U.S. Prez Election: Michigan Primary/Nevada Caucus

[Lemur]

Well, I hope nobody minds if we condense Michigan and Nevada into a single thread. As per usual, pick your poison, and the candidates are listed in alpha order. In keeping with the way primaries are usually run, I'm gonna leave the poll anonymous.

To kick things off, Maureen Dowd has a very amusing column today:

Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: January 9, 2008

When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes.

A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it over and over, drawn to the “humanized” Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues cringed. “We are at war,” he said. “Is this how she’ll talk to Kim Jong-il?”

Another reporter joked: “That crying really seemed genuine. I’ll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand.” He added dryly: “Crying doesn’t usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships.”

Bill Clinton was known for biting his lip, but here was Hillary doing the Muskie. Certainly it was impressive that she could choke up and stay on message.

She won her Senate seat after being embarrassed by a man. She pulled out New Hampshire and saved her presidential campaign after being embarrassed by another man. She was seen as so controlling when she ran for the Senate that she had to be seen as losing control, as she did during the Monica scandal, before she seemed soft enough to attract many New York voters.

Getting brushed back by Barack Obama in Iowa, her emotional moment here in a cafe and her chagrin at a debate question suggesting she was not likable served the same purpose, making her more appealing, especially to women, particularly to women over 45.

The Obama campaign calculated that they had the women’s vote over the weekend but watched it slip away in the track of her tears.

At the Portsmouth cafe on Monday, talking to a group of mostly women, she blinked back her misty dread of where Obama’s “false hopes” will lead us — “I just don’t want to see us fall backwards,” she said tremulously — in time to smack her rival: “But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not.”

There was a poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one. But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.

As Spencer Tracy said to Katharine Hepburn in “Adam’s Rib,” “Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid.”

The Clintons once more wriggled out of a tight spot at the last minute. Bill churlishly dismissed the Obama phenom as “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen,” but for the last few days, it was Hillary who seemed in danger of being Cinderella. She became emotional because she feared that she had reached her political midnight, when she would suddenly revert to the school girl with geeky glasses and frizzy hair, smart but not the favorite. All those years in the shadow of one Natural, only to face the prospect of being eclipsed by another Natural?

How humiliating to have a moderator of the New Hampshire debate ask her to explain why she was not as popular as the handsome young prince from Chicago. How demeaning to have Obama rather ungraciously chime in: “You’re likable enough.” And how exasperating to be pushed into an angry rebuttal when John Edwards played wingman, attacking her on Obama’s behalf.

“I actually have emotions,” she told CNN’s John Roberts on a damage-control tour. “I know that there are some people who doubt that.” She went on “Access Hollywood” to talk about, as the show put it, “the double standards that a woman running for president faces.” “If you get too emotional, that undercuts you,” Hillary said. “A man can cry; we know that. Lots of our leaders have cried. But a woman, it’s a different kind of dynamic.”

It was a peculiar tactic. Here she was attacking Obama for spreading gauzy emotion by spreading gauzy emotion. When Hillary hecklers yelled “Iron my shirt!” at her in Salem on Monday, it stirred sisterhood.

At Hillary’s victory party in Manchester, Carolyn Marwick, 65, said Hillary showed she was human at the cafe. “I think she’s really tired. She’s been under a lot more scrutiny than the other candidates — how she dresses, how she laughs.”

Her son, David, 35, an actor, said he also “got choked up” when he saw Hillary get choked up. He echoed Hillary’s talking points on the likability issue. “It’s not ‘American Idol.’ You have to vote smart.”

Olivia Cooper, 41, of Concord said, “When you think you’re not going to make it, it’s heart-wrenching when you want something so much.”

Gloria Steinem wrote in The Times yesterday that one of the reasons she is supporting Hillary is that she had “no masculinity to prove.” But Hillary did feel she needed to prove her masculinity. That was why she voted to enable W. to invade Iraq without even reading the National Intelligence Estimate and backed the White House’s bellicosity on Iran.

