Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

sozobe wrote:

Still, they didn't actually respond the way that I hoped when they had the chance...

Yeah, true. They should have gotten as specific as she was, but chose the high road, which involved a lot of the usual stuff. Pity, that.

0 Replies

Interesting stuff - how that controversial Des Moines Register poll was right after all (the enormous turnout, the great number of first-time caucusers and young people, which helped Obama to his decisive lead) - and on what counts it wasnt (only 20% of non-Democrats joining the caucus, rather than the 45% the DMR poll had predicted).

Quote:

The View From the Winner's Circle

Add the already mentioned boomerang effect of the arguments by the DMR poll's detractors from Hillary's camp:

Quote:

As if that weren't enough, the Penns and Hickmans of the world only enhanced Obama's aura with their kibitzing this week. As Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal has pointed out, once you've slammed a poll's assumptions as "unprecedented," you can't withhold that label from a man who went out and vindicated them. (Nonetheless, I suspect Penn is already at work on a memo that attempts to square this circle.)

And, not so much in relation to the topic of the thread, on the big question: How did Obama do it? Organisation - but also Obama's rather abstract appeal to a brand of independents who came to caucus for the first time:

Quote:

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Huckabee and McCain ganging up on Romney. What is this about?

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/the-political-wire-huckabee-mccain-train-sights-on-romney/

Okie, this article datelined on the eve of the Iowa caucuses may go to the heart of it:

A Tale of Two Romneys

First it describes the schizophrenic character of Romney's campaign:

Quote:

What a nice guy! Mitt Romney is all humble and reasonable, a human goose-down comforter lulling the Iowans who have come to hear him at a classic heartland café in downtown Newton on a Saturday morning, [..] streaming balm. [..] Romney's version of the future sounds as if he's pickpocketed the polling data used by Democrats roaming the cornfields, with an occasional Republican nod to lower taxes and a strong defense. He talks about the need for an alternative-energy plan, better schools, better jobs and universal health insurance but not "Hillarycare, socialized medicine." That (inaccurate) slap is about as nasty as it gets. He doesn't even mention illegal immigrants. Suddenly I can foresee a re-reborn Romney, slipping toward the political center in a general election.

[But] this guy is, literally, unbelievable and completely at odds with the Romney festering on television screens and in mailings throughout Iowa and New Hampshire. That Romney is nonstop negative, and jingo-crazed about the perils of illegal immigration. He offers exclamations, not balm: John McCain wants to make 'em citizens! Mike Huckabee gave them college scholarships! And McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts! And Huckabee pardoned all these criminals when he was Governor of Arkansas, while Romney pardoned not a single one of his Massachusetts felons!

All these claims are accurate, or nearly so, and well within the smarmy bounds of political advertising. The problem is schizophrenia: negative Romney on television, positive Romney on the stump. Moderate Massachusetts Mitt vs. Raging Romney of the primaries. "Pay attention to both," New Hampshire's Concord Monitor wrote in an extraordinary editorial, "and you're left to wonder if there's anything at all at his core."

Then it describes just how this drives his rivals completely crazy:

Quote:

Then there's personal resentment at Romney's negative ads - here's Huckabee, convincingly portraying Romney as simply a nasty guy:

Quote:

At his (largely failed) later event launching the TV ad that wasnt launched, Huckabee added: "If a person becomes President by being dishonest," he said, "he won't start being honest when he gets there." In short, it's personal.

Finally, the article concludes:

Quote:

As George H.W. Bush learned, you can't run for President pretending to be one thing and succeed in office as someone else (Bush ran as a viciously negative, antitax populist instead of the thoughtful, tax-raising moderate that he actually was). Romney reminds me a bit of Bush the Elder. He seems very intelligent. His candidacy had real potential. But I don't think Romney believes a word he says on any of the red-meat issues that he's been using to bludgeon his opponents. Which is why he says those things only on television, where he doesn't have to look anyone in the eye.

0 Replies

Andrew Sullivan on the Iowa results:

Quote:

The State Of The Parties

Tonight was in many ways devastating news for the GOP. Twice as many people turned out for the Democrats than the Republicans. Clearly independents prefer the Dems.

