New Election 2008 thread

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

[MrRain422]

But with Lesson 2, she depended upon the competency of the Democratic party in Florida and Michigan. If they had stayed put with their primaries, rather than moving earlier in order to have a larger role in the primary, they would have broken up Obama's momentum and who knows where the race would have went.

 

I don't know if this is necessarily true though. Florida would probably have gone to Clinton anyway, but there are too many factors at play in Michigan that make it impossible to know how that primary would have gone. I know several people in Michigan who voted in the Republican primary or didn't vote in primaries at all because they were told that their vote would not count (this is probably true in Florida too). It's also impossible to know how many of the Uncommitted votes would have gone to Obama were his name on the ballot, or how many of those Uncommited voters or Clinton voters might have been swayed to Obama or away from Clinton if they had campaigned in the state. It's possible that Clinton still would have won there but it's far from a foregone conclusion.

 

And also, for the record, in Florida at least it was really the Republican legislature that made the decision to move the primary date up, probably at least in part so as to intentionally help create this controversy within the Democratic party.

[mfwahl]

And also, for the record, in Florida at least it was really the Republican legislature that made the decision to move the primary date up, probably at least in part so as to intentionally help create this controversy within the Democratic party.

As a Florida democrat I assumed this was the case but actually only 2 people out of both houses voted against moving the date, and they were both Republicans. So that decision was made by both sides of the aisle.

 

If it wasn't moved up, I'm not sure who would have won. Probably still Clinton, but you never know. They didn't campaign here and not many people knew Obama. There was high voter turnout because of a high profile state amendment and I think when it got to the president question, people may have voted for name recognition.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

I don't know if this is necessarily true though. Florida would probably have gone to Clinton anyway, but there are too many factors at play in Michigan that make it impossible to know how that primary would have gone. I know several people in Michigan who voted in the Republican primary or didn't vote in primaries at all because they were told that their vote would not count (this is probably true in Florida too). It's also impossible to know how many of the Uncommitted votes would have gone to Obama were his name on the ballot, or how many of those Uncommited voters or Clinton voters might have been swayed to Obama or away from Clinton if they had campaigned in the state. It's possible that Clinton still would have won there but it's far from a foregone conclusion.

 

And also, for the record, in Florida at least it was really the Republican legislature that made the decision to move the primary date up, probably at least in part so as to intentionally help create this controversy within the Democratic party.

 

Valid points, and yes on the second one, but it fell upon the Democratic party not to follow the actions of the Republicans -- which settled long before by giving delegates a half-vote. The Democratic party in Florida has failed for more than a decade to represent its voters here and nationwide -- including 2000, again IMHO.

[MrRain422]

Valid points, and yes on the second one, but it fell upon the Democratic party not to follow the actions of the Republicans -- which settled long before by giving delegates a half-vote. The Democratic party in Florida has failed for more than a decade to represent its voters here and nationwide -- including 2000, again IMHO.

 

Smarmy elitist jerk makes a good point that even the Dems in the Florida legislature did not vote against the move, but I'm not really sure what the Dems who were opposed to it could have done to prevent it. It is the legislature who set the date for the primary.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Smarmy elitist jerk makes a good point that even the Dems in the Florida legislature did not vote against the move, but I'm not really sure what the Dems who were opposed to it could have done to prevent it. It is the legislature who set the date for the primary.

 

It's the same legislature that cut property taxes that have gutted state programs.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

As a Florida democrat I assumed this was the case but actually only 2 people out of both houses voted against moving the date, and they were both Republicans. So that decision was made by both sides of the aisle.

 

If it wasn't moved up, I'm not sure who would have won. Probably still Clinton, but you never know. They didn't campaign here and not many people knew Obama. There was high voter turnout because of a high profile state amendment and I think when it got to the president question, people may have voted for name recognition.

 

Timing is everything. Obama had that run of 11 states -- smaller states, but it played bigger because of the stressed momentum. Even a split vote in either Fla. or Mich. would have recast the race.

 

... and if the dog hadn't stopped to take a dump he would have caught the rabbit....

[MrRain422]

Timing is everything. Obama had that run of 11 states -- smaller states, but it played bigger because of the stressed momentum. Even a split vote in either Fla. or Mich. would have recast the race.

 

... and if the dog hadn't stopped to take a dump he would have caught the rabbit....