Yet, in the end, she had to fend off calamity by playing the female victim, both of Obama and of the press. Hillary has barely talked to the press throughout her race even though the Clintons this week whined mightily that the press prefers Obama.

Bill Clinton, campaigning in Henniker on Monday, also played the poor-little-woman card in a less-than-flattering way. “I can’t make her younger, taller or change her gender,” he said. He was so low-energy at events that it sometimes seemed he was distancing himself from her. Now that she is done with New Hampshire, she may distance herself from him, realizing that seeing Bill so often reminds voters that they don’t want to go back to that whole megillah again.

Hillary sounded silly trying to paint Obama as a poetic dreamer and herself as a prodigious doer. “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,” she said. Did any living Democrat ever imagine that any other living Democrat would try to win a presidential primary in New Hampshire by comparing herself to L.B.J.? (Who was driven out of politics by Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire.)

Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink. The people from Hope are arguing against hope.

At her victory party, Hillary was like the heroine of a Lifetime movie, a woman in peril who manages to triumph. Saying that her heart was full, she sounded the feminist anthem: “I found my own voice.”

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why anonymous? I'll re-post what I just posted in the NH thread.

Link to poll averages

I was actually surprised by the Republican results last night. McCain was slated for 31.8% of the vote and Romney for 28.2.

In the end, the Voter turnout was record breaking and McCain was given 37% of the vote. You would assume that Romney would be the big loser, BUT he came away with 32% of the vote. This means, obviously that he got a higher percentage of the Republican vote than expected AND way more votes in general. Huckabee lost out by a little over 1 or 2% (or simply had no bounce in NH after Iowa) and Thompson lost half of his polled votes.

Very interesting.

This race has really become a four man show

Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Huckabee.

Do you think Thompson and Hunter will bow out right after South Carolina?


PS - Nader said he would probably run if Hildabeast recieved the nomination.

[Lemur]

Because that's how real votes work. You pick whomever you want, and you don't have to explain it to anybody if you don't feel like it. Supposedly it leads to more honest voting.

Anyway, that's my thinking. If everybody hates it, I can change it back for the next thread.

-edit-

This sort of thing really honks me off. It's the sort of demonization of the opposition that I think is really, truly unhelpful.

Hillary Clinton won the votes of traditional New Hampshire Democrats yesterday. Barack Obama won the new Democrats.

Clinton won every ward in Manchester and Nashua. She won the old industrial cities of Claremont and Berlin and the city of Rochester and large town of Salem. She won the wards where the state's minority voters — black and Hispanic — live. And she won women.

Obama won the far-left, coffee-shop strongholds of Concord, Hanover, Lebanon, Keene, and Portsmouth. He won the Starbucks crowd; she won the Dunkin' Donuts crowd.

Clinton's margin of victory in Manchester and Nashua was more than 5,000 votes.

The Jeanne Shaheen machine and the traditional Democratic Party coalition of blue collar and middle class families carried the day for Clinton while Obama's wealthy, educated, elite Democratic and independent supporters put up a good fight but were left sobbing in their lattes.

So if Dems are working-class or minorities, well, that speaks for itself, doesn't it? And if they are college-educated and/or professionals, they must be effete elites who cry into their Starbucks cups.

Nice. Who says that Edwards and Huckabee have a lock on class warfare?

Is an educated Republican who earns good money an "elite"? I thought they were "successful." God, I can't begin to explain how much this sort of partisan double-standards demagoguery ticks me off.

[CountArach]

My Kucinich vote is duly put in

[ICantSpellDawg]

Nice. Who says that Edwards and Huckabee have a lock on class warfare?

Is an educated Republican who earns good money an "elite"? I thought they were "successful." God, I can't begin to explain how much this sort of partisan double-standards demagoguery ticks me off.

That is exactly what I'm friggin talking about.

Countries who vilify their hard working, intelligent and proud population for populist appeal are doomed economically.

[Lemur]

I don't even know who to vote for in my own poll. I'll break it down into tiers.

McCain and Obama are my top tier. Either man would be good for the country. At the moment I honestly can't pick between them. If they ran against each other, I'd have to flip a coin. Then again, if they ran against each other, I would have no worries, since in a very real sense I couldn't lose.

