Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Republicans for Hillary: The Anecdotal Evidence Builds
A bit earlier today I talked to Onzelo Markum, a Texas Republican strategist who's working on the Chris Peden campaign, and he had a few caveats about how GOP voters might be breaking. One positive factor for Peden, he suggested, was that some voters were marking ballots for Ron Paul in the presidential race and choosing Peden in the House race. But another factor was really hurting Peden.
"One thing we're hearing that we really didn't expect is people going and voting in the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton," Markum said. "They come up to me and they say McCain can beat Hillary, but he can't beat Obama. It's fueled by guys like Rush Limbaugh, by Ann Coulter, who're telling them to keep Hillary in this race, and that trickles down to Republicans going into those voting booths who can't vote in our election. These were some voters we were counting on, so that's thrown a bit of a kink in our extrapolations."
Mind you, I heard the same thing in Wisconsin, where Republican crossover voters went 72-28 for Obama over Clinton. If the numbers diverge more than 5 or 10 points in Texas, I'd be pretty shocked. But it might be a function of Republicans becoming less a'feared of Clinton because of Obama's wins. I think that will change, again, when Clinton's "kitchen sink" attacks save her and give her Texas-Ohio victories tomorrow.*
To recap: Ron Paul might be re-elected to Congress because Republican voters are voting for Hillary Clinton to increase the chance of John McCain being elected president. Here, have some aspirin.
*Obama clearly thinks Texas is his best chance for a win, as he's holding his election night party in San Antonio. But I have the sense he peaked last week and Clinton will narrowly win.
|3.3.08 @ 1:18PM|#
For some different anecdotal evidence, I know many republicans
that are voting for Obama because they fear an inevitable
Democratic win come November and would rahter Obama than Hillary
rule over us. It depends whether you're an optimist or a
pessimist.
And who in the hell votes for Ron Paul in the presidential race and
Chris Peden in the House race?
|3.3.08 @ 1:21PM|#
And who in the hell votes for Ron Paul in the presidential
race and Chris Peden in the House race?
People talking to Peden's strategist?
Episiarch|3.3.08 @ 1:21PM|#
It's funny. Hillary was the OMG Boogeyman until Obama starting
kicking her ass. Now he's the scary one?
I am so glad I am not a partisan and don't have to wrap my head
around this "logic".
Taktix®|3.3.08 @ 1:22PM|#
*takes asprin*
Thanks! Head feels great, but do you have anything to take care of
this overwhelming sense of hopelessness?
PC|3.3.08 @ 1:26PM|#
"And who in the hell votes for Ron Paul in the presidential race
and Chris Peden in the House race?"
They must talk politics with the Anti War McCain voters.
|3.3.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Hillary might win the Texas primary, but Obama will win the caucuses and take a majority of the delegates.
stephen the goldberger|3.3.08 @ 1:35PM|#
It's a BIRD! Obama
It's a PLANE!
It's the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT!
|3.3.08 @ 1:35PM|#
Hillary might win the Texas primary, but Obama will win the caucuses and take a majority of the delegates.
Which means she stays in the race. Which means she still has a
chance to steal the thing.
Taktix®|3.3.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Anyone know what it would take to get the Florida and Michigan delegates back? I hear chatter about it, but don't know how legally well-founded be the pledge to exclude those states...
LarryA|3.3.08 @ 1:37PM|#
Hillary was the OMG Boogeyman until Obama starting kicking
her ass. Now he's the scary one?
No. Hillary was the OMG Boogeyman until Obama starting
talking. Now he's the scary one.
Click \'n\' Learn|3.3.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Anyone who thinks Obama would have a better chance against McCain than Hillary is trying to fool you or an idiot. Everything about Hill is already out there, but Obama's past actions and statements are going to come back to haunt him in a big way. And, while it's definitely the lesser of three evils, she would be the least worst president and would also be tied up dealing with an energized GOP and also with the fact that most of the Dem establishment had gone with her opponent.
Taktix®|3.3.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Taktix if Hillary can win with those delegations, they will
be seated.
Sure, that's what Rush Limbaugh says, but I want to know if it will
require lawsuits, etc. Because, if it requires some legal action,
and Clinton makes a big public stink AND goes back on her pledge, I
think she's end up hurting herself worse then those delegates would
mend...
|3.3.08 @ 1:44PM|#
Well, they're talking about holding a primary in Florida again
but theres some stink about how it would cost tax payers all kinds
of money. So they could also hold a caucus which would be paid for
by the DNC and is much cheaper, but you know how Hilldog feels
about caucuses.
In short, its going to get ugly if Obama doesn't put her away on
Tuesday ( I don't think he will).
Its going to end up like Florida 2000, except within the Democratic
Party.
|3.3.08 @ 1:47PM|#
In short, its going to get ugly if Obama doesn't put her
away on Tuesday
What, like it's not ugly now?
I'm waiting for HIllary to forget herself in some public place and
screech "fools! I'll crush you all!"
-jcr
Episiarch|3.3.08 @ 1:47PM|#
I can see Hillary doing anything possible to get the nomination,
because she (probably correctly) views this as her one and only
chance to become President.
A vicious, intra-party knockdown-drag-out slugfest between the
Democrats would rule. The same for the GOP but that's not
happening.
|3.3.08 @ 1:48PM|#
A vicious, intra-party knockdown-drag-out slugfest between the Democrats would rule.
Yeah, and it seems we will get it. The newest poll out today had
Obama down six in Ohio and ahead only one in Texas. Not good for
him.
|3.3.08 @ 1:50PM|#
Cesar,
Except for New Hampshire, Obama's been outperforming the polls. I
think he'll win by 5 in Texas and lose by 1 or 2 in Ohio.
Episiarch|3.3.08 @ 1:51PM|#
Think of the schisms and cognitive dissonance in the Democrats this will create if it gets ugly. I get goosebumps just thinking about it.
Taktix®|3.3.08 @ 1:51PM|#
I'm waiting for HIllary to forget herself in some public
place and screech "fools! I'll crush you all!"
I kinda expect her eyes to turn black and for her to start slashing
through delegates with a scythe like Brother Justin in
Carnivale.
That would be sweet.
|3.3.08 @ 1:52PM|#
LIT, he was trending upward right into election day in all the
states he outperformed in.
In Texas+Ohio he crested the middle of last week and now his poll
numbers are either stagnant or dropping. Clinton could very well
sweep 3/4 states.
Taktix®|3.3.08 @ 1:56PM|#
For further reading the accuracy of the polls, reasearch one "Luntz, Francis."
TallDave|3.3.08 @ 1:57PM|#
Given that American Presidential elections are won in the middle, I don't know why the GOP would be worried about Obama more than Clinton. She's made some effort to run as a centrist, while he's running a Smoot-Hawley/McGovern campaign.
|3.3.08 @ 1:58PM|#
Dave, its because Obama can wrap standard liberal boilerplate in
pretty rhetoric.
Hillary, OTOH, sucks as a public speaker and the public dislikes
her way more.
TallDave|3.3.08 @ 2:02PM|#
I agree his rhetoric is pretty, but it's tailored to the left.
His voting record is far left too.
That might have lefties fainting, but indies and righties aren't
going to be quite as easy to persuade.
|3.3.08 @ 2:04PM|#
LIT, he was trending upward right into election day in all
the states he outperformed in.
Funny enough, this could turn Texas into Bizzaro California.
Clinton only won California because absentee voters went big for
her before the Obama surge started - I believe he tied or won by 1
point among election-day voters. Texas has bona fide early voting
which has been going gangbusters, and it's estimated half the state
was voting as Obama was surging. We might see Clinton win by 1 or 2
points on Tuesday but lose because early voters went by 3 or 4 for
Obama. If so, Clinton is emboldened to keep hitting Obama on
leadership and national security, trying to convince superdelegates
he can't beat McCain (like she can, on that front).
TallDave|3.3.08 @ 2:04PM|#
I'm waiting for HIllary to forget herself in some public
place and screech "fools! I'll crush you all!"
/lol and /agree
She just sets people's teeth on edge. That cackle of hers is
evil.
|3.3.08 @ 2:04PM|#
I think some of it, too, has to do with the fact hes a better
contrast with McCain.
What could Hillary do in a general against McCain? Claim she h as
more experience and is ready on Day One? Haha! Yeah, that won't
work against McCain.
But Obama can convincingly run for "change" against McCain.
|3.3.08 @ 2:05PM|#
Follow the leader, hurry now... don't let the flock leave you
behind... rofl, you sheeple are silly.
It has all already been decided for you, and you watch it intently
anyway, like so much bad Tv. I like theater to at least have a good
plot. Sure it's emotionally engaging, but thats about all...
Remember, believe what they tell you.
They have all the answers...
|3.3.08 @ 2:05PM|#
Follow the leader, hurry now... don't let the flock leave you behind... rofl, you sheeple are silly.
It has all already been decided for you, and you watch it intently anyway, like so much bad Tv. I like theater to at least have a good plot. Sure it's emotionally engaging, but thats about all...
Hey nutbag, did your forget to take your medication today?
|3.3.08 @ 2:07PM|#
But Cesar, lots of the electorate is not really paying attention to the primaries, and Republicans haven't really gone after Obama yet. Once he gets attention for his lefty positions (anti-gun, an extra $800 billion+ for foreign aid, driver's licenses for illegals, pro comparable worth[!], etc. etc.), I just can't see how he gets elected. And then there's the whole Rezko/Auchi thing.
|3.3.08 @ 2:10PM|#
PapayaSF,
It depends. The primaries are a bad barometer sometimes because the
candidate changes tack as soon as he is nominated.
|3.3.08 @ 2:11PM|#
so the sheep are the ones who pay attention and care what
happens to the country?
I thought it was the other way around.
|3.3.08 @ 2:12PM|#
Hey nutbag, did your forget to take your medication
today?
I think he's referring to the fact that the election is a sham and
our individual votes will have little to no effect.
Then again maybe I'm just being a bit of a nutbag.
PS. Calling us "Sheeple" deserves a kick in the nuts.
|3.3.08 @ 2:12PM|#
I really can't get too upset about more foreign aid when we've been spending trillions upon trillions in foreign aid since 1945. Not that I favor it, but Republicans attacking him on that strikes me as disingenuous since its not like they're going to end foreign aid or even cut it.
|3.3.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Chancellor-
I don't think thats what he meant. I think (esp. since he used the
term "sheeple") That Diebold/BushCo/the Illuminatii/International
Jewry/International Capital/The North American Union/The
MexicanGovernment (choose on or any combination) have already
picked our next President in one of their super-secret backroom
meetings.
|3.3.08 @ 2:16PM|#
International Jewry--sounds like a discount Jewelry Store.
"Our prices are so low, you'll Spitz!"
TallDave|3.3.08 @ 2:24PM|#
It has all already been decided for you,
He's right, Diebold accidentally released the winner already.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks
lunchstealer|3.3.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Hey, how many shots does use of the word "sheeple" merit in the H&R drinking game?
|3.3.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Two things:
1) The Limbaugh wing of the Republican base is salivating over a
chance to defeat Clinton in a genral election. It's rather an
article of faith with them that McCain will beat her, but they have
to make this match come about in order to achieve the win. Rather
like fundagelicals
2) Whoever wins the white house will (probably) get to change the
balance of power on SCOTUS through appointments, as well as
numerous appointments to the federal courts of appeals. Who do you
want to make those appointments?
|3.3.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Post above should have read:
Rather like fundagelicals' attempting to bring about the
apocalypse by mucking about in Israel.
|3.3.08 @ 2:48PM|#
You have to admit one thing. A Hillary v. McCain matchup will be
a neocon win either way.
Or, in Dondero-speak, it will be a true libertarian republican
versus a true libertarian democrat.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.3.08 @ 2:49PM|#
PapayaSF:
Once he gets attention for his lefty positions (anti-gun, an
extra $800 billion+ for foreign aid, driver's licenses for
illegals, pro comparable worth[!], etc. etc.), I just can't see how
he gets elected. And then there's the whole Rezko/Auchi
thing.
I see how this (at least some of it) could be a problem for Obama
in November. I can't see how it would mean Clinton would do any
better. (Especially since, as bad as Obama is on guns, there's at
least an argument to be made that Clinton is worse.)
|3.3.08 @ 2:57PM|#
I think (esp. since he used the term "sheeple") That
Diebold/BushCo/the Illuminatii/International Jewry/International
Capital/The North American Union/The MexicanGovernment (choose on
or any combination) have already picked our next President in one
of their super-secret backroom meetings.
See, I thought he meant "You fools, don't you know that Hitlery
OWNS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?!?"
|3.3.08 @ 2:59PM|#
We have actual evidence, taken in the field, about the behavior
of independents.
They have broken for Obama in a big way - both over Hillary and
over the Republican candidates - in every contest to date.
|3.3.08 @ 3:13PM|#
This is not what I'm seeing in Texas - I've had several
conservative evangelicals tell me they were crossing over to vote
for Obama - they think McCain can beat him
in some cases and in others they just hate Hilary.
|3.3.08 @ 3:13PM|#
I agree his rhetoric is pretty, but it's tailored to the
left. His voting record is far left too.
That might have lefties fainting, but indies and righties aren't
going to be quite as easy to persuade.
Uhh, Obama outperforms Hillary with conservatives and indies.
Voters generally vote for people they like. It's why the most
anti-war Republicans vote for McCain even though he's all about the
war.
As bad and crazy as these two are, It's not like McCain is any
better. He's pushing the line that there's strong evidence that
vaccines cause autism. First thimersol isn't used anymore and
second thimersol was proven to not cause autism. Causing a
wrongheaded public panic over childhood vaccines is a great idea
though.
|3.3.08 @ 3:16PM|#
For someone who "tailors his rhetoric to the left," he certainly
is outperforming McCain, who tailors his rhetoric to the
center.
Either the left is a lot bigger than is usually assumed, or Obama
isn't actually tailoring his appeal to them. Or both.
|3.3.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Joe I have a feeling I'm going to be vindicated when Hillary is the nominee. It looks way, way more likely that will happen than it did a week ago.
|3.3.08 @ 3:35PM|#
Cesar, have you forgetten Super Tuesday already?
Don't you remember what every observer had to say?
"The table is set for Obama to have a strong run over the next few
weeks, but then on March 4, there are primaries in Ohio and Texas
that favor Clinton."
Remember?
So, over the course of those four weeks, Obama swept every contest,
most by large margins.
And now, in the latest of Hillary Clinton's firewalls, she's inside
the margin of error in both Texas and Ohio, and is certainly going
to lose the Texas caucuses. This is not a comeback - this is
underperforming her own campaign's statements about how the
contests were going to play out.
Neither Texas nor Ohio is a winner-take-all state. Regardless of
whether the pendulum swings a couple points one way or a couple
points the other way, Obama is going to come out of this with his
delegate lead increased.
|3.3.08 @ 3:37PM|#
It won't matter that they are not winner take all states. All
anyone pays attention to is who wins. The media will give Hillary a
nice little narrative of a "comeback" if she sweeps 3/4 states on
Tuesday.
In addition, look for them to start talking about "buyer's remorse"
and how Obama is "unable to close the deal". If he doesn't win
Texas, hes crested and is going down.
|3.3.08 @ 3:38PM|#
If she wins she hasn't underpreformed for the simple fact that the entire media had completely written her off a week ago! They lowered the bar for her.
|3.3.08 @ 3:40PM|#
OK, then he won eleven straight contests, most by large margins,
and then she either split the two that were her "firewall," or won
them both by small margins.
The media will give Hillary a nice little narrative of a
"comeback" if she sweeps 3/4 states on Tuesday. Right, we all
know how much the media goes to bat for Hillary Clinton. I guess
that's part and parcel of owning the party.
Too bad it doesn't translate into money, votes, or institutional
support. If Hillary Clinton owns the party, I hope she kept the
receipt.
|3.3.08 @ 3:42PM|#
It will be interesting to see how the media reports the story if
Hillary scores a tight victory in the Texas primary, gets blown out
in the caucus, and ends up with far fewer delegates than he
has.
The press has been paying a lot more attention to the delegate
count than I expected.
Brandybuck|3.3.08 @ 3:44PM|#
It's fueled by guys like Rush Limbaugh, by Ann Coulter...
Weigel confirms it, Ann Coulter is a guy!
|3.3.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Joe, shes going to get those Michigan and Florida delegates. Once she does that she'll be ahead in the delegate race, too.
|3.3.08 @ 3:54PM|#
You can say she doesn't "own"* the Democratic Party, but it
still seems the party is headed towards a Florida 2000-style
clusterfuck of biblical proportions if Obama doesn't cream her on
Tuesday.
*By that I mean have the most institutional support of the
higher-ups, biggest name recognition, more superdelegates, etc.
|3.3.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Sure she is, Cesar. She couldn't get the polling places closed
in Nevada, she can't win the money race, all of the Superdelegate
movement is towards Obama, she didn't even bother trying filing
that lawsuit she threatened to change the rules in Texas, but this
incredible, evaporating institutional support she has is going to
result in flipping the Howard-Dean-led DNC into letting the
candidate with the lesser chance of winning the general election
steal the nomination and deal the party an enormous PR blow.
She might win the nomination by - hold onto your seat - running a
good campaign and winning the contest, but it's time to let the
myth go.
|3.3.08 @ 3:56PM|#
She might win the nomination by - hold onto your seat - running a good campaign and winning the contest, but it's time to let the myth go.
Its mathematically impossible for her to win that way now. The only
way she can win is 1)seating Florida and Michigan and 2)getting her
husband to twist enough superdelegate arms.
|3.3.08 @ 3:56PM|#
Cream her?
You've talked yourself into the position that Obama needs to not
only outright win the contests that have been described as her
"firewall" for the past month, but he has to "cream her?"
|3.3.08 @ 3:59PM|#
He has to cream her so it gets to hear head that she can't win this thing even through shady means. She needs the smokescreen of a close race to be able to do that. If she loses Texas, thats harder to do. If she loses Ohio and Texas, its impossible
|3.3.08 @ 4:08PM|#
I think your dark nightmares are so much fluff, Cesar.
She was going to shut down the Nevada precincts, too,
remember?
Face it: she's just a candidate.
|3.3.08 @ 4:09PM|#
Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the next President of the USA.
The reality is she will not be president because of some political
party, but because of the Soveriegnty of GOD. Yes, we said "
because of GOD" see Israel only had 43 kings prior to their being
enslaved economically, politically, and naturally (physically) by
the Egyptians. The parallel between America and Israel supercedes
all political parties, and since George W Bush is the 43rd
president he will be the last (KING) of this once great
country.
A new reign of leadership will emerge (WOMAN) and take us into
ecomomic, political, enslavement this country has not seen since
the great depression. This will make the Great Depresseion look
like a one day event.
Prepare yourselves
www.njslea.org
|3.3.08 @ 4:10PM|#
So, you can accept that Bush might have stolen Florida in 2000 but can't accept that Hillary might try to steal the primary nomination now? I think there was shady stuff going on in Florida, even though I don't have "dark nightmares" about Bush. I just realize in close elections people play dirty.
|3.3.08 @ 4:11PM|#
I certainly hope David Weigal is wrong. I hope most Republicans and independents are voting for Obama. The latest polls do show there is greater momentum in Texas for Obama. I'm going to really be pissed at that fat ass Rush if he helps Hillary win.
|3.3.08 @ 4:16PM|#
"Israel only had 43 kings prior to their being enslaved
economically, politically, and naturally (physically) by the
Egyptians."
According to the Bible, Israel didn't exist until after the Hebrews
left Egypt. You must be thinking about the Babylonian
captivity.
|3.3.08 @ 4:24PM|#
Cesar | March 3, 2008, 4:10pm | #
So, you can accept that Bush might have stolen Florida in 2000 but
can't accept that Hillary might try to steal the primary nomination
now?
Try? Maybe. Succeed? Not a chance.
Remember, she wouldn't have to just convince some officeholders in
Florida. She'd have to convince the Convention. I find extremely
unlikely.
Her "ownership" of the party has gotten her the Senate seat and the
credibility, and that "inevitability" thing that she used to have.
It's not going to get her the nomination. She's actually have to
win - lead in delegates, or in popular votes - to do that.
|3.3.08 @ 4:34PM|#
"This is not what I'm seeing in Texas - I've had several
conservative evangelicals tell me they were crossing over to vote
for Obama - they think McCain can beat him
in some cases and in others they just hate Hilary."
This is what I think. I know Rush Limpdick has lots of influence
with his dittoheads, but I really believe more Republicans are
voting for Obama simply because they can't stand Hillary and want
to knock her out and keep her from making it to the general
election where they fear she might pull off a victory.
|3.3.08 @ 4:40PM|#
The polling in previous contests shows that Obama is drawing indies and Republican crossovers by a large margin.
BakedPenguin|3.3.08 @ 4:45PM|#
One legitimate issue is that for the Florida primary, at least,
all the Democratic candidates were on the ballot. If Hillary loses
by less than the number of delegates she would have gained from
Florida (minus Obama's), she'd have a valid complaint.
And if she bows out gracefully (yes, I know) under such a scenario,
McCain has a pre-fabbed message handed to him in a key swing state
- the Democratic party doesn't care about Florida voters.
|3.3.08 @ 4:47PM|#
"Sure, that's what Rush Limbaugh says, but I want to know if it
will require lawsuits, etc. Because, if it requires some legal
action, and Clinton makes a big public stink AND goes back on her
pledge, I think she's end up hurting herself worse then those
delegates would mend..."
I can't see the Democratic establishment seating those delegates.
They would be foolish to do so. They know it would cause so much
bitterness in a large portion of the Democratic voters, that many
of those voters would stay home or vote for McCain, insuring
Hillary's loss in the general election and Hillary would be so
hated in her own party, that she could never be a credible
candidate ever again.
|3.3.08 @ 4:51PM|#
"One legitimate issue is that for the Florida primary, at least,
all the Democratic candidates were on the ballot. If Hillary loses
by less than the number of delegates she would have gained from
Florida (minus Obama's), she'd have a valid complaint."
That still wouldn't be fair because the candidates didn't get to
campaign in that state. Hillary could have won mostly on name
recognition at that point. If Obama would have been able to
campaign in Florida, he may have been able to win.
BakedPenguin|3.3.08 @ 4:59PM|#
bookworm - That's a decent point, but it still effectively disenfranchises the Florida voters and hands McCain a script for the general election.
|3.3.08 @ 4:59PM|#
"Given that American Presidential elections are won in the
middle, I don't know why the GOP would be worried about Obama more
than Clinton. She's made some effort to run as a centrist, while
he's running a Smoot-Hawley/McGovern campaign."
The Republicans would have an easier time beating Hillary than
Obama because Hillary is hated by so much of the public and Obama
is well liked.
|3.3.08 @ 5:01PM|#
"bookworm - That's a decent point, but it still effectively
disenfranchises the Florida voters and hands McCain a script for
the general election."
That script would not go as far as a Hillary who becomes disliked
by over half her party for stealing the nomination.
|3.3.08 @ 5:35PM|#
I can't see the Democratic establishment seating those
delegates. They would be foolish to do so.
Was there supposed to be another sentence in the middle
there?
;-)
|3.3.08 @ 5:45PM|#
This independent early voted for Obama in the Texas primary. I
don't know a single one of my independent/Republican friends who
could bring themselves to vote for a Clinton. Even as part of a
grand Rush directed strategy.
Anecdotal, but the only campaign that has contacted me is Obama's.
Three calls in the last week. He's putting on the full court press
down here.
|3.3.08 @ 5:45PM|#
I can't remember Obama's first name....which is my fault.
I can remember his middle name...which is Clinton's fault.
Anyway the only reason why I was thinking about this was because i
was wondering why we all call Hilary, Hilary and not Clinton.
I can't find someone to blame for that so it must be joe's
fault.
|3.3.08 @ 5:55PM|#
Because there's already somebody we call "Clinton."
I KNOW you like "It's Bill Clinton's fault," joshua.
|3.3.08 @ 6:26PM|#
I KNOW you like "It's Bill Clinton's fault,"
joshua.
Nah...Bill is old news.
When I said it was Clinton's fault I was thinking Hilary, Bill in
my mind is just another member of her dog and pony show.
I really don't hate Bill all that much...NAFTA, low spending,
welfare reform...I don't give him much credit for the later two but
he was there so he should get some credit for existing i
guess.
My only animus for Bill would be when he kept FBI files at the
White House on Republicans, which in fact was the only real reason
why I Voted for Dole in 96'.
I was not a libertarian back then.
|3.3.08 @ 6:29PM|#
Count me as one of those who typically vote GOP as planning to vote for Hillary. While I would prefer McCain over both Obama and Hill, Hillary being elected would be four more years of Hill/Bill et al. Obama being elected is likely to be four more years of Carter.
John Cosmotarian jackson|3.3.08 @ 7:52PM|#
FWIW I live in Ohio. My household ( my wife a Dem, me not
registered)has received at least 5 Obama mailers ( each on a
specific policy), Obama Door hanger, Obama canvasser, and Obama
phone call from a human being. My neighborhood and close areas (
Columbus suburb) have many Obama signs.
I have not seen a single Hillary sign or marketing material. Who
knows maybe Obama's spending and grassroots support will be wasted
like Ron Paul's. However, it will be interesting to see if it is a
little closer here than expected. Well I expected an easy Hillary
victory ( this is fucking Ohio, after all) anyway.
|3.3.08 @ 7:58PM|#
This is interesting:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/2/16596/61053/380/467458
An analysis of how each candidate has performed compared to the
polls leading up to the race.
Eric Dondero|3.3.08 @ 8:36PM|#
Very latest polls have a last minute surge for Hillary in both
Ohio AND Texas.
I was wanting Hillary to win, since Obama scores a perfect 100 as a
Marxist/Fascist on all the surveys, and Hill only a 92 or 94.
Now, I'm starting to think it'd be easier for Repubs to run against
Obama with all this Rezko stuff breaking.
Novak had a big article on it this morning at RCP. This thing is
going to be huge!
All sorts of intrigue: Iraqi oil billionaire with ties to Saddam,
corrupt Chicago politics, land deals kick-backs.
If Obama wins tomorrow it might end up being better for the
GOP.
Eric Dondero|3.3.08 @ 8:40PM|#
Look, from a libertarian perspective, we've all got to hope for
the Democrats to be torn to pieces and to run the weakest
candidate.
Tom McClintock is set to announce for Congress tomorrow morning in
Auburn, CA.
We've got other libertarian Republicans running for the House and
Senate all across the Nation.
We need to hope for a weak Dem race at the top of the ticket so as
to help our downticket libertarians like McClintock get into
Congress.
|3.3.08 @ 8:50PM|#
Just a heads up: while it's come to be quite the fad within certain political communities, conflating Marxism and Fascism marks you as ignorant or insane to the vast majority of observers.
Eye Doc|3.3.08 @ 8:51PM|#
Why is the assumption being made that Republicans voting for Obama in Wisconsin were really voting for Obama and that they would vote for Obama in November if he's the nominee? It's not true. There are many Republicans who believe Obama is more easily beatable than Hillary is, and they voted for Obama in Wisconsin's open primary. But, they'll vote for McCain on Election Day.
Eric Dondero|3.3.08 @ 9:16PM|#
And how else does one describe a perfect 100 Leftist scorer on the Left/Right spectrum. Are you suggesting that there should be up to 110? And maybe only 101 to 110 scorers should be called "Fascists" not 100 scorers?
|3.3.08 @ 9:20PM|#
Um, "leftist?" That might work.
Fascists would actually score on the other end of any meaningful
test.
|3.3.08 @ 9:21PM|#
You know, Eric, we've gotten through almost 80 years of the existence of fascism without people being confused about its relationship with Marxism and the left.
|3.3.08 @ 9:48PM|#
Fascism is at the complete opposite end of the political scale from Socialism/Communism. Even a semi-illiterate High School drop out like Dondero should know that.
|3.3.08 @ 9:49PM|#
BTW, joe, I bet you Hillary doesn't drop out of the race
tomorrow. In fact, I bet she stays in until Pennsylvania.
If I'm wrong I won't make any political predictions on H&R for
a month.
Cesar 3/3/2008
Eye Doc|3.3.08 @ 10:06PM|#
Hillary's in it until the end. She'll lose by a small margin in Texas, win in Ohio, and win in PA. They'll be no Democratic nominee until the brokered convention is over around the first week of September. Should be pretty entertaining watching the Democrats destroy themselves.
|3.3.08 @ 10:17PM|#
Should be pretty entertaining watching the Democrats destroy themselves.
Yup. It could've been a banner year for them but the Billary
machine destroyed it.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.3.08 @ 10:17PM|#
As flawed as the World's Smallest Political Quiz may be, it's
much much better than the Left/Right Spectrum test (if there is
such a thing).
Further, though both Marxism and fascism would score in the same
quadrant in the World's Smallest Political Quiz, they'd still be
distinct, and they'd both be very distinct from modern
liberalism.
|3.3.08 @ 10:22PM|#
The biggest opponents of the Democrats are the Democrats, and 2008 seems to be proving this more than any other year.
|3.3.08 @ 11:24PM|#
To Hell with both Hillary and McCain.
Literally. I'd love to see Satan himself show up and drag the both
of them off to Hell - and as a Taoist, I don't even believe in
Satan or Hell.
"If not Ron Paul, then Barack Obama." Either way, death to our
corporatist overlords.
GILMORE|3.4.08 @ 12:07AM|#
follow the logic people =
Whatever lonewacko says, the exact opposite is true.
Whatever Dondero says, *any* other possible interpretation is
true
It's a logic test.
What this means is, the sudden shift to "GOP loves hilary" makes
perfect sense.
We're now in BizzaroWorld
GILMORE|3.4.08 @ 12:11AM|#
thank god at least that BizzaroWorld will only last 48 hours
before idiots likely need a new master-theory
the new one being, MexicansForObama and ObamaHussainHatesAmerica or
something
I will be so, so happy when there are no more elections for a while
and idiots like Donderoo need to go back to sucking dick for
dollars
or rather, subsist on only that.
|3.4.08 @ 6:02AM|#
@joe
For someone who "tailors his rhetoric to the left," he
certainly is outperforming McCain, who tailors his rhetoric to the
center.
Well,
Rasmussen doesn't find him outperforming McCain, and their
track record on these things has been pretty damned good -
certainly better than average among pollsters. Don't count your
chickens, and all that....
|3.4.08 @ 8:57AM|#
I am now a full fledged Hillary Republican. Despite the chance of losing a $1,000 bet and perhaps many more thousands in taxes, I believe a Hillary administration would be the worst thing for the Democratic party in the long run. First, the Dems hold on blacks may be damaged, second, the scandals that are sure to develop will bring back that sour taste that gave us Bush. Third, Hillary isn't going to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory in iraq. And finally, McCain will only be able to pass legislation that his friends the Democrats like, such as cap and trade and public financing.
|3.4.08 @ 9:48AM|#
Pig Mannix,
You can't just look at one poll, and one day of one poll.
I did a little aggregation a couple days ago. Of 14 polls done in
February and listed on pollingreport dot com, Obama had a mean lead
of about 4.5 points. And that's with McCain alreading pivoted to
general election mode, and Obama still fighting for the
nomination.
|3.4.08 @ 9:48AM|#
I don't think "brokered convention" necessarily means
"destroying themselves."
There have been brokered conventions in the past, and winning
candidates that came out of them.
|3.4.08 @ 9:57AM|#
Kos's predictions:
Ohio: Clinton +4
Texas: Obama +12
Rhode Island: Clinton +6
Vermont: Obama +35
I don't know, man. Twelve in Texas? Is that supposed to combine the
primary and caucuses?
If Barack Obama wins the Texas primary by 12 points, this race is
over, but that's not going to happen.
TallDave|3.4.08 @ 11:05AM|#
For someone who "tailors his rhetoric to the left," he
certainly is outperforming McCain, who tailors his rhetoric to the
center.
You base this on what? He and McCain are tied, even though most
independents don't yet realize how left-wing his positions
are.
Indies don't pay as much attention to politics. They've been
hearing "hope" and "change" and that sounds good. When they start
hearing "massive tax hikes," "government bureaucrats controlling
your health care," and "turning Iraq over to Al Qaeda" they will be
less enchanted.
Remember, Dukakis had a 17-point lead in the summer. Once we get
past the MSM fawning, Obama could have serious problems.
|3.4.08 @ 12:12PM|#
He and McCain are tied
Sigh.
Look, go here:
wwww.pollreport.com
Go to the "General Election" link. They have 14 polls taken in
February. McCain leads 3 of them, 2 of which are from the same
source. His largest lead is 2 points. Obama leads 10 of them. His
largest lead is 12.
Aggregating the numbers, Obama leads by an average of four and a
half points.
When they start hearing "massive tax hikes," "government
bureaucrats controlling your health care," and "turning Iraq over
to Al Qaeda" they will be less enchanted.
On issue polling, Democrats lead on health care, taxes, Iraq,
foreign policy, and economic policy.
Your feelings aren't enough to go by, TallDave. Do some
research.
|3.4.08 @ 2:03PM|#
You can't just look at one poll, and one day of one
poll.
I did a little aggregation a couple days ago. Of 14 polls done in
February and listed on pollingreport dot com, Obama had a mean lead
of about 4.5 points. And that's with McCain alreading pivoted to
general election mode, and Obama still fighting for the
nomination.
Take a look at your aggregation over at polling report. They vary
as to the sample size, methodology, and overall quality of
information generated.
So do I find one pollster with a proven track record of accuracy
more reliable than an aggregation of polls with an uneven quality
of data?
Hell, yeah!
|3.4.08 @ 2:09PM|#
@joe
Further, it's more than one day. You can follow the daily tracking
results
hier.
|3.4.08 @ 3:30PM|#
RASMUSSEN?!? You're picking one poll as more reliable than an
aggregation - which is questionable enough - and the one you pick
is RASMUSSEN?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!
|3.4.08 @ 4:50PM|#
There was a lot of early voting in Texas, maybe as much as 50% of the total. The early voting happened before the Clinton "surge." I think Obama wins Texas because of the early voting, but Hillary will probably win today's balloting.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245