2008 US election poll

[Maturin]

Off Topic, @ Scut - With all the conservative hate for McCain, what do you think are the chances of GA going blue in the general election if Obama gets the nomination? I think its possible at this point in time, but with all the mudslinging of the general election to follow, only time will tell.

It's really hard to say.  I was talking to Reflex in IM when Obama was winning Georgia in the primaries and telling him how it just wasn't shocking at all.  The thing to know about Georgia is that there are almost two states here.  There's the city of Atlanta and then the rest of the state.  Atlanta is over 60% African American, is completely run by Black Democrats, and Obama is truly a reflection in alot of ways of the Atlanta experience.  Ebony Magazine consistently lists Atlanta as the best place in the US for African Americans to live.  They are cosmopolitan, educated, and politically savvy.  However the rest of Georgia, including the suburbs, is very bible belt and die-hard Republican.  If Huckabee were to win the nomination, I can't see how the Republicans would lose a single state in the South (Florida is not considered "big S" Southern, btw).  However, if McCain wins the nomination then bible belt Republicans may just not show up at the polls and McCain could be in trouble.  

One of the biggest reasons why Gore and Kerry lost the last two elections is that they didn't excite their base.  People just looked at their candidate and said, "meh..."  Obama excites Democrats.  McCain will have an even worse problem than Kerry and Gore have.  His base is deliberately antagonistic.  He had better give his VP nomination some serious thought if he wants to win because he needs someone who's strong in faith and someone who appeals to Republicans and Conservatives.  He needs someone along side him who shores up his gaping holes within the party.

I'm an Atlanta dweller myself, and I agree with all that. However I would also add that you cant discount the support of White Democrats (or Independents) in Atlanta either. Out of all who I have spoken to, there was literally one person who was a Hillary supporter. The rest were for Obama or Edwards. I guess some of the Hillary-hate spoken by southern Republicans has worn off on the Democrats down here too.
Kerry's pick of the southerner Edwards didn't do enough for him here in '04. If Huckabee gets the nod for running mate, I could see McCain making headway here though.

[Intuit]

In my view Gore didn't win the election because not because he "didn't excite their base" so much as he seemed to have had a flawed campaign strategy that focused only on winning cities which amounts to one or a few counties out of an entire state.  He won the majority of voters but failed miserably to collect enough electoral votes.

[Rocky]

Barack Obama -

State Government: 1997-2004 (8 years, State Senate, Illinois is one of the largest states in the union)
Federal Government: 2004-2008 (4 years, US Senate)

Hillary Clinton -

Federal Government: 2001-2008 (8 years, US Senate)

So Obama has 12 years in government as an elected official, Hillary has 8.  Most of Obama's experience has come from state government, all of Hillary's has come at the federal level.  Some wish to classify 8 years of sleeping with Bill(during which time it was widely reported that she rarely actually was sleeping with him, I might add) as 'experience', however once again she had no security clearance, no policy writing responsibilities, one legislative action(Health Care, which failed miserably and cost Bill his Democratic congress), no official responsibilities during her overseas trips.

BTW, Vorlon, you are correct, I often speak about my significant other's experience.  You'll note however that I speak about her actual experience, not about how her time sleeping with me has made her knowledgable in tech.  Because it hasn't.  That would be like her trying to get a job at Microsoft because she slept with a MS engineer for years.  Is she more familiar with computers than she would be without knowing me?  Sure.  But is it something she could legitimatly qualify as 'experience' towards being given a job?  Not even close.  When I talk about her knowledge its in the areas she has specialized in, I don't try to use her opinions on technology to bolster my own arguments, after all its not her area of expertise.

Any way you cut it, Obama is the more experienced candidate when it comes to leadership, governance and legislative experience.  It may not be a significant lead, but seriously, claiming 'experience' as her defining attribute would be like McCain claiming 'youth and vigor' as his.

Is this post really by the same person who blasted me for 6 pages because I laughed at a tshirt calling her a ho?  But you make an exception when talking about her experience to put in () that she is a prude?  You've sunk low, very low.

[Reflex]

Vorlon - Cheap shot.  You've never asked me my opinion about females in the role, and simply writing me off as a sexist because I point out the FACTS is a ridiculous argument.  No, sleepign with someone is not experience.  Yes, you have to have clearance and policy writing experience to be considered as actually an experienced legislator.  The fact is, I was one of the group of Republicans in 96 trying to push Christine Whitman(former governor of New Jersey) to run.  This was LONG before our so-called 'first viable woman' showed up.  The fact is that in the past decade, both Whitman and Elizabeth Dole were considered viable candidates, and at the time they were being bandied about, I would have supported either one of them whole-heartedly.

Rocky - My point wasn't that she was a prude.  My point was that people seem to equate sleeping with a president to experience, and even that argument goes out the window when one remembers all the stories back then about how they were not even sleeping together.  Which is understandable considering his behaviour at the time.

People, you can resort to personally attacking me all you wish, but I'm just going off the facts here, your trying to make it personal.  Hillary Clinton has 8 years experience as a legislator.  I do not feel that somehow disqualifies her for President, I simply am pointing out that 'experience' is NOT one of her attributes.  She has many other attributes, thats simply not one of them, and the sooner you recognize that the better equipped you are to support her should she end up the nominee against John McCain, who would chew up her 'experience' claim and spit it out.

[Rocky]

Rocky - My point wasn't that she was a prude.  My point was that people seem to equate sleeping with a president to experience, and even that argument goes out the window when one remembers all the stories back then about how they were not even sleeping together.  Which is understandable considering his behaviour at the time.

Reflex, its called the First Lady of the United States.  It's not called the woman sleeping with the President.  Do you really need me to pull up all the quotes of you in the other thread?  The one where you talked about how Obama supporters should be more respectful, shoudlnt degrade other candidates, etc. etc.  If you honestly believe the first lady doesn't do anything, fine I understand your opinion, but to me, it just seems like you havent done your homework again.  Hillary is hated in this country for a large part because she was the most (or second most) active first lady ever.  Shes the first to have a west wing office for example.  I think you need to review your sources.  Regardless, I dont think the anti-experience argument really works, or is needed politically.

Also, as far as you bringing up her lack of security clearances while being first lady.  Well so what, do you really think that matters that much? She was authoring troops to war before Obama was in national office, so its really a tough argument to make.   And, since being first lady she has served on the senate armed forces committee and has voted to send troops to battle.  I dont know how many times you have to send soldiers to die before you are considered experienced, I dont imagine its an easy thing to do, and I expect after you do it once its a pretty steep learning curve from there.

I am not sure what made you start this outburst of an argument.  I think all its going to do is point more and more people to the experience she does have, and to the lack of experience of Obama.  Im elected a candidate this year because of their past, Im electing them based on their future.

[Reflex]

Reflex, its called the First Lady of the United States.  It's not called the woman sleeping with the President.  Do you really need me to pull up all the quotes of you in the other thread?  The one where you talked about how Obama supporters should be more respectful, shoudlnt degrade other candidates, etc. etc.  If you honestly believe the first lady doesn't do anything, fine I understand your opinion, but to me, it just seems like you havent done your homework again.  Hillary is hated in this country for a large part because she was the most (or second most) active first lady ever.  Shes the first to have a west wing office for example.  I think you need to review your sources.  Regardless, I dont think the anti-experience argument really works, or is needed politically.

Um, good for her?  So tell me, what legislation did she draft while in office as the 'first lady'?  What initiatives did she push through congress?  What planning did she take part in in the Bosnian war?  What generals from NATO briefed her on the eastern european situation?  How much of a role did she have in the hunt for Osama bin Laden during the 90's?

I'm asking.  These are the things one would think would count as 'experience' because they are the types of things a president has to deal with.  You are using 'experience' in a generic sense, I certainly would not disagree with you that she is an experienced lawyer, that she understands both corporate and civil law quite well, that she did a lot of things for children in Arkansas, that she had a bright career in DC before moving to AK with Bill Clinton, and that she has had 8 yeras of experience as a US Senator.  But what she does NOT have is more than 8 years experience in the federal government.  She was explicitly prohibited from taking part in most of what her husband did, serving as little more than a in-house lawyer and a 'diplomat' in the same sense that Nancy Reagan did.  Was she more active than most?  Perhaps.  But thats still a LONG way from saying that it qualifies her to be the president.

Also, as far as you bringing up her lack of security clearances while being first lady.  Well so what, do you really think that matters that much? She was authoring troops to war before Obama was in national office, so its really a tough argument to make.   And, since being first lady she has served on the senate armed forces committee and has voted to send troops to battle.  I dont know how many times you have to send soldiers to die before you are considered experienced, I dont imagine its an easy thing to do, and I expect after you do it once its a pretty steep learning curve from there.

I won't deny the experience she has gained in the senate.  I don't deny that at all.  Thats my point though, her experience is what she has gained as an elected official, and in that regard she is no more experienced than Obama.

I am not sure what made you start this outburst of an argument.  I think all its going to do is point more and more people to the experience she does have, and to the lack of experience of Obama.  Im elected a candidate this year because of their past, Im electing them based on their future.

I'm just trying to burst this fallacy her campaign has built that she is the candidate of 'experience'.  As I said, if thats her platform, McCain, with his 25+ years of actual federal government experience is going to demolish her in the general election, should she be nominated.  He'll make her claim look just plain silly at best, and blatently dishonest at worst.

[Rocky]

Of course she is no McCain, but I think when you talk about Hillarys experience in the way you do it only shines a bright light on how inexperienced Obama is.  But trying to say that 8 years as first lady is meaningless is quite silly.  You listed war credentials, which aparently is all you think you need to be President, which in this case begs the question why are you supporting Obama.  In pretty much every area Hillary has more experienced.  More lawyer experience, more social welfare experience, more senatoral experience, more foreign affairs experience.  The only qualification Obama has more experience is in trying to bring people together, which to me, is what we need most right now.  Also, if we wanted to pick the most experienced candidate we would've voted Biden or Richardson in, but we didnt.  I would really try to let go of this argument, not one person will be swayed by it.

[Reflex]

It went over fairly well at the caucus yesterday.  Don't mistake your own dogged determination to hang onto the myth for how everyone else feels.  I put that into perspective as well as pointing out just how badly the Clinton's cost the Democrats nationally (info here: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/obama_directly_attacks_bills_p.php ) when they were last in power, and it was an effective point to make.  I don't think most people consider being married to a president to be 'experience'.  And like I said before, even if it were, and even if that level of experience was somehow equivilent to actual experience as a legislator(which it clearly is not), she would have at best, 4 years on Obama(and thats ignoring all of his work before he ran for office).  She is not significantly more experienced than him, if at all.

BTW, go re-read what I stated.  Wars and alliances were only one point I made, I also asked what as first lady she did legislatively, which party leaders she negotiated with, what policies she drafted and guided through congress.  You know, what experience she got as First Lady *that would be applicable to a job as president*.

[Rocky]

It went over fairly well at the caucus yesterday.  Don't mistake your own dogged determination to hang onto the myth for how everyone else feels.  I put that into perspective as well as pointing out just how badly the Clinton's cost the Democrats nationally (info here: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/obama_directly_attacks_bills_p.php ) when they were last in power, and it was an effective point to make.  I don't think most people consider being married to a president to be 'experience'.  And like I said before, even if it were, and even if that level of experience was somehow equivilent to actual experience as a legislator(which it clearly is not), she would have at best, 4 years on Obama(and thats ignoring all of his work before he ran for office).  She is not significantly more experienced than him, if at all.

BTW, go re-read what I stated.  Wars and alliances were only one point I made, I also asked what as first lady she did legislatively, which party leaders she negotiated with, what policies she drafted and guided through congress.  You know, what experience she got as First Lady *that would be applicable to a job as president*.

I worked with her and talked with her quite a lot when she was a freshman senator (granted I was quite a subordinate) but I dont need to google her experience.  Clearly you think she did nothing for 8 years, if you've ever met her, or paid attention to her work ethic, you would know she doesnt just sit at home and clean the house for 8 years in Washington.  I urge you to look, Im not here to teach you, you are the one who made the claim.  There is a reason Obama doesnt question her experience, and if belittling the role of the first lady worked at your caucus, Im glad Im not in your district.  As you said in the other thread, Obama is better than that, and doesnt need that degradation to win.

[fall-apart]

Is Hillary imploding?  She fired her campaign manager and admitted she had to beef up her campaign's coffers with $5M of her own money... what's next?

[Rocky]

Is Hillary imploding?  She fired her campaign manager and admitted she had to beef up her campaign's coffers with $5M of her own money... what's next?

I dont see how she rebounds, she lost 4 primaries over the weekend and on Tuesday she is going to lose 3 more.  Thats 7 straight wins for Obama, thats a lot of momentum.  Granted there is still Ohio and Texas and she would need to win both I think to bring her back into the lead.  It's possible.  

Her new campaign manager has been with her a long time, I think she was her chief of staff as first lady, maybe coincidence that she's a black woman?  Or maybe that's reading to much into it.

[Salamander]

The problem I have with Clinton that she is 'wetting herself' (at least that is my impression) with only the tought that she could be the (first female) president of the USA and that I just don't like those presidental family's (the estabilished elite(correct grammar?). I don't think she will be a good looser.