Romney is my second-tier pick. As much as I love Ron Paul, I can't imagine him governing the nation. Romney, on the other hand, has a great track record, and as I've said elsewhere, he bothered to balance a budget. That is a rare and precious commodity in these times.

Edwards, Thompson and Huckabee are all non-starters for me. Edwards is trying to play an amateur game of class warfare, which is just silly. Thompson does not seem to have the energy for the job, nor the charisma to use the bully pulpit effectively. Huckabee does not believe in evolution. Hate to say it, but that's a deal-breaker.

Giuliani and Clinton are in what I like to think of as the "Oh God, please no" category. Giuliani has autocratic tendencies that I distrust deeply. Clinton would be the Democratic version of George W. Bush. I know, I've been comparing her to Nixon, but maybe even that's a little too elevated for her.

I actually donated money to a campaign today, something I haven't done in years. Two campaigns, actually. I'm sure you can guess who they were.

So how do I vote?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I actually donated money to a campaign today, something I haven't done in years. Two campaigns, actually. I'm sure you can guess who they were.

So how do I vote?

I just did too! I bought 2 mugs for a total of $28!

I just bought pencils for every Romney office in MI!

[FactionHeir]

With Ron Paul seemingly winning each and every ORG poll on politics, maybe one of you should contact him and make him president of the backroom?

[ICantSpellDawg]

He lost the last poll to Obama. That's a good idea though.

[Xiahou]

I don't even know who to vote for in my own poll. I'll break it down into tiers.

Honestly, I can't get that excited about any of the candidates for either party.

My first choice, obviously, would be Fred Thompson. He's pretty consistent on all the issues I support, and frankly, I think we could really use a more laid back chief executive. He's the only one that I cant feel any enthusiasm at all about- but, I realize his election is pretty much a pipe dream.

Next would be a tie for McCain/Romney. McCain is good on foreign policy, pretty good on pork, but bad on taxes and hates freedom(IE: thinks the government knows better than us). Romney talks a good talk and has good management experience. I just have a hard time believing him. Paul, Guiliani, and Huckabee... I'm just plain not interested in for various reasons that I've explained many times elsewhere.

On the Democrat side, I would probably rank my choices in order as Hillary, Obama, and Edwards- Edwards being the worst by a longshot.

An interesting metric (at least I think so), is whether I'd rather have the candidate or just keep our current President, who I don't think to highly of either. The only ones I'd rather have over our current nincompoop are Thompson, McCain, and Romney- the point being that I'm really unsatisfied with pretty much all of the possible candidates.

[woad&fangs]

I voted Paul in the last thread but their is no way in ******* **** that Hildabeast should have won New Hamphshire. Now I know my plan for running for president. 1. cry my bloody eyes out. 2. Have my husband spouting off bs lies about the uppity negro(his support of the Iraq war). **** Hildabeast, She'll take Michigan and Nevada over my dead body!!!!

O-B-A-M-A FOR PREZ

1. Obama
2. McCain(is it just me or does he seem like he's on his deathbed?)
3. Romney(He makes my skin crawl but I think he'll balance the budget and he'll become very moderate as president.)

4. Paul(Obama is a better use of the **** the GOV vote)
5. Thompson(too conservative for me to really like him but he doesn't seem power hungry at all.)

6. Edwards(too liberal)
7. Huckabee(Too socially conservative and financially liberal)
8. Giuliani(He would be an autocrat but he still wouldnt be as bad as....)
8. Hildabeast('nuff said)

[FactionHeir]

An interesting metric (at least I think so), is whether I'd rather have the candidate or just keep our current President, who I don't think to highly of either. The only ones I'd rather have over our current nincompoop are Thompson, McCain, and Romney- the point being that I'm really unsatisfied with pretty much all of the possible candidates.

Save your vote for Nader then. He's rumored to run in the actual election.

[FactionHeir]

2. Have my husband spouting off bs lies about the uppity negro(his support of the Iraq war). **** Hildabeast, She'll take Michigan and Nevada over my dead body!!!!