Now look at how the caucus-goers defined themselves in the entrance polls. Among the Dems: Very Liberal: 18 percent; Somewhat Liberal: 36 percent; Moderate: 40 percent; Conservative: 6 percent. Now check out the Republicans: Very Conservative: 45 percent; Somewhat Conservative: 43 percent; Moderate: 11 percent; Liberal: 1 percent.

One is a national party; the other is on its way to being an ideological church. The damage Bush and Rove have done - revealed in 2006 - is now inescapable.

0 Replies

Haven't been on the computer yet today, had a lot of storm debris to clean up around my apartment during the lull in rain this morning.

I watched both debates and came away with surprisingly mixed feelings about both.

First of all, ABC sure did a better job of it. Charlie has so much more skill and class as a moderator than George. It is too bad they had to pander to George's ego and allow him to push viewers toward what he wanted us to think about the candidates before each debate.

I really enjoyed the Republican debate and learned a lot about each of them that caused me to change my perception about a few of them.

Ron Paul is in the wrong party. He sounded a lot more like Dennis Kucinich and the others seemed to respond to him that way.

Romney seemed more enamoured with the sound of his own voice than in actually saying anything but the same phrase over and over again as he continuously interrupted everyone else. He's not a good listener.

McCain was a lot more layed back than I expected. I found myself wondering if maybe he was ill.

I enjoyed the fact that they all were allowed to actually talk among themselves with several layers of follow up comments and that Charlie didn't barge in and try to manipulate the interchange.

That's what greatly disappointed me about the Democratic side of the debate. Charlie did not allow those same layers of follow up comments and continually barged in to cut off discussion among any two of them that he didn't orchestrate with his question.

Like Soz, I was disappointed with hearing many of the same catch phrases from all four of the Democratic candidates, Obama especially. He had an opportunity to really sparkle and sounded too exhausted to do so.

I was also disappointed that no one called Hillary on the experience question and asked what she herself had done during those 35 years she claims as her training for the White House.

Richardson seemed to be the Eddie Haskel of the night, saying anything to get on the good side of all three of the others so they'll make him VP. I did like the bit where he detailed his years of actual front line experience after Hillary's tirade about her many years as a candidate's wife.

Overall it was a good debate, a much much better format and moderation than I've seen elsewhere this season. Obama needs to freshen up his mantra a bit. Many people have heard it for more than a year now. He needs to keep attracting that interest with a rewritten version to change things up a bit. It is great that he stays on message, but he's more than capable of rewording the expression of that message now and then. He also needs to take a day and catch up on sleep!

If you haven't seen it yet, Newsweek has a great cover story on Obama.

0 Replies

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/01-06%20NH%20summary.png

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The Wikipedia entry on the 2008 Iowa caucuses has a map of the results:

Map shows results by county. Counties won by Barack Obama are dark blue, those won by John Edwards are regular blue, and those won by Hillary Clinton are light blue (or whatever you call that colour).

Looks like Obama's support was focused in the East, by the Mississippi, and in the cities. He won in all of the five counties with the largest population, around the cities of Waterloo, Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, Des Moines and Davenport.

And looks like Edwards' support was focused in the same area he was strongest in back in 2004: the counties in South-Central Iowa.

(Footnote: his 2004 success in those counties especially was credited in at least one article I read to his endorsement by the Des Moines Register, which is the newspaper of choice in that area apparently. But this time DMR endorsed Hillary, and it doesnt seem to have had much effect. Theory dismissed.)

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I can hardly wait for the debates tonight.

What did you think of them?

I looked for you guys last night, but didn't see anybody anywhere either. Here's my scorecard.
Democrats:
Winner: Barrack Obama: Nothing special, but no mistakes. I think he was the beneficiary of Edwards's desperate sounding attacks on Hillary. See Nimh's 3 way race analysis... I don't recall where but it goes like this: Mud thrower and target both get muddy (Edwards, Hillary), while 3rd party benefits from the mud, but doesn't look bad for throwing it (Obama).

