Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 24, 2017, 03:18:33 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 484 485 486 487 488 [489] 490 491 492 493 494 ... 722
12201  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Unfortunate statement of the week on: May 27, 2008, 03:17:11 pm
He may have been referring to his great-uncle Ralph Dunham. I also think it's unfortunate that Maria Gavrilovic at CBS reported this as fact.

Quote
Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz.

 Is it journalistic practice to take politicians at their word-- even on seemingly innocuous things such as family details?
12202  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Unfortunate statement of the week on: May 27, 2008, 02:22:06 pm
Well, this race was "effectively over" on March 4, though it would have been a good deal more awkward for Hillary to drop out after two big wins than for Tsongas to drop out after his losses. Plus, Clinton has won a lot more states than Tsongas. Of course, the analogy isn't perfect, I think both in this example and the RFK example, Clinton was going for pedagogy rather than precision, and there will be a cost to that when speaking to the highly informed political class, but there is a benefit in relate-ability when speaking to more low-information voters.

Well, obviously, but that doesn't make her analogy any less intellectually dishonest. Stupid catering to "low-information" voters, whether it be George W. Bush asserting that Saddam Hussein has ties to Al Qaeda or whether it be Barack Obama using idiotic catchphrases to mask substance or whether it be Hillary Clinton giving asinine justifications for her continued presence in the Democratic Race exemplifies one of the largest flaws of the American political system. One of the [many] reasons why I'm having some difficulties taking this race very seriously.

I agree with you in general, though I don't think Obama's catchphrases or this remark quite equal the assertion that Hussein has ties to Al Qaeda. The latter is fundamentally more misleading and dishonest, actually, than what Clinton said, for it implied that justice for 9/11 was somehow tied into going into Iraq. Whereas this merely implied that previous candidates have stayed in the race until June, which is a point that is substantively true. And this example, is technically true. However, this example is not substantively true. Yes, it's "parsing" though, but not heinous. Smiley
12203  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: FOX anchor openly calls for Obama assasination on: May 27, 2008, 02:05:57 pm
Obama's supporters are being too angry and irrational and it's very unbecoming.

From what I read of the transcript, it seems that the reporter was attempting to say that some interpret Senator Clinton's remarks as calling for Obama's assassination, and while attempting to say this, said Osama  by accident then tried to laugh it off. Then the person who was interviewing her interpreted as if she was the one who wanted this.

So a statement over the misinterpretation of another statement which set off a loony firestorm becomes misinterpreted itself and sets off a loony firestorm of its own. Has this country gone crazy?
12204  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Unfortunate statement of the week on: May 27, 2008, 02:00:38 pm
Let's allow Bill Clinton to have the last word, shall we?

Quote from: Bill Clinton's autobiography, 'My Life'
On April 7, we also won in Kansas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. On April 9, Paul Tsongas announced that he would not reenter the race. The fight for the nomination was effectively over.

God, I love politics.

Well, this race was "effectively over" on March 4, though it would have been a good deal more awkward for Hillary to drop out after two big wins than for Tsongas to drop out after his losses. Plus, Clinton has won a lot more states than Tsongas. Of course, the analogy isn't perfect, I think both in this example and the RFK example, Clinton was going for pedagogy rather than precision, and there will be a cost to that when speaking to the highly informed political class, but there is a benefit in relate-ability when speaking to more low-information voters.
12205  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Unfortunate statement of the week on: May 27, 2008, 01:57:48 pm
I was referring to the fact of her being the first viable female candidate, not 'historical' in the sense that the primary season is frontloaded.

The reason that this has been one of the longest terms in picking a nominee is because the schedule set out at the beginning of the contests has been the most extended in years. Clinton's not saying that 'previous candidates stayed in for X months and I'm going to stay in for X months'. What's important is not how many months the race goes on but whether one stays in through all the contests or not, given the relative strength of her position.

Really, changes have been occurring with primary custom since 1992, which is the last time the primary season for either party really extended for any length of significant time. If the 'old rules don't apply', the most significant changes as far as custom begin with 1992 and 1996. It has been since then that the custom and tradition of short primary seasons has, until this year, dominated. The lengthening of the primary calendar itself, which is different than the customs that govern expectations of its de facto length, has been gradually expanding as certain states move earlier and earlier, and this year was no more than a continuation of that expansion.

I'm not saying it's unique because of frontloading. I'm saying it's unique in spite of frontloading. Frontloading is designed to accelerate the nominating process so that the presumptive nominee can begin to focus on the general election, is it not? Well, it hasn't happened that way at all this time.

