Jump to content

*official* 2008 us election thread


Daaaaave

Recommended Posts

They talked about VP choices at the end of Meet the Press last week. They did not seem to have much idea about who each candidate would pick.

They said Obama might go with a military national security figure like Anthony Zinni or Jim Jones. Or a experienced governer like Rendell (pennsylvania) Strickland (Ohio). Or someone like Biden.

For McCain they mentioned.

"former Congressman, former special trade, U.S. trade representative, former budget director Rob Portman (Ohio)"

"From Ohio. Another one would be a younger congressman, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee and a tax cutter, Paul Ryan."

"maybe Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina or Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota."

"I'd think about a woman. Kay Bailey Hutchison has been mentioned. I know there's resistance to her, but from Texas. I think Mel Martinez, if he can find his baptismal certificate that he was born in Miami instead of Havana,"

"Could be Governor Crist, who's at about 70 percent in Florida, and delivered Florida to him"

I have no idea who most of those people are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 15.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

But I think they can't be too calculating about it.

Like obviously picking someone to balance out Obama's weakness or McCain's strength or to target one swing state or target a certain demographic group.

Isn't that what happened last time when they picked Kerry. He seemed to be very caught up in maintaining that image of a warhero strong on national security. Yet you lose naturalness and you are not really yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by LokedOut420:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Clinton also raised Obama's use in his campaign speeches of words first uttered by his friend, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

"If your candidacy is going to be about words then they should be your own words," she said. "...Lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox."

The debate audience booed.

What a **** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

assuming the audience were booing clinton?

oh and this is one of the best pictures ever

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Doog:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LokedOut420:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Clinton also raised Obama's use in his campaign speeches of words first uttered by his friend, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

"If your candidacy is going to be about words then they should be your own words," she said. "...Lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox."

The debate audience booed.

What a **** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

assuming the audience were booing clinton?

oh and this is one of the best pictures ever </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that reminds me.

this might be the best xsmug ever

http://media.smithsonianmag.com/images/martin-feb08-388.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

tony zinni is a nobody. rendell and strickland have no chance. I don't think obama has to go with a woman either, although it would be the politik thing for him to do.

I'm still going with joe. statesman. great grasp of issues. knows the process. will kick the crap out of the gop vp candidate in any debate. won't overstep the presidency. I don't think anyone is going to pay attention to the "inconsistency" about obama balancing "change" and biden. the media will float it out there and everyone will ignore it because they understand the role of the vp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alabama (Survey USA)

McCain 57%--37% Clinton

McCain 58%-34% Obama

California (Survey USA)

Obama 61%--34% McCain

Clinton 58%--35% McCain

Colorado (Rasmussen)

Obama 46%--39% McCain

McCain 49%--35% Clinton

Florida (Rasmussen)

McCain 49%--43% Clinton

McCain 53%--37% Obama

Iowa (Survey USA, Rasmussen)

Obama 51%--41% McCain

McCain 52%--41% Clinton

Obama 44%--41% McCain

McCain 47%--37% Clinton

Kansas (Survey USA)

McCain 50%--44% Obama

McCain 59%--35% Clinton

Massachusetts (Survey USA)

Clinton 52%--43% McCain

Obama 48%--46% McCain

Michigan (Rasmussen)

Obama 47%--39% McCain

Clinton 44%--44% McCain

Minnesota (Survey USA, Rasmussen)

Obama 55%--40% McCain

Clinton 40%--45% McCain

Obama 53%--38% McCain

McCain 47%--42% Clinton

Missouri (Survey USA, Rasmussen)

Clinton 51%--44% McCain

Obama 49%--43% McCain

McCain 43%--42% Clinton

McCain 42%--40% Obama

Nevada (Rasmussen)

Obama 50%--38% McCain

McCain 49%--48% Clinton

New Hampshire (Rasmussen)

Obama 49%--36% McCain

Clinton 43%--41% McCain

New Mexico (Survey USA)

Obama 55%--40% McCain

Clinton 50%--45% McCain

New York (Survey USA)

Obama 57%--36% McCain

Clinton 52%--41% McCain

Ohio (Survey USA, Rasmussen)

Clinton 52%--42% McCain

Obama 47%--44% McCain

McCain 42%--41% Obama

McCain 46%--43% Clinton

Oregon (Survey USA, Rasmussen)

Obama 48%--47% McCain

McCain 49%--41% Clinton

Obama 49%--40% McCain

McCain 45%-42% Clinton

Pennsylvania (Rasmussen)

Obama 49%--39% McCain

McCain 44%--42% Clinton

Virginia (Survey USA, Rasmussen)

