Teh new hotness politics thread (good thru Fantastic Friday)

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 23:56:24

dajafi wrote:John Lewis switches super-delegate vote to Obama

This makes me very, very happy. Lewis is one of my heroes, and at least in the conversation for "greatest living American."

Huge.

Both because of who Lewis is, but if the super delegate edge starts disappearing, one of Hillary's only remaining paths to the nomination is gone.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 01:06:17

The Red Tornado wrote:not one mention of FISA and associated BS?

You mean that "impromptu" GOP walkout? It had to be impromptu, right? I mean, the podium with all those microphones waiting on the steps outside...

Let's see... GWB said the FISA bill had to be passed or Americans would be in danger. GWB said he'd veto the FISA bill if it didn't contain the retroactive telecom immunity. So, deductive reasoning would lead one to believe that GWB cares more about the telecoms than American lives.

It's only a coincidence that AG Mukasey's son is a partner in Bracewell and Giuliani... a law firm that, coincidentally, represents Verizon (and yes, that "Giuliani" is Rudy).

by **meatball** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:39:15

One poll has Obama taking the lead in Texas.

It's an open primary state, and he holds the edge with independents

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:41:35

meatball wrote:One poll has Obama taking the lead in Texas.

It's an open primary state, and he holds the edge with independents

Hillary's gap among Hispanics is all gone according to that poll. Bodes very poorly for her. Well, so does the fact that she's losing.

Jesus, that's some gender gap.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:45:23

I wonder if this recent shooting will renew pressure for some sane federal regulations on firearms.

Probably not, but we can hope.

And I'm really, really ticked off (again) at my boll weevil jerk representatives to congress. (Energy Bill and Ag Bill being the issues that are agitating me this morning.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 13:08:50

OTOH, Rasmussen has Hillary up big in Texas. Neither ARG nor Rasmussen are atop my list of favorite pollsters, so I don't know who to believe more. Eh, it's not for a few weeks anyway.

link

by **dajafi** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 13:19:19

jerseyhoya wrote:OTOH, Rasmussen has Hillary up big in Texas. Neither ARG nor Rasmussen are atop my list of favorite pollsters, so I don't know who to believe more. Eh, it's not for a few weeks anyway.

link

I used my mod powers to edit this so the page didn't stretch. No original content was harmed in the making of this edit.

The poll I saw on TV this morning btw had Clinton up 8 in Texas, 49-41. But Obama's likely big endorsement today from the SEIU should give him a boost there. The speculation is that he's actually more viable in TX than Ohio.

by **seke2** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 14:08:28

even if obama loses texas and ohio and pennsylvania, if he's even decently close in the voting totals he's probably holding on to his delegate lead, right?

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 14:10:21

seke2 wrote:even if obama loses texas and ohio and pennsylvania, if he's even decently close in the voting totals he's probably holding on to his delegate lead, right?

In pledged delegates, yes.

If super delegates are included and Clinton maintains her sizable lead there (no sure thing), Hillary might be ahead after PA if she can win all three of those states.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 14:13:18

seke2 wrote:even if obama loses texas and ohio and pennsylvania, if he's even decently close in the voting totals he's probably holding on to his delegate lead, right?

If Obama loses Ohio and Pennsylvania I think Hillary can make a convincing case that she is the more electable candidate, and sway the superdelegates. The Dems need Pennsylvania to win in November, and probably they need Ohio as well (in my opinion, it's the Bush state most likely to go D in 2008). So, by winning there it will lend a great deal of credibility to the idea that since Oklahoma and Texas aren't going to go Dem anyway (barring some kind of insanely incompetent Republican effort, the electability that matters is in the big swing states.

by **Laexile** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 14:29:47

jerseyhoya wrote:OTOH, Rasmussen has Hillary up big in Texas. Neither ARG nor Rasmussen are atop my list of favorite pollsters, so I don't know who to believe more. Eh, it's not for a few weeks anyway.

link

For the Democrats Texas has unusual delegate rules a little like California for the Republicans. In California McCain won by 8 points but won 158 delegates to Romney's 12. Clinton won by 9 points but won 207 to Obama's 163. Delegates are won based on congressional district.

126 delegates will be awarded based on the vote in each of the 31 state senatorial districts. The number of delegates n each district is not equal. They ares are allocated based on the number of votes cast in districts in the 2004 and 2006 presidential and gubernatorial elections.

In two African-American districts in Houston and Dallas 13 delegates are available. Two Rio Grande Valley Hispanic districts only have 7 delegates.
Thus, a vote for Clinton may not be worth as much as a vote for Obama. Statewide polls won't accurately reflect the delegate allocation. Of course Texas has another 102 at large, superdelegates, and pledged party delegates, most of which won't be allocated until the state convention in June.

by **dajafi** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 15:00:46

The Rude Pundit explains why Hillary Clinton's campaign has floundered(I quote the non-obscene part):

Hillary Clinton makes it so easy to dislike her when she says, as she did yesterday regarding Barack Obama's candidacy: "Speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night...There’s a big difference between us — speeches versus solutions. Talk versus action. You know, some people may think words are change. But you and I know better. Words are cheap." So that's where her argument now rests: Hillary Clinton is the kid who always whines that only the popular people get to be on the student council.
...
It's sad, really, how badly [Mark] Penn wants to be Karl Rove when he's just, at the end of the day, like every cartoon villain who thinks he can control dark forces that will make him blow up or become a dessicated corpse. In Penn's case, let's go with "blow up."

And so it's even sadder that Hillary Clinton invested so much of her presidential ambitions in this wannabe intellectual, this bloated boob, who says smart sounding things like calling groups of people [things] like "Impressionable Elites" and "Permissive Parents," spouting vaguely coherent pop sociology like, "Numbers help you land on something that is incontrovertibly true." Well, that is until they don't.

The reason that Barack Obama has a movement behind him is that he went for a unifying movement. Clinton, listening to Penn, who saw how Rove eked out "wins" through targeting small, specific groups, is now in the position of trying to string together the Caffeine Crazies and the Unisexuals and the Working Retired into a crazy patchwork of a majority while creating the illusion of a movement.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 15:04:10

Mark Penn's book Microtrends could have been really interesting. Instead, it just identifies small cells on three way crosstabs and gives them interesting names (except when small group in question already had a cool name, like Cougars).

by **dajafi** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 15:09:17

My goodness... the Democrats show evidence of spine/testicles.

Perhaps they're realizing that many will face primaries if they continue to bend over every time President 28 Percent wants to wipe himself with the Constitution.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 15:51:30

dajafi wrote:My goodness... the Democrats show evidence of spine/testicles.

Perhaps they're realizing that many will face primaries if they continue to bend over every time President 28 Percent wants to wipe himself with the Constitution.

You guys are getting to where we were about 8 years ago when the Club for Growth started zeroing in on folks.

It'll be fun for a few years, heck you'll probably get a lot done, then you'll overreach and a few folks will be shuffled off to jail, and we'll kick the crap out of you in like 2014. The circle of life.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 15:53:44

I live in a weird place

Hid the machines? Really?

by **traderdave** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 16:33:50

jerseyhoya wrote:I live in a weird place

Hid the machines? Really?

Lets see - we can watch Congressional debate on CSPAN this very minute online; we can shoot a text message to family/friends from our cell phones; we can have a videoconference with parties halfway around the world any time, day or night; post videos on the Internet; billions of dollars of commerce takes place on computers, etc. - yet somehow our government can't figure out a way to allow all our citizens to vote.

Our government really has no room to rip foreign countries over THEIR voting procedures.

by **dajafi** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 16:35:10

jerseyhoya wrote:
dajafi wrote:My goodness... the Democrats show evidence of spine/testicles.

Perhaps they're realizing that many will face primaries if they continue to bend over every time President 28 Percent wants to wipe himself with the Constitution.

You guys are getting to where we were about 8 years ago when the Club for Growth started zeroing in on folks.

It'll be fun for a few years, heck you'll probably get a lot done, then you'll overreach and a few folks will be shuffled off to jail, and we'll kick the crap out of you in like 2014. The circle of life.

I see what you're saying, and you're probably right in terms of what will happen. But for me it's not "us guys." I'm motivated by principle ("giving government unlimited power to spy on Americans is bad") rather than party. I wish more Republicans were on the right side of this issue, whatever the politics.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 16:53:05

[url=http://www.pollster.com/blogs/white_men_with_obama_since_the.php] regarding white men and the Obama vote.

This primary season is going to generate dozens of journal articles for political scientists if people believe the data. One thing to not about the South though is that, aside from Virginia and Arkansas, white men make up a relatively small part of the Democratic electorate.[/url]

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 16:56:24

Surprised at how poorly he did in Jersey. And at how low the white men percentage was of the electorate...25%? Wow.

Archived

Teh new hotness politics thread (good thru Fantastic Friday)