U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

**Tristrem** · 04-13-2008, 18:14

I'm starting to see a pattern here,

Clinton gets criticized for lying but Obama gets criticized fro telling the truth.

Granted it was very blunt and not a very kind way to say it but come on, i'd rather have the truth (Obama) than the pathological liar (clinton) or the guy who sold himself out to anyone who would buy in (McSame) just to get elected. I swear if we elect another idiot we deserve to have our country go down the tubes.

**Lemur** · 04-14-2008, 02:20

There's another pattern at work -- Obama stumbles, Clinton overreaches. As demonstrated by this:

Hillary Clinton said Sunday a query about the last time she fired a gun or attended church services "is not a relevant question in this debate” over Barack Obama’s recent comments on small town Americans.

“We can answer that some other time,” Clinton said at a press conference held in a working class neighborhood here.

Strangely, NRO's The Corner, which exploded into a two week screaming froth over Reverend Wright, has been subdued to the point of mellowness over Bittergate. I can't venture why, but there it is.

-edit-

Finally, some polling, and a good analysis of both Wrightgate and Bittergate:

Both Democrats saw a hit to their numbers in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright controversy, and both Democrats appear to be taking a hit now. We should caution that, depending on Rasmussen's methodology, we should probably expect to see some serial correlation in the Democrats' numbers: [...] there may be a sense of "there they go again" whenever the Democrats start bickering with one another and the press coverage turns negative. [...]

My general prediction is that the comments are fairly close to a non-story in terms of their effect on the Democratic primaries: I would expect to see a very short term impact of not more than 1-3 points on Obama's numbers against Clinton -- and virtually no medium-term impact, or perhaps even a slight backlash against Hillary Clinton. The general election numbers I would tend to follow more carefully: perhaps we'll see a modest (1-3 points) medium-term impact there, but probably not any substantial long-term impact. And I think the medium-term impact might be as great on Hillary Clinton's numbers as they are on Barack Obama's.

**Xiahou** · 04-15-2008, 00:14

Originally Posted by Lemur

Strangely, NRO's The Corner, which exploded into a two week screaming froth over Reverend Wright, has been subdued to the point of mellowness over Bittergate. I can't venture why, but there it is.

Here's something from NRO for you to read on the issue.

The most recent PA poll I can find is from ARG. Clinton has gone from a tie with Obama to a 20% lead according to their data.

Originally Posted by Tristrem

Clinton gets criticized for lying but Obama gets criticized fro telling the truth.

What was true about it?

**CountArach** · 04-15-2008, 00:16

Xiahou, you can't base anything on one poll, here are the collated polls:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/compar...in_pennsyl.php

The graph there shows that Clinton's lead is slipping.

EDIT: Also take a look at this, which shows the trend for both of the candidates:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/pennsy...nd_sensiti.php

Time for a look at the sensitivity of our trend estimators. ARG has a new Pennsylvania poll out showing a 20 point Clinton lead. But Susquehanna Polling has one completed three days earlier with a 3 point Clinton lead and Zogby has one on the same day with a 4 point Clinton lead. Did things shift that swiftly or do we have an outlier?

**ICantSpellDawg** · 04-16-2008, 20:54

Really awesome and fair article about bittergate/clingingate

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

What’s the Matter with Democrats?
LINK

In November, 2004, Senator-elect Barack Obama told Charlie Rose that hunting and church provide solace to men like the laid-off factory workers he met in a small Illinois town. Unfortunately, in spite of his best efforts and those of his supporters, this is not what Obama said last Friday in his now notorious remarks in San Francisco. He equated guns and religion with racism, xenophobia, and crude economic populism as the refuge of the hard-pressed—the false consciousness of the white working class who need to channel their financial frustrations somewhere.

If Obama had left out “antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment” (which is what sympathetic pundits and bloggers have done in attempting to explain his comments away), he might not now be sinking in the latest polls from Pennsylvania and Indiana. But he didn’t, and his remark doesn’t require strenuous feats of interpretation. Obama was letting his audience of donors know that he, like them, sees through the cultural irrationalities and obsessions of American victims of globalization and Republican rule. As Democratic political analysis, what he said is hardly new. Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” is a book-length exposition of Obama’s one sentence. In fact, it’s such a familiar line of thinking in liberal circles that the most common defense of Obama is that he was simply saying what everyone knows is so.