 

If those two states had stayed within the rules, their primaries would have been on Feb. 5th at the earliest (probably right on that date since they were trying to make it as early as possible). His run of 11 states didn't start until Feb. 9th. If they had put them right in the middle of that run, between Feb. 9th and Feb. 19th then I guess it could have made some sort of impact, but if it had ended up right on Feb. 5th, then they would have just been two larger states amongst the many states that voted that day, and which split pretty evenly between the candidates. Still very important, no doubt, but not having quite the same impact.

 

The silly thing about it is that for all of the states rushing to move their primaries up to become more relevent, this year's Democratic primary was so close that a lot of those states could have gotten a lot more attention from the candidates and made a bigger impact if they had pushed their primaries back into May. If Michigan or Florida had had their primaries in late May, when all of the other big states had already voted, they would have been huge prizes.

[bjorn_skurj]

The silly thing about it is that for all of the states rushing to move their primaries up to become more relevent, this year's Democratic primary was so close that a lot of those states could have gotten a lot more attention from the candidates and made a bigger impact if they had pushed their primaries back into May. If Michigan or Florida had had their primaries in late May, when all of the other big states had already voted, they would have been huge prizes.

True, but no way of knowing that in advance. Michigan and Florida wanted to pull a fast one, gambling that the national committee would let them get away with it. It is up to the registered Democrats in those states to hold their party leadership accountable, if they choose to. I think Hillary would have taken Florida in a normal primary situation, off the top of my head, because she did much better with teh seniors.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

If those two states had stayed within the rules, their primaries would have been on Feb. 5th at the earliest (probably right on that date since they were trying to make it as early as possible). His run of 11 states didn't start until Feb. 9th. If they had put them right in the middle of that run, between Feb. 9th and Feb. 19th then I guess it could have made some sort of impact, but if it had ended up right on Feb. 5th, then they would have just been two larger states amongst the many states that voted that day, and which split pretty evenly between the candidates. Still very important, no doubt, but not having quite the same impact.

 

The silly thing about it is that for all of the states rushing to move their primaries up to become more relevent, this year's Democratic primary was so close that a lot of those states could have gotten a lot more attention from the candidates and made a bigger impact if they had pushed their primaries back into May. If Michigan or Florida had had their primaries in late May, when all of the other big states had already voted, they would have been huge prizes.

 

2/5 would have been a compromise date, which is what they sought. Their primary, otherwise would have followed Super Tuesday. Winning a large state prior to Obama's run would have done significant damage.

 

On the other hand, I've read a few analyses on how Obama mapped out a state-by-state strategy and stuck to it; which many have credited for his success.

[Edie]

Obama ran a very disciplined campaign -- created a viable plan, raised a boatload of dough, and stuck to the plan, even with a few bumps on the way. I think that this bodes very well for his ability to govern thoughtfully and reasonably.

[W(TF)]

All this navel gazing crap with Florida and Michigan leads to a question. What is really the value of the long and elaborate dance known as the presidential primary season?, asks the simpleton Canadian.

 

I can see the value it had in the early years in America, when transport was by horse, there was no telegram or railroad, and all that. Nowadays it just seems like a big exercise in overindulgence. A lot of spending, fund raising, handshaking, back room meetings with delegates, and "politicking". If a party leader candidate has a national vision, I would rather not see it "shaped" (or eroded) by state hopping and trying to please everyone in every corner of the nation. Especially as every word and facial gesture is under such a bright media spotlight. The amount of analysis is practically stifling.

 

To my knowledge the US is the only major power with such a system, maybe it's a sign that it's getting antiquated? I realize it is a time-honored tradition and not likely to change, etc. Just saying.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Obama ran a very disciplined campaign -- created a viable plan, raised a boatload of dough, and stuck to the plan, even with a few bumps on the way. I think that this bodes very well for his ability to govern thoughtfully and reasonably.

 

I'm hoping so. But if I was as confident as you are, I would have voted for him.

[fatheadfred]

On the other hand, I've read a few analyses on how Obama mapped out a state-by-state strategy and stuck to it; which many have credited for his success.

 

Which is evident in his higher number of delegates disproportionate to popular vote. He is good at strategery.

[fatheadfred]

All this navel gazing crap with Florida and Michigan leads to a question. What is really the value of the long and elaborate dance known as the presidential primary season?, asks the simpleton Canadian.