In the comments section of the CNN political ticker page, there was some disagreement whether it were lies or not.
I think there was an arguement that Obama was not even in senate when the vote of invasion was put up, so its easy to say that he was anti war and still is.
Similarly, he said that if the war was approved, that it would have to be seen through (i.e. by supporting the troops) and he voted for legislation authorizing funds for iraq during his term.
So he is flip flopping on that issue really.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I agree with Tuff that this poll should not be anonymous! I am simply dying to find out who placed that one vote on Romney.

Hildabeast, She'll take Michigan and Nevada over my dead body!!!!

B..but Woad, why? Please, won't you reconsider? I am very dissapointed in you now.

Please vote Hillary.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree with Tuff that this poll should not be anonymous! I am simply dying to find out who placed that one vote on Romney.

B..but Woad, why? Please, won't you reconsider? I am very dissapointed in you now.

Please vote Hillary.

Don't BS me - We all know it was you.

[seireikhaan]

I voted Paul in the last thread but their is no way in ******* **** that Hildabeast should have won New Hamphshire. Now I know my plan for running for president. 1. cry my bloody eyes out. 2. Have my husband spouting off bs lies about the uppity negro(his support of the Iraq war). **** Hildabeast, She'll take Michigan and Nevada over my dead body!!!!

O-B-A-M-A FOR PREZ

1. Obama
2. McCain(is it just me or does he seem like he's on his deathbed?)
3. Romney(He makes my skin crawl but I think he'll balance the budget and he'll become very moderate as president.)

4. Paul(Obama is a better use of the **** the GOV vote)
5. Thompson(too conservative for me to really like him but he doesn't seem power hungry at all.)

6. Edwards(too liberal)
7. Huckabee(Too socially conservative and financially liberal)
8. Giuliani(He would be an autocrat but he still wouldnt be as bad as....)
8. Hildabeast('nuff said)

Although i would have Romney waaay farther down my list. Other than that, its either Obama or McCain for me. McCain, at the least, (imo) wouln't completely screw the country over. But he's still a distant second for me from Obama(considering Richardson is all but out of the race).

[Xiahou]

Save your vote for Nader then. He's rumored to run in the actual election.

No. Nader's even worse.

edit:
In addition who "Who do you want to win?" polls, I'd like to see "Who do you think will win?" polls as well. People who know they're voting for a loser can still prognosticate about who they think will win.

[Lemur]

Richardson is out -- it's anybody's race now!

[Ice]

Paul

or

McCain

I wouldn't mind either.

I don't think I could vote for any democrat when I think about it. Osama has character, but it really stops there. All I ever see/hear from him is a bunch of overblown rhetoric calling for "change".... change... and MORE CHANGE. I mean, it's a joke. What exactly is "change", Obama, and how will you accomplish this?

Hill Dog is a definite no, although it was brilliant how she manipulated last minute women voters. Brilliant.

I'd rather vote for Mike Hukabee (that's saying a lot considering I hate the religious right), than Edwards. He just comes off as an awful commander in chief.

[Lemur]

Osama has character, but it really stops there. All I ever see/hear from him is a bunch of overblown rhetoric calling for "change".... change... and MORE CHANGE. I mean, it's a joke. What exactly is "change", Obama, and how will you accomplish this?

Oh for pete's sake, don't blame the candidates for dumbing it down to one-word slogans. If we want detailed position papers, they all have them, usually posted to their websites. Obama has them, most of the other candidates do as well.

Look how well it's going for the one guy who refuses to do anything but talk in detailed, substantive policy. He grabbed a whole 1% of the New Hampshire vote. Wheee!

Besides which, how much of a President's actions really corollate to the planks, platforms and papers they put out ahead of the election? As one blogger put it today:

When it comes to electing a president, I don’t care so much about that. Congress will have a legislative agenda, and they will (or they won’t) implement it. The president’s agenda too often is set by someone else, like al-Qaeda. And when that time comes, I want a measured, principled, reflective president with a rigorous intellect who will capably work with people on either side of the aisle to ensure that the right decisions are made. What I don't want is a partisan warrior for whom political power and public service have become all but indistinguishable. That’s why I’m backing Obama. It’s also why I’ll make McCain the first Republican ever to get my presidential vote if the race comes down to him and Senator Clinton.