Is it? Part of it, undeniably. Cultural fears and resentments have been exploited by Republican candidates for at least forty years to peel away core working-class Democratic voters. It’s called right-wing populism, and it’s been at least as successful as the left-wing, New Deal version it replaced. It depends on finding targets who can be made into cultural élites, and Democrats from McGovern to Kerry have usually been happy to coöperate—although rarely as obligingly as Obama, whose words couldn’t have been better scripted by William Safire circa 1968, Lee Atwater circa 1988, or Karl Rove circa 2004. But Republicans couldn’t have dominated Presidential elections for nearly half a century if there were nothing to their charges.

To say that you can see through someone—that what someone believes is actually something else entirely—is an act of condescension, and the person being seen through is naturally going to take exception. One doesn’t have to be Bill Kristol to know this. It’s as if a politician were to say to Andrew Sullivan (who won’t tolerate a bad word about Obama), “You’re just clinging to gay rights because you’re frustrated by the size of government. Once we cut entitlements, you won’t care about same-sex marriage.”

The real problem with what Obama said is that it’s basically untrue. In southwestern Pennsylvania, religion, hunting, and insularity predate the post-industrial era. They’ve have become politically manipulable points in part because of economic decline, but to confuse wedge issues with traditional values is the mark of the high-minded reformer or the political junkie, or both. It’s the kind of mistake one could make only from a great distance, once those voters had become almost entirely abstract—and, again, no one wants to be an abstraction.

This is far from the only thing Obama believes about religion and small-town America, as his 2004 interview with Charlie Rose and much else in his career show. Conservative propagandists like Kristol are predictably and unfairly wrapping Obama’s disastrous sentence around his neck and garroting him with it. So is Hillary Clinton, and the spectacle of her swallowing a boilermaker in a Pennsylvania bar is crass opportunism that will antagonize more voters than it charms. These days the winner is always McCain.

But Obama’s devotees, who have an unattractively worshipful tendency to blame his mistakes on everyone but him, would do their candidate and the Democratic Party a favor by acknowledging the damage he’s done to both. It wasn’t accidental. Obama betrayed his own and his Party’s essential weakness, and in the process handed the opposition a great gift. He won’t be able to turn this weakness into the kind of strength that ends eras and wins elections until he understands what happened over the past few days.

**Rhyfelwyr** · 04-16-2008, 22:29

Here in Britain they show us the American news channels for twenty minutes or so each night on BBC2.

And I couldn't help laughing when I saw the two candidates campaigns to look 'working-class'. Hilary was the worst, had a big mug of beer and seemed to take about one sip. Talk about sticking out like a sore thumb, the guy next to her just looked like he wanted the camera's out his face. And then there was Obama with his hot dog and chips. He can get away with it a bit more, but somehow I doubt thats what he eats when he gets home each night.

American elections make me sick. All the hype and its all over what - two candidates who's policies make Brown and Cameron's policies look like they are at opposite ends of the left-right divide.

Bah!

**Lemur** · 04-16-2008, 22:42

Bittergate, much like Wrightgate, is proving to have little to no effect at the polls. Yet another giant froth storm about not-much-at-all.

This is far more interesting: a statistics enthusiast heard the followng phrase:

“I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter.”
-Tom Buffenbarger, Youngstown, Ohio

And decided that this claim must be investigated. Hilarious use of statistical math follows:

States with more latte-purveying Starbucks stores are more likely to have gone for Obama.

So there's a definite Obama/Latte correlation. But what about Prius drivers?

There isn't the faintest whiff of a correlation here. I suppose it's possible that all Prius drivers are, in fact, Obama supporters, but that's sure not reflected in the way hybrid-friendly states are voting. Let's move on.

And Birkenstocks?

Nothing. Nada. No correlation. Birkenstock asked me not to publish the specific numbers, but if you're wondering about the outliers -- the big winner, with the most Birkenstocks per capita was a shock to me: Wyoming. Not exactly the typical "elitist" state.

Trust fund babies?

Again, what's really striking here is how little correlation we see.

So it all comes down to lattes. Take that ball and run with it.

**Vladimir** · 04-18-2008, 21:31

Sorry. Just had to take this off 666 replies.