 

Gives them more time to let their flaws show. They can only maintain a guise of perfection for so long. Also, allows for application of their philosophy to current events that present themselves over the course. And it gives Tim Russert something to get excited about.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

And it gives Tim Russert something to get excited about.

 

But his Crayola Jumbo 8 keeps running out of running out of red and blue.

[fatheadfred]

But his Crayola Jumbo 8 keeps running out of running out of red and blue.

He must have had it poking his arse on Tuesday night cuz he was jumping out of his seat thinking about Obama securing the primary.

[MattZ]

I know a lot of Dems are Hillary haters now, but I would like to suggest that it is possible that this long Dem primary process will help Obama. If you notice, even though Hillary refuses to die, McCain isn't willing to let the Dems continue to trip over themselves. He is actively engaging Obama on many issues.

 

Now, I'd never be so crazy to suggest this was Hillary's strategy. But if this is a calculated move by McCain (to begin engaging Obama before absolutely necessary), it means he thinks that HRC isn't doing nearly the same damage to Obama that McCain and the GOP could do. Or, that McCain wants (or believes he needs) as much time as possible to target independents and the Reagan Democrats (the Hillary supporters, that is). He may fear that the longer HRC is in, the less time he has to fight for them.

 

McCain doesn't seem to have any interest in this Clinton drama. He wants at Obama now. Just food for thought...

[W(TF)]

I still worry that the Dems will find a way to blow it. (again)

[dannygutters]

All this navel gazing crap with Florida and Michigan leads to a question. What is really the value of the long and elaborate dance known as the presidential primary season?, asks the simpleton Canadian.

 

a shorter primary would have helped hillary due to her overwhelming name recognition to obama. Had we had a month long debate period and national voter she would have faired much better. It's an arduous process, but if it gives the candidates a chance to get out to all the states then so be it. If we truely want to foster the notion that 'anyone can be president' I think a long primary is important to allow the dark horses to get ahead. on the other hand the cost factor tends to limit the anyone to anyone who has a lot of money.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

a shorter primary would have helped hillary due to her overwhelming name recognition to obama. Had we had a month long debate period and national voter she would have faired much better. It's an arduous process, but if it gives the candidates a chance to get out to all the states then so be it. If we truely want to foster the notion that 'anyone can be president' I think a long primary is important to allow the dark horses to get ahead. on the other hand the cost factor tends to limit the anyone to anyone who has a lot of money.

 

Compared to the last two elections, the primaries were over following super Tuesday IIRC.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

I know a lot of Dems are Hillary haters now, but I would like to suggest that it is possible that this long Dem primary process will help Obama. If you notice, even though Hillary refuses to die, McCain isn't willing to let the Dems continue to trip over themselves. He is actively engaging Obama on many issues.

 

Now, I'd never be so crazy to suggest this was Hillary's strategy. But if this is a calculated move by McCain (to begin engaging Obama before absolutely necessary), it means he thinks that HRC isn't doing nearly the same damage to Obama that McCain and the GOP could do. Or, that McCain wants (or believes he needs) as much time as possible to target independents and the Reagan Democrats (the Hillary supporters, that is). He may fear that the longer HRC is in, the less time he has to fight for them.

 

McCain doesn't seem to have any interest in this Clinton drama. He wants at Obama now. Just food for thought...

 

The Fox News clan started pounding on her from day one.

 

Your point is interesting. The problem with a charismatic candidate is the winds could shift quickly. It also would give Obama little time to recover from a misstep now that he is the ... err ... man.

[Moe_Syzlak]

From the DNC:

 

"The DNC and the Obama Campaign are unified and working together to elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States. Our presumptive nominee has pledged not to take donations from Washington lobbyists and from today going forward the DNC makes that pledge as well," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "Senator Obama has promised to change the way things are done in Washington and this step is a sure sign of his commitment. The American people's priorities will set the agenda in an Obama Administration, not the special interests."

[MattZ]

Can anyone speak intelligently to this blog or this rumored rant tape? A friend just sent it to me. Is this some stupid HRC supporter with a blog stirring up nonsense, or is this for real? Oh man.

 

http://hillbuzz.blogspot.com/2008/06/whats...-rant-tape.html

[gogo]

I have no actual information on this, but it smells fishy to me. This supposedly happened a month before Obama's keynote address at the Democratic Convention? It seems really unlikely to me that Michelle Obama would be unaware of what statements like that might mean for her husband's future career in politics.