Second Place: Hillary Clinton. Her hair looked fantastic. She held solid throughout most, but looked terribly awkward when asked about Obama being better liked (Obama scored by throwing her a rope, IMO, but Stephanopoulos(?) thought the opposite). Her 35 years experience mantra (though tiring to me personally), seemed to play pretty well. (Amazing that nobody stopped her from taking credit for Bill's Presidency).

Third Place: John Edwards. I may be biased, but I thought he sounded extremely phony while using the word "change" like a dozen times in 60 seconds. It was beyond obvious that he was budding up to Obama Vs. Hillary. His shots against Hillary definitely landed; but were so scripted that they had to reflect poorly on him as well. I don't get why he constantly brought up the middle class (presumably the educated, decent income earners that Obama has a lock on), instead of the poorer classes that he may actually stand a chance at mobilizing.

Richardson: Babbled like he had a chance, admirably, but let's face it. He doesn't. He sounded pretty good when he launched into his canned experience speech, and he finished very strong and honest when he admitted to his past debate error. That was as genuine as it was funny. (Hill and Obama both straight copped out of that one and unless I somehow missed it; Edwards was let off that hook.)

Republicans (tuned in an hour late)(football):
Winner: Rudy Giuliani. He spoke as smooth and Presidential as Mitt Romney, but didn't have McCain biting at his ankles. Like Obama; he was the beneficiary of Nimh's 3-way formula. He did a better job of explaining essentially same positions as McCain but Romney in turn chose to grill McCain over the non-GOP details of immigration. Where McCain double-spoke and stuttered; Rudy simply stated removing 12 million people wasn't realistic and immediately shifted to Get rid of the criminals. Very fluid.

Second Place: John McCain. Despite sounding sophomoric in his attacks against Romney; several of them landed hard and visibly shook Romney. Romney (at least twice) had to resort to, "can we stop with the personal attacks". McCain did look weak and unsure of himself when questioned about his non-GOP type positions...Overall though; I thought his mud was worse for Romney--> Something like: You sure are the candidate of change, laughing You can spend your whole fortune on negative ads, and they still won't be true.

Third: Romney: Sounded very Presidential, when McCain wasn't getting to him and delivered the Old School GOP position on immigration as well as could be done but the position stinks. Rudy rolled over him with Reagan gave amnesty. This isn't because of a., b., and C.

The Field: Huckabee: Sounded genuine, but didn't say too much, from what I saw.
Ron Paul sounded ancient. Thompson sounded to me like he hadn't done his homework but could nonetheless fake it pretty well. I'll be surprised if these guys don't vanish soon.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

(Hill and Obama both straight copped out of that one and unless I somehow missed it; Edwards was let off that hook.)

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I've made a lot of them. One that I particularly remember -- I think it was here in New Hampshire, the first debate -- I was asked who my favorite Supreme Court justice was, and I said, dead or alive? (Laughter.) I said -- I should have -- I should have stuck to the alive because I then said, "Whizzer" White, because I idolize John F. Kennedy and I figured if he appointed "Whizzer" White, this was a great Supreme Court justice. Well then I find out that "Whizzer" White was against Roe versus Wade, against civil rights -- (laughter). You know, so that's -- that wasn't a good one. (Laughter, applause.)

MR. GIBSON: Senator Edwards, I'll go to you just with a passing comment, that you haven't talked about Mrs. Clinton's attire recently.

MR. EDWARDS: Well, I was actually about to say -- I already figured this out --

MR./SEN. : That was a -- (inaudible).

MR. EDWARDS: -- what -- if you're going to pick the one for me, it was when I made the horrendous mistake of teasing Hillary about her jacket. (Laughter.) And I want her to know I think you look terrific tonight. (Laughter, applause.)

MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, there have been all kinds of, you know, aspects to my debate performance that I'd love to correct or sharpen, but over all, I actually -- here's an area where I agree with Hillary, that there has been a stark contrast generally between the four of us and those who aren't debating with us now but were previously.