**Lemur** · 04-19-2008, 05:16

Did anybody watch the ABC Dem debate this week? I tried to, but it was just too painful. The ABC hosts were pathetic, yanking up every story that had already gone stale and presenting it like they just thought it up. Sixty-five minutes before there was a single question on policy. Couldn't get through it, even on heavy fast-forward. However, it's been grist for some pretty funny bits of mockery, my favorite being this:

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 04-19-2008, 05:41

Originally Posted by Lemur

Did anybody watch the ABC Dem debate this week? I tried to, but it was just too painful. The ABC hosts were pathetic, yanking up every story that had already gone stale and presenting it like they just thought it up. Sixty-five minutes before there was a single question on policy. Couldn't get through it, even on heavy fast-forward. However, it's been grist for some pretty funny bits of mockery, my favorite being this:

I love America. This is entertainment at it's finest.

**Xiahou** · 04-19-2008, 10:13

Originally Posted by Lemur

Did anybody watch the ABC Dem debate this week? I tried to, but it was just too painful. The ABC hosts were pathetic, yanking up every story that had already gone stale and presenting it like they just thought it up. Sixty-five minutes before there was a single question on policy. Couldn't get through it, even on heavy fast-forward.

What else could the debate be about other than character issues? Trying to find differences in their all-to-similar platforms wouldn't have made for much of an interesting debate either.

The liberal blogosphere's reaction to the debate has been pretty amusing at least.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 04-20-2008, 03:46

Indeed - "oh my, they were mean to the front runner of the Democrat nomination and asked hard questions about him! Waaaaaaaahhhhh, they're a bunch of pathetic meanies...."

Or, put more articulately;
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9718.html

The shower of indignation on Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos over the last few days is the clearest evidence yet that the Clintonites are fundamentally correct in their complaint that she has been flying throughout this campaign into a headwind of media favoritism for Obama.

Last fall, when NBC’s Tim Russert hazed Clinton with a bunch of similar questions — a mix of fair and impertinent — he got lots of gripes from Clinton supporters.

But there was nothing like the piling on from journalists rushing to validate the Obama criticisms and denouncing ABC’s performance as journalistically unsound.

The response was itself a warning about a huge challenge for reporters in the 2008 cycle: preserving professional detachment in a race that will likely feature two nominees, Obama and John McCain, who so far have been beneficiaries of media cheerleading.

This is not to say that ABC’s performance was flawless. There were some weird questions (“Do you think Rev. Wright loves America as much as you do?”). There were some questionable production decisions (the camera cutaways to Chelsea Clinton, the stacking of so many process questions in the first 45 minutes).

But there was nothing to justify Tom Shales’s hyperbolic review (“shoddy, despicable performances” by Gibson and Stephanopoulos) in The Washington Post or Greg Mitchell’s in Editor & Publisher (“perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years”). Others, like Time’s Michael Grunwald, likewise weighed in against ABC.

In fact, the balance of political questions (15) to policy questions (13) was more substantive than other debates this year that prompted no deluge of protests. The difference is that this time there were more hard questions for Obama than for Clinton.

Moreover, those questions about Jeremiah Wright, about Obama’s association with 1960s radical William Ayers, about apparent contradictions between his past and present views on proven wedge issues like gun control, were entirely in-bounds. If anything, they were overdue for a front-runner and likely nominee.

If Obama was covered like Clinton is, one feels certain the media focus would not have been on the questions, but on a candidate performance that at times seemed tinny, impatient and uncertain.

The old - when they parrot my opinions they're balanced, but when they disagree with me they're pathetic and biased - of the left.

CR

**Lemur** · 04-20-2008, 03:47

I didn't want to believe the rumors, but I can't deny the truth any longer. Xiahou is a sock puppet for Stephen Colbert.

**seireikhaan** · 04-20-2008, 04:26

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Indeed - "oh my, they were mean to the front runner of the Democrat nomination and asked hard questions about him! Waaaaaaaahhhhh, they're a bunch of pathetic meanies...."

Or, put more articulately;
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9718.html

The old - when they parrot my opinions they're balanced, but when they disagree with me they're pathetic and biased - of the left.