Obama 51%--45% McCain

McCain 48%--45% Clinton

McCain 49%--44% Obama

McCain 51%--41% Clinton

Link to post
Share on other sites

probably overly optimistic, but I see the race here right now with obama v mccain

safe dem: ca, ct, dc, de, hi, il, me, md, nj, ny, or, ri, vt, wa = 178 ev

likely dem: ia, ma, mi, mn, nh, pa, wi = 81 ev

lean dem: co, mo, nm, nv, oh = 50 ev

= 309 ev

toss up: va = 13 ev

safe gop: al, ak, az, id, in, ky, la, ms, mt, nd, ok, sc, sd, tn, tx, ut, wv, wy = 144 ev

likely gop: ar, ga, ks, ne, nc = 47 ev

lean gop: fl = 27 ev

= 218 ev

most likely to change category for obama: pa, mo, oh

most likely to change category for mccain: ak, ga, ks, nc

Link to post
Share on other sites

EDINBURG, February 22 - One of Hillary Clinton’s top supporters in the Rio Grande Valley appeared at a Barack Obama rally Friday and said the presidential primary was the Illinois senator’s race to lose.

State Rep. Aaron Peña, who, in print and on TV has been a leading outreach activist in the Valley for Clinton, shocked many Friday morning when he sat down with his family in the stands behind the stage at an Obama rally at the University of Texas-Pan American.

Guardian video-journalists were sitting opposite in the press riser. Contacted by phone while he waited for Obama to arrive, Peña told the Guardian he was at the event to see history being made.

“First of all my son, Aaron Peña III, is working for the Obama campaign. Second, I am here with my family to see history being made,†Peña said.

“I think last night’s debate in Austin was a turning point in this campaign. I think it will become increasingly evident very soon who is going to win this primary. While Barack Obama may not win the popular vote in Texas, the passion of his organization has an advantage in winning the important caucus delegates.â€

Asked if he had now flipped over to Obama, Peña said: “I will maintain my commitment but it appears to me that the decision will be made by the public on March 4. I made a commitment to Hillary Clinton and I must maintain it. I gave my word. However, as an observer, it appears to be increasingly evident who is going to win.â€

Link to post
Share on other sites

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to open campaign offices in Casper and Cheyenne sometime during the next week.

Clinton spokesman Blake Zeff said Friday that the campaign has also sent at least four paid staffers to Wyoming to drum up support.

Zeff said the campaign has found considerable support in the state.

“We’re thrilled by the outpouring of grass-roots support for Senator Clinton in Wyoming. We’re going to be working hard to harness that enthusiasm and bring out support for her,†he said.

Clinton is locked in a tight race for delegates with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who last week opened offices in Casper, Cheyenne, Laramie and Rock Springs.

Both campaigns are focusing unprecedented — at least in modern memory — attention on a state that will have just seven delegates directly at stake in caucuses March 8.

Not to be outdone, Obama’s campaign said it has mobilized 2,000 volunteers — out of roughly 30,000 registered Democrats statewide — and sent a dozen paid staff to the state.

“We’ve got a lot of work to do,†Obama campaign spokesman Matt Chandler said.

Obama had a nearly 100-delegate lead over Clinton on Friday. Clinton has been banking on reducing if not eliminating that lead with the big Texas and Ohio primary events on March 4. She has led Obama in polling in both states.

Four days after that comes Wyoming’s Democratic county conventions.

Wyoming has 18 Democratic delegates. In addition to the seven chosen March 8, the party will choose three at-large delegates and two state party leaders or elected officials as delegates at its state convention in May.

The state party also has five Democratic superdelegates who automatically will get to go as delegates. They include Gov. Dave Freudenthal and state party Chairman John Millin. The final delegate is appointed by Millin.

So basically 1 out of every 15 registered Dems in Wyoming is volunteering for Obama. icon_biggrin.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

It really does look like McCain is going to get massacred in the general. One of the only real benefits of the recent NYTimes scandal story, to this point, is that it has shone a light on McCain's extensive ties to lobbyists. They are all over his campaign, which probably won't sit to well with an electorate that thinks Washington is broken.

From today's Washington Post:

In McCain's case, the fact that lobbyists are essentially running his presidential campaign -- most of them as volunteers -- seems to some people to be at odds with his anti-lobbying rhetoric. "He has a closer relationship with lobbyists than he lets on," said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "The problem for McCain being so closely associated with lobbyists is that he's the candidate most closely associated with attacking lobbyists."