[Reflex]

It went over fairly well at the caucus yesterday.  Don't mistake your own dogged determination to hang onto the myth for how everyone else feels.  I put that into perspective as well as pointing out just how badly the Clinton's cost the Democrats nationally (info here: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/obama_directly_attacks_bills_p.php ) when they were last in power, and it was an effective point to make.  I don't think most people consider being married to a president to be 'experience'.  And like I said before, even if it were, and even if that level of experience was somehow equivilent to actual experience as a legislator(which it clearly is not), she would have at best, 4 years on Obama(and thats ignoring all of his work before he ran for office).  She is not significantly more experienced than him, if at all.

BTW, go re-read what I stated.  Wars and alliances were only one point I made, I also asked what as first lady she did legislatively, which party leaders she negotiated with, what policies she drafted and guided through congress.  You know, what experience she got as First Lady *that would be applicable to a job as president*.

I worked with her and talked with her quite a lot when she was a freshman senator (granted I was quite a subordinate) but I dont need to google her experience.  Clearly you think she did nothing for 8 years, if you've ever met her, or paid attention to her work ethic, you would know she doesnt just sit at home and clean the house for 8 years in Washington.  I urge you to look, Im not here to teach you, you are the one who made the claim.  There is a reason Obama doesnt question her experience, and if belittling the role of the first lady worked at your caucus, Im glad Im not in your district.  As you said in the other thread, Obama is better than that, and doesnt need that degradation to win.

Its not degredation to point out the facts.  Once again I challenge you to tell me what duties she had in the White House that would be applicable to the job of president.  Seriously.  Its not degrading to ask it to be spelled out.  Your acting all offended and like I'm being offensive because I'm not just taking her at her word, but she is asking the US voters for a JOB and not expecting us to question her credentials seriously.  I would never hire someone for a job, much less the most important job in the country, without explicitly having thier experience spelled out for me, including what duties and responsibilities they held in jobs they are upholding as part of thier experience.  This innuendo about what you assume she 'must' have been up to is irrelevant, I want hard facts and hard data and corroboration, just as I would ask any other candidate.

The reason Obama allows this to slide is most likely this: He is not running with experience as one of his main qualifications.  In fact, he is running as an outsider entirely, which means experience would be a mark against his campaign.  When one votes for 'change' one is typically not voting for the person with the longest record in office, after all they would typify the status quo, not change.

[Reflex]

Is Hillary imploding?  She fired her campaign manager and admitted she had to beef up her campaign's coffers with $5M of her own money... what's next?  

I dont see how she rebounds, she lost 4 primaries over the weekend and on Tuesday she is going to lose 3 more.  Thats 7 straight wins for Obama, thats a lot of momentum.  Granted there is still Ohio and Texas and she would need to win both I think to bring her back into the lead.  It's possible.  

Her new campaign manager has been with her a long time, I think she was her chief of staff as first lady, maybe coincidence that she's a black woman?  Or maybe that's reading to much into it.

Its worse than that.  He hasn't lost a primary/caucus since Super Tuesday, so that brings the list to this:

Washington
Louisiana
Nebraska
Virgin Islands
Maine

With these upcoming states expected to go Obama:

Virginia
Maryland
District of Columbia (Washington DC)
Democrats Abroad (Expatriots)
Wisconsin
Hawaii

He could be as high as 11 straight wins before we get to Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont on March 4th.  I'm not a big believer in momentum, but at the least Obama should have the delegate lead by then, he's only about 40 behind now with 6 more probable wins before March.  If he can blunt the probable loss of Texas by winning Ohio, he should maintain his lead until Pennsylvania at least, which along with North Carolina will likely decide this matchup.

[fall-apart]

What's with lending her own money to the campaign?  Is no one donating to her?  That would be a fairly serious problem if it was the case - no one believed enough in her to put their money where their mouth was.  From being the "inevitable" candidate, she sure has fallen far... and on the flipside, lots of people though McCain's candidacy was dead last year, but he's the frontrunner now.  Go figure.

[Rocky]

Reflex, I beleive he's actually ahead in delegates now.  It depends on who's superdelegate total you choose to beleive.

Fall-Apart - Hillary does have money trouble.  After donating $5 million she raised $10 in a week, so its not like the money isnt still giving.  A lot if being spent on texas and ohio, the last battle grounds.

[Babar]

Clearly you think she did nothing for 8 years, if you've ever met her, or paid attention to her work ethic, you would know she doesnt just sit at home and clean the house for 8 years in Washington.  I urge you to look, Im not here to teach you, you are the one who made the claim.  There is a reason Obama doesnt question her experience, and if belittling the role of the first lady worked at your caucus, Im glad Im not in your district.  As you said in the other thread, Obama is better than that, and doesnt need that degradation to win.

What's all this nonsense about... Obama worked for 4 years as a Democratic party organizer and has had 10 years of experience as a legislator. I think it's fair to say that "experience" in this election is nothing but a red herring... the deciding factor are their platforms, their comportment, and their ability to lead and make hard decisions.

[Babar]

From being the "inevitable" candidate, she sure has fallen far... and on the flipside, lots of people though McCain's candidacy was dead last year, but he's the frontrunner now.  Go figure.

Yeah, funny how the political winds shift so quickly, isn't it? Dean was once the Democratic presumptive nominee in '04, and Bill Clinton wasn't doing so hot during the first few primaries in '92.

[ScutMonkey]

This is the nature of campaigns and anyone who tries to tell you the general election is won or lost is dead wrong.  All it takes is one public gaffe and it's all over for a candidate.  


Be it Dean's "Yeaaaaaaaaaaargh!" or Dukakis' tank photo or Nixon's 1960 TV debate against Kennedy.

[Rocky]

Clearly you think she did nothing for 8 years, if you've ever met her, or paid attention to her work ethic, you would know she doesnt just sit at home and clean the house for 8 years in Washington.  I urge you to look, Im not here to teach you, you are the one who made the claim.  There is a reason Obama doesnt question her experience, and if belittling the role of the first lady worked at your caucus, Im glad Im not in your district.  As you said in the other thread, Obama is better than that, and doesnt need that degradation to win.

What's all this nonsense about... Obama worked for 4 years as a Democratic party organizer and has had 10 years of experience as a legislator. I think it's fair to say that "experience" in this election is nothing but a red herring... the deciding factor are their platforms, their comportment, and their ability to lead and make hard decisions.

Exactly, which is what I keep saying.  Talking about experience isnt going to do anyone any good, no one is voting on experience or we would be choosing between two different candidates.

[Reflex]

I'm glad that you agree with me then Rocky that Hillary is not experienced and that that argument is the most silly one she is making for her candidacy.  That is my point, there is NO candidate of 'experience' on the Democrat side of things.  Sometimes thats a good thing, outsiders have a very good track record in Washington, its the long term 'experienced' candidates who tend to be our worst leaders...

[Caffeine Cemetary]

Sorry, I just re-joined the thread.  So what's this about Hillary sleeping around?

Ok, fine, I'm just kidding.

[Rocky]

I'm glad that you agree with me then Rocky that Hillary is not experienced and that that argument is the most silly one she is making for her candidacy.  That is my point, there is NO candidate of 'experience' on the Democrat side of things.  Sometimes thats a good thing, outsiders have a very good track record in Washington, its the long term 'experienced' candidates who tend to be our worst leaders...

I dont agree with your sexist opinions of Hillary's experience at all Reflex. But now you've moved on to a new topic. A Washington outsider? You arent really calling Clinton an outsider now are you?  They are both US Senators so its tough to call either of them outsiders, but Obama hasnt been there long, Hillary though has lived there for the better part of 15 years hob nobbing with the most washington elite.

[VorLonUK]

No, sleepign with someone is not experience.

Well seeing as you put it in such a blunt and bizarre way Reflex. I can only assume if you were President, that when your wife asked you a question about something political, or anything political came up in general conversation, that you'd put your fingers in your ears and hum.

Then again you might be the sort of guy who has a very business like relationship with their partner and doesn't really talk about anything?

Plus are you sure you are not playing the sexist card and this is actually what this is all about?

[Reflex]

Once again I must ask: What did she do during her 8 years that had anything at all to do with being president or qualifying for the job?  You are holding that up as 'experience', well, I can look up Obama's track record during his 12 years in government, I can see what bills he pushed, what legislation he proposed, who he negotiated with. I can even check his record as a community organizer and lawyer.  I do not have that luxury with Clinton's supposed track record, all I keep hearing is that sleeping with Bill is somehow experience.  I want it spelled out.

Its not sexist to ask that qualifications that are being put forward as evidence be spelled out.  Obama's track record is public.  I want to know what Clinton's is.  If its sexist to ask for specific information then so be it, but she is asking me and every other voter to be her employer, and employers require experience they can actually verify.