CR

Perhaps you haven't noticed, CR, but the Rev. Wright issue's been out for a while now, and we've already gone over it and discussed it many a time. At this point, only an idiot or someone who's been completely under a rock hasn't already made up their mind on the issue. About the only "personal" question that wasn't absurd by this point was asking about the "bitter" comment, since that's still relatively recent. You can't pretend that some of those questions weren't insane. Then again, its not like most 'debates' aren't rather shoddy nowadays anyways, but I digress...

**Crazed Rabbit** · 04-20-2008, 09:15

Perhaps you haven't noticed, CR, but the Rev. Wright issue's been out for a while now, and we've already gone over it and discussed it many a time.

We have, but has Obama faced any questions on it before in a debate?

You can't pretend that some of those questions weren't insane. Then again, its not like most 'debates' aren't rather shoddy nowadays anyways, but I digress...

Exactly - the Obama cultists are acting like this was some huge transgression against righteousness, when it wasn't bad at all, especially considering the other debates. And note how the media chimed in on how terrible the ABC debate was. The main difference was that Obama got some hard questions.

CR

**Lemur** · 04-20-2008, 14:35

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

We have, but has Obama faced any questions on it before in a debate?

No, he's never answered questions about flag pins in a formal debate. And clearly, we've all been poorer for the omission.

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And note how the media chimed in on how terrible the ABC debate was. The main difference was that Obama got some hard questions.

Well, actually, I think the media chimed in because the debate was terrible, not because of some unspoken conspiracy. Occam's Razor and all that. And yeah, several of the debates have been junk, but this one stood out, for several reasons:

No debates had been held since February, giving this debate prominence
The Republican Primary is now over, as it was not in previous debates
We're coming down to the finish with Clinton/Obama, giving this debate perceived importance

Etcetera. This debate was in a level of focus that other debates were not. So when Gibsonopoulos busted out questions that were already stale about flag pins and Wright, you can understand the groaning, which came from across the board. In fact, the only people who were not grumbling were the far right. Funny, that. But then, we all know that anyone who does not toe the rightwing line must, by definition, be a mindless Obama zombie or a far-left lunatic. Convenient how that works out.

Look, if the moderators wanted to hit Obama and Clinton with tough questions, they could easily have done so. Why not whack them on the nose for their anti-free-trade insanity? Their half-baked plans to deal with the subprime crisis? Why not get them to spout of about gas prices, and see how foolish they can sound?

Crikes, it's not as though there aren't plenty of places where they're holding illogical/silly positions. It's not as though Gibsonopoulos was forced to ask about "do you believe in the American flag?" 'cause that's the only way he could address character.

Let's turn it around, since that's often the only way to break through a partisan shield. Imagine if the Republican frontrunner were hit with the following in a debate:

Your continuing association with radicals from the 1970’s. A man who tried to destroy the two-party electoral system and subvert Democracy, and to this day remains utterly unapologetic, saying only that he wishes he’d done more of it, and better? As recently as November 8th of 2007, you had a public conversation with G. Gordon Liddy, not merely a criminal, but an unrepentant enemy of the U-S constitution who is now in radio.

Why do you hate the Constitution, sir?

Regardless of whether you like the guy or not, and regardless of how you intend to vote, you'd be irritated. There are plenty of issues of substance you can address without getting into the silly zone.

I realize that a failure to address the flag pin issue might cost Senator Obama the Xiahou/Crazed Rabbit/Vladimir vote, but we'll all just have to live with that.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 04-20-2008, 19:38

No, he's never answered questions about flag pins in a formal debate. And clearly, we've all been poorer for the omission.

Sheesh. I guess bothering to actually address what I was talking about was a bit much, eh? This was the first time Obama had to face questions about Wright in a debate. Oh, wait, he had a pretty speech about it so we should all forget it happened.

Well, actually, I think the media chimed in because the debate was terrible, not because of some unspoken conspiracy. Occam's Razor and all that.

Considering how reporters have said 'its hard not to get caught up in Obama's campaign', it's logical they'd do exactly what they did out of fondness for Obama.

And Obama did recently put the flag pin back on, with some convenient excuse now that he's looking to the general election.

I love how it's 'ho-hum, another shoddy debate' until Obama gets the sharp end of the stick, and then all the Obama fans act like this is an affront to goodness itself.

I mean, have you seen some of the stuff at kos? It's a hoot!

CR

**Lemur** · 04-20-2008, 20:20

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I mean, have you seen some of the stuff at kos? It's a hoot!