It's historic because states that are generally ignored by the Democrats in the primary (because the nominee is essentially decided) and in the general (because a Democrat is unlikely to win there) are getting attention from the candidates. The fact that the race has been fairly competitive has given the voters in those states an opportunity to make - to steal a phrase from a certain Arizona Republican - a choice, not an echo.

Anything that gives more voters an opportunity to participate in the democratic process is, to me, historic.

And the point is? Just because the nomination fight has spread into places that haven't seen a Democratic candidate in years, how does this mean 'the old rules don't apply'? First of all, many historical campaigns also took candidates to states that candidates from that party did not ordinarily compete in. The primary race 1976 was competitive in traditionally Democratic states such as Tennessee and Kentucky. I don't see how the breadth of the campaign invalidates historical comparisons.

Quote
I certainly hope you don't think I fathered the "we can win" meme myself. If so, I demand a blood test; the kid is not my son:

"That's why I'm going to keep making our case until we have a nominee, whoever she may be."
- Hillary Clinton, Louisville, KY, 20 May

Now, we may quibble over the intent of that line but, unless Senator Clinton has now taken to calling Senator Obama a female, I'm pretty sure she's telling her supporters "I'm staying in this race until I am the nominee."

That was a joke. Of course she is going to put on a front as if she has a chance at winning, but if she outright came out and said "I am staying in this race because I have a significant chance at winning," she'd be ridiculed.
 
Quote
Sure, it's a throwaway applause line. But it serves the same purpose as someone like Mondale saying "When I am President" when he's 20 points behind in the polls. It bucks up the troops and keeps them encouraged. You don't tell your supporters "We're going to come really close to winning" or "Well, I'm hoping to get some concessions out of this," even if everybody knows that's what you're aiming for. No, you say "We're going to surprise everybody and win this thing."

Of course not, but you leave it unspoken. Mondale then of course, had a greater chance than Clinton today has. Back then, even though Mondale was behind by 20 points in the polls, no one was talking as if Reagan had already won. Today, most people are indeed acting as if Obama has already won.

Quote
Is it mocked and doubted? Of course. But it's a pretense almost every campaign maintains, even to the point of smiling happily while conceding and pretending that you didn't mind losing to the dirty rotten SOB on the other side. Wink

It's a pretense that you make, but not a specific argument you make to justify staying in the race. If she tried to do so, she'd be raked over the coals.
12206  Election Archive / 2008 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: IA: Survey USA: Obama leads McCain by 9% in Iowa on: May 27, 2008, 01:46:56 pm
45% Democrat
28% Republican
24% Independent in this poll

In 2004 it was 36% GOP, 34% Dem, 30% Indy.

What was the makeup in 2006? Why does it appear that SUSA is weighing Democrats so heavily in their polls recently?

Well Obama is only getting 69% of Dems in this one while McCain is getting 78% of Reps, so it's not benefiting him as much as it would ordinarily be. Basically, any poll that has so many undecideds is suspicious to me.
12207  Election Archive / 2008 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign / Re: Bill Clinton says wife is victim of a ‘cover up on: May 27, 2008, 01:44:25 pm
He is just using flowery language.
12208  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Survery USA ticket match-up on: May 27, 2008, 01:40:54 pm
Asking the questions like this gets people thinking about the VP more than they probably would on election day.
12209  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Cynthia McKinney clinches Green Party nomination on: May 27, 2008, 01:28:55 pm
lol @ the notion that Hillary hates men.

Though I've no doubt that some real 'man haters' exist, which is why having a woman on the Presidential ballot (from whatever party) is (very marginally) bad news for Obama.
12210  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Media Matters: So Now the Press Tells Candidates When to Quit? on: May 25, 2008, 06:02:55 pm
Quote
History continues to unfold on many levels as the protracted Democratic Party primary race marches on, featuring the first woman and the first African-American with a real shot at winning the White House.

Here's another first: the press's unique push to get a competitive White House hopeful to drop out of the race. It's unprecedented.

Looking back through modern U.S. campaigns, there's simply no media model for so many members of the press to try to drive a competitive candidate from the field while the primary season is still unfolding.

Until this election cycle, journalists simply did not consider it to be their job to tell a contender when he or she should stop campaigning. That was always dictated by how much money the campaign still had in the bank, how many votes the candidate was still getting, and what very senior members of the candidate's own party were advising.

In this case, Howard Dean, the head of the Democratic National Committee, said he was "dumbfounded" by public demands for Clinton to drop out last month. (He now wants one of the candidates to quit after the final June 3 primary.) Yet lots of pundits have suggested that in a neck-and-neck campaign in which neither candidate will likely secure the nomination based on pledged delegates, Sen. Hillary Clinton must drop out before all the states have had a chance to vote.