----------------------------------------------------

McCain's reliance on lobbyists for key jobs -- both in the Senate and in his presidential campaign -- extends beyond his inner circle. McCain recently hired Mark Buse to be his Senate chief of staff. Buse led the Commerce Committee staff in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and was until last fall a lobbyist for ML Strategies, representing eBay, Goldman Sachs Group, Cablevision, Tenneco and Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

McCain's top fundraising official is former congressman Tom Loeffler (R-Tex.), who heads a lobbying law firm called the Loeffler Group. He has counseled the Saudis as well as Southwest Airlines, AT&T, Toyota and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Public Citizen, a group that monitors campaign fundraising, has found that McCain has more bundlers -- people who gather checks from networks of friends and associates -- from the lobbying community than any other presidential candidate from either party.

By the group's current count, McCain has at least 59 federal lobbyists raising money for his campaign, compared with 33 working for Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani and 19 working for Democrat Clinton.

"The potential harm is that should Senator McCain become elected, those people will have a very close relationship with the McCain White House," Sloan said. "[That] would be very helpful for their clients, and that would give them a leg up on everybody else."

Of all the lobbyists involved in the McCain campaign, the most prominent is Black, who has made a lucrative career of shuttling back and forth between presidential politics and big-time Washington lobbying. He has worked for the campaigns of former congressman Jack Kemp (N.Y.), former president George H.W. Bush and former senators Phil Gramm (Tex.) and Robert J. Dole (Kan.), all Republicans.

"I've spent a fair amount of my life as a lobbyist, but I've spent a majority of my adult life running Republican political campaigns," Black, 60, said.

His relationship with McCain, for whom he is a senior adviser, goes back more than two decades, from the time McCain first came to Washington. They got to know each other well during Gramm's 1996 presidential run; Gramm, now an investment banker, is a major supporter and adviser to McCain.

But even as Black provides a private voice and a public face for McCain, he also leads his lobbying firm, which offers corporate interests and foreign governments the promise of access to the most powerful lawmakers. Some of those companies have interests before the Senate and, in particular, the Commerce Committee, of which McCain is a member.

Black said he does a lot of his work by telephone from McCain's Straight Talk Express bus.

He said, however, the combination now requires that he work on weekends, which means 80- or even 90-hour weeks. If McCain were to ask him to step up his commitment to the campaign during the general-election battle, Black said he would take a leave or a reduced salary from BKSH and devote himself to electing McCain president.

McCain has long sought to defend his associations with lobbyists, stressing that friendships with them do not influence his independent judgment when it comes to legislative action. In comments to reporters yesterday, he acknowledged those friendships.

"I have many friends who represent various interests, ranging from the firemen to the police to senior citizens to various interests, particularly before my committee," McCain said. "The question is . . . do they have excess or unwarranted influence? And certainly no one ever has in my conduct of my public life and conduct of my legislative agenda."

full story

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Hillary's schizo campaign is lurching in another direction again, this time sharply negative. From Politico:

HRC: 'Shame on you, Barack Obama'

By: Kenneth P. Vogel

Feb 23, 2008

CINCINNATI, Ohio — Hillary Rodham Clinton ripped Barack Obama Saturday for mailings his campaign is sending to Ohio voters that Clinton said distorted her record on NAFTA and universal health care.

“Shame on you, Barack Obama,†Clinton said angrily when talking to reporters after a rally in a technical college gym here. “It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you,†she said, calling on Obama to repudiate and stop the mailings, which she waved demonstratively.

“Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate about your tactics,†she said, calling the mailings “tactics that are right out of Karl Rove’s playbook.â€

Her comments about the mailings, coupled with her comparison of Obama and President Bush during the preceding rally , were far sharper than any she has made lately about her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination.

It’s unclear whether Saturday’s attacks portended a shift to a more negative strategy as the campaign hurtles toward March 4 contests in Ohio and Texas, where Clinton needs big wins to reverse her slide. Obama has won 11 straight contests after the Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, contests. (Rhode Island and Vermont also hold contests Tuesday.)

The comments seemed to signal that Clinton is not resigned to defeat, as some had inferred from her comments at the end of Thursday’s televised debate in Austin, Texas, in which she said “whatever happens†in the election, she and Obama are “going to be fine.â€

Clinton said Saturday that she received the mailings, both of which were paid for by the Obama campaign, from a supporter she met in the rope line after the rally at Cincinnati State Technical and Community College.

During her next speech, at a high school in Huber Heights, Ohio, Clinton again blistered Obama over the mailings. Holding them up, she asked the crowd of more than 1,000 people how many had received them. Many in the crowd reacted with puzzlement and relatively few people raised their hands.

Clownshoes. You can't define Obama this late in the campaign.

Obama's response, which is pretty much a pwn, is here, also from Politico:

Jonathan Martin, with Obama in Akron (GOP primary being pretty over) emails:

Firing back at Hillary's criticism of his NAFTA mailers here, Obama said tonight that she can't pick and choose from her husband's administration.

