Clinton ahead of Giuliani

[markalot]

Meaningless but fun poll.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/10/03/GR2007100301902.gif

from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302036.html?hpid=topnews

...

Many Republicans have said that they are eager to run a general-election campaign against Hillary Clinton, describing her as a highly polarizing candidate who would unite and energize the opposition. But, as of now, Clinton appears to be no more polarizing than other leading Democratic contenders. Nor is there a potential Republican nominee who appears significantly less polarizing.

Forty-one percent of those surveyed said they definitely would not vote for Clinton in the general election if she were the Democratic nominee, one of the lowest "reject rates" among the leading candidates in either of the two major parties. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) registers the lowest definite opposition, at 39 percent.

...

If Clinton wins you can put the blame squarely on Bush, and my prediction to my brother in law that Bush will destroy the republican party and probably lead to Hillary getting elected would come true. Since I'm all about me being right it looks like I'll have to vote for Clinton! ;)

[silentpaul]

It would be a weak argument for Republicans, since Clinton is certainly no more polarizing than W.

[akip]

i've heard more people changing their mind about hillary lately. maybe it's just the field of candidates---obama's too green, edwards too narrowly focused. as for giuliani, he has that neocon iran stance that makes a lot of people queasy. i think it's the main reason i wouldn't vote for him.

[euro60]

Markalot's first word in his post hits it on the head. Such a poll says nothing and is utterly meaningless, with 13 full months to go to the election. THIRTEEN MONTHS!

[Hogarth]

It is rather meaningless, but it does illustrate how far up the creek the GOP is.

[Hogarth]

I would like to how Hillary would fare in a poll vs. more conservative Republicans, strictly for accademic purposes, as Rudy is to the left of the GOP mainstream.

[the_birds]

I think this 'transition year' to a new more compacted primary season, will anoint our candidates with surprising quickness. Barring any major changes, expect these frontrunners to be our candidates.

I do a agree with Hogarth about it showing how F'ed the Repubs are. Giuliani is a great candidate, but his Paul Revere redux is so tired and polar opposite of what people are looking for in a candidate. Who is his campaign manager? He/she is so fired, he should be the Repubs candidate without question. Even though, I think with his current rhetoric, they are wasting a shot at having a President. Fred Thompson better put a serious move together quick. Or be dynamic in the primaries, if he wants to have a shot at the nomination.

Clinton is surprising me, because I don't like her as the candidate for my party. She will end up making this race closer than it has to be. But her poll numbers and money raised is also unexpectedly high, hopefully it will withstand the backlash. She is running away with the nomination. I'm mixed up about it.

If it does and she's elected, it will testament to how tired the public is of the Republicans, how out of date (and tired) their message is, how terribly they misjudged what Americans are looking for in a candidate and how much people blame our current president.

[markalot]

10% of people who claimed to be republicans would vote for her. I think that's huge.

[Hogarth]

The thing Republicans should fear most is how much more money the Democrats have raised so far. If Hillary locks up the nomination early, she'll have plenty for the election, plus Obama and Edwards' money will filter down to state and local canidates.

Support the Food and Drink Forum!!!

[vivalamusica]

I would like to how Hillary would fare in a poll vs. more conservative Republicans, strictly for accademic purposes, as Rudy is to the left of the GOP mainstream.

There were a whole slew of state polls (Survey USA, maybe?) a few weeks ago, that you can probably find on various political blogs, that matched up Hillary vs. Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney. In most swing states, and even some typically red states, they showed Giuliani as Hillary's closest opponent, with HRC beating Thompson fairly decisively, and knocking the shit out of Romney.

Take it for what it's worth.

[Hogarth]

There were a whole slew of state polls (Survey USA, maybe?) a few weeks ago, that you can probably find on various political blogs, that matched up Hillary vs. Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney. In most swing states, and even some typically red states, they showed Giuliani as Hillary's closest opponent, with HRC beating Thompson fairly decisively, and knocking the shit out of Romney.

Take it for what it's worth.

Yeah, but I'm lazy.

Thanks

Support the Food and Drink Forum!