I realize the political debate surrounding the extended Democratic campaign remains a hot one, with people holding passionate opinions about the delegate math involved and what the consequences for the Democratic Party could be. I'm not weighing in on that debate. I'm focusing on how journalists have behaved during this campaign.

And the fact is, the media's get-out-now push is unparalleled. Strong second-place candidates such as Ronald Reagan (1976), Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and Jerry Brown, all of whom campaigned through the entire primary season, and most of whom took their fights all the way to their party's nominating conventions, were never tagged by the press and told to go home.

"Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history," wrote Steven Stark in the Boston Phoenix. "When Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she's constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party."

Indeed, even after Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary convincingly last week, she awoke the next morning to read an angry New York Times editorial, "beseeching her to get the hell out of the race," as Howard Kurtz put it at washingtonpost.com. On the Times opinion page that day same, Maureen Dowd actually turned to Dr. Seuss rhymes to make her point: "The time is now. Just go. ... I don't care how."

And across town at the New York Daily News, a bitter Mike Lupica was steamed over the fact that Clinton "won't quit" the race.

Weeks earlier, New York magazine fretted about which senior Democrats would be able to "step in" and "usher Clinton from the race." Or if Clinton, obsessed with her own "long-range self-aggrandizement," would finally figure it out herself.

Meanwhile, Slate.com's snarky Hillary Deathwatch was created to document, day-by-day, the demise of her campaign, complete with a damsel-in-distress cartoon drawing of Clinton atop a sinking ship.

That represented just a fraction of the often offensive get-out-now proclamations that have become a staple of this campaign.

No longer content to be observers of the campaign, journalists now see themselves as active players in the unfolding drama, and they show no hesitation trying to dictate the basics of the contest, like who should run and who should quit. It's as if journalists are auditioning for the role of the old party bosses.
12211  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Unfortunate statement of the week on: May 25, 2008, 12:02:56 am
The Caucus blog on the NY Times has an interesting retrospective on Friday's events. 

What bullsh**t. The only ones who needs a 'graceful way out' are the New York Post editors who seem to think that they deserve to be taken seriously as a news outfit after so many outright lies and distortions.
12212  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Best vp's for McCain and Obama on: May 24, 2008, 05:23:34 pm
McCain:
Governor Charlie Crist (Florida)
Governor Mark Sanford (South Carolina)
Governor Bobby Jindal (Louisiana)
Governor Mike Huckabee (Arkansas)
Senator Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut)

Obama:
Senator Hillary Clinton (New York)
Governor Brian Schweitzer (Montana)
Governor Ted Strickland (Ohio)
Senator James H. Webb (Virginia)
Representative Richard Gephardt (Missouri)
12213  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Unfortunate statement of the week on: May 24, 2008, 05:17:30 pm
No, that argument makes NO sense because she doesn't really have a significant chance at winning the nomination. It's funny how those who deign to give her "simple" advice come up with even more asinine suggestions. It makes one wonder how well most of her critics would do in her shoes. I'm guessing not very well.

I'm more than happy to excise that part of the post. It's the part I'm least enamored of.

Thank you for your thoughtful criticism.

However, if she has no significant chance of winning the nomination, then none of her arguments make sense. Why? Because they all rest on the notion that she can win the nomination.

Not quite. For one thing, there have been speculations that she's bargaining for VP slot or some other concession, though of course that can't be part of any public argument. But the main one I suppose would be that so she could say that she survived to the end of the primaries, "going the distance" in a Rocky-like fashion, so to speak, and came up short but was left standing. That's something some of her supporters would value, I think, due to the historic nature of her candidacy. My own bias would be toward the moving the party (and the country) toward examining the choices that confront us in the General Election sooner, but I can see how the argument could be made that she should go the distance even if she is doomed in the end.

I'm not talking about why she's truly staying in the race. Only she knows that for sure. I'm talking about her rhetorical justification for staying in the race. She's not likely to say "I haven't got a significant chance of winning the nomination but I'm staying in because of [insert reason here]." But saying "I'm doing it for my supporters who have fought for me" is not out of the realm of possibility and she has said things to effect on many occasions.

You mention the "historic nature of her candidacy." This is one of the reasons why I think her historical comparisons are so inapt. We're dealing with two groundbreaking candidacies. The most frontloaded primary season in American history has turned out to also be one of the longest in terms of picking a nominee. The nomination fight has spread into places that haven't seen a Democratic presidential candidate in years. This is a unique season, unlikely to be repeated soon, and the old rules don't necessarily apply.