"You can’t be for something or take credit for an administration and 35 years of experience and then when you run for president suggest somehow you didn’t really mean what you said back then," Obama said to applause at a rally of about 5,000. "It doesn't work that way."

He said Clinton had in fact supported the trade deal that is blamed for thousands of job losses in the industrial hub of this state and that is viewed as something akin to cancer by Ohio Democrats.

"The truth is that Sen. Clinton supported NAFTA before she ran for president. That is indisupatable. She called it 'a victory' in her book. She told people it has proved its worth. T hose are facts."

Obama struck a defensive tone in bringing up another matter on which he and Clinton have battled.

"Sen. Clinton also said today, 'Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care?'" he quoted her as asking.

"Well, since she started saying that I’m against universal health care, that’s when it started," he answered. "Something that she repeats every single day."

And seeking to portray Clinton as being the negative one in the race, Obama took special note to remind the crowd one of the Democrats' favorite bogeymen.

"She actually compared our campaign to Karl Rove's," Obama said to boos. "That's one I had not heard before."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by bflaff:

Wow... SNL's Obama sketch was wretched. And Fred Armisen's impersonation was dreadful.

Amy Poehler as Hillary is the first reason I've seen to vote for her.

Amy Poehler is a qg Hillary.

Hilarious skit last winter when she/Hillary was already thanking the voters for electing her president.

Kristin Wiig as Pelosi is pretty good too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bflaff:

Wow... SNL's Obama sketch was wretched. And Fred Armisen's impersonation was dreadful.

Amy Poehler as Hillary is the first reason I've seen to vote for her.

Amy Poehler is a qg Hillary.

Hilarious skit last winter when she/Hillary was already thanking the voters for electing her president.

Kristin Wiig as Pelosi is pretty good too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I want a 3-way for my birfday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bflaff:

Wow... SNL's Obama sketch was wretched. And Fred Armisen's impersonation was dreadful.

Amy Poehler as Hillary is the first reason I've seen to vote for her.

Amy Poehler is a qg Hillary.

Hilarious skit last winter when she/Hillary was already thanking the voters for electing her president.

Kristin Wiig as Pelosi is pretty good too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I want a 3-way for my birfday. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poehler/Wiig, Poehler/Fey or Fey/Wiig?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by eldiego1984:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

Poehler/Wiig, Poehler/Fey or Fey/Wiig?

Either that or a 3-way with Pelosi-Clinton icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm quite certain Daaaaave does not want Hillary anywhere near his 3-way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eldiego1984:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

Poehler/Wiig, Poehler/Fey or Fey/Wiig?

Either that or a 3-way with Pelosi-Clinton icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm quite certain Daaaaave does not want Hillary anywhere near his 3-way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He meant Chelsea Clinton, not Hillary icon_biggrin.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

People learned the consequences of voting for Nader in 2000, so now he only gets a handful of votes in states where his supporters know it won't hurt the Democratic candidate. So it is safe to vote for Nader in New York, but not Florida or Pennsylvania. Most people who would consider making a protest vote by checking his name seem to understand the need to use their Nader love strategically without opening the door for a Republican.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kizzak:

nader (other than 2000) gets roughly the same amount of votes as larouche got when running against clinton in 96

I like to hope the LaRouchetards are the ones voting for Nader, but you never know

I think it's safe to assume that they're not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and yesterday morning, I was chatting with the concierge of my cruise ship - he's from Panama - and he says, "I've never followed an American election before. It's rather exciting, isn't it?" I told him, "You don't know the half of it."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by gunnerfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kizzak:

nader (other than 2000) gets roughly the same amount of votes as larouche got when running against clinton in 96

I like to hope the LaRouchetards are the ones voting for Nader, but you never know

I think it's safe to assume that they're not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

dkos/ssp/open left are polling as to whether to endorse obama now or wait in an attempt to drive donations for the down tickets they are pushing this cycle

Clinton supporters on the sites are livid about how they are subverting democracy/saying they don't need clinton supporters in the fall and therefore are threatening to vote Nader

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gunnerfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kizzak:

nader (other than 2000) gets roughly the same amount of votes as larouche got when running against clinton in 96

I like to hope the LaRouchetards are the ones voting for Nader, but you never know

I think it's safe to assume that they're not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC, the LaRouche crowd was far more likely to be the kind with lots of canned goods in the basement, running around Montana in camaflouge fatigues, or signing up for the Minutemen. I seem to recall an appeal to white supremecists and the like. Nader would be anathema to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quinnipiac Ohio poll:

Clinton 51 Obama 40.

That's a ten point swing towards Obama since their previous poll under two weeks ago.

Rasmussen had a six point swing to Obama between the 13th and the 21st. SUSA has 8 points movement towards Obama between the 11th and the 18th.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...