-edit-

Another thought: If Obama's change slogan is so inane and worthless, why is every candidate except for Alan Keyes aping him and appropriating the meme? Seems to me he got his idiot-friendly one-word slogan right.

[Xiahou]

When it comes to electing a president, I don’t care so much about that. Congress will have a legislative agenda, and they will (or they won’t) implement it. The president’s agenda too often is set by someone else, like al-Qaeda. And when that time comes, I want a measured, principled, reflective president with a rigorous intellect who will capably work with people on either side of the aisle to ensure that the right decisions are made. What I don't want is a partisan warrior for whom political power and public service have become all but indistinguishable. That’s why I’m backing Obama. It’s also why I’ll make McCain the first Republican ever to get my presidential vote if the race comes down to him and Senator Clinton.

That comment is its own refutation. If his "change" rhetoric is nothing but political hot air, what is it that sets him apart from any other politician that lusts for power? He's spouting a bunch of empty, feel good rhetoric, and we're supposed to praise him for it? I don't see how we can know he'd be a "measured, principled, reflective president with a rigorous intellect" when all he's doing is blowing smoke up our butts.

[Lemur]

Wow, Pindar flashback. "X is its own refutation," etc. Next thing I know you're going to tell me I am "confusing" you.

The comment is not self-contradictory at all. The blogger is saying that he wants a moderate Prez who will reach across party lines and build coalitions rather than another partisan hack. In what way does that contradict itself?

Or rather are you saying that the statement contradicts the "change" mantra? In which case, so what? As I said, we can't really urinate on the candidates because they do some sloganeering. (Except for Thompson, who does no slogans, no catchphrases, and no pithy stuff whatsoever. It's beneath him, I guess.)

In your vein of logic, we should all decry the emptiness of "I Like Ike!" How dare Eisenhower suggest that I like him? What does it mean, exactly? Why won't he engage in real policy? "I Like Ike!" is a vapid, empty statement, and we should all rush to condemn it.

[Ice]

Oh for pete's sake, don't blame the candidates for dumbing it down to one-word slogans. If we want detailed position papers, they all have them, usually posted to their websites. Obama has them, most of the other candidates do as well.

I do blame the candidates for dumbing the issues down. I think it's a retarded populist idea to get votes. Do I understand it? Sure. Do I support it? NO.

Look how well it's going for the one guy who refuses to do anything but talk in detailed, substantive policy. He grabbed a whole 1% of the New Hampshire vote. Wheee!

That's why I like the man so much, actually. I'm sick of candidates lying out their ass and selling their souls to get elected.

Another thought: If Obama's change slogan is so inane and worthless, why is every candidate except for Alan Keyes aping him and appropriating the meme? Seems to me he got his idiot-friendly one-word slogan right.

Populist move

Obama is the new trend.

[Xiahou]

I do blame the candidates for dumbing the issues down. I think it's a retarded populist idea to get votes. Do I understand it? Sure. Do I support it? NO.

All we're left with is candidates who looks good on TV and can either make people feel good or scare them the most. It seems the issues are irrelevant to a significant chunk of the electorate. Just because everyone else is ignoring the issues and eating up meaningless platitudes doesn't mean we should too.

That's why I like the man so much, actually. I'm sick of candidates lying out their ass and selling their souls to get elected.

I assumed he was talking about Thompson- who got 1% of the vote. Paul got 8%.

The comment is not self-contradictory at all. The blogger is saying that he wants a moderate Prez who will reach across party lines and build coalitions rather than another partisan hack. In what way does that contradict itself?

It'd be better to say that he does nothing to make his case. What part of Obama's happy feel good nonsense has any bearing on how he'd govern? The poster is basically saying that he doesn't care a lick about the issues and just wants the candidate that makes him feel good. What nonsense.