[akip]

heard a bit of charlie cook (cook report) on npr's "forum" yesterday---he was speaking in cleveland. a couple of interesting numbers/opinions:

he said that obama and clinton poll roughly evenly among 18-35 voters, but clinton beats obama by a wide margin in all other age groups. then he laughed, "of course, the under-35 group doesn't vote." if edwards doesn't win iowa, a very close race, he'll be out of the running within a week.

he said that every single republican candidate has a fatal flaw, and one of them will get the nomination, carrying that fatal flaw into the general election. he had a whole list of flaws for giuliani, including his liberal stance on social issues, but also his personal skeletons. he said romney's flip-flopping will damage him more than his mormon religion and that although thompson's a fun guy, he is as SLOWWWWW as his character in 'law and order' and is running a dreadfully disorganized campaign.

but he said later that the general election will probably be close 'cause hillary is still hillary.

[vivalamusica]

Also, over the past week or so, a group of leaders within the religious right has begun to make noises about supporting a 3rd party candidate if Rudy wins the nomination. It's too early to gauge how serious they are, but if something like this did happen, it would be a significant setback for Rudy.

[markalot]

Also, over the past week or so, a group of leaders within the religious right has begun to make noises about supporting a 3rd party candidate if Rudy wins the nomination. It's too early to gauge how serious they are, but if something like this did happen, it would be a significant setback for Rudy.

Yea, I'm all giddy just thinking about that. I would love to see a stronger republican party sans the religious right. My hope is that they will be completely defeated and that their message of intolerance will finally fade away.

Probably way too much to hope for.

It's my contention that a republican party without the religious right dominating all the issues would be unstoppable. For that matter a democratic party without liberals would be just as strong. Wouldn't it be nice if the fringe had their own stupid parties to play around in?

[Hogarth]

On the other hand, when the Segregationists split from the Democrats in 1948, it actually boosted Truman to some degree. Maybe a split would allow Rudy to try to sieze the middle.

I would still vote for any Democrat.

Support the Food and Drink Forum!

[akip]

Yea, I'm all giddy just thinking about that. I would love to see a stronger republican party sans the religious right. My hope is that they will be completely defeated and that their message of intolerance will finally fade away.

Probably way too much to hope for.

It's my contention that a republican party without the religious right dominating all the issues would be unstoppable. For that matter a democratic party without liberals would be just as strong. Wouldn't it be nice if the fringe had their own stupid parties to play around in?

i think it's too much to hope for. maybe that's 'cause every time i'm in yoga class, i have to listen to the abortion protesters down on the street.

[euro60]

I would still vote for any Democrat.


Translation: I do not pay attention to any substantive aspect of a candidate. I will vote for a candidate, ANY CANDIDATE, who has the label of "Democrat" on him or her, even if in substance that candidate is a de facto Republican.

That is pretty pathetic.

[Hogarth]

No, what I mean is that, having examined the canidates in some degree, I see no reason to vote for any of the Reps, because of issues like the war and the type of judges they nominate. If the christian conservatives split off, I would see Rudy more favorably, but he would have to work really hard to get my vote.

Okay, any Dem except Dennis Kucinich. He may be a little too out there.

And jeez, did you really expect to convert anyone here?

Support the Food and Drink Forum!

[drougan]

That is pretty pathetic.

Party politics pathetic? Say it ain't so!

One thing that party politics is good for is that you have a good chance of knowing what the idelogical stance of your candidate is. If you only vote dem/repub then you're probably registered accordingly and thus weighing your candidates at a primary level. If the election comes down to a set of policy ideologies that are largely opposite of the other, you're gonna stick with the party that holds your same viewpoint regardless of who they prop up there. But I don't see how that equates with being pathetic.

[akip]

Okay, any Dem except Dennis Kucinich. He may be a little too out there.


i took one of those 'match your positions against the candidates' polls and was somewhat shocked to see i matched kucinich on all issues except iraq (though a big issue). second place was a dead heat between clinton, obama and edwards. anyway, i'd thought of myself as not THAT far left anymore. :confused:

at the bottom of the list was fred thompson, even below huckabee. i only agreed with him on one thing, and without much conviction.

[akip]

One thing that party politics is good for is that you have a good chance of knowing what the idelogical stance of your candidate is. If you only vote dem/repub then you're probably registered accordingly and thus weighing your candidates at a primary level. If the election comes down to a set of policy ideologies that are largely opposite of the other, you're gonna stick with the party that holds your same viewpoint regardless of who they prop up there. But I don't see how that equates with being pathetic.

yeah, the supreme court issue is reason alone---especially now, with the court so split.

[Hogarth]

Party politics pathetic? Say it ain't so!

One thing that party politics is good for is that you have a good chance of knowing what the idelogical stance of your candidate is. If you only vote dem/repub then you're probably registered accordingly and thus weighing your candidates at a primary level. If the election comes down to a set of policy ideologies that are largely opposite of the other, you're gonna stick with the party that holds your same viewpoint regardless of who they prop up there. But I don't see how that equates with being pathetic.

It's like how buying a Pontiac or a BMW means you're getting a sportier car than a Hyundai or a Lincoln. It's a brand affiliation which in broad terms tells you the type of product you are buying.

And if a Republican came through with policies I backed, I might vote for him based on character and other factors.

[akip]

And if a Republican came through with policies I backed, I might vote for him based on character and other factors.

the only repub i would vote for is a repub that'll never make it. socially liberal, fiscally responsible, foreign policy realist, pragmatic. rudy doesn't make the cut 'cause he's a neocon.

[euro60]

i took one of those 'match your positions against the candidates' polls.
Akip, can you post a link to that? I'd love to try it out. I need to start practising since I expect to be able to vote by Nov. 08 :D

[Hogarth]

I might give Rudy a break if he dropped his support for the war and promissed to nominate more liberal judges, etc. That won't happen unless the social conservatives bolt and the rump of the GOP moves back toward the center. Good luck on that though. Republicans have stuck together so far, so it looks like they will all go down together.

[akip]

Akip, can you post a link to that? I'd love to try it out. I need to start practising since I expect to be able to vote by Nov. 08 :D

i am trying to remember where i came across it...it was pretty straight forward...

[akip]

I might give Rudy a break if he dropped his support for the war and promissed to nominate more liberal judges, etc. That won't happen unless the social conservatives bolt and the rump of the GOP moves back toward the center. Good luck on that though. Republicans have stuck together so far, so it looks like they will all go down together.

i read a big article about rudy and the two things that bothered me were that he has a VERY hawkish stance on iran---go read norman podoretz and you'll see where giuliani's at---and he only confers with a very small group of people who are NOT all that smart. that's all we need---another president who gets all his policy advice from three nutcases.

[markalot]

I don't think it's nuts to be aggressive on Iran. This isn't a case of Iraq and possible WMD, this is Iran developing the technology and admitting to it.

[akip]

I don't think it's nuts to be aggressive on Iran. This isn't a case of Iraq and possible WMD, this is Iran developing the technology and admitting to it.

i can only read about it and talk to people who have some sort of knowledge in the area---a conservative friend of mine (with a deep foreign policy background) told me that there's no question but that we could hit them and do damage to their program, but the problem is the aftermath. we cannot predict it.

and here's that quiz:

select a candidate - 2008 (http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460)


btw, i took a different quiz and they tried to tell me my candidate was gravel---who i'd just heard on the newshour and thought was off his rocker. :D

[Hogarth]

Man, I took that quiz, and got Dennis Kucinich. :eek:

I still can't vote for him, because I can't trust him after he nearly ran Cleveland into the ground in the 70's

[markalot]

Romney 31
Rudy 26
Clinton 26
Obama 26
Edwards 25

sheesh

I can tell you right now I'm not voting for Mitt. :)

[drougan]

Romney 31
Rudy 26
Clinton 26
Obama 26
Edwards 25

sheesh

I can tell you right now I'm not voting for Mitt. :)

Gravel 25
some other dude 25
Clinton 24
Obama 24
Some other dems
Guiliani 20
Rest of repubs.

You know what's wacky...you agreed more with Obama and Clinton than I did. :p

[the_birds]

Nice and Liberal, but because I know my issues.

Dodd - 48
HRC - 43
Obama - 43
Gravel - 36
Kucinich - 34
Edwards - 31
Biden - 24
Richardson - 24
Paul - 23
McCain - 13
Giuliani - 12
Huckabee - 7
Romney - 6
Brownback - 5
Gilmore - 3

[akip]

i think it confirms that people vote on persona, then on issues.

i like how the quiz lines up where you agree and disagree with each candidate.

[akip]

I can tell you right now I'm not voting for Mitt. :)

if you want to bomb iran, then i'm telling you---rudy's your man. :D

[markalot]

if you want to bomb iran, then i'm telling you---rudy's your man. :D

I don't want to bomb Iran, I want to scare the shit out of them. If you talk weak then you are weak.

[berzerker]

Richardson - 32
Edwards - 31
Biden - 30
Obama - 28
Clinton - 28

[akip]

I don't want to bomb Iran, I want to scare the shit out of them. If you talk weak then you are weak.

i think rudy wants to DO it.

[DaHood]

Fuck the Democrats. Yeah, I said it!




While we're at it, fuck the Republicans too.




They're all a bunch of cunts.

[akip]

Fuck the Democrats. Yeah, I said it!




While we're at it, fuck the Republicans too.


so bloomberg's your guy.

here's my downcount:
Kucinich 47
Clinton 43
Obama 43
Edwards 43
Dodd 42
Biden 40
Richardson 38
Gravel 32
Giuliani 31
Romney 18
Gilmore 13
Paul 13
Huckabee 6
Hunter 6
Brownback 5
McCain 4
Thompson 1

[DaHood]

so bloomberg's your guy.
Anybody who breaks the cycle will be my guy.

[tobedawg]

The Hillary Vs. Rudy Presidential Race is getting ready to heat up (I'm predicting that it WILL be Hillary Vs. Rudy), but it does seem that Rudy is more of a liability with the Religious Conservatives that put Bush over the top in 2004 and (arguably 2000) publically speaking out against supporting him, I can't help but think that there HAS got to be another Republican candidate that will emerge as front runner..

IF Not, though I am predicting that IF Rudy can get a strong social conservative as a running mate, this has the power to be a good race as the far right base thinks that Hillary is putrid..

This seems like a pretty boring race so far and the outcome of 2008 seems all too predictable.. Hell I can even predict CNN's "The First Female U.S. President In History" reports the day AFTER the November election..

As a voter, all I have to say is that I really really hope that Ralph Nader runs this year because he's got my vote if he does..

[Orville Wrong]

John McCain
Score: 32

Fred Thompson
Score: 28

Jim Gilmore
Score: 28

Rudy Giuliani
Score: 28

Duncan Hunter
Score: 28

Tom Tancredo
Score: 28

Sam Brownback
Score: 26

Ron Paul
Score: 22

Mitt Romney
Score: 21

Mike Huckabee
Score: 16

Joe Biden
Score: 10

Mike Gravel
Score: 7

Dennis Kucinich
Score: 7

Chris Dodd
Score: 7

Bill Richardson
Score: 3

Barack Obama
Score: 2

Hillary Clinton
Score: 2

John Edwards
Score: 2

[skyefairy]

Dennis - 33
Edwards - 28
Richardson - 28
Dodd - 26
Romney - 24
Biden - 24
Rudy - 24
Gravel - 23
Obama - 21
Hillary - 21
Brownback - 14
Tancredo - 13
Huckabee - 10
Hunter/Gilmore/Paul - 9
Mccain - 7
Thompson - 6

I'm not sure how accurate the quiz is. Based on their websites, and reading their views, I'm pretty strong on Obama. ....How is that not reflected in the quiz?

[Orville Wrong]

NEW YORK, May 10 — Having previously declared that he "hates" abortion, Republican presidential hopeful Rudolph Giuliani yesterday expressed an equal hatred of donating to Planned Parenthood. The statement was prompted by the revelation that the former New York City mayor and his then-wife made at least six contributions to the nation's largest abortion provider in the 1990's.

"Abortion is the unjustified taking of a human life," said Giuliani. "I hate the practice, and I hate when the government funds it -- but what I hate most of all is when I voluntarily send money to organizations that perform it despite the fact that I am under no obligation whatsoever to do so."

Giuliani explained that he was personally opposed to his contributions but made them as a matter of conscience. "I cannot impose my morality upon anyone, including myself," he said. He added that if elected president there would be nothing he would hate more than appointing pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court.

(dawn eden)

[Hogarth]

Sorry, the dude is done for me now.

You know, there used to be a place for the pro-choice in the republican party, but apparently the social conservatives have finally purged the party.

[purdueman_in]

Sorry, the dude is done for me now.

You know, there used to be a place for the pro-choice in the republican party, but apparently the social conservatives have finally purged the party.


Word.

