Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Obamarama is damn close in NH and trending well, not so much in IA.

The other way round :wink:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Is it possible to ask about this -

Quote:
-- I see what could just be new trends emerging or turning, and they wont show up in the pollster.com trendlines because they are too tentative.

Sure. The pollster.com analysts lay great worth on taking into account just how randomly volatile individual polls can be. Not even just because of margins of error and the like, but because of differences in methodology between polls. And not even so much in how questions are phrased, choices are listed, etc - though all that plays a role - but especially in how the pollsters screen for likely voters. Each uses different methods of determining just who is actually likely to vote in the primaries.

They need such screening methodologies because people tend to overrepresent their intention to vote; a lot of people say they are going to vote when they are not actually likely to, so usually pollsters use additional criteria, such as whether they have voted in the previous primary, whether they think they will vote or are sure to, et cetera. Each pollster does this in different ways. Especially in Iowa, where participating in the caucuses involves a lot more work than just going to the polling booth, it is important to screen for only those who are motivated enough -- and some pollsters end up including a far larger or smaller selection of voters than others. Hence how different "house effects" can have results for candidates that vary greatly from poll to poll, because some candidates do better among the real core voters while others do better among waverers of perhaps-voters.

And then there is just the random statistical variation. A poll can have a candidate 4% or 6% higher than the running average and it can still just be nothing but statistical noise.

For all of these reasons, pollster.com has put into place a very cautious trendline ("steady blue" I think is how they call it, or something like that). Only occasionally they will feature a graph that also features a "sensitive red" trendline to show how the picture changes if you make it more sensitive to momentary changes. The blue line is set up especially so that it won't bend up or down suddenly just because one or two new polls have a candidate 5% or 10% higher than the other polls or the previous polls were showing. Only if a number of polls over time show the same increase or decrease does the line budge.

Even then it doesnt often "bend", because the calculation is retroactive: eg, if the trendline last weekend was 13,0% and today is down to 12,3%, but a result on Sunday puts it back at 13,3% instead, the line is retroactively made to go roughly flat at 13%, rather than showing the temporary dip today and going back up next weekend.

So for all these reasons, it wont pick up much on trends that would have a candidate, say, going up for two weeks and down again the next two, because they dont want a graph that shows developments that might just also be random variation. But of course, because of that, it might miss out on developments that do actually play out within such shorter plans - hence why I was tempted to make these graphs here, that go beyond just looking at one individual poll, but do show differences from month to month that dont show up in the pollster.com trendlines. Differences that might be trends that are too minor or momentary for the pollster.com trendline to show up - based on things like how a debate and subsequent coverage impacts the numbers in a given month, say - but might indeed also just be random statistical variation.

0 Replies

Good stuff, thanks.

0 Replies

Only just saw your post at the bottom of the last page...

I see what you're saying. I do read that quote from the debate and nod -- there is something unique to the Bush-Clinton rivalry that I think Obama's referring to and that I think is a valid point. You see the comments here, people relishing the idea of a President Clinton because of how furious it will make a segment of the population -- a certain "take THAT!" one-upmanship. I think someone -- anyone -- outside of that particular rivalry is more likely to be able to get things done with non-allies (I don't want to say "enemies," though that's part of it I guess -- that segment IS considered an enemy by Hillary, and the feeling is mutual).

0 Replies

soz said

Quote:

You see the comments here, people relishing the idea of a President Clinton because of how furious it will make a segment of the population -- a certain "take THAT!" one-upmanship.

Did someone call my name?

Not 'furious', rather, 'apathetic'. And not 'one-upmanship', but rather, 'power'. It all feels pretty icky, I admit, but it seems the reality of the game. We would be, for example, dangerously naive to imagine that the modern right does not have the goal of crushing the union movement utterly. And that's but one little corner.

Apparently, I'm not in a compromise or bi-partisan mood any longer. But neither is Coulter or Limbaugh or Ailes or Cheney or Norquist or... its a long list.

0 Replies

I don't think the American Union movement really needs any help from "the Right" to continue the steady decline it has seen for the past two decades. Their failures to organize new and growing industries and to motivate a new generation of workers are doing all that well enough on their own.

