, Ohio, and Texas.

The email claims that Huckabee needs 950 delegates for the nomination, but can only 774 are available. Apparently they aren't counting party officials as possible to go to Huckabee.

by **Monkeyboy** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 18:32:50

At Talking Points Memo, some points about Hillary's campaign strategery ...Red State Dems Dismiss Hillary Spin On Losses,

Democrats in the red states where Barack Obama has defeated Hillary Clinton are reacting with scorn to Hillary's dismissal of the importance of those states in general elections, The Huffington Post reports.

Hillary has argued in the week since Super Tuesday that her wins in states like California and New Jersey should be seen as the greater victories in consolidating the Democratic base, and that it would take a "tsunami change in America" for some of Obama's states to ever become competitive for Democrats.

******************

Connealy added that a genuine 50-state strategy would benefit the party in multiple ways, in that it would "get the base motivated and force the Republicans to spend resources."

I thought this was a good comment by a poster in the comments section, speaking on the electability of the two Democratic candidates.......

Color me skeptical of Sen Clinton's line here. I am sure that there are some primary contests which Obama won which will not under any circumstances go blue this Nov (e.g. ID, SD, LA, UT, etc). Then there are others which very likely will go blue with Obama as our man but not with Clinton (KS, MO, CO, NE and IA for my money). Then there are red states which could go blue with either candidate at our helm (NM and WV). While we are on the subject, Sen Clinton's remarks cut both ways - many of those red states which Obama won will not go blue, but I dare say that none of those blue states which Clinton won will go red regardless of whom we nominate. It is not as if Clinton is the only democrat who could carry CA or MA in a general election; a yellow dog could win those states if s/he had the democratic nomination. Finally, there are some blue states which I could forsee going red if Clinton is our nominee (MI and maybe WI specifically) but not if Obama is the nominee. Of course, I pretend to no special expertise, so no one should read anything I write as especially authoritative, but I stand by the claim that Obama could turn some of those red states blue and prove Clinton's line here wrong.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 18:35:01

That person's credibility is mortally wounded by including Nebraska on a list of states that Obama could win. Really? Nebraska?

Edit: That said I think they're more right then wrong. But I'll fixate on that Nebraska thing.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 18:37:26

jerseyhoya wrote:That person's credibility is mortally wounded by including Nebraska on a list of states that Obama could win. Really? Nebraska?

It's a poster on a message board. How can his credibility be wounded if he never had credibility in the first place?

by **pacino** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 18:42:17

I can't wait for the 'people are voting for him BECAUSE he's black' line to come out from one of these talk show hosts. Hannity is all over this line of thinking, basically saying that people don't know why they like him, and it's all personality.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 18:47:08

If McCain loses the Presidential election, it will be hilarious watching the Republicans nominate someone even more conservative next time around.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 18:56:08

TenuredVulture wrote:If McCain loses the Presidential election, it will be hilarious watching the Republicans nominate someone even more conservative next time around.

Our problem isn't going to be nominating a conservative. It'll just be that we need to nominate some who is charismatic and doesn't break the base apart with a sledgehammer. We need to get some governors reelected in 2010. Or Jeb Bush needs to change his last name.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 19:03:03

jerseyhoya wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:If McCain loses the Presidential election, it will be hilarious watching the Republicans nominate someone even more conservative next time around.

Our problem isn't going to be nominating a conservative. It'll just be that we need to nominate some who is charismatic and doesn't break the base apart with a sledgehammer. We need to get some governors reelected in 2010. Or Jeb Bush needs to change his last name.

The way the party stands now, you can't nominate a governor. None will be ideologically pure enough. Governors have to pay bills, keep schools open, maintain roads, and make sure old people aren't dying in large numbers in nursing homes. I mean you painted Huckabee as a socialist because he raised taxes on cigarettes and closed a budget gap without resorting to the kind of one-offs that have made a mess of state finances from California to NJ. I can't imagine what you'd do to someone like Riley from Alabama. Jeb Bush? I guarantee that Florida has a lot more big state government programs that Arkiesaw. Rick Perry? I dare you. Haley Barbour?

Maybe, just maybe, in 8 years, you can try with Jindal. We'll see how ideologically pure he is after governing the Pelican state for two terms.

by **Monkeyboy** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 19:23:30

jerseyhoya wrote:That person's credibility is mortally wounded by including Nebraska on a list of states that Obama could win. Really? Nebraska?

Edit: That said I think they're more right then wrong. But I'll fixate on that Nebraska thing.

Yeh, no way Obama takes Nebraska.

by **meatball** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 20:00:44

The Red Tornado wrote:why is she dominating in OH?

Part of it also might be that he hasn't campaigned there yet. He will be spending plenty of time there shortly.

Archived

Teh new hotness politics thread (good thru Fantastic Friday)