And I can't help but roll my eyes at what he says. Against sending money to organizations that provide abortions, but he sent money to Planned Parenthood.

He is opposed to giving money to Planned Parenthood, but did so as a matter of conscious? Doesn't that, by definition, mean that he is NOT opposed to giving them money?

[drougan]

Word.

And I can't help but roll my eyes at what he says. Against sending money to organizations that provide abortions, but he sent money to Planned Parenthood.

He is opposed to giving money to Planned Parenthood, but did so as a matter of conscious? Doesn't that, by definition, mean that he is NOT opposed to giving them money?

It means he feels he can't afford to isolate the fundies in the party, and as such doesn't want to come across as a babykiller, even though he is, at heart, pro-choice. Life must be a bitch in the GOP.

[akip]

He is opposed to giving money to Planned Parenthood, but did so as a matter of conscious?

sort of like, "i voted for the $87 billion before i voted against it?"

[Orville Wrong]

NEW YORK, May 10 — Having previously declared that he "hates" abortion, Republican presidential hopeful Rudolph Giuliani yesterday expressed an equal hatred of donating to Planned Parenthood. The statement was prompted by the revelation that the former New York City mayor and his then-wife made at least six contributions to the nation's largest abortion provider in the 1990's.

"Abortion is the unjustified taking of a human life," said Giuliani. "I hate the practice, and I hate when the government funds it -- but what I hate most of all is when I voluntarily send money to organizations that perform it despite the fact that I am under no obligation whatsoever to do so."

Giuliani explained that he was personally opposed to his contributions but made them as a matter of conscience. "I cannot impose my morality upon anyone, including myself," he said. He added that if elected president there would be nothing he would hate more than appointing pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court.

(dawn eden)
This is satire, which I should have pointed out, because it reads pretty real.

[euro60]

I'm not sure how accurate the quiz is. Based on their websites, and reading their views, I'm pretty strong on Obama. ....How is that not reflected in the quiz?
Holy cow... picking up jaw from floor :p Needless to say, you surprise me.

[akip]

This is satire, which I should have pointed out, because it reads pretty real.

damn. too good to be true.

[markalot]

I assumed it was real. Poor Rudy, nobody trusts him.

[the_birds]

The presidential primary scam
Why the game is rigged, and why true democracy is only a secondary factor in the nation's rush to nominate the next president.

By Michael Scherer

Oct. 08, 2007 | It's far worse than you think -- worse than hanging chads, faulty Diebold machines, and billionaires who bankroll last-minute attack ads. The American system for nominating a presidential candidate has about as much in common with actual democracy as Donald Duck has with a lake mallard. It's not just that this year's primaries have been further front-loaded, or that the early primary states aren't representative of the nation at large. There is only passing fairness. There is only the semblance of order. There is nothing like equal representation under the law.

The whole stinking process was designed by dead men in smoky parlors and refined by faceless bureaucrats in hotel conference rooms. It is a nasty brew born of those caldrons of self-interest known as political parties. At every stage, advantage is parceled out like so much magic potion. "The national interest is not considered in any form," says University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. "Everything is left up to an ad hoc decision. It's chaotic."

That is not an exaggeration. Consider this: If you are a Republican, your vote for the presidential nominee will be worth more in Tennessee than in New York. If you are a Democrat, your vote in the primary will not count in Florida and is unlikely to count in Michigan. If you are a Republican in Wyoming, you probably won't get to vote at all, since only party officials have a say.

And it gets worse. This election cycle, a top Democratic candidate shaking someone's hand in Miami before the end of January is breaking the rules, unless that someone is handing the candidate a check at the same time. To put it another way, Democrats' communicating with voters has been barred in Florida, but taking money from voters is OK. To put it a third way, the system is not only irrational but offensive to the nation's most basic values. "The only way that you can hear a candidate campaign is if you are willing to pay a campaign contribution," explains Steven Geller, Florida's exasperated state Senate Democratic leader. "It is astounding."

They don't teach all of this in school, because even a fourth-grader would get up from his desk and walk out of the classroom in protest. And where would that leave the nation, if all the 10-year-olds knew their political system was built on a lie, that empty hooey about all Americans being entitled to a single, equal vote? What would it mean if they knew every time President Bush and President Clinton and President Reagan had bragged about bringing democracy to the world, they were hiding the fact that pure representative democracy has never come to the United States?

At root, the problem is that primaries are considered by law and tradition to be the internal affairs of political parties. For the most part, the people who designed this calamity have never been elected to anything. They are operatives, organizers, functionaries, a smart set of soldiers who move like marionettes. They lead state parties and sit on committees with names like "Rules and Bylaws." You have never seen their names in the newspaper, because reporters rarely attend the meetings. And there are dozens of them, so you can't blame any single person.

The system they produce is justified in the press, partly because reporters enjoy its results. We like traveling to the early voting states, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, where candidates have to shake a lot of hands. Voters in these states are unrepresentative of the nation as a whole, but they tend to take presidential politics more seriously. They go to candidate town halls in large numbers and ask smart questions, allowing poorly funded candidates to compete with wealthy candidates on a more level playing field.

By most estimates, about 190,000 people will participate in the Iowa caucuses, with another 1.2 million or so marking ballots in New Hampshire and South Carolina. That's about 1.4 million people in a nation of 301 million, or one-half of 1 percent.

When these early states start voting in January, the rest of the nation will begin to pay attention. If tradition holds, the candidates who win the early contests will have a huge advantage. With some luck, both parties will unite behind a single consensus nominee within a month, all but making the ballots in the later states irrelevant. Each party's leadership prays for this to happen, because if it does not, if for some reason the Democratic or Republican grass roots remains split on a preference after February, then the American people will be forced to see how ugly the whole game really is.

FACT: When you vote in a presidential primary or caucus, you are usually not voting for a specific candidate, but for another person, called a delegate, who you hope will later support your candidate at the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. You can only hope, because many states do not bind delegates to follow voter intent, especially in the case of a contested convention. If no single candidate gets a majority of the delegates on the first vote, then the horse-trading can begin. After the second ballot, most delegates are free to nominate Jared, that guy from the Subway commercials, if they so choose. The last contested convention occurred in 1984, when Democratic candidates Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson initially refused to yield to Walter Mondale.

FACT: The national parties do not apportion delegates to states simply on the basis of either general or partisan population. (The Democratic rules are explained here, the Republican rules here.) For example, Tennessee has about the same number of residents as Washington state. But Tennessee will get 55 delegates at the Republican National Convention, while Washington is stuck with 40. The math involved in deciding delegate distribution is extraordinarily complex, involving the Electoral College, the strength of the local state party and other factors. Part of the formula used by Democrats reads like this: AF = ½ × ( ( SDV ÷ TDV ) + ( SEV ÷ 538 ) ). The bottom line is that no one will ever be able to say that any two delegates are created equal.

FACT: Not all votes will count. The Republican Party plans to punish every state that votes before Feb. 5 by denying half of that state's delegates access to the floor of the Republican Convention next year. At the same time, the Democratic Party is planning to punish the vast majority of its January voters, perhaps more than 2 million, by removing all the delegates from Florida and Michigan. Both parties are likely to reinstate the delegates later in the summer, but in the case of a contested convention, no one should hold their breath.

FACT: Political power brokers in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada have forced the Democratic candidates to pledge not to campaign in Michigan and Florida before the end of February, which means the citizens of those states will have to vote without ever seeing or hearing directly from their candidates. This is justified because Michigan and Florida disobeyed national party orders in order to hold their primaries in January. These states also have more voters than the four other states combined, threatening to upend the traditional hand-shaking privileges in the diners of Des Moines and Manchester. In the meantime, Democrats in two of the nation's largest states will never get to meet their leaders -- unless, as mentioned before, they throw a fundraiser.

About a week ago, Barack Obama traveled to Florida for a fundraiser at the home of Tom Scarritt, a Tampa trial lawyer. Afterward, he walked across the street and answered a half-dozen questions from reporters, a sin that prompted an immediate denial from the campaign. "It wasn't a news conference," claimed Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director. This is what it has come to: Presidential campaigns trying to deny that their candidates spoke in public. Even Obama cowered. "I was just doing you guys a favor," he told the Tampa Tribune, after a reporter in the street pointed out that he was breaking the rules by speaking outdoors, where the public might hear. "We won't do it again."

This travesty is unlikely to be fixed anytime soon. Congress shows no interest in entering the mix, and the Supreme Court, for the most part, has upheld the rights of parties to set their own rules. Florida Democrats are planning to file a lawsuit protesting their treatment, though legal experts say there is little chance of success. "It all goes back to the fact that our founding fathers did not believe in mass democracy, and they did not support the idea of political parties," says the University of Virginia's Sabato, who proposes changing the constitution to fix the problem in his new book, "A More Perfect Constitution."

Others point out that the current outrages are far less severe than the smoke-filled rooms of old, which nominated candidates like Warren G. Harding. Only 37 percent of delegates were selected through primaries in 1912, compared to 79 percent in 1996. As recently as 1968, Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic nomination without having run in any of the party's primary elections. But past failures do not excuse the current ones. Either the nation's political parties believe in the ideals of the nation, or they do not. They should be forced to decide.

[markalot]

The primaries have nothing to do with democracy. The writer understands that, but he thinks it's a scandal? The simple solution is to ignore the two parties and vote for who you want to win in the general election. If everyone did that the 2 party system would break down.

Generally the primaries produce the candidate with the best chance of winning the general election. It's not a coincidence that this is also the most POPULAR person. You're not going to see a party sacrifice their chance to win by nominating someone who the people didn't choose.

I've voted in exactly one primary in my entire life and that was for McCain over Bush. Didn't work out.

[the_birds]

I think what's new this year is the disenfranchisement of 2 whole states worth of voters and the punishment of their delegates, because they are just trying to be more relevant to the process.

Regardless, the reconfiguration of the primaries will effect the choices, mainly by everything happening very quickly. If one of the 2nd place candidates like Obama or Thompson could release a bombshell right before the start of the Primaries, with the speed of selection this year, it could rapidly swing the momentum of the election to their favor, with little or no ability for the front runner to retaliate or re-establish position.

[Motti]

I'm not sure why I did this.

Edwards 37
Dodd 37
Kucinich 35
Clinton 32
Obama 32
Biden 28
Giuliani 28

GO EDWARDS! :p

PS: Geez, just about every candidate is in favor of the death penalty. :confused:

[seafoamgreen]

I've voted in exactly one primary in my entire life and that was for McCain over Bush. Didn't work out.

where else am I going to get a chance to vote for Al Sharpton?

and i'm wondering, as a regular primary voter, if there's going to be a separate vote for Joe Biden and his huge fucking ego.

because i'd vote for his huge fucking ego.

[markalot]

I think what's new this year is the disenfranchisement of 2 whole states worth of voters and the punishment of their delegates, because they are just trying to be more relevant to the process.

Regardless, the reconfiguration of the primaries will effect the choices, mainly by everything happening very quickly. If one of the 2nd place candidates like Obama or Thompson could release a bombshell right before the start of the Primaries, with the speed of selection this year, it could rapidly swing the momentum of the election to their favor, with little or no ability for the front runner to retaliate or re-establish position.

Bush lost New Hampshire. I have yet to see proof that losing early means a decent candidate won't get the nomination. Typically if you lose a few early it's because you aren't likely to win any.

I don't think voters in primaries can or will be disenfranchised. If the dems want to destroy themselves they'll ignore ballots from states that would give someone else the nomination. Not going to happen. Hillary is going to run away with this and the 'punishment' will be glossed over.

[dry-gulcher]

I don't want to bomb Iran, I want to scare the shit out of them. If you talk weak then you are weak.
WEAK! We all are! there are so many countries we should bomb!
We really missed the oportunity to get w/ Putin and carve up this planet like a pot-roast!
Theres oil, gold, diamonds, and best of all gatchinas!
I think we could work a deal for a trade for the gatchinas (Brazil has an excess they'd like to unload) but for the rest of the world...
BOMB THE SNOT OUT OF EM!
Anyway this thread was about Queen Hillary
I got her ensconched in third place polling: rudy 45% ,Ron Paul 19 % Hillary 13%.
Afterall I have maintianed all along she's Cruella DeVille, Nancy Zimpher, and the Antichrist all rolled into one.

[GoWest]

Bush lost New Hampshire. I have yet to see proof that losing early means a decent candidate won't get the nomination.
A candidate can lose one. If they loose two of the first three, they they are done.

Typically if you lose a few early it's because you aren't likely to win any.
This could be true. For me, it's a chicken or the egg type question. Do the rest of the states pick the candidate that does best in Iowa / NH / SC because that's the best candidate, or do they pick that person because they are on top?