Most of the money and power in the Labor movement today comes from the American Federation of Teachers and the various Government Employees Unions - both of which have been doing their best to lose public trust and confidence in every way possible. I was bemused a few years ago by the behavior of the national President of the AFT who, when confronted with media requests for explanations of why the national union had not (for the past 10 years) done annual audits of the books of the Washington DC chapter (as required in the Local's charter) after the president of that Local had been convicted of embezzling $3 million of union funds over the previous five years, replied that 'There is no binding legal requirement for them to do so'.

I do have a number of good friends in the Labor movement and enjoyed a pleasant Thanksgiving lunch yesterday at the Northern California headquarters of the Seafarers Union. Nancy Pelosi was the scheduled speaker, but she didn't show - we got Ron Delums instead (actually a nice guy). There was the usual parade of "brothers" form other trade unions, each bearing 'envelopes' (with cash contributions) and expressing eternal solidarity. There was also the usual collection of sympathetic judges, Coast Guard officers, and city government department heads from San Francisco & Oakland, etc. It was a very pleasant affair with some very agreeable people. However the rather geriatric crowd was ample testimony of the declining nature of the whole thing.

0 Replies

I don't think it was you that I saw saying that, actually. I know I've seen it -- I have a much harder time tracking down where I've seen things now that I read 500 news items a day. (Exaggeration, yes...)

I don't get your "apathetic" for "furious" substitution, though... not everyone is going to be furious, but do you really doubt that there will be a segment of the population -- in power and otherwise -- who would be furious if Hillary becomes president? More furious than if any other Democrat becomes president?

My basic take on this: There are real threats that a president should be willing to stand up to and overcome. I think Obama can do this, you and nimh seem to have your doubts. I just don't think that a group as large as "Republicans" should be treated as enemies. Some are bad, some are not. Or more to the point -- some support problematic policies, some don't. And some support some problematic policies and some non-problematic policies. Republicans are not some undifferentiated bloc.

One of the articles about how many foreign policy experts like Obama talked about his tolerance for ambiguity and how that was important. I like a tolerance for ambiguity. I don't like rigid, prejudiced intolerance directed at a group -- even when that group is Republicans.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Obamarama is damn close in NH and trending well, not so much in IA.

The other way round :wink:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Is it possible to ask about this -

Quote:
-- I see what could just be new trends emerging or turning, and they wont show up in the pollster.com trendlines because they are too tentative.

Sure. The pollster.com analysts lay great worth on taking into account just how randomly volatile individual polls can be. Not even just because of margins of error and the like, but because of differences in methodology between polls. And not even so much in how questions are phrased, choices are listed, etc - though all that plays a role - but especially in how the pollsters screen for likely voters. Each uses different methods of determining just who is actually likely to vote in the primaries.

They need such screening methodologies because people tend to overrepresent their intention to vote; a lot of people say they are going to vote when they are not actually likely to, so usually pollsters use additional criteria, such as whether they have voted in the previous primary, whether they think they will vote or are sure to, et cetera. Each pollster does this in different ways. Especially in Iowa, where participating in the caucuses involves a lot more work than just going to the polling booth, it is important to screen for only those who are motivated enough -- and some pollsters end up including a far larger or smaller selection of voters than others. Hence how different "house effects" can have results for candidates that vary greatly from poll to poll, because some candidates do better among the real core voters while others do better among waverers of perhaps-voters.

And then there is just the random statistical variation. A poll can have a candidate 4% or 6% higher than the running average and it can still just be nothing but statistical noise.

For all of these reasons, pollster.com has put into place a very cautious trendline ("steady blue" I think is how they call it, or something like that). Only occasionally they will feature a graph that also features a "sensitive red" trendline to show how the picture changes if you make it more sensitive to momentary changes. The blue line is set up especially so that it won't bend up or down suddenly just because one or two new polls have a candidate 5% or 10% higher than the other polls or the previous polls were showing. Only if a number of polls over time show the same increase or decrease does the line budge.

Even then it doesnt often "bend", because the calculation is retroactive: eg, if the trendline last weekend was 13,0% and today is down to 12,3%, but a result on Sunday puts it back at 13,3% instead, the line is retroactively made to go roughly flat at 13%, rather than showing the temporary dip today and going back up next weekend.

So for all these reasons, it wont pick up much on trends that would have a candidate, say, going up for two weeks and down again the next two, because they dont want a graph that shows developments that might just also be random variation. But of course, because of that, it might miss out on developments that do actually play out within such shorter plans - hence why I was tempted to make these graphs here, that go beyond just looking at one individual poll, but do show differences from month to month that dont show up in the pollster.com trendlines. Differences that might be trends that are too minor or momentary for the pollster.com trendline to show up - based on things like how a debate and subsequent coverage impacts the numbers in a given month, say - but might indeed also just be random statistical variation.

Hahah! Thanks for the explanation, I should have been more specific, and asked the question: What are the trends you may have noticed, which haven't shown up yet, specificially?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I don't think it was you that I saw saying that, actually. I know I've seen it -- I have a much harder time tracking down where I've seen things now that I read 500 news items a day. (Exaggeration, yes...)

I don't get your "apathetic" for "furious" substitution, though... not everyone is going to be furious, but do you really doubt that there will be a segment of the population -- in power and otherwise -- who would be furious if Hillary becomes president? More furious than if any other Democrat becomes president?

My basic take on this: There are real threats that a president should be willing to stand up to and overcome. I think Obama can do this, you and nimh seem to have your doubts. I just don't think that a group as large as "Republicans" should be treated as enemies. Some are bad, some are not. Or more to the point -- some support problematic policies, some don't. And some support some problematic policies and some non-problematic policies. Republicans are not some undifferentiated bloc.

One of the articles about how many foreign policy experts like Obama talked about his tolerance for ambiguity and how that was important. I like a tolerance for ambiguity. I don't like rigid, prejudiced intolerance directed at a group -- even when that group is Republicans.

soz

Re 'apathetic'/'furious'...when Clinton won in 92, Ralph Reed was so discouraged that he left politics for a half year. He had hoped/assumed that the 'conservative revolution' would continue to steamroller its way to single party dominance and his view of the correct America. That response, broadly experienced by people like Reed and the others I named is my ideal consequence for this next election. One can hope.

I do find it an ugly way to think. It is precisely the sort of notion that psychotic types like Rumsfeld or Ledeen or Rove believe...opposition must be crushed to the point where they present no further problem. I hate it. I'd rather go kayaking. But I think it is the nature of the american conservative movement as it has evolved.

Re your last sentence...no, I don't like that either. But my category heading here isn't "Republican", its the movement which formed up in that party and which has come to dominate it. The US system needs two vital and contesting parties (at least two). So it would phuck up if the Dems thought they ought to go for 30 year dominance.

0 Replies

and ps... the advantage I see here, correctly or not, of Clinton over Obama is of experience observing and dealing with this movement. Few know it more closely or more thoroughly than her and her husband, I expect. And I do grant her a certain toughness of character proven over time which will be necessary after the presidency is won, given it is. The same forces which set to bringing the Clinton adminstration down are yet in place and arguably better equipped than before. Regardless of all the "support your commander in chief" advisories coming from the right over the last few years, there will be a concerted campaign again to bring her (or Obama or Edwards) down. It will start day one and it will not let up unless it gets crushed and sane conservatives regain the party.

But I may have this wrong. It may be that Obama could bring about a change such as what most americans appear to desire. That would be so nice. But...Ann Coulter and Rush are going to start a bakery in Ohio? The military industrial crowd is going to clap and smile at the idea of peace and weapons sales out the bottom?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

soz

Re 'apathetic'/'furious'...when Clinton won in 92, Ralph Reed was so discouraged that he left politics for a half year. He had hoped/assumed that the 'conservative revolution' would continue to steamroller its way to single party dominance and his view of the correct America. That response, broadly experienced by people like Reed and the others I named is my ideal consequence for this next election. One can hope.

I do find it an ugly way to think. It is precisely the sort of notion that psychotic types like Rumsfeld or Ledeen or Rove believe...opposition must be crushed to the point where they present no further problem. I hate it. I'd rather go kayaking. But I think it is the nature of the american conservative movement as it has evolved.

Re your last sentence...no, I don't like that either. But my category heading here isn't "Republican", its the movement which formed up in that party and which has come to dominate it. The US system needs two vital and contesting parties (at least two). So it would phuck up if the Dems thought they ought to go for 30 year dominance.

Blatham, you don't think Hillary has plans for squashing her political enemies if she manages to win? Lookout IRS, people. It will be at least as bad as when her husband used the IRS to intimidate and silence the opposition. Besides the IRS, what else? Who knows.

0 Replies

I did not write the op-ed piece I am linking to, nor did I post any commen on it.
But, I did find it interesting.
Its from the Des Moines register, and it was published yesterday...

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071120/OPINION01/711200367

Here are some quotes from the piece, with my comments for your enjoyment...

Quote:

Today, we're ready for change. But we know that change is just a word without the strength and experience to make it happen. So we need a president who's been tested - who's ready to lead on day one and fight for results every day in the White House.

How has she been tested as President?
When was she Potus and when did she have any responsibility for any decisions?

Quote:

That is exactly what I've been doing for the past 35 years, standing up for abused and neglected children as a young lawyer, for universal health care as first lady, and for our troops and first responders, family farmers, rural families and others in the Senate

OK, where is the proof of this comment?
What legislation or other action did she take for 35 years?
As far as I know, until Bill ran for President, nobody outside of Ark had ever heard of her.
She claims 35 years, show us all what she accomplished in that time.
If she fought for universal health care, why did she quit as soon as her plan faced opposition?
That isnt fighting for your beliefs, thats caving in to opposition.

Quote:

You know where I stand. And you know that when I stand with you, I never give up, I never back down and I never stop fighting - no matter how tough it gets.

Like she did with her health care plan?
She sure gave that fight up quick.

Quote:

Third, I'll reform our government: no more cronyism and no-bid contracts - and we'll appoint qualified people to positions of power again.

People like Jim McDougal, Webb Hubbell, Susan Mcdougal, and others that were indicted.
That sure shows that they are qualified people, doesnt it.

The more she talks, the less she impresses me.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I did not write the op-ed piece I am linking to, nor did I post any commen on it.
But, I did find it interesting.
Its from the Des Moines register, and it was published yesterday...

Quote:
That is exactly what I've been doing for the past 35 years, standing up for abused and neglected children as a young lawyer,

OK, where is the proof of this comment?
What legislation or other action did she take for 35 years?
As far as I know, until Bill ran for President, nobody outside of Ark had ever heard of her.

Her work on behalf of children was well-known in the U.S., and in other countries, long before Mr. Clinton ran for president. At certain points in their early careers, she was better known than he was. She may not have had his charisma, but she had brains and proved her stick-to-itiveness in the realm of childrens' rights decades ago.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
I did not write the op-ed piece I am linking to, nor did I post any commen on it.
But, I did find it interesting.
Its from the Des Moines register, and it was published yesterday...

Quote:
That is exactly what I've been doing for the past 35 years, standing up for abused and neglected children as a young lawyer,

OK, where is the proof of this comment?
What legislation or other action did she take for 35 years?
As far as I know, until Bill ran for President, nobody outside of Ark had ever heard of her.

Her work on behalf of children was well-known in the U.S., and in other countries, long before Mr. Clinton ran for president. At certain points in their early careers, she was better known than he was. She may not have had his charisma, but she had brains and proved her stick-to-itiveness in the realm of childrens' rights decades ago.

Not that I dont believe you, but can you link to ANYTHING that backs you up?

0 Replies

Why don't you start by linking to something supporting your position that no one ever heard of her outside of Arkansas.

I'll look for your supporting links when I get back from class.

k?

good.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Why don't you start by linking to something supporting your position that no one ever heard of her outside of Arkansas.

I'll look for your supporting links when I get back from class.

k?

good.

I said "as far as I know".
That means it was my opinion only.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I just don't think that a group as large as "Republicans" should be treated as enemies. Some are bad, some are not. Or more to the point -- some support problematic policies, some don't. And some support some problematic policies and some non-problematic policies. Republicans are not some undifferentiated bloc.

Are we talking about the Republican rank-and-file here - the voters, or local or even state politicians? Or are we talking about the national Republicans, the Congressmen, the conservative men who dominate the media?

Because I'm all for not demonising your average Republican voter, for not "pitting the red states against the blue states". But on a national level, really? Are they really a differentiated group, a pluralistic current, of whom only some support problematic ideas? I dont see it.

Way I see it, the few classically moderate Republicans in the Senate and to some degree the House too have been bowled out rapidly one after the other, like Lincoln Chafee - either because Club for Growth candidates defeated them in the primaries or because their districts eventually turned away from their party in disgust. Sure, you have a handful of survivors like Susan Collins, but they're scarce. The overwhelming majority of Republicans in Congress are conservative blowhards now -- and we're not even talking about their figureheads on Fox News and in the punditry.

Look at the Senate now. The Delay era has instilled years of discipline onto the Republican party, and has made it more of a machine and less of a collection of individuals then ever. Thats how it's so successful in putting up the 40 votes needed to block legislation on issue after issue after issue, even the most moderate ones, just out of principle. Often the point is just to turn the new Democratic Congress into something they can deride as a "do nothing" Congress, and so individual Republican Senators are pressured to block even proposals they'd otherwise agree with. And they comply.

I dont know. I think the mainstream of the Republican party's national elechons now is hard-right, hardcore conservative. Nutjobs like Tom Coburn and James Inhofe are respected leaders among Republican Senators. I'm sorry, I think there are a great many decent, well-meaning, scrupulous and moderate Republican voters, and that there are many such Republicans in state houses across the country too. But Congress in DC is not the Illinois House, and the conservative media machine is even less hampered by any kind of scruples.

Basically, any political strategy that is at its core anchored into the notion that once he is in power, the Democratic President can just reach out to the "reasonable Republicans" in Congress and among the opinion makers, and create bipartisan coalitions for pragmatic policies is IMO, at this point in time, dangerously naive. And Obama's vision seems anchored exactly in that concept.

In reality, the current generation of blowhard conservatives really just needs to be, well, ousted and defeated - and then when the Republicans have to spend some time wondering what happened and how to change course, I'm sure a new generation of reasonable and moderate Republicans will emerge over time with whom you can work. But that's only after four years - at the very best, if they dont veer even further right first.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

How has she been tested as President?
When .. did she have any responsibility for any decisions? ..
What legislation or other action did she take for 35 years? ..
She claims 35 years, show us all what she accomplished in that time.

Those are fair questions.. I follow politics closely enough, and I cant think of any legislation she specifically proposed in the Senate from the top of my head. Feingold, Ted Kennedy - of them I can think of major legislative pushes, succesful or not, that they made; not for Hillary. Doesnt mean she didnt do lots of useful work, just nothing groundbreaking I dont think.

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Third, I'll reform our government: no more cronyism and no-bid contracts - and we'll appoint qualified people to positions of power again.

People like Jim McDougal, Webb Hubbell, Susan Mcdougal, and others that were indicted.
That sure shows that they are qualified people, doesnt it.

Fair enough point too. I'm not well enough informed to know the backstory about those people, but I know the Clintons havent exactly shown a great sense for always surrounding themselves with the right people. They seem to be too easily "fascinated by people who had made money and understood it", in the words of John Harris.

Not to say that Hillary wont be immensely better than the ridiculously hackery practices in hiring of the Bush admin, but yeah, you could do better.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

sozobe wrote:
I just don't think that a group as large as "Republicans" should be treated as enemies. Some are bad, some are not. Or more to the point -- some support problematic policies, some don't. And some support some problematic policies and some non-problematic policies. Republicans are not some undifferentiated bloc.

Are we talking about the Republican rank-and-file here - the voters, or local or even state politicians? Or are we talking about the national Republicans, the Congressmen, the conservative men who dominate the media?

I'm talking about Republican politicians, mostly. Governors, Senators, Congresspeople. (Mostly the latter two, in terms of who a president will be dealing with and who will be implementing or blocking any given agenda.) They're not all evil, no.

Part of my job is reading rollcalls -- who voted what for various bills. And while of course I knew this already, it helps drive home that there are (R)s who vote the way that I'd want them to vote. (R)s who voted against calling the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. (R)s who vote for environmental stuff. Etc.

They're absolutely not just plain the enemy -- they're absolutely not just plain a monolithic bloc -- and I don't think they should be approached as such, as a default. If a specific Republican is supporting a specific faulty bill or is against a specific great bill, fine, light into 'em for that. Stop that bad bill from passing, muscle that good bill through. I think there's a much better chance of that happening though if there isn't generalized polarization/ bad blood/ us-them right from the start.

0 Replies

Just a quick request...everytime I see this thread title, I see wooden crates and it's driving me crazy. Any chance of a letter disappearing?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I'm talking about Republican politicians, mostly. Governors, Senators, Congresspeople. (Mostly the latter two, in terms of who a president will be dealing with and who will be implementing or blocking any given agenda.) They're not all evil, no.

Part of my job is reading rollcalls -- who voted what for various bills. And while of course I knew this already, it helps drive home that there are (R)s who vote the way that I'd want them to vote. (R)s who voted against calling the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. (R)s who vote for environmental stuff. Etc.

They're absolutely not just plain the enemy -- they're absolutely not just plain a monolithic bloc -- and I don't think they should be approached as such, as a default.

Well, the degree to which they act or do not act, overall, as a monolithic bloc can be determined on a more systematic basis. There are a number of pressure groups, both conservative and liberal, which track each Senator's voting record, and compile rankings of how often a Senator votes liberally or conservatively on an issue, how often he votes along party lines or independently.

Of course not every Republican Senator is "evil" - but that the Republican party is voting in a more unitary fashion than in previous times - and than the Democrats - is a matter of record. Of course there are exceptions; they're just relatively scarce.

This webpage is a great resource on that: How Interest Groups Rate the Senators. For each Senator, it provides the ranking given to him or her in either 2005 or 2004 by organisations as varied as the ACLU, the League of Conservation Voters, the NAACP, NARAL, the SEIU. The page then calculates the mean ranking of all.

I'm nimh so let me put this in a graph to make the picture clear at one glance - the webpage kindly provides the table data as a .csv file.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/9941/interestgroupratingsconmv4.png

One thing immediately catches one's attention: the sheer polarisation within Congress. The times when there were substantial groups of conservative Democrats with voting records in the political centre, or liberal Republicans with centrist voting records, are apparently clearly over.

With a score of 100 representing an unwavering and completely liberal voting record on all the issues covered by the interest groups, and 0 standing for the conservative equivalent of that, 35 of the 45 Democrats score at the most liberal end, between 80-100. And of the 55 Republicans, a whopping 49 score at the conservative end between 0-20.

Tighten the screws even further, and the Democratic group at least turns out to include a nuance of diversity: just 21 out of the 45 really score at the far end of the scale, between 90-100. But of the Republican Senators, it's an overwhelming majority that hews to the most ideological line possible: 44 out of 55 score between 0-10.

In short, of course each and every Republican will occasionally vote along with a Democrat - Obama even struck a deal with one of the biggest nutjobs of them all, Tom Coburn. But a differentiated group of the kind you sketch, of whom just some support problematic policies, while some don't, and many only support some problematic policies - that picture doesnt hold up.

What this means is that while you can be sure to create some broad alliances on some pragmatic, less controversial issues, any kind of bipartisan consensus will break down especially when it comes to solving "these big problems like health care or climate change or energy" that Obama singled out. You have a small number of centrists, half of whom were voted out, or will be; there are some whom you might get in for less controversial policies (the ones scoring between 10-20, say) - and then you have a very strong majority of the Republicans in Congress who will resist every remotely progressive policy tooth and nail.

Take union rights, for example. Obama proposes "to break the gridlock and to get Democrats and independents and Republicans to start working together" on the major issues at hand. Is that a realistic prospect on union rights, or is it naive? Look at the evaluation of the Senators' voting records by the service employees union, the SEIU. 31 out of 55 listed Republicans had a ranking of.. 0. They voted against every single thing that would be good for the interests of SEIU members. 42 out of 55 had a ranking of less than 10 out of 100. Only 8 out of 55 Republicans fell in the category that could be worked with, with a ranking higher than 20: McCain, Graham, Coleman, DeWine, Specter, Chafee, Collins, and Snowe. And two of those were defeated in the '04 elections.

That's why I think that any political strategy that is anchored to the notion that once he is in power, the Democratic President can just reach out to the "reasonable Republicans" is naive. If Obama is going to be President, that's not going to be the kind of landscape he will be facing, and he will be left ill-prepared for what is going to come at him.

0 Replies

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know