The new Primary Thread

[DinoDoc]

@ Everyone: Is there any point in me worrying about the March 11 MS primary? Will it be over by then?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Depends on the primary. Republican one probably will (unless Romney wins California). Dem one will probably still be hard fought by then.

[Arrian]

In the end, there isn't a huge difference between Clinton and Obama on policy (though the heathcare difference is important... but I'm torn there as described earlier in the thread).

Clinton gets a small plus for her experience edge, but a small minus for being a Clinton (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton... ugh) and my personal distaste for how she became a senator ("Hmm, where can I win? NY! That's it." Moves to NY, elected senator.). She gets another demerit for her Iraq war vote and her weak (IMO) defense of it now. That she voted along with a large majority doesn't mean squat to me - I'd like the lot of 'em fired.

Obama gets a very small bonus for having been right on Iraq, albeit when he wasn't in a position of national significance. He gets a small demerit for lack of experience. He gets yet another for my personal distrust of his "change!" mantra. I do like his less-combative style, though - style isn't totally meaningless.

Clinton is a far more polarizing figure - even if she wins the election (no sure thing), her time in office will be spend under 24/7 siege by the Republicans, who flat-out hate her. It will be ugly, guaranteed. Obama, I think, stands a better chance of finding a middle ground, despite holding a very similar group of policy positions.

-Arrian

[Ramo]

Dem one will probably still be hard fought by then.

The only primary of significance after 3/4 is PA. In all likelyhood, it'll end by then. If it's still hard fought by 3/11, there's a brokered convention.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
@ Everyone: Is there any point in me worrying about the March 11 MS primary? Will it be over by then?

Microsoft has its own primary?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Microsoft has its own primary?

You didn't know?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Clinton is a far more polarizing figure - even if she wins the election (no sure thing), her time in office will be spend under 24/7 siege by the Republicans, who flat-out hate her. It will be ugly, guaranteed. Obama, I think, stands a better chance of finding a middle ground, despite holding a very similar group of policy positions.

On the other hand, her husband was 24/7 under seige and managed to get plenty done (welfare reform, NAFTA, etc). I think Clinton's incrementalism approach will get more things done than Obama's bold proposal approach, regardless of personal hatreds. Republicans may balk at bold proposals while not minding incremental advances so much.

And if you don't think the Republican attack machine will be going off on Obama, then you haven't been paying attention.

[DinoDoc]

So far that's just been the Clinton machine though, Imran.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
So far that's just been the Clinton machine though, Imran.

I don't think the Clinton machine can compare to what the Republicans are capable of. Furthermore, Clinton has to watch out because people in her own party may want to play nice, but I doubt a lot of die hard conservatives care about that.

[Arrian]

I think Clinton's incrementalism approach will get more things done than Obama's bold proposal approach

Is that really an accurate portrayal of them? Their stated positions on various issues don't appear to reflect that difference. I'll admit, however, that I haven't been following this stuff as much as you have. Enlighten me.

-Arrian

[Ramo]

On the other hand, her husband was 24/7 under seige and managed to get plenty done (welfare reform, NAFTA, etc). I think Clinton's incrementalism approach will get more things done than Obama's bold proposal approach, regardless of personal hatreds. Republicans may balk at bold proposals while not minding incremental advances so much.

In domestic policy, Obama and Clinton are equally bold absent minor variations (Clinton may be bolder on health care, Obama on urban poverty, etc.). Obama's bolder on foreign policy, but as we've seen over the past year, the President has a lot of discretion there independent of Congress.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Arrian
Is that really an accurate portrayal of them? Their stated positions on various issues don't appear to reflect that difference. I'll admit, however, that I haven't been following this stuff as much as you have. Enlighten me.

-Arrian

I'd imagine that Clinton would follow the political strategy of her husband, which was small successes that add up. And because they are fairly small, it is harder for Republicans to go all out against them (people will say, why all the animosity, it's just a small change?). Basically, they learned from the health care debacle. The polls were in favor of it, but when they started to push for it, the Republican attack machine came out in full force.

Obama appears to be far more into the bold policy proposals as he is with the bold overarching statements and issues on the campaign trail (rather than really going into specifics).

It is basically comes down to the difference in their views on "unity". Obama believes there are certain progressive ideals that everyone believes in, even though the specifics are different for Repubs and some independants. Clinton believes in triangulation, take the best from the left, the best from the right, and do a compromise in the middle. Seems that on these different opinions of unifying would result in different approaches in legislation.

[Ramo]

What you say is not reflected in the domestic policy proposals that the candidates have made.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There are campaign proposals and then how a candidate would act on a wide variety of issues while in office.

Neither, of course, has been a governor, so we can't be sure... but it's just my opinion based on watching them campaign and work (Clinton being more of a wonk and Obama being more a man of ideals)

[Ramo]

So, you're saying that, while trying to win over the Democratic electorate, he's putting out a bunch of moderate, realistic proposals that he secretly is planning on shelving once he actually gets to deal with Congress (because Congress is way to the left of the Dem electorate)? You really believe that?

These proposals were obviously created with Congress in mind. If there's a filibuster proof Dem majority in the Senate, a President Obama might act more boldly than a President Clinton. I don't see how that's a bad thing.