The ONE AND ONLY Politics Thread

by **BuddyGroom** » Thu May 08, 2008 12:00:24

1) I don't know who did it, but I heard that a pretty reputable political scientist did an analysis of the 1992 returns and determined that Perot swung only Ohio to Clinton. Ohio is a big state, but Clinton would have won in 1992 without it.

2) It should be noted that in 1996, Clinton got 49% in a three-way race against a very popular, mainstream Republican, Bob Dole. Yes, Dole ran a pretty poor campaign that year, but he was John McCain before McCain was such a well-known figure. Dole was a media darling and widely seen by the media and general public as a "reasonable conservative."

I think Bill Clinton is the best Democratic politician since FDR.

by **dajafi** » Thu May 08, 2008 12:10:07

BuddyGroom wrote:1) I don't know who did it, but I heard that a pretty reputable political scientist did an analysis of the 1992 returns and determined that Perot swung only Ohio to Clinton. Ohio is a big state, but Clinton would have won in 1992 without it.

You can't just go by the returns. The entire dynamic of that race was impacted by Perot; without him in the picture, Clinton would have come under much heavier attack, and Bush wouldn't have had to defend himself from criticism on fiscal responsibility anywhere near to the extent he did; remember that the Dems were still known and castigated as tax-and-spenders first last and always. (If you want to tip your cap to Bill Clinton, his good work in dispelling that perception--as well as the staggering fiscal irresponsibility of Bush/DeLay--is a good palce to start.)

As for '96, Clinton won that year in large part because he was a better natural politician than Dole--a good man who was clearly past his time and had a bit of the Al Gore problem, in that he didn't trust his personality to play on TV--and in large part because he absolutely spent Dole into oblivion.

FWIW, these are the same two reasons I suspect Obama will beat McCain, even though he is <whisper>black</whisper>.

by **pacino** » Thu May 08, 2008 18:08:51

linky

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

by **dajafi** » Thu May 08, 2008 18:11:34

Clinton/Duke?
Clinton/Buchanan?
Clinton/Kramer?

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu May 08, 2008 18:16:26

This should end her candidacy right there.

by **dajafi** » Thu May 08, 2008 18:23:32

TenuredVulture wrote:This should end her candidacy right there.

You really wonder what it would take at this point. Strangling a baby on camera? Some awful sex act with Cheney? Arguing that Isaiah Thomas got a bum rap when he was fired?

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu May 08, 2008 18:25:36

Her candidacy can't end until she wins WV by 25 points. Then she is free to go.

by **Philly the Kid** » Thu May 08, 2008 18:54:29

TenuredVulture wrote:This should end her candidacy right there.

She's desperate now. Grasping for life.... out of cash, heard she borrowed 6mil on top of another 5mil.... it's a fairly close contest, but at a certain point, forces greater than yourself and your own desires take hold... the Obama train isn't moving 100mph, but it's move like 35mph... and she can't outrun it....

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Thu May 08, 2008 19:54:38

Can't find a bigger image of the new Time Magazine cover, they only have a small "thumbnail" one here.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Thu May 08, 2008 20:14:13

Did Harvey Weinstein arm-twist Nancy Pelosi?

Summation... Weinstein (co-founder of Miramax) offered a plan to finance revotes in Michigan and Florida. Sources say he threatened to cut off contributions to congressional Democrats if there aren't revotes. Weinstein says he didn't threaten Pelosi, but offered a financing plan and warned against alienating voters in two rich electoral vote states.

by **Macho Row** » Thu May 08, 2008 20:17:58

Indiana's Secretary of State verified the final tally from Tuesday night. Official numbers:

HRC 637,814 votes -- 50.4%
Obama 626,642 votes -- 49.6%

Difference of 11,152 -- 0.8%

Insanely close. Anybody think Operation Chaos played a role in HRC hanging on?

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Thu May 08, 2008 23:47:25

Macho Row wrote:Insanely close. Anybody think Operation Chaos played a role in HRC hanging on?

Only Rush Limbo, and that's because his ego is ginormous.

by **TomatoPie** » Fri May 09, 2008 08:22:51

The clamor is rising for Hillary to drop out of the race.

"She's hurting the party!"

"Barack has to spend money fighting her instead of McCain!"

So, for the "good of the party," Hillary should drop out and support Obama.

Right?

Well, there are a boatload of uncommitted Super Delegates out there. If Obama is the only choice, why are they uncommitted?

They could end this thing RIGHT NOW by coming out for Obama. Yet they do not.

Why?

Well, as dim as the Dems often seem, they apparently have grasped that Hillary is strong in the key swing states that Obama can't win.

Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. That's the election right there. Hillary beats McCain there, Obama does not.

There are a sufficient number of Dems who understand that.

by **Woody** » Fri May 09, 2008 08:24:11

Politics blows

by **VoxOrion** » Fri May 09, 2008 08:35:18

Woody wrote:Politics threads blow

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Fri May 09, 2008 10:18:13

Steelers Chairman Dan Rooney is endorsing and stumping for Obama.

by **Grotewold** » Fri May 09, 2008 10:37:23

TomatoPie wrote:If Obama is the only choice, why are they uncommitted?

It's an interesting question. I wonder whether they just don't want to upset the Clinton machine unless they absolutely have to.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri May 09, 2008 10:49:26

Grotewold wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:If Obama is the only choice, why are they uncommitted?

It's an interesting question. I wonder whether they just don't want to upset the Clinton machine unless they absolutely have to.

One reasonable answer: They're idiots. Remember, these are the kind of people who think John Kerry and Michael Dukakis make good candidates.

by **meatball** » Fri May 09, 2008 11:08:56

It was also mentioned that a signifant number of them are simply waiting for the primaries to end, out of respect for her. Ah, who the heck knows.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri May 09, 2008 12:35:05

Webb for VP

Dajafi's boy

Archived

The ONE AND ONLY Politics Thread