I was referring to the fact of her being the first viable female candidate, not 'historical' in the sense that the primary season is frontloaded.

The reason that this has been one of the longest terms in picking a nominee is because the schedule set out at the beginning of the contests has been the most extended in years. Clinton's not saying that 'previous candidates stayed in for X months and I'm going to stay in for X months'. What's important is not how many months the race goes on but whether one stays in through all the contests or not, given the relative strength of her position.

Really, changes have been occurring with primary custom since 1992, which is the last time the primary season for either party really extended for any length of significant time. If the 'old rules don't apply', the most significant changes as far as custom begin with 1992 and 1996. It has been since then that the custom and tradition of short primary seasons has, until this year, dominated. The lengthening of the primary calendar itself, which is different than the customs that govern expectations of its de facto length, has been gradually expanding as certain states move earlier and earlier, and this year was no more than a continuation of that expansion.

Obviously, "I'm staying in the race because of my supporters" is one of the first reasons that any candidate will mention for staying in the race, and indeed it is the factor that John Edwards mentioned as most threatening to his decision to end his race. And of course she won't outright say that she hasn't got a significant chance at winning the nomination. What I meant was that she should not talk about her chances at winning the nomination in those terms, period. She should not say her justification for staying in is "I have a significant chance at winning the nomination", for such a statement would be mocked and doubted, and it would invite all kinds of questions about how she would actually get it.

The reason why the historical analogies work better is because many of the candidates in those analogies who fell behind but stayed in did considerably poorer than she is doing and arguably were even more hopeless than she is now. It forces the listener to accept that there is no litmus test in American politics for how long a politician 'can' continue to campaign, as long as they are willing and able to spend the money to do so. And it casts legitimacy on whatever justifications (apart from chance at winning) she might have for continuing her campaign.
12214  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Unfortunate statement of the week on: May 24, 2008, 09:33:44 am
No, that argument makes NO sense because she doesn't really have a significant chance at winning the nomination. It's funny how those who deign to give her "simple" advice come up with even more asinine suggestions. It makes one wonder how well most of her critics would do in her shoes. I'm guessing not very well.

I'm more than happy to excise that part of the post. It's the part I'm least enamored of.

Thank you for your thoughtful criticism.

However, if she has no significant chance of winning the nomination, then none of her arguments make sense. Why? Because they all rest on the notion that she can win the nomination.

Not quite. For one thing, there have been speculations that she's bargaining for VP slot or some other concession, though of course that can't be part of any public argument. But the main one I suppose would be that so she could say that she survived to the end of the primaries, "going the distance" in a Rocky-like fashion, so to speak, and came up short but was left standing. That's something some of her supporters would value, I think, due to the historic nature of her candidacy. My own bias would be toward the moving the party (and the country) toward examining the choices that confront us in the General Election sooner, but I can see how the argument could be made that she should go the distance even if she is doomed in the end.
12215  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Unfortunate statement of the week on: May 24, 2008, 08:56:48 am
It makes one wonder how well most of her critics would do in her shoes. I'm guessing not very well.

That's an easy one; they'd have swallowed the multi-million dollar debt and dropped out a long time ago.

Yes, I kind of anticipated that answer, but I meant assuming she decides to stay in. Smiley
12216  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Unfortunate statement of the week on: May 24, 2008, 08:47:17 am

KO is a clown. It sounds like he broke his pencil when he was going "You! You!"

Quote
Failing that, I don't know why she doesn't simply say "It would be unfair to my supporters, who have stood with me through thick and thin in this campaign, to drop out now when there is still a chance of winning the nomination." That's an argument that makes sense and avoids any unpleasant slips of the tongue.

No, that argument makes NO sense because she doesn't really have a significant chance at winning the nomination. It's funny how those who deign to give her "simple" advice come up with even more asinine suggestions. It makes one wonder how well most of her critics would do in her shoes. I'm guessing not very well.

The historical analogies are more appropriate.
12217  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Unfortunate statement of the week on: May 24, 2008, 02:14:59 am
I think it was calculated but I don't think it's that horrible.  Just to remind voters and superdelegates that youthful idealism doesn't always work out, maybe make them more hesitant about throwing their weight to Obama.

It was very expertly brought in.  And now Clinton's public apology on the issue makes her comment get even more news coverage.

Huh? This doesn't make much sense.
12218  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Unfortunate statement of the week on: May 23, 2008, 11:38:40 pm
It's a testament to how long and arduous this campaign is, to have someone as savvy and intelligent as Hillary Clinton say something so overwhelmingly stupid.

I think actual basis for the comment, her husband won the nomination in June, RFK was still running in June (had he not been killed) it would have gone well beyond that. But slipping the word "assassination" was just so f**king dense.

Yeah but the only reason anyone remembers that RFK was still in the race in June was his assassination.

RFK, Jr. has issued a statement:

Quote
In a statement, Kennedy Jr. said: "It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."
12219  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: obama supporters: is there a potential vp that would make you vote *against on: May 23, 2008, 11:02:00 pm
Really, it would be hard for the VP pick to make me vote against him.
12220  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Unfortunate statement of the week on: May 23, 2008, 11:00:10 pm
Okay, I feel kind of bad for jumping on this. I'll be honest, when I first heard about it, I was skeptical; how bad could it be? Then I watched the video and was horrified, and a bit more to learn that she'd said basically the exact same lines back in March. So, while I suppose I should be giving the benefit of the doubt, and I now am, this isn't jumping on her. The negative reaction was a honest first impression.

And I think that explains why the media has gone all over this. A lot of people's first view will see it as Clinton suggesting that something untoward will happen to Obama, including probably many of those who put it on air. And I don't think you have to prefer Obama for that to be the case. Certainly the most reasonable of the pro-Clinton Democratic sites, myDD, is not all that happy with her about this (understatement).

I have to disagree. Look at how easily this thing flows through the national media. People who put it on the air or who write about it online get exactly the reactions they are looking for. It's so easy to plug into because there's this exaggerated notion of Hillary already out there about who she is; and people are a lot less resistant to believing horrible things about her. Even the way you were presented it originally was filtered; 99.5% of the interview with the Argus Leader, including the portions where she's talking about water policy, are filtered out. You were told to look out specifically for the RFK assasination remark.

In any case, MyDD is better described as highly divided than pro-Clinton. It's inaccurate to call it a "reasonable" site, because most people there are hacks for one side or the other; any appearance of reasonability comes out of the even mix of the two sides Smiley.
12221  General Discussion / History / Re: Presidential Trivia on: May 23, 2008, 06:29:36 pm
What Adams, Jefferson, Quincy Adams, Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore, and Garfield have in common.

Guess, they never vetoed a bill.

Ding, ding.
12222  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Why don't those hillbillies like Obama? on: May 23, 2008, 06:28:50 pm
snip

I voted for Hillary in my primary and I find the cartoon in your sig to be deeply lame. Some candidates win, some lose, it doesn't mean the people who voted for the losing side are banned from the party, for cryin' out loud.

In principle, you are right, but right now people are divided. I *might* take this down after Hillary drops out. I hope most Hillary supporters and Obama supporters are thinking along similar lines. I'm sure most are...

Interestingly that thought never crossed my mind. If Obama was losing just slightly to Clinton right now I would not take that to mean that blacks, young people and professionals are banned from the party. As an Obama supporter I desperately want women, older people and blue collar folks to stay in the party. In the end it is them who are benifited most by democratic policies.

That's good to hear. I hope that the spirit of this discussion can carry on throughout the whole party and through the rest of the campaign season, especially after Sen. Clinton has finished the last contests and ended her race.
12223  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Unfortunate statement of the week on: May 23, 2008, 06:25:16 pm
this is a bad thing to say I but i understand what she meant.  I'm so sick of gotcha crap.

^^^^^^^^^

I was listening to my FM classic rock music station which has no news, and between songs the DJ broke in like: "OMG BREAKING NEWS Hillary has just said that she should stay in the race because RFK was assasinated. Wow. Just wow. What a horrible thing to say."

No mention of her actual quote, no mention of "June", just "Hillary should stay in the race because RFK was assasinated" and the implication.
12224  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Why don't those hillbillies like Obama? on: May 23, 2008, 02:17:33 pm
snip

I voted for Hillary in my primary and I find the cartoon in your sig to be deeply lame. Some candidates win, some lose, it doesn't mean the people who voted for the losing side are banned from the party, for cryin' out loud.

In principle, you are right, but right now people are divided. I *might* take this down after Hillary drops out. I hope most Hillary supporters and Obama supporters are thinking along similar lines. I'm sure most are...
12225  General Discussion / History / Re: Presidential Trivia on: May 23, 2008, 02:08:52 pm
Hint: It has something to do with Congressional relations.
Pages: 1 ... 484 485 486 487 488 [489] 490 491 492 493 494 ... 722


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines