PDA

View Full Version : Democratic Nomination: Hillary vs. Obama


Mr. Kotter
01-01-2008, 11:46 PM
Edwards only chance is if the two Democratic front-runners destroy each other.

Iowa: Hillary's "ground" force versus Obama's likeability and charisma. Unless many voters think Hillary, is "electable" (a mistake, IMO) they will migrate to Obama at the eleventh hour. An Obama victory in Iowa would be the beginning of the end of Hillary. If Hillary survives, Obama will have to attack her strongly, and win in New Hampshire to have a chance. If Edwards unseats Hill and Barak (unlikely,) it changes everything....but Edwards would become another Kerry in the general--too liberal. Period.

New Hampshire: Whoever wins NH, will be the "new" Democratic front-runner going into South Carolina.


South Carolina: Will be between Edwards and Obama....if Edwards makes a strong showing, he becomes relevant. If not, Obama becomes the odds-on favorite for the nomination. If Edwards wins, ironically it probably helps Hillary more than him....because IMO, he's more unelectable in the general than even Hillary.

Bottom-line: If the Dems want to really win in November, it almost has to be Barak....unless the Reps make the mistake of nominating Huckabee or Giuliani, who IMHO could both be defeated in the general election.

JMHO, FTR. :shrug:

jAZ
01-01-2008, 11:55 PM
I think any of the GOP candidates would likely lose to Hillary and Obama. I think Edwards would get torched in the general election but it has less to do with his record and more to do with the fact that he will be limited in fundraising because he took matching federal funds. It was his only shot in the primary, but it would destroy him financially in the general election.

As for Hillary/Obama...

It's going to be a close and complex race, IMO. But Obama can't afford to lose Iowa or NH. He needs to build momentum, and the only way to do that is to win early.

Hillary hanging around means Obama loses.

It's nearly do or die for him in Iowa, much like w/ Huckabee.

Mr. Kotter
01-02-2008, 12:02 AM
I think any of the GOP candidates would likely lose to Hillary and Obama. I think Edwards would get torched in the general election but it has less to do with his record and more to do with the fact that he will be limited in fundraising because he took matching federal funds. It was his only shot in the primary, but it would destroy him financially in the general election.

As for Hillary/Obama...

It's going to be a close and complex race, IMO. But Obama can't afford to lose Iowa or NH. He needs to build momentum, and the only way to do that is to win early.

Hillary hanging around means Obama loses.

It's nearly do or die for him in Iowa, much like w/ Huckabee.

:eek:

...eh....I agree? :hmmm:

Let me re-evaluate that, for a minute...heh. :hmmm:

I'll forgive your delusions about Hillary/Obama defeating the Republican nominee, because of your blind partisanship---of course you'd think that. Everybody else seems to think that too. Like them, in the end, you will be wrong....unless the Reps nominate Huckabee or Giuliani, and even then they could STILL win.

If the nominee is McCain or Thompson, the Dems will taste defeat again....for the 8th time in the last 11 Presidential elections, IMHO. Hillary/Obama's ONLY hope is if Giuliaini or Huckabee bamboozle primary voters....and even then, the Dems "could" still lose.

go bowe
01-02-2008, 12:02 AM
Edwards only chance is if the two Democratic front-runners destroy each other.

Iowa: Hillary's "ground" force versus Obama's likeability and charisma. Unless many voters think Hillary, is "electable" (a mistake, IMO) they will migrate to Obama at the eleventh hour. An Obama victory in Iowa would be the beginning of the end of Hillary. If Hillary survives, Obama will have to attack her strongly, and win in New Hampshire to have a chance. If Edwards unseats Hill and Barak (unlikely,) it changes everything....but Edwards would become another Kerry in the general--too liberal. Period.

New Hampshire: Whoever wins NH, will be the "new" Democratic front-runner going into South Carolina.


South Carolina: Will be between Edwards and Obama....if Edwards makes a strong showing, he becomes relevant. If not, Obama becomes the odds-on favorite for the nomination. If Edwards wins, ironically it probably helps Hillary more than him....because IMO, he's more unelectable in the general than even Hillary.

Bottom-line: If the Dems want to really win in November, it almost has to be Barak....unless the Reps make the mistake of nominating Huckabee or Giuliani, who IMHO would both be defeated in the general election.

JMHO, FTR. :shrug:don't know that i would agree with everything you say here, but i can definitely get behind barak as the nominee...

and i agree that huckabee would be unlikely to win the general unless dennis k. gets the democrat nomination...

i just hope that rudy does not get the nod...

of course, if ron paul gets the rep nomination, i'll be voting for him... :p :p :p

jAZ
01-02-2008, 12:05 AM
:eek:

...eh....I agree? :hmmm:

Let me re-evaluate that, for a minute...heh. :hmmm:

I'll forgive your delusions about Hillary/Obama defeating the Republican nominee, because of your blind partisanship---of course you'd think that. Everybody else seems to think that too. Like them, in the end, you will be wrong....unless the Reps nominate Huckabee or Giuliani, and even then they could STILL win.

If the nominee is McCain or Thompson, the Dems will taste defeat again....for the 8th time in the last 11 Presidential elections, IMHO. Hillary/Obama's ONLY hope is if Giuliaini or Huckabee bamboozle primary voters....and even then, the Dems "could" still lose.
You disagree with me. Everyone else agrees with me... but I'm the partisan hack???

Ok.

jAZ
01-02-2008, 12:07 AM
BTW, this sounds trivial, but in a close vote, this could be quite literally the margin of victory for Obama on Thursday night...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/01/542614.aspx

Kucinich Urges Supporters to Back Obama

Posted: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 3:58 PM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Mark Murray and Lauren Appelbaum
...if he doesn't meet the 15% threshold in Thursday's Iowa caucuses. Kucinich made a similar endorsement of Edwards back in 2004, and that (among many other things) helped Edwards finish second in Iowa that year. "This is obviously an 'Iowa-only' recommendation, as Sen. Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters," Kucinich said in a statement."

"I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change."

Mr. Kotter
01-02-2008, 12:09 AM
You disagree with me. Everyone else agrees with me... but I'm the partisan hack???

Ok.

By "everyone" I mean those who don't follow elections like I do....including most in the MSM.

Consider though, I'm saying you could be "right" if the Reps nominate someone other than McCain or Thompson. THOSE are the two candidates who, IMHO, would defeat either Hillary/Obama pretty easily. It's Huckabee or Romney that could give the Dems a decent shot at least....

Of course, there is a first for everything. I could be wrong, this time.

Guess we'll see. :hmmm:

EDIT: I do think the Kucinich endorsement WILL help Obama....just not as much as the Oprah endorsement, though. ;)

jAZ
01-02-2008, 12:12 AM
If Biden does the same (which was suggested as possible based on Biden's recent criticism of Clinton and Edwards), then Obama would likely have an unexpected surge at the caucus. Biden is polling at 5%.

pikesome
01-02-2008, 12:29 AM
I think any of the GOP candidates would likely lose to Hillary and Obama.

I'll admit some bias since I've voted Rep and probably will continue but I'm not so sure of Hillary's electability unless the GOP dusts off David Duke or some other way right poster child with a bad reputation and runs him. She just seems like entirely to polarizing, those that despise her will look on it as their civic duty to vote against her and I'm not sure the number of people who actually like her could fill a school bus.

jAZ
01-02-2008, 12:41 AM
I'll admit some bias since I've voted Rep and probably will continue but I'm not so sure of Hillary's electability unless the GOP dusts off David Duke or some other way right poster child with a bad reputation and runs him. She just seems like entirely to polarizing, those that despise her will look on it as their civic duty to vote against her and I'm not sure the number of people who actually like her could fill a school bus.
First, I think any election will be close. And as such, there is definately a chance the GOP can win. I don't mean to dismiss this entirely.

But the thing is, only 1 party is energized in 2008. And the key difference is that the GOP hates all of their candidates and the Dems really like all 3 of their's.

That's going to have an impact in the general election.

Those 2 things combined are huge. Even Hillary will benefit from that.

Obama would benefit more, IMO.

pikesome
01-02-2008, 12:57 AM
But the thing is, only 1 party is energized in 2008. And the key difference is that the GOP hates all of their candidates and the Dems really like all 3 of their's.


I'll agree with your thoughts on the GOP candidates, none of them get me interested except Thompson and it looks like he's got a slim chance at best. Hell, straight up between Rudy and Obama I'd vote for Obama and he doesn't really stand for much that I support.

I don't have my finger on the pulse of any Democratic voters, not my crowd, but I think "like" might be a bit strong for their feelings toward Hillary. I do know that every Rep leaning voter I know despises her, I know I do. There's just too much to get people actively voting against her and I'm not sure she can rely on her own voters to be as motivated to ensure her a win.

Mr. Kotter
01-02-2008, 11:19 PM
24 hours prior....my hunch says Hillary's ground forces prevail....barely; however, it's merely staving off the inevitable decline IMHO.

My head and heart still think Obama will pull it off....over the bitch. :hmmm:

Ultra Peanut
01-02-2008, 11:50 PM
Obama's infrastructure in Iowa is as strong as, or stronger than, Edwards'. That is to say, it's almost unprecedented in terms of numbers and organization. If it comes to the ground game, and there's a good chance it will, then that favors Obama, not Hillary.

Biden really looks like he's starting to nudge in the direction of openly endorsing Obama as a second-choice candidate, especially with his recent shot at Hillary's Pakistan elections gaffe.

dirk digler
01-02-2008, 11:59 PM
Obama's infrastructure in Iowa is as strong as, or stronger than, Edwards'. That is to say, it's almost unprecedented in terms of numbers and organization. If it comes to the ground game, and there's a good chance it will, then that favors Obama, not Hillary.

Biden really looks like he's starting to nudge in the direction of openly endorsing Obama as a second-choice candidate, especially with his recent shot at Hillary's Pakistan elections gaffe.

yep. I really like Joe Biden I think he would make a good President it is too bad he doesn't get much support.

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 09:28 AM
Ohhhhhhh snap!

http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1782

Richardson Set to Send Obama Second-Choice Support
by: Chase Martyn
Wednesday (01/02) at 23:30 PM

[Exclusive] Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign is expected to direct their supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday's caucuses in precincts where he is not viable. Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico Governor's organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they fail to reach the 15% threshold for viability.

Richardson, whose poll numbers in Iowa have hovered near 10% since June, may need a solid fourth-place finish in the caucuses to continue his campaign. And he is best served by directing support away from former Sen. John Edwards, who consistently polls between him and the two national front-runners, Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, in national and early state polls.

But Richardson's modest gains from diverting second-choice support away from Edwards may be eclipsed by Obama's potential success on caucus night, should everything go as planned. If Richardson's field organization manages to direct a significant number of supporters to Obama, it could be enough to win him the Iowa Caucuses.

And if Edwards loses a large block of second-round voters, a group he seems to be relying on to break in his direction, it could irreparably damage his campaign.

Richardson would prefer an Obama victory over Clinton because a Clinton victory could end the campaign before New Hampshire voters even head to the polls. And if Edwards's numbers look weak, Richardson could head to New Hampshire as the best alternative to the top two contenders for the Democratic nomination.

Still, sources caution that plans can always change, and once the doors lock Thursday evening, anything can happen. Whether the Richardson campaign's strategy is implemented on the ground remains an open question, and, because this directive is not expected to be confirmed publicly, it will be difficult to prove.

Saggysack
01-03-2008, 09:45 AM
I'm going with Edwards in IA and SC. Obama takes NH. Hillary doesn't sniff squat. Edwards/Obama... Obama/Edwards ticket either way.

Mr. Kotter
01-03-2008, 09:45 AM
If Biden and Richardson send their support to Obama....Hillary will be done within a couple of weeks. Awesome.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Infidel Goat
01-03-2008, 10:00 AM
Zogby indicates it should go Obama, Edwards, Hillary tonight.

Obviously, it could still go any way--but the polling seems to show both Edwards and Obama going up and Clinton going down in Iowa. I think that trend is probably accurate and that she will place last tonight.

Edwards could still surprise Obama for first place, particularly because of his strength in rural districts which will likely be weighted disproportionately high (I believe they use 2004 Presidential turnout even though we will likely see much higher caucus turnout in the more urban areas where Obama focussed).

I think that it would make an interesting story tomorrow. Edwards wins caucus despite more caucus goers supporting Obama. Both camps would be in full spin mode.

oldandslow
01-03-2008, 11:01 AM
An Obama/Richardson ticket would be outstanding imho.

jAZ
01-03-2008, 12:48 PM
Zogby indicates it should go Obama, Edwards, Hillary tonight.

Obviously, it could still go any way--but the polling seems to show both Edwards and Obama going up and Clinton going down in Iowa. I think that trend is probably accurate and that she will place last tonight.

Edwards could still surprise Obama for first place, particularly because of his strength in rural districts which will likely be weighted disproportionately high (I believe they use 2004 Presidential turnout even though we will likely see much higher caucus turnout in the more urban areas where Obama focussed).

I think that it would make an interesting story tomorrow. Edwards wins caucus despite more caucus goers supporting Obama. Both camps would be in full spin mode.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/062514.php


01.03.08 -- 11:27AM // link

Rumblings
I'm just pulling together the different threads here, but it's really starting to seem like the second choice factor could end up being the big story tonight in the Democratic side of the ledger. It's starting to seem like almost all the candidates are either choosing to expressly direct their supporters to caucus for Obama as their second choice, are implicitly doing so or are simply expecting that that's what they'll do. Probably almost 20% of the caucus electorate remains either undecided or supporting a candidate not likely to reach the viability threshold. So that's a lot of support that could potentially swing in Obama's direction.

This morning Eric Kleefeld called up Zogby and asked what his tracking numbers looked like when the second-choices were factored in and reallocated amongst the candidates the numbers went from ...

Obama 31%, Edwards 27%, Clinton 24%

to

Obama 37.5%, Edwards 33.7%, Clinton 28.8%

--Josh Marshall

jAZ
01-03-2008, 02:46 PM
http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1782

Richardson set to send Obama second-choice support
by: Chase Martyn
Wednesday (01/02) at 23:30 PM

[Exclusive] Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign is expected to direct its supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday's caucuses in precincts where he is not viable. Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico governor's organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they have not reached the 15 percent threshold for viability.
Richardson, whose poll numbers in Iowa have hovered near 10 percent since June, may need a solid fourth-place finish in the caucuses to continue his campaign. And he is best served by directing support away from former Sen. John Edwards, who consistently polls between him and the two national front-runners, Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, in national and early state polls.

But Richardson's modest gains from diverting second-choice support away from Edwards may be eclipsed by Obama's potential success on caucus night, should everything go as planned. If Richardson's field organization manages to direct a significant number of supporters to Obama, it could be enough to win him the Iowa caucuses.

And if Edwards loses a large block of second-round voters, a group he seems to be relying on to break in his direction, it could irreparably damage his campaign.

Richardson would prefer an Obama victory over Clinton because a Clinton victory could end the campaign before New Hampshire voters even head to the polls. And if Edwards's numbers look weak, Richardson could head to New Hampshire as the best alternative to the top two contenders for the Democratic nomination.

Still, sources caution that plans can always change, and once the doors lock Thursday evening, anything can happen. Whether the Richardson campaign's strategy is implemented on the ground remains an open question and, because this directive is not expected to be confirmed publicly, it will be difficult to prove.

Chase Martyn :: Richardson set to send Obama second-choice support
[Ed. note: For about ten minutes when this story was first published, it asserted that there was a mutual agreement between the Richardson and Obama campaigns to swap supporters in precincts where one was not viable. This, it turns out, resulted from a misunderstanding that has since been cleared up. There is no deal between the two campaigns; there is only a strategic decision -- one which makes complete sense -- on the part of the Richardson campaign about where to direct its supporters if their group is not viable in certain precincts.]
Update: Joaquin Guerra, Richardson's national Online Director, denies that any plans are in place to direct supporters to Obama on the second round of voting. Still, our sources remain sure of what they told us, and we are confident that they do not carry ulterior motives that would cause them to lie.

Calcountry
01-03-2008, 02:48 PM
The Democrats only chance is if Ron Paul pulls a Ross Perot on us. I believe this has been the plan all along. It is the only way to assure Rodham's ascendancy to the throne. Bill Clinton NEVER received a majority of the popular vote in his elections. Ross Perot put him in office.

Ron Paul is this cycles "Perot" factor for the Clintons.

Frankie
01-03-2008, 02:54 PM
I'm going with Edwards in IA and SC. Obama takes NH. Hillary doesn't sniff squat. Edwards/Obama... Obama/Edwards ticket either way.
That would be a very vulnerable ticket for the Dems. Clinton/Clark would be a very strong one.

jAZ
01-03-2008, 02:54 PM
The Democrats only chance is if Ron Paul pulls a Ross Perot on us. I believe this has been the plan all along. It is the only way to assure Rodham's ascendancy to the throne. Bill Clinton NEVER received a majority of the popular vote in his elections. Ross Perot put him in office.

Ron Paul is this cycles "Perot" factor for the Clintons.
It would be interesting to see the Libertarian Party pull 8-10% of the vote in '08. No matter the impact on the election.

Of course were that to help Obama win the General... that's ok too. But the Libertarians making headway in politics is a good thing, IMO. Better than the Green or Constitution Parties.

Frankie
01-03-2008, 02:57 PM
The Democrats only chance is if Ron Paul pulls a Ross Perot on us. I believe this has been the plan all along. It is the only way to assure Rodham's ascendancy to the throne. Bill Clinton NEVER received a majority of the popular vote in his elections. Ross Perot put him in office.

Ron Paul is this cycles "Perot" factor for the Clintons.
Dems' only chance?!

mlyonsd
01-03-2008, 06:03 PM
Dems' only chance?!

I think bunny is assuming a Clinton nomination, in which a Paul independent run might get her elected.

I agree with bunny, the reps best chance to take the WH is a Clinton nomination.

Saggysack
01-03-2008, 06:26 PM
That would be a very vulnerable ticket for the Dems. Clinton/Clark would be a very strong one.


How is a Obama/Edwards ticket vunerable? Please explain.

Clinton is the most polarizing politician this country has. If you want Republicans heading to the polls in droves, vote in Hillary. Just don't say I didn't tell you so when defeat comes in.

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 06:34 PM
Obama/Edwards wouldn't work, though. Their personalities would clash, and while Obama's running on the platform of "Let's bring about change by bringing everyone to the table and then winning them over," Edwards is running from a more in-your-face "shit down their throats and WIN THIS!" standpoint.

If Richardson is an option come VP selection time, he may be a nice fit. He has executive experience and he's personable enough, if a little bit of a bumbler.

Biden would be sweet, too, though honestly Richardson fills the "smile and wave" role of a veep better, and Biden would be a really nice SecState.

Saggysack
01-03-2008, 06:45 PM
Richardson is too much of a liabilty. His past indescrepencies(lying about his history) would be just the tee Republicans need.

We have to think about winning this, and winning now. We have no other option.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-03-2008, 06:49 PM
Obama/Biden would be the way to go for supporters of Barak, esp. w/ Joe's foreign policy experience.

It would be reminiscent of the "gravitas" (hate that word) that Cheney lent GW in 2000, save for Biden's possession of a soul.

Mr. Kotter
01-03-2008, 09:16 PM
Obama/Biden would be the way to go for supporters of Barak, esp. w/ Joe's foreign policy experience.

It would be reminiscent of the "gravitas" (hate that word) that Cheney lent GW in 2000, save for Biden's possession of a soul.

Amen, brother Jenkins....

A ticket...

:eek:

....that even I would have to seriously consider. :)