[Lemur]

It'd be better to say that he does nothing to make his case. What part of Obama's happy feel good nonsense has any bearing on how he'd govern? The poster is basically saying that he doesn't care a lick about the issues and just wants the candidate that makes him feel good. What nonsense.

Xiahou, I'm increasingly coming to the impression that you did not read the quote I posted, 'cause your comments are landing farther and farther from any relationship to what was written.

Nice chatting with you, though.

-edit-

That notorious left-winger, George F. Will, has this to say on the subject:

The wrong question about Obama has been "Where's the beef?" -- "beef" meaning policy substance. Policy papers in profusion can be ginned up by campaign advisers, of whom Obama has plenty. The right question is whether he is a souffle -- pretty and pleasing, but mostly air and apt to collapse if jostled. Presidential politics is an exhausting, hard, occasionally even cruel, vetting process -- necessarily so, given the stakes -- and now that he has been bumped hard we shall see if there is steel beneath the sleek gray suit.

[Xiahou]

Xiahou, I'm increasingly coming to the impression that you did not read the quote I posted, 'cause your comments are landing farther and farther from any relationship to what was written.

He said:

When it comes to electing a president, I don’t care so much about that.

'That' being their agenda or platform. What part of the comment am I getting wrong?

[Lemur]

Xiahou, the blogger stated that he wanted "a measured, principled, reflective president with a rigorous intellect who will capably work with people on either side of the aisle to ensure that the right decisions are made." To you this translated as "issues don't matter, just make me feel good."

Take off your debate hat for a moment and consider what the man actually wrote. It's not idiotic, it's not naive, and it's not silly. If anything it is realistic to the highest degree. How much of George W. Bush's pre-election agenda has actually been implemented? How much of any President's pre-election promises, plans, planks, etc. actually get into law? Despite the evidence of the last seven years, we do have a tripartite government, you know ...

You and Ice are railing off on Obama, claiming that he has no substance. As George Will has noted, the man has published position papers aplenty. Here's the Cliff's Notes, for those interested.

[Xiahou]

How much of George W. Bush's pre-election agenda has actually been implemented? How much of any President's pre-election promises, plans, planks, etc. actually get into law? Despite the evidence of the last seven years, we do have a tripartite government, you know ...

No Child Left Behind? Medicare drug benefit? Many of his plans were understandably waylaid by 9/11, but even still he got much of his agenda thru for better or worse. And if Obama wins, he'll have a Democrat congress to help implement his policy similar to how Bush did in his first term. The blogger is a twit, imo, if he honestly thinks the president doesn't wield tremendous influence on the legislative agenda.

You and Ice are railing off on Obama, claiming that he has no substance. As George Will has noted, the man has published position papers aplenty. Here's the Cliff's Notes, for those interested.

Have you read Obama's positions? Do you support them? Most of what he supports (and his voting record backs it up) puts him among many of the most partisan Democrats. He attacks both NAFTA and CAFTA and supports the so called "Employee Free Choice Act" which includes provisions enabling unions to strongarm workers into joining and guts the idea of secret ballots. He also supports further increases of minimum wage... this is all just from economic section. There is little "moderate" about any of his policies, nor is much moderation found in his voting record.

The real point is that he's not campaigning on what he supports. He's campaigning on nebulous "change" while not mentioning any specifics when he can help it. I seriously doubt the majority of his supporters have any real idea of what he supports. This is why we call him the "feel good" candidate. I don't like seeing candidates skate to success on empty rhetoric- I'd lump Huckabee in with this as well.

[Lemur]

The funny thing is, the more vehemently you attack him, the more inclined I am to support him. Thanks for helping me!

[Xiahou]

The funny thing is, the more vehemently you attack him, the more inclined I am to support him. Thanks for helping me!

Glad to help you stake out some of Obama's actual positions behind the rhetoric. I'm sure a moderate like you will find much in common.

On the bright side, should he win the nomination, we'll get treated to all of this being drug out into the light in the general election- should make for another great time.