There is going to be a fundamental difference between the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee. Ending the politics of fear that has so dominated our political debate. Making certain that we're actually listening to the American people and the struggles and hardships that they're going through. And I think the opportunity to bring the American people together and to push back those special interests, to actually deliver on meaningful differences in their lives, that's something -- that's a prospect that I think all Democrats should be excited about.

0 Replies

Oh, and thank you for your takes, Butrflynet and O'Bill! Interesting.

0 Replies

A couple of us were blabbing about the debate last night on unrelated threads, like the Michael Moore thread, but no serious analysis. Overall I thought Edwards did the best and had the most to gain. Hillary went for the throat and looked surprised that it was Edwards that beat her back. Edwards response was a good underscore of his attack dog theme and he made a very good point about the fight being personal. Overall I thought he had the most original responses, the rest of the time they each seemed to be playing some bizarre game where you repeat what the others say in an effort to speak it into meaninglessness. And it worked.

I like Obama, but I find that when he responds to Hillary and does that pause, I'm sitting there on the edge of my seat saying to myself "what are you waiting for, giver her what for!" But I know he's just choosing his words carefully. Still, infuriating, and disappointing.

0 Replies

Hey Bill --

Remember when I showed you the political bets on tradesports.com, and you commented that Edwards was a steal at 1:20? I didn't buy at the time. I don't say this lightly, but I wish I had listened to you.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Hey Bill --

Remember when I showed you the political bets on tradesports.com, and you commented that Edwards was a steal at 1:20? I didn't buy at the time. I don't say this lightly, but I wish I had listened to you.

Then this should be a relief; I was wrong. If you really regret that decision you can get almost 50 to 1, right now, at Intrade.com :wink:

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/9088/gobama3ti9.jpg

Obama has become a huge favorite.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Hey Bill --

Remember when I showed you the political bets on tradesports.com, and you commented that Edwards was a steal at 1:20? I didn't buy at the time. I don't say this lightly, but I wish I had listened to you.
Then this should be a relief; I was wrong. If you really regret that decision you can get almost 50 to 1, right now, at Intrade.com :wink:

Obama has become a huge favorite.

"Has become" for the rest of the world; "Always was" for you, eh O'billy?

0 Replies

USA Today/Gallup (January 4-6)

Obama 41
Clinton 28
Edwards 19
Richardson 6

McCain 34
Romney 30
Huckabee 13
Paul 8
Giuliani 8
Thompson <3
Hunter <3

The surveys of 776 New Hampshire residents who are "likely" to vote in the Republican primary and 778 New Hampshire residents who are "likely" to vote in the Democratic primary were all completed after the news from Thursday's Iowa caucuses had been reported.

Each figure has a margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points. So Obama's lead is "outside" that range, while McCain's is not.

0 Replies

Fox focus group thinks Romney won the forum tonight, but is that what the voters think, and will it affect anything?

Frankly, to me, the loser was McCain. His answers were fine, but the question about his age was telling in my opinion. Great guy, good military man, good ole boy senate career with Ted and the boys, but I think we need somebody new to tackle Washington.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

"Has become" for the rest of the world; "Always was" for you, eh O'billy?

Can you show where I said that? Or are you still irrationally crying about a Strawman that, in fact, you, yourself, made up? Prove otherwise, or stop spamming every thread you run across with your irrational idiocy. (Hint: Even while I was sarcastically encouraging your mental melt-down; I said no such thing. Get a hold of yourself man.)

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

snood wrote:
"Has become" for the rest of the world; "Always was" for you, eh O'billy?
Can you show where I said that? Or are you still irrationally crying about a Strawman that, in fact, you, yourself, made up? Prove otherwise, or stop spamming every thread you run across with your irrational idiocy. (Hint: Even while I was sarcastically encouraging your mental melt-down; I said no such thing. Get a hold of yourself man.)

You never said "I always thought his chances were great"? I'll go looking for it if you're really this pathologically in denial, but damn.

0 Replies

Not here, guys.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Not here, guys.

Sorry. Every thread he sees me on he brings his idiotic lies.

Snood: The truth is available for the clicking... which is how I'll respond to this idiocy if you continue it. (Only a moron would take your word, instead of simply reading the truth, so you're wasting your breath).

0 Replies

Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know