I'm sure it's quite good, but I steer clear of Kos. Let's not forget that both Kos and MoveOn.org were big bastions of pro-Hillary goodness at the beginning of the primaries. They only got behind Obama ... well, I'm not sure when or why they switched.

Here's something you should enjoy: Springsteen and Obama, Wrong for America.

**Louis VI the Fat** · 04-20-2008, 20:30

Originally Posted by Lemur

Here's something you should enjoy: Springsteen and Obama, Wrong for America.

Springsteen is God.

Bugger. Now I have a problem. If Bruce, my definitive source on all things America, supports Obama, then my universe just got a lot more complicated.

Edit: it's true.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

The Guardian has a fine story about it too. .

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

I shall have to look into Obama a bit more. I'll go and buy his book.

**Lemur** · 04-21-2008, 04:17

Oh noes, Johnny Mac is appearing in public without a flag pin, too! The evil of Obama is spreading! Why do both of these men hate freedom?

**Xiahou** · 04-21-2008, 07:05

Originally Posted by Lemur

Oh noes, Johnny Mac is appearing in public without a flag pin, too! The evil of Obama is spreading! Why do both of these men hate freedom?

Has he said why he refuses to wear one yet?

**Crazed Rabbit** · 04-21-2008, 17:34

The Clinton campaign seems to think they're going to win big in Pennsylvania:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpa.htm

Controlled excitement is building inside of Clinton's inner circle as closely guarded internal polling shows the former first lady with an 11-point lead in Pennsylvania!

CR

**Lemur** · 04-21-2008, 23:55

In more important news, all three remaining Presidential contenders will be speaking on WWE's "Monday Night Raw."

**Xiahou** · 04-22-2008, 00:02

Speaking?? It's the WWE, they should be wrestling...

Here's a nice article by Nora Ephron that would be funny if she wasn't serious: White Men

This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men.

**Ronin** · 04-22-2008, 17:37

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Speaking?? It's the WWE, they should be wrestling...

Here's a nice article by Nora Ephron that would be funny if she wasn't serious: White Men

I say that Triple H should have hit each one of them with the Pedigree and whichever got back up first would be declared the president.....

no election would be necessary....THE PEDIGREE IS THE TRUTH!

as for the article...that woman is a wacko.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 04-22-2008, 17:39

Originally Posted by Lemur

In more important news, all three remaining Presidential contenders will be speaking on WWE's "Monday Night Raw."

I've been saying "can you smell what barack is cooking" around my house for a year.

**Xiahou** · 04-22-2008, 18:04

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I've been saying "can you smell what barack is cooking" around my house for a year.

Just got back from voting in the PA primary. IIRC, the only presidential choices were McCain, Huckabee and Paul- so I wrote in Fred Thompson.
Most of the local GOP contests were unopposed. Whenever I don't know the candidates, I just vote write-in for myself- I refuse to vote for someone I don't know just because there are no other choices. Obviously, most the excitement was on the Dem side this year, so there isn't much to talk about for me.

**Redleg** · 04-23-2008, 00:40

On my drive today across North and South Datoka - the political pundits on talk radio where having a field day about Obama. They focused on his contection with Rev. Wright, his clinge and bitter statement, and one I didnt know his connection with one of the Weathermen bombers.

I found it rather amusing, given the nature of thier discussion.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...esnt_need.html

But whats even funnier is this article

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/...on_bashes.html

My goodness should make for interesting discussion later on on talk radio

**Crazed Rabbit** · 04-23-2008, 07:53

Clinton wins PA 55-45%.

Seems like more evidence of her greater ability to win swing states than Obama, who's got a lot of delegates from places like Idaho.

CR

**Adrian II** · 04-23-2008, 13:37

Originally Posted by Redleg

On my drive today across North and South Datoka - the political pundits on talk radio where having a field day about Obama. They focused on his contection with Rev. Wright, his clinge and bitter statement, and one I didnt know his connection with one of the Weathermen bombers.

I found it rather amusing, given the nature of thier discussion.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...esnt_need.html

But whats even funnier is this article

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/...on_bashes.html

My goodness should make for interesting discussion later on on talk radio

Nah, here's the beef.

Thread: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Thread Tools

Display

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re : Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Re: U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions