Polls Contradict Rudy's Blue-State Claim
A new round of polling from SurveyUSA would seem to totally undermine a central claim of Rudy Giuliani's candidacy — namely, that he can put some usually safe-Democratic state into contention.
"We need a candidate that, you know, the day after the nomination, we don't close down our offices in 20 or 25 states, like we've been doing," Rudy said recently to the Republican Jewish Coalition. "We don't win the next election if we don't run a campaign in New York and California. I tell you, we don't."
As it turns out, a poll released Monday showed Giuliani losing California to Hillary Clinton by a 55%-39% margin. And as for his home state of New York — it's even worse, with Hillary beating Rudy by an astonishing 64%-30% margin in a poll released on Tuesday.
Comments (75)
CalD wrote on October 31, 2007 10:35 PM:Last poll I saw, Giuliani couldn't even put New Jersey on the table.
dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 10:43 PM:A very strong case for the Dems to nominate Hillary. She takes off the table some very important Dem-safe states that would likely be in contention if either Edwards or Obama goes against Rudy. It is usually considered a Quixotic quest for a GOP candidate for POTUS to attempt to compete in CA and NY, but Rudy would try, and might even be effective unless his opponent is Hillary...
Every poll has shown this and she seems to be doing better with each new poll that comes out.
Electoral vote calculus favors a Clinton win, which is not as clear with the other top Dem candidates...
Tim wrote on October 31, 2007 10:52 PM:By "blue states," Rudy means Pennsylvania and Ohio. Pennsylvania is the big worry. Hillary has only a slight lead over Rudy in the Keystone state. Ohio is a red state that looks bluer everyday.
OxyCon wrote on October 31, 2007 10:58 PM:I'm sorry, but lately every time I see a photo of Rudy Giuliani, I immediately begin to see Benito Mussolini.
I really think those two are cut from the same cloth.
http://www.antipodean.com/cgi-bin/antipodean/10654
I think the combination of this poll and the ridicule he was subjected to by Biden makes for a very rough month ahead for Giudy. I want him to become a joke, but still win the GOP nomination. Maybe Dodd may want to cite these polls in the next debate.
Heliograph wrote on October 31, 2007 11:51 PM:Think again?
Wow, what do people smoke around here? I want some.
The latest Survey USA poll that I checked, matching Hillary Clinton against Rudy Giuliani, shows (sickeningly) Giuliani winning the electoral vote in a landslide. That's right, folks, the SUSA poll from last week shows Giuliani winning the electoral vote in a laugher.
I can't access the very latest SUSA head-to-head matchup between Clinton and Giuliani right now, but I doubt that it has changed substantially since I checked it last week. In light of this, does the fact that Hillary Clinton leads Giuliani in New York and California somehow matter?
I don't get this. What's the point of this "Ihink Again" post? To paint a false picture of Hillary Clinton's dominance over Giuliani? From what I've seen as recently as last week, it is not even remotely true that Hillary is whipping Rudy in the (admittedly very premature) Presidential polls (at least the one that matters, and that is the electoral college results). Quite the opposite. Sober up, folks, Campaign '08 is going to be a scary, harrowing, exhausting battle.
(Of course, we should all remember that, "if the election were held today" people would be mightily pissed -- it's supposed to be held next November.)
Rick B wrote on November 1, 2007 12:06 AM:It comes down to Giuliani and Romney, and I don't think the evangelists will swallow Romney's Mormonism. Romney looks bigger than he is partly because of his self-financing.
For the Evangelists, Rudy is the contra-Hillary candidate, and that will outweigh his softness on abortion and homosexuals. If he looks like a winner to the economic Republicans they will go with him also. Then his pro-war stance and authoritarianism play well with both groups. So my bet is that he gets the nomination.
I think the evangelist leaders have written off any Republican President in 2008, so their goal is to remain the major power within the Republican Party. They will do that if they select the nominee, and if they try to go with Romney, the danger is that too many evangelist Republicans will sit out the primaries and the election. But they will come out for Giuliani in the primaries, and they will come out against Hillary in the general election. Assuming they do, then the evangelist Republicans remain a major national political power in the Republican Party. If the social conservatives don't come out to vote then the evangelist leaders are reduced to the South and the Christian networks again, as the had been until the Christian Coalition got big in the Republican Party. So my bet is that we will see a Clinton - Giuliani Presidential election in 2008.
In any case, this is going to be the nastiest election anyone alive today has ever seen, and when Hillary wins, as she probably will, the nastiness will step up rather than go down. I think Hillary can handle that, but I don't think any other Democratic candidate for the nomination can. Particularly not Obama. He doesn't have the experience.
It's a year from the election, and the shape of it seems to be getting much clearer already.
moondancer wrote on November 1, 2007 12:21 AM:Giuliani fairs poorly in Pa as well. I think the reverse is worth looking at. I think Rudy's New Yawk thing will bring some traditional red states into play.
Clinton has very high negatives, but so will Rudy when hard campaigning starts. As often happens Rudy vs. Hillary would be crap from both parties.
There is really very little difference between the two. That means both ends of the spectrum will be unhappy but progressives more so. I cannot figure why people persist in calling HRC liberal or progressive, she is a main street conservative. There is not a single policy on which she takes a progressive stance.
Martin Gale wrote on November 1, 2007 12:27 AM:Somebody above said it really well, referencing the SUSA. I just wanted to add that the problem with a Giuliani candidacy isn't that he's a threat in blue states, but that he will draw enough blue voters in purple states to win the whole thing. It doesn't matter if he gets slaughtered in Vermont and California; as long as he pulls the red states + Ohio, Florida and an few of the purples (NM, IA, NH), it's over. He is also a threat to win Pennsylvania, a must-win state for the Dems. People really need to start paying attention to this stuff now while there's still time, and look at the candidates who have the best chance of beating Giuliani at his own game. I guarantee you it's what the wingers and their moneymen are doing with Clinton.
WeLuvHaHa wrote on November 1, 2007 12:45 AM:Moondancer, what planet are you from? Do you know ANYTHING about Clinton's history? Why don't you do some research. Clinton has been fighting for maternity leave and health care since she was in college. She worked closely with the founders of the Children's Defense Fund when she could have been cashing in on straight-for-profit corporations. She went to China and offended her hosts by bringing up their mistreatment of women. She's worked on every issue relevant to women's lives - from rape to sexual slavery to drive-through births. What you are seeing in Clinton is a progressive liberal who has learned that you can't get what you want if you alienate all the people who have power. To wit: Kucinich.
hoppy wrote on November 1, 2007 12:57 AM:Lots of wishful thinking going on among Democrats. The 2008 election will not be an easy victory for any Democratic candidate, and especially not for Ms Clinton. With the huge negatives she arouses she will stand a very iffy chance to win no matter who the Repubs run.
News flash! Bush will not be the Repub candidate, so the universal disgust with Bush will not help Democrats at all. My best guess is that we are going to have to learn how to spell and correctly pronounce JulieAnnie, with the title "President" preceding it. That is really a shame. This would be the best chance we Democrats could ever hope for to win the presidency back, but we just don't have a winning candidate this time around.
Mike B. wrote on November 1, 2007 1:24 AM:Lord. Every metric on Earth favors the Democrats this year, and every poll shows Hillary the strongest Democrat, and people are still weeping and whining about her lack of electability. Don't think she's electable? Go bust your ass for Edwards or Obama. Then, when that inevitably fails, do the same for her. Stop bitching about the futility of her campaign while she is *winning*.
I can kind of understand why Republicans hate us so much--from the evidence above, we *do* suck. Let's try not to kneecap our own candidates in advance if we don't want to live under Ghouliani (am I getting that right?).
Fred wrote on November 1, 2007 1:29 AM:I disagree. No matter who the Dems put up they will win, unless some baby eating pictures turn up.
The question then turns to one of mandate, and coattails.
-will Clinton (or Obama, or Edwards) be able to advance their agenda with a 52-53% win? Bush was able to do it with 51% because of the unnerving support he received from Republicans in Congress. The Democratic President will never get that kind of support.
-poll after poll is showing that Democrats are losing support because of their timidity on Iraq and other issues. The voters aren't going to give Dems a lot of chances on this, so it is probably better for Dems in Congress for a non-Clinton to get the nod.
fishbrake wrote on November 1, 2007 1:36 AM:Everyone in New York knows that, in general, people in the rest of the state hate New York City. As far as gathering votes being mayor here is a minus, not a plus.
Anonymous wrote on November 1, 2007 1:55 AM:Mike B.: Nobody I know is "weeping and whining" about Hillary being un-electable, certainly not me. And I don't give a damn if a single Republican in this world loves me. But let's get real here. Not EVERY metric is favoring Democrats. Read my post above carefully: The national SUSA poll pitting Hillary Clinton against Rudy Giuliani shows Giuliani absolutely crushing Clinton in the electoral vote totals. You can check it out yourself if you don't believe me -- just go to the SUSA web site and match Clinton against Giuliani. Last week, Giuliani's electoral vote total was projected to be nearly 400. And no other Democrat (except Al Gore) does as well as Hillary Clinton.
I know, it's October of 2007, not October 2008. But what's the point of gloating about Hillary Clinton's big leads in the polls over Giuliani in California and New York? So what? Giuliani has even more impressive leads over Clinton in plenty of Red states.
Pointing out that Hillary Clinton is starting in a deep hole against Rudy Giuliani isn't "kneecapping," it's realism. This is going to be an ugly, difficult, and potentially (for progressives, and for the United States of America) devastating election. It will take every bit of luck, determination, strategy, guts, and hand-to-hand, precinct-by-precinct combat for a Democrat to win in '08. Not to mention the battle that will need to be waged to counter the mainstream media's bias against Democrats and worship of Giuliani. The feel-good post above by Eric Kleefeld contributes nothing except a false sense of confidence in Hillary Clinton's current position in the polls. In reality, and in the big picture, Hillary Clinton's poll numbers (and those of all other Democrats) look pretty dismal in terms of projected electoral college totals.
Oops, post above to Mike B. was mine, forgot to fill in username.
BlueNH wrote on November 1, 2007 1:59 AM:"I'm sorry, but lately every time I see a photo of Rudy Giuliani, I immediately begin to see Benito Mussolini. I really think those two are cut from the same cloth." -- OxyCon
Yup. In fact, the only reason that the similarity isn't pointed out a lot more often is that Giuliani's Italian, and he would, and does, whip out his "anti-Italian mafia/fascist stereotype" card and cry bigotry the second anyone cries "fascist".
It's the same with Lieberman: objective analysis of reality reveals him to be a stooge of banking interests and Israel who has smarmily dissembled his way into power. Which is the classic anto-Semitic stereotype, so we can't criticize Lieberman on it, or people would call us bigots.
This is why I'm so glad I'm a male WASP; in spite of the fact that my people are behind the vast majority of violence, idiocy and suffering in this country, my ethnicity still doesn't make me suspect in anyone's eyes. Meantime, blacks who express non-Cheneyite opinions on the national stage still get called on to denounce Louis Farrakhan every five minutes. And women can't even run for high office in this country without constantly putting out the message that they're ice cold bitches who'll bomb Iran if it so much as grovels the wrong way.
webmonkey wrote on November 1, 2007 5:15 AM:The narrative for this election has already gone a bit screwy. I think this is an interesting post with regard to who the debate has been framed wrong from the beginning.
http://blog.skewz.com/2007/11/latest-narrative-existential-crisis.html
webmonkey wrote on November 1, 2007 5:16 AM:The narrative for this election has already gone a bit screwy. I think this is an interesting post with regard to who the debate has been framed wrong from the beginning.
http://blog.skewz.com/2007/11/latest-narrative-existential-crisis.html
Michael wrote on November 1, 2007 6:50 AM:Heliograph, where is the latest SUSA poll that showed a Giuliani landslide against Hillary?
Their latest poll had Giuliani losing against Hillary in OR (-5%), MN (-11%), WI (-7%), WA (-7%) and even IO (-5%) and MO (-7%). They tie in NM, OH and even in VA and KY!!!
From those numbers I don't see a landslide, but a comfortable Hillary win.
sabatia wrote on November 1, 2007 6:56 AM:To the poster who keeps saying the SurveyUSA survey shows Rudy trouncing Hillary: The latest results are posted on this very page, though admittedly not by electoral votes. They show Hillary trouncing Rudy. I can't imagine an electoral college victory for Rudy with a lop-sided 59-36 for Hillary. What are you reading or smokin'?
On the other hand, I am concerned that while Obama attracts many progressives, he also attracts moderate Repugs who do not share progressive values at all and will come back to the GOP if anyone other than Obama is nominated. All of the Dems need to commit to each other that they will strongly support the D nominee and encourage all their supporters to do the same.
Heliograph: "The latest Survey USA poll that I checked, matching Hillary Clinton against Rudy Giuliani, shows (sickeningly) Giuliani winning the electoral vote in a landslide."
Well, I just Googled SurveyUSA, and went to their web page.
I didn't find a 50 state electoral college breakdown, but found results for the following states:
Rudy leading in: Kansas, New Mexico, Alabama, and Oklahoma.
Hillary leading in: Kentucky, Iowa, Missouri, New York, California, Virginia (!), Florida, Massachusettes, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio.
Tied in Washington.
No reults were listed for Pennsylvania or Texas, unfortunately.
However, I think the data listed above pretty much kills your contention that SurveyUSA shows Giulani beating Clinton in a landslide.
If you'd like to take a look for yourself, I found the data by clicking through polling results listed at: http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx
Douglas wrote on November 1, 2007 7:03 AM:Heliograph, you appear to be a mendacious bag of waste material. I did look at the SUSA website and nothing bears out your claims.
JGabriel wrote on November 1, 2007 7:08 AM:Just to be clear, the results I listed above at 7:-1 AM, ar for Clinton v. Giulani matchups.
DTM wrote on November 1, 2007 7:39 AM:People looking at head-to-head polls right now for an answer to the "electability" issue are deluding themselves. Historically there is a strong bandwagon effect which causes a potential candidate's head-to-head numbers to rise when people perceive that candidate as doing well in the primaries.
For example, in early February 2004, after Kerry won both Iowa and NH, the head-to-head polls started showing him ahead of Bush and doing better against Bush than his remaining primary rivals (Edwards and Clark). Did that mean that Kerry was actually the most electable nominee? No. It just was a classic demonstration of the bandwagon effect.
In the end there is no easy answer to the electability question, and certainly head-to-head polls won't provide you with a reliable answer. Rather, you have to try to understand the basic dynamics of presidential elections and figure out who is most likely to benefit from those dynamics. That is why Kerry was not in fact the most electable Democrat in 2004, no matter what the head-to-head polls showed in early February: he was not the right candidate given the predictable dynamics of presidential elections.
And on that subject, I will once again note that by far the best confirmed hypothesis in modern presidential elections is that the most likeable candidate tends to win (easily trumping funding, electoral experience, and even incumbency). And although Democrats may find this hard to understand, it appears so far that the two most likeable Republican candidates are Rudy and McCain.
It would therefore be extremely foolish for Democrats to write off the chances of those two possible candidates in states like PA, MI, MN, or WI (states Kerry barely won, I would note), no matter what the head to head polls currently show. And the only rational strategy for the Democrats would be to figure out who among their credible candidates is at least as likeable as Rudy and McCain, and nominate one of those people.
Fortunately, it turns out that the Democrats have a lot of such choices available to them--several candidates in their field appear to be roughly as likeable as Rudy and McCain. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has exhibited in the past a tendency to choose unlikeable candidates, and has even rationalized them as their most electable candidates! In my lifetime, this has happened with Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry: all of them were pitched as the most "electable" candidate, all of them were not particularly likeable, and all of them lost. The only time in recent history that the Democrats broke out of this pattern was when they went with the very likeable Bill Clinton, and that is the only time they actually won.
So, can the Democrats break out of whatever flawed mindset has led them to nominate the likes of Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry? Will they do the rational thing and offer the American people a candidate that the American people are prepared to like? I don't know, but I hope so.
loki wrote on November 1, 2007 8:19 AM:DTM,
A candidate people are prepared to like? That's what it's going to take? Oh boy...
I won't bother to go back as far as Mondale and Dukakis, but regarding Gore and Kerry:
Gore actually had more votes nation wide and in the critical state of Florida. He won!
Kerry received more votes than any other candidate in American electoral history...except for, unfortunately, Bush. However, even in that there is much concern over the votes in Ohio.
There is so much more to it than your "likability" theory.
dcshungu wrote on November 1, 2007 8:21 AM:Michael wrote on November 1, 2007 6:50 AM:Heliograph, where is the latest SUSA poll that showed a Giuliani landslide against Hillary?
Their latest poll had Giuliani losing against Hillary in OR (-5%), MN (-11%), WI (-7%), WA (-7%) and even IO (-5%) and MO (-7%). They tie in NM, OH and even in VA and KY!!!
From those numbers I don't see a landslide, but a comfortable Hillary win.
It is scary that I find myself agreeing with "Michael", but I kept wondering how this claim could even be possible:
The national SUSA poll pitting Hillary Clinton against Rudy Giuliani shows Giuliani absolutely crushing Clinton in the electoral vote totals. You can check it out yourself if you don't believe me -- just go to the SUSA web site and match Clinton against Giuliani. Last week, Giuliani's electoral vote total was projected to be nearly 400. And no other Democrat (except Al Gore) does as well as Hillary Clinton.
"Heliograph", care to provide a link? "Michael" has provided some states where Rudy is running a deficit against HRC. Add to those the electoral vote-rich states of NY and CA, where Clinton is absolutely crushing Rudy, and one must wonder what is it that you are smoking. Either that or your Anybody-But-Clinton dementia is doing nasty stuff to whatever remains of your gray matter.
With Clinton leading Rudy in virtually every Blue state that had gone for Kerry, as well as in some purple states and AR, it defies logic to claim that he's "absolutely crushing" HRC. If anything, were the election to be held today, pitting Rudy against HRC, it would be a very bad day for Rudy.
Meanwhile, we'll be waiting with baited breath to be enlightened on the electoral calculus that has Rudy managing to get 400 electoral votes while trailing HRC in every blue state, including NY and CA, and having no chance in AR.
loki,
So what lesson are we supposed to learn from what happened to Gore and Kerry? Here is my suggested lesson: the way for Democrats to avoid such outcomes is to win in a large enough fashion that these are not even issues. So, I think you are actually supporting, not contradicting, my basic point.
But there is a broader point you raise as well. If Gore and Kerry were so unlikeable, how did they even keep it close (and in Gore's case, actually win the popular vote)? The answer is that the American people in both cases preferred the Democrats on the issues. They just didn't like the candidates that the Democrats offered to run on those issues.
And the great news for Democrats is that in this upcoming election, it is highly likely that the American people will once again prefer the Democrats on the issues. So, the Democrats have an excellent chance of doing what I suggested: winning a big victory. The only way they could really undermine that systematic ideological advantage would be to choose an unpopular candidate to run on their otherwise popular platform.
And that is completely unnecessary. By my count, there are five people in the Democratic field who are both credible candidates and generally likeable, and if you take any of those five people and put them together with the Democrats' systematic ideological advantage, they should be in a great position to win the general election by a substantial margin. I think you could refine this further and try to figure out who among those five is the most likeable, but a reasonable case could be made for any of them.
So why isn't it that simple, at least as a first cut to narrowing down the candidates? Seriously, why would any party with a popular platform not also choose one of their more likeable candidate to run on that platform?
Unfortunately, for whatever reason it is a fact that the Democrats have repeatedly decided not to follow such a simple strategy, and have lost every time they departed from it. And while it may be comforting to think that Gore and possibly Kerry SHOULD have won, the fact is that there were no Presidents Gore and Kerry.
So I really hope the Democrats do not aspire to repeat the Gore and Kerry approach, and I really hope that they study the likes of Reagan and Clinton and figure out how to actually win big. Because by all rights, the Democrats should win big this time.
loki wrote on November 1, 2007 8:57 AM:test, please ignoreloki wrote on November 1, 2007 8:59 AM:
Thanks for the tip, dcshungu!
dcshungu wrote on November 1, 2007 9:11 AM:Please let's stop hyperventilating. As of now, Hillary is by far the strongest candidate that the Dems have to field in the general election. The wingnuts, with their Hillary Derangement Syndrome (HDS), are flabbergasted that poll after poll shows her leading so comfortably. They cannot reconcile their internal view of Hillary as "evil incarnate" with what the polls are showing, creating a deafening cognitive dissonance that seems to further disorient them. Well, that is because HDS constantly clouds their minds and vision, to where they even spew dimwits like "Hillary is a Repub", despite the fact that she has the best "Progressive" record of the top Dem candidates. Just a couple of posts before this one, TPM-EC had a new Pew survey that provides the strongest support yet for Hillary's GE strength. As with nearly all Pew polls, the sample size (n = 2000) was relatively large in comparison to most other surveys, which made the MOE (+/- 2.3) very small. The Pew survey is hardly some crackpot enterprise that manipulates numbers to make HRC seem "inevitable", as the crackpots usually allege. Here's their latest... again, as posted on EC:
The new Pew Research poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Rudy Giuliani by a 51%-43% margin — calling into question the conventional wisdom about Rudy's electability and Hillary's supposed lack thereof.In the primaries, Hillary leads the Democrats with 45%, followed by Barack Obama at 24% and John Edwards with 12%. Among Republicans, Rudy leads with 31%, followed by John McCain at 18%, Fred Thompson with 17%, and Mitt Romney at 9%.
President Bush continues to have a lousy approval rating, with 30% approval to 63% disapproval.
Then there is this from the poll's "internals" as summarized by "Campaign Diaries":
Another very interesting finding is that 76% of Clinton backers say they are voting "for Hillary" rather than against the Republican (only 20). This is the highest affirmative vote a Democrats has obtained since Pew first asked the question in 1988. The previous high was 66% for Clinton in 1996. As a comparison, only 43% of Kerry voters were voting "for Kerry" in 2004. The reverse holds among Giuliani backers, where 46% are voting "for Giuliani" and 50% "against Clinton" -- once again a record of negative voting for GOPers since 1988. This underscores how much this race is about Hillary Clinton.
The notion that Hillary will rally the Repub is true only to the extent that it would motivate the 30% or so that still supports Bush and would never vote for her, anyway. There is also a small minority of leftwingnut cases that feels the same about HRC and would "sit this one out" if she is the Dem nominee. But most people (D or R) are not as rabid and "passionate" as you presume them to be. Hillary's so-called negatives are "high" because she has already been through the mill. Kerry's negatives were 13-20% at the start of the 2004 GE campaign, by the time he'd been through the "mill", they were where Hillary's are today. A very good thing is that Hillary's "negs" do not have any place to go and are already known, so therefore, those who support her do it in spite of them. That is why her lead has endured and is likely to endure. All the other candidates' "negs" still have plenty of the room to "grow", and the only place they could go is up. You can be sure that the legendary Repub smear machine will booted up and ready for business, and the only person it won't be able to do a whole lot to is... you guessed it... Hillary!
Simple common sense is all that it required to see the merit in my arguments, but since HDS won't let you exercise your common sense, you'll come here every day and pontificate without regards to what is right in front of your face...
loki wrote on November 1, 2007 9:12 AM:DTM said: "So what lesson are we supposed to learn from what happened to Gore and Kerry? Here is my suggested lesson: the way for Democrats to avoid such outcomes is to win in a large enough fashion that these are not even issues. So, I think you are actually supporting, not contradicting, my basic point."
Yes, I suspected you'd respond that if only they were more likable they'd have *really* won.
My contention is that they weren't unlikable. That many other factors (MSM war on Gore, inscessant chants of "9/11, 9/11, 9/11!!", very timely ratcheting up of color coded threats...and much, much more!) contributed to their "loss." Opie Taylor couldn't have done any better in the exact same situation.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should pick the biggest asshole and hope for the best. But there is far more to it than simple "likability." So much more!
This may be one of those rare cases that the choice of a running mate may make a big difference, ie, Bill Richardson luring the Hispanic vote or Atilla the Hun for Rudy.
Mare Nostrum wrote on November 1, 2007 9:29 AM:And here's another clue for you all -- Pew has Hillary crushing Rudy, even carrying the South (!?!)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6644.html
dcshungu wrote on November 1, 2007 9:33 AM:DTM sez:
But there is a broader point you raise as well. If Gore and Kerry were so unlikeable, how did they even keep it close (and in Gore's case, actually win the popular vote)? The answer is that the American people in both cases preferred the Democrats on the issues. They just didn't like the candidates that the Democrats offered to run on those issues.
Americans are divided almost equally amongst the two major parties, so that the likelihood of either side winning the presidency by a landslide is very low these days. Elections for POTUS will always be uncomfortably close for the foreseeable future. The notion that Gore lost the electoral vote because he was not well liked is only part of the story. Bush was not that popular in 2004 and Kerry and Edwards should have won comfortably had they run a half way decent campaign. With elections for POTUS sure to be very close every time, the side that manages to hold onto its voting base and avoids splitting its vote, while stealing just a state or two from the other side would win comfortably. That is what happened to Gore in 2000. The Naderites' quest for an ideologically "pure" (read: a "true" liberal) led them to vote for Nader, throwing the election to the Village Idiot. That would happen again if HRC is the Dem nominee and the netroots and wingnuts, who want an ideologically "pure" candidate, decide "to sit this one out." Bill Clinton had beaten Poppy Bush because Perot split GOP vote. Again, a little bit of thought and look at voting patterns would show this to be the case. Likability is a malleable concept that a good "smear machine" can shape in various ways.
dcshungu wrote on November 1, 2007 9:36 AM:oki wrote on November 1, 2007 8:59 AM:Thanks for the tip, dcshungu!
Je vous en prie, c'est mon plaiser!
DCS, NYC
ooops! "plaisir"
eli wrote on November 1, 2007 9:54 AM:Life doesn't end on Election Day. If the Dem candidate is fortunate enough to win the election, and win the court fight AFTER the election, there's still the little matter of actually GOVERNING for the next 4 years.
You know the GOP, FOX and the whole right wing noise machine aren't going to meekly close up shop. They'll keep on sliming and smearing, 24x7x52x4. Which Dem hopeful is best prepared to deal with THAT, and still manage to ACCOMPLISH anything? Being "nice" or "bringing us all together" just won't cut it.
Heretic wrote on November 1, 2007 9:56 AM:Well, I was gonna chime in earlier on the clearly delusional heliograph, but it appears my work has been done for me. The poll he refers to does not exist. A review of the individual state polls on Surveryusa.com shows Hillary winning the electoral college comfortably. Nevertheless, as other posters have pointed out, there are many variables that could upset this electoral calculus.
Personally, I think Obama is less electable than Hillary and he would be mercilessly slammed on the experience issue (whether valid or not...his fate is pretty much sealed on that account at this point). Edwards would get slammed on his class warfare mentality (which I like about him). Many indies won't won't feel safe in their homes with Obama and they won't feel secure in their assets with Edwards. Both of these concerns are no doubt bogus, but people are weak and easily manipulated.
Personally, I just don't like Obama. He comes off as a smarmy, hyper-religious poser who is overly ambitious at this stage of his career. If he ever wants to be president at some point in his career, the best thing he could do is drop out now and throw his support to HRC.
bocawayne wrote on November 1, 2007 10:08 AM:It's just so darn early, people. I see a lot of wishful thinking on here too, from both sides.
DTM wrote on November 1, 2007 10:17 AM:dcshungu,
A couple factual corrections.
First, it is not true that unfavorable ratings necessarily increase during a general election campaign. That did happen with Kerry, but it did not happen with Bill Clinton: in 1992 he peaked at around 40% unfavorable in the summer, and following the convention his unfavorables actually trended back down into the 30s by the election. Of course they threw the book at him: tax-raising, pot-smoking, draft-dodging, "rumors" of affairs ... but in his case, it didn't work.
Second, your information about party affiliation is out of date. The parties were roughly equal from about 2001 to 2005. But starting in 2006 the Democrats began to accumulate an advantage, and in Pew's latest survey the Democrats had an amazing 50-36 party affiliation edge.
loki,
If you look at the polls surrounding both the 2000 and 2004 elections, you will find that overal the people preferred both Gore and Kerry over Bush on the issues. They just preferred Bush on the personal dimensions.
I agree, though, that the electability calculation gets more complicated once you narrow your field down to the most likeable ones, and thus I would not suggest that likeability is the only factor one should consider in the end. But certainly history suggests likeability is the first thing one should consider, before moving on to those secondary consideration, and that it would be extremely unwise not to be picking from among your most likeable candidates.
DTM wrote on November 1, 2007 10:20 AM:Heretic,
Interestingly, there is very little evidence that experience is particularly important to voters in presidential elections. For example, both Clinton beating Bush I and Bush II beating Gore are excellent examples of by far the more experienced candidate losing.
dcshungu wrote on November 1, 2007 10:39 AM: And here's another clue for you all -- Pew has Hillary crushing Rudy, even carrying the South (!?!)Thanks for the link, which is a "must read" for those who wish to pontificate about Hillary's purported unelectability. The problem some us (whose background is rooted in the "hard" quantitative sciences requiring "proof") have with the pontificators is that they never try to use available information to make their point. Political "Science" is an inexact "science" for which public opinion polls are perhaps the only measure available for beginning to "quantify" campaign dynamics. It is why politicians cannot live without polls and campaigns would die without them. Though modern polling is very good at capturing opinions at the time that they taken, its predictive value of the final outcome is limited. The usual caveat about polls' unpredictability is therefore always valid. However, knowing the prevalent opinion at any moment is very valuable for a number of obvious reasons, one of which is that it shapes perceptions and expectations, which can clearly alter campaign dynamics (e.g., Edwards is broke and all but out because poll after poll showed him to be trailing Obama and Clinton for so long that he was ultimately seen as an also-ran who was not worth supporting).
For an indication of how Hillary squares off against Rudy, follow the link below and THEN pontificate. Go on, click on it!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6644.html
Kickbass wrote on November 1, 2007 10:45 AM:Rudy is a train wreck waiting to happen. Most of the folks who support him are yet unaware of the specifics on his flip-flopping on immigration, his complicated family history, rooming with gay guys, dressing in drag, organized crime connections of his close associates, etc., etc. His propensity for saying stuff that is really dumb is another significant danger for his candidacy. It very possible(likely) that he won't be the GOP presidential nominee at all.
On the other hand, it is unlikely that the floundering Obama and Edwards campaigns, by continuing to attack Hillary, will be able to do much other than to do significant damage to Clinton's image while providing thematic material to Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Chris Matthews, Melinda Hennenberger and a host of other crypto-anti-liberal-corporate-media-toadies who will be trashing Hillary right up through November, 2008 (and beyond if she is elected). Bradley played the same role, providing ammo for Gore critics in 2000.
dcshungu wrote on November 1, 2007 10:58 AM:DTM wrote on November 1, 2007 10:17 AM:dcshungu,
A couple factual corrections.
First, it is not true that unfavorable ratings necessarily increase during a general election campaign. That did happen with Kerry, but it did not happen with Bill Clinton: in 1992 he peaked at around 40% unfavorable in the summer, and following the convention his unfavorables actually trended back down into the 30s by the election. Of course they threw the book at him: tax-raising, pot-smoking, draft-dodging, "rumors" of affairs ... but in his case, it didn't work.
Exactment! It did not work because of where Bill Clinton's (and Hillary's) politics are...squarely at the Center of the American political divide, where most people are and where elections are won! Hillary's so-called "high negatives" are a myth perpetuated by the "echo chamber" of MSM, netroots, and wingnuts who are the loudest people I know.
When pollsters speak to individual voters, two things happen: (a) The voters express their personal deeply felt support for Hillary (76% are voting "for her" according to the Pew survey), but then (b) on the likability question, they respond on the basis of what they might have heard on T.V. and the echo chamber ("polarizing", "high negatives", "unlikable", "power hungry", "ambitious", "cold and calculating"...)
If this not plausible then you must reconcile her so-called "high negatives" with her stratospheric poll numbers. Remember that she was trailing all the GOP candidates early on when people just had a fuzzy idea of who she really was. All they knew about her was what they'd heard in the noise machine. And then she began to appear in public and in debates and they saw someone else, then chose to believe their onw lying eyes... It is why is leading in the polls.
dcshungu wrote on November 1, 2007 11:18 AM:Kickbass wrote on November 1, 2007 10:45 AM:Rudy is a train wreck waiting to happen. Most of the folks who support him are yet unaware of the specifics on his flip-flopping on immigration, his complicated family history, rooming with gay guys, dressing in drag, organized crime connections of his close associates, etc., etc.
Very true. I am sure that HRC's "oppo researchers" have been doing a little bit of "political anthropology", digging all the dirty they can on Rudy's shady connections. His closet is full of corpses of which Bernie Kerrick is just the best mummified to have been uncovered. If you thought Bush was bad, you're wrong. Rudy would make tghe Village Idiot seem like a choirboy. It is why he is trailing HRC by 34% (!) in NY. We know them both and know we would rather have as POTUS. The whole country will sooner or later become privy of this knowledge.
I would not worry too much about Hillary's negatives going higher due to more echo chamber noise. She is already a known quantity, and that is one of her strongest assets against the GOP in the GE.
Gotta go...
Hasta la vista!
dc, you are way, way too funny. I keep asking this and you keep ignoring it. How is your boss "centrist" on the iraq debacle? She wants to keep us there indefinitely and 70% of the population want us out yesterday? How is her warmongering position possibly centrist? How is 70% of the population left-wing, wacko peacenicks, who are out of the "mainstream." You just love polls, so how do you rectify this? She is playing to the repuke base with her war position, why? I don't get it. It's clearly not a centrist position, it's a repuke position.
Anonymous wrote on November 1, 2007 11:30 AM:a template for future headlines:
"______ Contradict(s) Rudy's ________ Claim"
the possibilites are endless!
Anonymous wrote on November 1, 2007 11:44 AM:Michael wrote on November 1, 2007 11:27 AM:dc, you are way, way too funny. I keep asking this and you keep ignoring it. How is your boss "centrist" on the iraq debacle? She wants to keep us there indefinitely and 70% of the population want us out yesterday? How is her warmongering position possibly centrist? How is 70% of the population left-wing, wacko peacenicks, who are out of the "mainstream." You just love polls, so how do you rectify this? She is playing to the repuke base with her war position, why? I don't get it. It's clearly not a centrist position, it's a repuke position.
I keep ignoring you because (1) I have now addressed the stupidity of the rant about the AUMF vote ad nauseam (it is disqualifying only to the wingnuts...got it?) and am feeling nauseous, and (2) there is usually nothing to address in most of your posts, as the one above clearly shows.
Bye Micheal. Do not forget to take your meds (main ingredient: Benzodiezepines)... :-)
DCS, NYC
Michael wrote on November 1, 2007 12:21 PM:dc, I am not talking about AUMF, I am talking about her current policy position. Typical convenient dodge on discussing polling that cuts against your boss. I thought that you were the polling guru. So I take it according to your boss, 70% of the population are "wingnuts." I'd love to see a campaign commercial to that effect.
Hope you feel better, you should stop drinking so early in the morning, it's not good for you.
Michael wrote on November 1, 2007 12:31 PM:dc, incidentally, I haven't seen any postings from you addressing giving the king a blank check to start the war in Iraq. Your buddy, colon, did and she said that your boss was wrong.
What say you about giving the king a blank check on Iraq? What about the failure to read the NIE that said the king's case for war was bs? How can we possibly trust your boss on a weighty matter as president, when she didn't even take the time to read the NIE on a matter as important as invading a country and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Oh, that's right she was taking acting lessons to run for president as opposed to doing her job as a sitting senator.
Your continuous dodges are too funny. Anyway, how can 70% of the population be left-wing, lunatic, fringe element, wacko, pinkos, wingnuts, etc. I'm sure that you can come up with some more attack statements to piss off more people. Keep it up. I haven't heard of a person winning an election when 70% of the population is against them. Have you?
Heliograph wrote on November 1, 2007 12:40 PM:So I'm being called "clearly delusional" (user Heretic) and a "mendacious bag of waste material" (user Douglas) and generally a liar because I cited last week's SUSA head to head matchup between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani that showed a Giuliani landslide.
Nice, very nice. And I thought the ad hominem attacks were mostly on the right-wing side of the blogosphere.
Let's discuss some issues rather than calling names. I understand that some might want very badly to believe that Hillary Clinton will absolutely trounce Giuliani but I can assure everyone who is calling me a liar that the SUSA poll as recently as last week showed the opposite.
The link that my rather vicious detractors are demanding is the SUSA home page itself (www.surveyusa.com), which last week featured as a "teaser" a series of head-to-head polls where for first-time users you could select from drop-down menus and match any hypothetical Democratic candidate with any hypothetical Republican. I didn't do a screen capture on the results, but I checked Giuliani with Clinton, Romney with Clinton, Gore with Giuliani, and various combinations. The Clinto vs. Giuliani result was the one I was most interested in, and it showed a sea of red against scattered blue states for Clinton. The electoral total for Giuliani, which was listed on the right side of the poll results above the national map graphic, showed Giuliani with nearly 400 electoral votes. It looks like this feature of the SUSA home page was limited to a few trials or has since been taken down, because now when I go to the SUSA site the interactive "teaser" is gone. I didn't provide a link to the SUSA home page because I thought that most adult users of this site could surely Google or type in "Surveyusa.com" and find it.
I resent very much being called a liar and a bag of human waste (totally ad hominem and juvenile). This kind of invective is beneath the standards of Talking Points Memo.
For now anyone can go to the SUSA page that shows (free, without subscription) the state by state matchups based on various polls:
Here's the link, for those who want to do so:
http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx
Check it out. I see that Hillary Clinton has very slim leads over Giuliani in Florida, Ohio, and Oregon as of the current data (wasn't the case last week).
The posters who want to call me names and question my honesty seem to have totally missed my main points: Even though it is very, very early, there really isn't any point in gloating or taunting about a large Hillary Clinton lead in states such as New York and California. These results are largely irrelevant (thought not necessarily so in California if the Republican tricksters get their way and spit the electoral votes via initiative). This election will be decided in Ohio, Florida, Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, and lots of other states that currently are NOT being won handily by Hillary Clinton. This election is going to be nasty, tough, bitterly fought, potentially subject to Republican dirty tricks and fraud, frustrating, and potentially devastating to our nation if Rudy Giuliani wins.
If Heretic and Douglas and others want to call me juvenlie names and a liar for making that observation via last week's SUSA interactive poll, so be it.
In the meantime, I'll work on getting the results that I referenced from last week, and if I can find them I'll post them as a screen capture or a link.
Clearly delusional mendacious bag of excrement that I am. Thanks, guys.
DTM wrote on November 1, 2007 12:58 PM:dcshungu,
I already corrected your assertion about Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign on another thread: Bill Clinton did not run as a centrist in 1992 (his move to the center came after the 1994 GOP takeover). More broadly, the other Democrats who ended up with high negatives were not unpopular for ideological reasons, as contemporaneous polling demonstrated. So your thesis about Bill's (non-existent at the time) centrism being the reason his negatives ended up relatively low is incorrect.
As far as Clinton's "stratospheric" poll numbers: if you are talking about among Democrats, it is certainly true her favorability ratings are much higher among Democrats than among independents and Republicans (she has by far the greatest such difference among the credible Democratic candidates). That undoubtedly helps explain some of her current support in primary-related polls of Democrats.
But if you are talking about among all voters (not just Democrats) then your premise is incorrect: she does not have "stratospheric" poll numbers. But perhaps you can clarify what you mean.
Finally, you talk about approaching politics and polling in a scientific way, which I applaud. But then you seem to want to ignore what that science has told us. People have studied presidential elections and the polling surrounding them in great detail. What those scientific studies have found is that the likeability questions you are suggesting we ignore end up being the ones most highly correlated with the ultimate outcome. And whether that is fair or not, or what causes it to happen, is irrelevant to the question of what actually does happen.
So, a scientific-minded person picking a candidate based on their likelihood of winning would at least start by narrowing the field to people who score reasonably well on those likeability questions. It would be just foolish to do anything else, in light of what the scientific study of presidential elections and polling has told us.
Fortunately, the Democrats by my count have no less than five such candidates, which leaves them plenty of room to apply other criteria as well. The Republicans appear to have maybe two, which significantly constrains them.
dcshungu wrote on November 1, 2007 1:24 PM:
Heliograph wrote on November 1, 2007 12:40 PM:
The electoral total for Giuliani, which was listed on the right side of the poll results above the national map graphic, showed Giuliani with nearly 400 electoral votes. It looks like this feature of the SUSA home page was limited to a few trials or has since been taken down, because now when I go to the SUSA site the interactive "teaser" is gone.
How convenient... A little bit of knowledge or a power[ful] tool in the hands of novices [or rabid partisans with an agenda] could be a very dangerous thing. You did not need to run no freaking simulations to know, from just looking the actual SUSA state-by-state match-ups, that there was no way Rudy could be "crushing" Hillary, much less get 400 electoral votes . In fact, the latter would be virtually impossible in today's America. So, after having seen the string of polls that have come out, and realizing the you had been "teased" into foolishness by SUSA, do you still maintain your view that Rudy would "absolutely crush" HRC, if the elections were held today?
LOL. A truism in criminal science is that the "murderer" always returns to the scene of the crime. Well, welcome back. Maybe you would now confess to "involuntary [wo]manslaughter" and promise to stay clean from now on, then maybe this court of public opinion would show leniency.
Anonymous wrote on November 1, 2007 1:32 PM:Okay, Heretic and Douglas and all other posters who have called me a liar and a bag of human excrement and other names, and have questioned my honesty about the Survey USA poll showing Rudy Giuliani absolutely crushing Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College totals.
I just used another computer and looked at the Survey USA interactive poll showing state-by-state matchups among various Democrats and Republicans. This is a "teaser" that gives you three free matchups before it requires that you register and pay. If you pay, you can have 60 potential candidate matchups for the 50 states, the cost is $99 (for the "Voter: B" level of access). But for the first three matchups it is free.
To get to it, go to the Survey USA home page (www.surveyusa.com). There should be a graphic across the top of the home page reading "Head to Head 2008 Presidential Pairings." Click on this to get the three free trial matchups.
Today's poll showing electoral college totals is this:
Rudy Guiliani 354
Hillary Clinton 184
In this particular poll, as of about 10 minutes ago, Hillary Clinton wins only these states: Washington, California, New Mexico, Arkansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, Maryland, Vermont, Massachusetts, Delaware, and the District of Columbia.
Rudy Giuliani wins all the rest.
Edwards and Gore do worse than Hillary. After checking these, my three free trials were used up, so I couldn't check other matchups.
Once again, to all of you who think I am lying about this poll, it's:
www.susa.com -- go to banner at top of home page reading "Head to Head 2008 Presidential Pairings" -- click on the banner and pair them up any way you wish (for a maximum of three free trials).
Clear enough for you, Heretic? Douglas B., will you accept this information from a "mendacious bag of human waste"?
Awaiting my apology, guys.
dcshungu wrote on November 1, 2007 1:34 PM:DTM wrote on November 1, 2007 12:58 PM:dcshungu,
I already corrected your assertion about Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign on another thread: Bill Clinton did not run as a centrist in 1992 (his move to the center came after the 1994 GOP takeover).
DTM, we are not breaking any new ground here. So it is time to move on. Bill Clinton has always been a centrist (even headed the centrist DLC group). He was never adverse to preempting the "best" ideas from the other side (boy, did they hate him for this; as president, he signed some of their ideas into law and they still hate him for it. Imagine that...)
I know Bill Clinton; he was my "friend"; DTM, you know jack about William Jefferson Clinton :-)
Cheers!
DCS, NYC
heliograph wrote on November 1, 2007 1:35 PM:That was my post above, again counted missed putting in my user name.
Will accept apology to either "Anonymous" or "Heliograph."
Don't question my honesty again, please. And lay off the name calling, otherwise it starts to sound like Free Republic around here.
Michael wrote on November 1, 2007 1:56 PM:dc, your last post glaringly reveals in all its glory why we don't want 4 more years of bill clinton. He "preempt[ed] the "best" ideas from the other side."? What plank of the democratic platform did he implement during his administration that was for the "democratic side," the base, the people who voted him into power, minorities, people of lesser means, working poor????? Oh, that's right welfare reform, NAFTA, all those types of grass roots democratic bedrock principles. Of course, repukes hated him, because he was a repuke that ran as a dem.
And then, based on that track record, we are supposed to blindly follow her majesty not knowing WTF she plans to do??? Centrist, my a**. I still don't understand why dems look at his administration through rose colored glasses. Maybe its because he was the first "dem" to win the presidency since carter and before the carter fiasco, we are back to johnson. That coupled with the unmitigated disaster of the king's administration really make billy look good. Another clinton is just what we don't need.
dcshungu wrote on November 1, 2007 2:15 PM:Michael wrote on November 1, 2007 12:31 PM:dc, incidentally, I haven't seen any postings from you addressing giving the king a blank check to start the war in Iraq. Your buddy, colon, did and she said that your boss was wrong.
What say you about giving the king a blank check on Iraq? What about the failure to read the NIE that said the king's case for war was bs? How can we possibly trust your boss on a weighty matter as president, when she didn't even take the time to read the NIE on a matter as important as invading a country and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Oh, that's right she was taking acting lessons to run for president as opposed to doing her job as a sitting senator.
Your continuous dodges are too funny. Anyway, how can 70% of the population be left-wing, lunatic, fringe element, wacko, pinkos, wingnuts, etc. I'm sure that you can come up with some more attack statements to piss off more people. Keep it up. I haven't heard of a person winning an election when 70% of the population is against them. Have you?
Micheal. I have never dogded anything. No more than HRC has been, except that her she is not saying things that her detractors would like for her to say that they say: "Gotcha." They're trying to "Trippi" her. This is the last time that I am going to indulge you. As a research scientist, I am in the habit of keeping "research notes", so that I have a M$ Word file into which I cut and paste my "greatest hits" from TPM-EC forums. You'll see below that I had already addressed all of the issues that you have been obsessing with ad nauseam, and, seriously, your differential diagnosis? It is OCD...
Here we go AGAIN, the Opus Magnum:
"There is no evidence of "critical thinking" in anything that the ABC ("Anybody But Clinton") crowd spews in these threads. And, for your edification: "critical thinking" without the intellectual honesty to recognize or discern when one's thinking is flawed is called "delusion" or "willful deception", also known as lying.
If you did any “critical thinking” at all, you would know that Hillary is no hawk who is going to keep Bush's Mesopotamian Misadventure going or attack Iran in a war of choice. Ask yourself this simple question and do a little bit of "critical thinking" in answering it: Why would a smart lady like Hillary Clinton, if she is elected the first ever POTUS, squander such a historic opportunity for herself, for women everywhere, and for humanity in general, in pursuit of senseless wars of choice, instead of working to craft a legacy that would do her justice for eternity? Inquiring minds wanna know, but I will provide you with a few hints to help your "critical thinking" along: (a) she recently public a piece in Foreign Affairs in which had espoused Liberal Internationalism [look it up if you do not know what that means, but is the opposite of ‘My Way or the Highway]’ as her approach to foreign policy when she becomes POTUS; (b) her chief adviser and political strategist was a POTUS who was no hawk and is still admired worldwide for his stewardship of American FP at the turn of the century for his measured response to crises that faced the world and his administration; (c) Hillary has already stated that she sees Bill's role in her administration as that of an ambassador for peace, who will crisscross the world to try to undo the damage that the current Village Idiot has done to the US standing as a country of laws and a beacon for hope and democracy [Liberal Internationalism]; (d) Hillary is a woman, so don't you think that her purported hawkishness may be a deliberate attempt to show that in this male-dominated world, a woman POTUS would have cojones big enough to retaliate decisively in defense of America's national security and interests everywhere?... (I suspect that part of her dominance in the polls is helped by her no-nonsense approach to defending America, a test that a man is automatically given a pass on, but that a woman would fail unless she proved herself. Hillary has passed that but she is no more hawkish than her life-long partner was as POTUS.)
The ABC crowd's main argument for HRC's unfitness to be POTUS is that she voted for the AUMF bill (and now the K-L bill), and therefore that shows that she has poor judgment in general. In scholastic logic that is called inference (to generalize from one or a small number of observations), and it is inherently much less reliable than deduction (when you draw a conclusion from many, many valid observations). I have never tried to defend HRC's AUMF vote because ex post facto it was wrong (Bush waged a terrible war and made a mess of things, so that, in retrospect, the vote for it looks bad); but I never felt that it disqualifies her or anyone else from being POTUS because I am not a single-issue person...I do not suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), like HRC's detractors. What I have tried to make the "critical thinkers" who attack Hillary on her AUMF vote understand is something that a little bit of "intellectual honesty" would easily reveal to them: It is not very smart to keep ranting against HRC for that vote because none of the other candidates is without blame in that respect. Please use a little bit of "critical thinking", sprinkle it with a heavy dose of "intellectual honesty" and tell me how blameless Edwards and Obama are with respect to their respective positions on the war. I have asked this repeatedly but none of the "critical thinkers" out there has volunteered some critical analysis. Below is a post from thread that had discussed the teaming up of Obama and Edwards to accuse HRC of being a flip-flopper. If anything, she has been the only consistent candidate in this campaign! Please chew on the following and let's see what you'll spit out. I suspect that you'll ignore it, just like you conveniently ignored the fact not a single HRC supporter has vowed to "sit this one out" if she is not the nominee, while we've heard the ABC crowd state that it would sit this incredibly important election out if she is nominated, which may even give victory to Rudy -- a la Naderites in Gore v. Bush in 2000. If that is "critical thinking" and “loyalty” to your party, then we must redefine these concepts. Here we go, from a post on Friday:
A couple of pots teaming up to call the kettle black. Here's the sort of hard-hitting truth that I hope the HRC camp would include in their rebuttal of this farcical "Hail Mary" attack:
John Edwards, he was so much for the UAMF bill that he co-sponsored and voted for it, but then when the shit hit the fan and for sheer presidential politics expediency and opportunism, he did a 180-degree flip and became the legendary serial apologizer for his vote on his bill. HRC has stood firm by her vote and has asked those who fault her for it not to support her.
Senator Obama, who was purportedly "opposed" to the war, was in no position to vote for or against the AUMF bill, but had said publicly that he was not sure how he might have voted had he been in the US Senate at time (really, Senator? Remember that your were "opposed" to the war, so therefore, the AUMF vote should have been an easy one, right?); however, when he got to DC, the Good Senator from Illinois, who claims to have "opposed" the war, did a 180-degree flip and voted, not once or twice, but repeatedly, to give George Bush blank checks (totaling billions of dollars to continue his Misadventure in Mesopotamia (unless he thought that those “blank checks” that he was voting for was money for Bush to go shopping at K-Mart). So, which is it Senator? Were you for or against the war? And, Senator, to criticize anyone for their vote on the Kyl-Lieberman bill on Iran is what they call in Hebrew chutzpah...something beyond arrogance. Oh, BTW, you wouldn't happen to have skipped the K-L bill for fear of getting caught voting "nay" on a bill similar to one that you had co-sponsored, would you? It does smell like "politics as "usual" to me, Senator Barack New-Kind-of-Politics Obama...sheesh!
A note added for the benefit of the "critical thinkers" out there: you'd lauded Senators Levin and Durbin for "nay" vote on the AUMF bill, calling it the epitome of good judgment, but what do you "think" of the fact that both senators voted "yea" on the K-L bill that you are now citing as further evidence of Hillary's unfitness to be POTUS? The cognitive dissonance and your silence on it are truly deafening! Let's see some critical thinking, for a change, and please try to reconcile these contradictory facts. At least, HRC has been consistent, which is not only highly principled but also good politics..."
heliograph wrote on November 1, 2007 1:35 PM:That was my post above, again counted missed putting in my user name.
Will accept apology to either "Anonymous" or "Heliograph."
Don't question my honesty again, please. And lay off the name calling, otherwise it starts to sound like Free Republic around here.
Anonymous" or "Heliograph", give it up. You are the only person in the world who seems to get fooled by SUSA's electoral "war games". You can out for air now: the "war games" are over, and in the real world, Hillary is still "crushing" Rudy in most state-by-state polls so that an electoral vote count of 400 for him is ridiculous. When the voters get to know the real Rudy that we New Yorkers have come to know and despise, he'll be lucky to get 150 electoral votes, supposing that he even get the nomination.
Gotta go!
DCS, NYC
dc, interesting post, I'll give you that and you do raise some valid points on your boss. I get the legacy point, but your "critical thinking" analysis is primarily based on an issue of "trust me." Ignore what I do and ignore what I say, just trust me to do the right thing. That's pretty much your argument in a nutshell. Buy into the polling and trust her to do the "right thing." Well, I don't have enough information to trust her. I do have enough information to be sceptical and I do have enough information to be leary.
I would be more inclined to support your boss if she took a stand in the senate and tried to exhibit some leadership. I have said that before. However, all she has done is pretty much sit on the sidelines. Taking the "AUMF" out of the equasion, she still has been pretty much sitting on the sidelines in the senate.
Finally, why do you keep on bringing up idiots like durbin and levin or any of the other dems in the senate who aren't doing a freaking thing to reign in the king and his idiotic policies? I never even mentioned either of those bozos and you use them as poster boys to support your arguments. I don't get that one.
Bottom line, your post does explain alot about your tactics. In any event, I am sure in response I will get OCD, wingnut, leftwing, wacko, pinko, commie, unamerican, blah, blah, blah.
Michael wrote on November 1, 2007 2:44 PM:dc, one other thing, you say you never dodge? You dodge all the time. It's part of the game, deflect attention from an issue, try to make the person look like a moron, and come back to the inevitability of your boss winning. It's the same over and over again. I was surprised by your latest post though. It was a moderate dodge and I was expecting a major dodge.
dcshungu wrote on November 1, 2007 2:46 PM:Michael,
I am very busy right now, as you can tell by the many typos, although my browser keeps me updated about the ongoing "deliberations" on TPM-EC. I think that you should consider getting into a new line of work. The one of a "pontificator" does not suit you... As you can see inmy opus magnum, I had already addressed all of your so-called issues 100s of times but you keep coming back with the same (I'll be nice) queries...
Cia, capo!
DTM wrote on November 1, 2007 2:53 PM:dcshungu,
Bill Clinton may always have been a centrist at heart, but he did not run as a centrist in 1992. That is the only thing that is relevant to your ahistoric claim that it was his centrist politics that kept him popular in the face of Republican personal attacks in 1992.
By the way, here is a DLC statement about Kerry from March of 2004:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252427&kaid=131&subid=192
I thought you would find it interesting because it makes precisely your argument on his behalf. Unfortunately, we all know how that turned out.
In the end, I suspect you know that I am right about the importance of personal appeal, which is why you are trying to cut off the conversation. And I understand why you cannot continue this conversation: it inevitably leads to a conclusion you are unwilling to accept.
Michael wrote on November 1, 2007 3:26 PM:dc, and you say you don't dodge? You addressed all of my issues 100's of times in one long winded post making up arguments that I never made, that are easily rebutted by you? Too funny.
Heliograph wrote on November 1, 2007 3:56 PM:Dcshungu: Hope you are right. Glad you are so prescient about the actual electoral vote total that Rudy will have come early November 2008. Can provide some links to "most" of the polls showing Hillary with a comfortable electoral lead. I gave you my links to the SUSA poll that allegedly didn't exist, where are yours?
What I'm not "giving up" is the accusation of posters above, that -- in their words -- I am a delusional, lying, bag of waste for referencing a non-existent SUSA poll. The poll does exist, that is a fact, sorry you and some others don't like it but the results are as I portrayed them. Now you wish to shift the frame of reference from calling me a liar to saying the poll is not accurate.
Fine, let's have a fact-based debate about what might be wrong with the SUSA poll and how it is inferior to the other state-by-state polls that you cite (but don't link to).
And while you are at it, perhaps you can explain address the main point of my postings, which is why it would be in any Democrat or Progressive's interest to "out for air" (whatever in the world that means) and relax because Hillary "is still 'crushing' Rudy in most state-by-state polls."
dcshungu wrote on November 1, 2007 4:49 PM:DTM wrote on November 1, 2007 2:53 PM:dcshungu,
Bill Clinton may always have been a centrist at heart, but he did not run as a centrist in 1992. That is the only thing that is relevant to your ahistoric claim that it was his centrist politics that kept him popular in the face of Republican personal attacks in 1992.
Full disclosure: I was a "Razorback" and lived in Fayetteville, AR, during part of Bill Clinton's years as Governor. I know Bill Clinton. You do not. He has always been a centrist. He might not have seemed centrist to you in 1992 because he followed Dick Nixon's axiom: A Dem or Repub should run as a left- or right-winger, respectively, during the primaries and then run as a centrist in the GE.
By the way, here is a DLC statement about Kerry from March of 2004:http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252427&kaid=131&subid=192
I thought you would find it interesting because it makes precisely your argument on his behalf. Unfortunately, we all know how that turned out.
That proves nothing. Kerry's loss had little to do with personal appeal or his politics (he is a centrist). Kerry lost a sure election for the Dems because he ran a very inept campaign and waffled. You keep telling us how Hillary has "huge negatives", and yet, every poll so far has shown her to be the favorite to win the presidency. If her current numbers hold up, it might a "L" win...
She'll win and your thesis would join the pile of bad lefty ideas that has been accumulating during this campaign, and then we'll light a bonfire under them to celebrate their demise and the rise of centrism.
Bye bye!
dcshungu wrote on November 1, 2007 5:02 PM:Fine, let's have a fact-based debate about what might be wrong with the SUSA poll and how it is inferior to the other state-by-state polls that you cite (but don't link to).
I am using the same state-by-state SUSA polls!!! You cannot get 400 electoral votes for you Rudy using SUSA's own actual state-by-state polls!!!!
I will tell you how you can know for sure that you are wrong: If you were right, Rudy, the MSM, and the lefties would have been touting those numbers in support of their Hillary Unelectability Theory. On the contrary, what we hear is just how Rudy is in trouble. Rudy can't even tout his strength Dem states anymore since SUSA poll after SUSA poll has shown him being trounced by Hillary in EVERY BLUE STATE. RUDY CANNOT GET 400 ELECTORAL VOTES IF HE IS NOT EVEN LEADING IN A SINGLE BLUE STATE. WHAT YOU SAW WAS A SIMULATION BASED ON VERY FAULTY AND UNREALISTIC ASSUMPTIONS - ELECTORAL "WAR GAMES", THAT IS IT WAS....heard me now.
Ciao.
Please give it a rest.
Heliograph, I have gone to www.surveyusa.com on two computers, neither have any graphic or link to a "Head to Head 2008 Presidential Pairings." Are you sure you are not a troll?
Heliograph wrote on November 1, 2007 5:31 PM:DCShungu:
I can read all of the common English fonts without all caps, there is no need for them. Is that the electronic version of shouting? If so, shouting is not an effective or valid form of argument. As a self-professed scientific researcher, you should know that. Ditto with multiple exclamation points and boldface type. What I prefer to deal with here is fact-based arguments, not all caps, boldface tantrums with multiple exclamation points.
If you read my previous posts carefully, you will find no claim that Giuliani racked up 400 electoral votes. Your characterization is false. I wrote that his total last week in the SUSA interactive poll was "nearly 400." Last week it was 380+, which is (according to any reasonable rounding procedure) "nearly 400." I have corrected my post for this week's results, so I'm not sure why the 400 number keeps popping up. If you actually read my posts above for content, I write that as of today, the projected SUSA interactive poll's electoral college vote for Giuliani is 354, and Hillary Clinton's total is 184, an improvement for Clinton over last week's numbers. But that is still "nearly 400" electoral votes for Giuliani when rounding up to the nearest hundred, and "over 350" when rounding to the nearest 50. And well more than the total needed to claim the Presidency, which was my point.
Also, if you would read my posts carefully and characterize them accurately, I point out (using links and actual numbers, not all caps or boldface type or multiple exclamation points) that Hillary Clinton does the best among all the current Democratic candidates against Giuliani (and also does better than Al Gore this week). So why would any "lefty" with normal intelligence tout this poll to make the argument that Hillary is "unelectable"? That would be really stupid, because actually, among the current Democratic contenders plus Al Gore, Hillary does the best.
So I have no interest in claiming Hillary is "unelectable" and I am not citing the interactive SUSA poll for that purpose. I was citing to poll to make the argument that Democrats and Progressives should not be complacent about Rudy Giuliani based on Hillary Clinton's poll numbers in New York and California (which are just about irrelevant at this point). That is my whole argument in a nutshell, one that you have chosen not to address.
For my efforts, I was baselessly called a liar and a mendacious sack of waste. And you chimed in with similar juvenlie, name-calling ad hominem attacks, referring to me as a "novice" and a "rabid partisan."
As I requested before, do you have actual links and information that would question the accuracy, reliability, and validity of the SUSA interactive poll that I cited? Or is your argument confined simply to making unsupported assertions of the poll being a "simulation" and "war games" and having "very faulty and unrealistic assumptions." Do tell, Mr. Research Scientist, what exactly are those faulty and unrealistic assumptions that you reference? As a research scientist, surely you understand that arguing by mere assertion is not an acceptable form of argument.
I'm awaiting an actual argument rather than an electronic tantrum. Until actual arguments are presented, with documentation and links, there isn't much I can do with your posts.
And I'm still awaiting my apologies from Heretic, Douglas B., and others who earlier called me a liar.
Oh, and I'll "give it a rest" when I'm good and ready, and not before. Take your schoolground taunts back to the playground where they belong.
Heliograph wrote on November 1, 2007 5:36 PM:Avenger, I am not a troll. I have also checked the SUSA web site multiple times, they are varying the headers from time to time. Keep checking their home page and you will see it. If I can move to another computer and get a screen capture, and then figure out how to post it, I will do so.
If you read the comments on this site on a regular basis you know that I am not a troll. I referenced the SUSA poll showing Hillary way behind Giuliani for one purpose and one purpose only: The argue that progressives and Democrats should not become complacent based on numbers from California and New York, especially in light of the uphill battle we face from Republican electoral dirty tricks and the pervasive mainstream media bias(in favor of St. Rudy) that exists.
Also, someone help me out here -- has anyone tried the SUSA interactive poll today and seen what I am talking about? Geez, this shouldn't be that hard.
Heliograph wrote on November 1, 2007 5:50 PM:One last post on how to get to the SUSA interactive poll I have been citing:
I found that you can go to the SUSA home page.
There is a tab across the top that reads: "Survey USA Poll Results" (red tab with white letters)
When you click on "Survey USA Poll Results" you go to a page that features an advertising bar across the top. But at the left, there is a rather ugly logo: "Survey USA" in white letters inside red circles, with a yellow arrow symbol in between the words Survey and USA. This is a link. When you click on that link it should take you to the 2008 interactive Presidential head to head matchup feature. Here is where you get the three free trials, matching any Democrat against any Republican.
Hope this works, if not, just click on various SUSA pages until that ugly graphic (Survey [yellow arrow] USA) shows up, then click on that.
Signed,
not a troll Heliograph
dcshungu wrote on November 1, 2007 5:54 PM:
Heliograph wrote on November 1, 2007 5:31 PM:
If you read my previous posts carefully, you will find no claim that Giuliani racked up 400 electoral votes. Your characterization is false. I wrote that his total last week in the SUSA interactive poll was "nearly 400." Last week it was 380+, which is (according to any reasonable rounding procedure) "nearly 400." I have corrected my post for this week's results, so I'm not sure why the 400 number keeps popping up. If you actually read my posts above for content, I write that as of today, the projected SUSA interactive poll's electoral college vote for Giuliani is 354, and Hillary Clinton's total is 184, an improvement for Clinton over last week's numbers. But that is still "nearly 400" electoral votes for Giuliani when rounding up to the nearest hundred, and "over 350" when rounding to the nearest 50. And well more than the total needed to claim the Presidency, which was my point.
Ignorance is bliss but if taken in too high a dose, it is a potent irritant, hence my FLAMING.
You are arguing about a difference of 20 electoral votes, when the whole notion of Rudy even getting 270 yesterday or today is utterly ridiculous, based on, yes, the very same state-by-state SUSA polls that you claim to be using.
Your ego was bruised for all the nasty things that they'd called you and I can appreciate that, but you are not doing yourself any favors by keeping this alive. You are trying to make a case that cannot be possibly made factually. The "teaser" is exactly what it said it was. There was no reality basis to it whatsoever...electoral "war games"...
No shouting... just please give it a rest, for your own dignity.
Ciao.
cd wrote on November 1, 2007 5:55 PM:
To "webmonkey"- Actually, Hillary is an 'existential crisis'...to the present, i.e. Nixon-created, variety of Republicanism. It doesn't have majorities on its side of issues anymore, and once it has no power of office behind it it shrivels up and dies as a political force. It's perfectly right that Republicans obsess about her- she means the end of their political world.
Still, they deliberately blew up the post-1968 center-Right status quo in 2001 to 2005, and ridiculed the idea that they needed for their own protection. Now it's all paranoid whining and making up for numbers by energy, i.e. raging and leveraging whatever power they still have to crazy degrees. And making arguments about why another Nixon-type Republican absolutely must be the next President. (Which apparently boils down (a) his not being a woman/gay, and (b) his willingness to kill 'terrorists', real or imaginary or just average Middle Easterners.)
The People has a way of tipping its cards late, but I don't think there's any doubt that it has decided what to do with the Parties and candidates. To squeeze out the residual merits and service of Republican governance, it's going to let Bush/Cheney finish out the string, letting them prove and carry out and talk up whatever this set of Republicans still can. But as the price for tolerating Bush/Cheney it's going to softly terminate the bunch of basically identical loudly gobbling turkeys termed "the Republican Presidential field" one by one. It's becoming harder and harder for everyone to pretend that there's any motive to support them other than spite and a check on Democrats.
All the real attention has gone over to Hillary Clinton and seeing how prepared she is, to challenging her to fix up whatever deficiencies there are by holding out votes. It's an election defined by Hillary Clinton, who represents a fatal smashing of the present variety of Republicanism. If she wins it's probably a 1968ish election- a near-complete switch of dominant party, a change of establishment, and a flip of dominant side of the moderate spectrum. The 2006 election was then a stalemating, like 1966 or 1930, which bought two years for people and power to come to an agreement about whether it was time to truly change the dominant tone. Looks to me that the answer is "yes" for '08.
DCShungu:
My ego can take it. My dignity's doing just fine, thanks for caring. Your condescending tone and expressions of concern for my psyche do nothing to advance your argument. I note that in your latest post you still resorted to all caps and called me ignorant. Again, these are not acceptable or valid styles of argument, and as a self-proclaimed scientific researcher you should know that. I'm a bit puzzled as to why you still resort to such devices.
Still awaiting your informed analysis and critique of the interactive poll that I cited. Until you have one, and can provide links and information, there's nothing left to say to you.
