The new Primary Thread

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So... um... what about that debate last night (sorry, trying to get this back on topic a bit... futile, I know )?

The incredible civility of the debate did the Dems a ton of good, I think. I don't know if that was the candidates' idea or if some party higher up decided to the two of them, but teh message that came across was "there's not much difference between the two of us, we actually support each other, and we're working for a united Democratic Party victory in November." That is exactly the tack they should be taking, and it's the only route to success.

[Alexander I]

And now all the Dems are hoping for the ultimate Clintobama "Planeteer" ticket to vanquish the McCain together.

"By your powers combined... blah, blah, blah."

[Rufus T. Firefly]

And this just in

Coulter for Hillary?
You won’t believe it until you see it: Ann Coulter defending Hillary Clinton on Hannity & Colmes.

While railing on John McCain, Coulter proclaims that Clinton is stronger in the war on terror than McCain is. “I will campaign for her if it’s McCain,” she declares. You can see Hannity’s eyebrows jump. “That part isn’t true,” she hedges, “but the rest of it is true.”

Coulter has made a career out of saying the most provocative thing that comes to mind and running with it. But this goes too far. Her game is deep. There has to be some other explanation.

Could she be trying to get Democrats to back away from Obama, who she knows would be a stronger general election candidate? Or is it some sort of pre-emptive sabotage, where she knows no Democrat would vote for anyone with Coulter’s endorsement, and is therefore trying to taint Hillary’s eventual candidacy? Or maybe she’s merely trying to put her distaste for McCain in the most extreme terms possible?

Article: http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhe...r-hillary.aspx

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc

[DinoDoc]

"there's not much difference between the two of us

How exactly is that a good msg for someone trying to unseat a machine candidate like Hillary?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

"there's not much difference between the two of us

How exactly is that a good msg for someone trying to unseat a machine candidate like Hillary?

It's Obama subordinating his own ambition to that of the party in the fall. It's not good for him in the short term; it'll be good for him in all sorts of ways in the long term. And, frankly, it increases my support for him; I'd like to see him win the nomination, but not if he has to tear the party in two to do it.

I suspect most Dems feel the way I do: they have a preference between Obama and Hillary, but that preference is not nearly as strong as the desire to win in the fall. Obama and Hillary being civil is their way of showing that they understand that this is what voters want, which is what a politician wants to show. It's just surprising because it seems to also be something like Party Discipline, which is a strange and scary new territory for the Dems.

[Barnabas]

Forget about honesty and all those things


The USA needs someone intelligent, responsible and experienced, therefore the USA needs Hillary

[GePap]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


It's Obama subordinating his own ambition to that of the party in the fall. It's not good for him in the short term; it'll be good for him in all sorts of ways in the long term. And, frankly, it increases my support for him; I'd like to see him win the nomination, but not if he has to tear the party in two to do it.

I suspect most Dems feel the way I do: they have a preference between Obama and Hillary, but that preference is not nearly as strong as the desire to win in the fall. Obama and Hillary being civil is their way of showing that they understand that this is what voters want, which is what a politician wants to show. It's just surprising because it seems to also be something like Party Discipline, which is a strange and scary new territory for the Dems.

I don't know, I know some democrats that would rather vote McCain than Hillary.

The main issue will as always be turnout. Democratic turnout in the rpimaries has not only been record breaking in many places, but far ahead of Republican primary turnout. This would seem to bode well for the Democrats.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by GePap
I don't know, I know some democrats that would rather vote McCain than Hillary.

But if polls are to be believed, there are apparently also Dems -- mostly in the "Reagan Democrats" demographic -- who would vote Hillary but not Obama. I think we have to assume they cancel each other out.

The main issue will as always be turnout. Democratic turnout in the rpimaries has not only been record breaking in many places, but far ahead of Republican primary turnout. This would seem to bode well for the Democrats.

QFT

[snoopy369]

The question is, how many of those voters are out there because of Obama, and would they come out and vote for Hillary?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The question is, how many of those voters are out there because of Obama, and would they come out and vote for Hillary?

Well, given that all of the races except SC have been within a few percentage points, it's clear that the massive turnout is not favoring any particular candidate; if it were all for Obama, he'd be winning in a walk right now.

It is true that Hillary would be challenged to keep the young voters Obama has drawn into the process; something I read today indicated that her campaign iss gearing up for that process, but at least she doesn't risk losing those voters to the GOP (which would be worse than them dropping out altogether).

[snoopy369]

Scenario A:
Voter turnout is down. Hillary wins by 20 points.

Scenario B:
Voter turnout is up 20%. Obama and Hillary are nearly tied.

You tell me turnout in this scenario isn't favoring Obama...

[DinoDoc]

@ Rufus: Why would an actual campaign discussing issues and highlighting differences between candidates tear apart the Democratic party?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
@ Rufus: Why would an actual campaign discussing issues and highlighting differences between candidates tear apart the Democratic party?

Actually, I think it's doing that -- it's just that there aren't that many differences. Last night's debate was actually -- shockingly -- informative about how Obama and Clinton differed from each other, especially on Iraq.

But let's not be disingenuous -- we all know what US elections have looked like in recent years, and it's ugly, ugly, ugly. Candidates win by demonizing their opponents and lying about their records -- something that seems to be happening right now in the GOP race, though I confess I'm not following it all that closely. Both Hillary and Obama have fervent supporters, and the Dems can't risk those folks staying home because the eventual nominee got there by ripping apart the candidate they loved. Hillary started down that path in SC, and I know it pushed several undecideds into the Obama camp (including my mother-- who as a 75-year-old woman on a fixed income should be a natural Hillary supporter).

In short, there's justs not that many differences between the two candidates -- small differences on Iraq and trade, and somewhat larger differences on what they personally bring to the table. They can emphasize those differences, and they are. But they also seem to be focused on the idea that the important thing is a Dem victory in Nov, regardless of the nominee, so that it's crucial that whoever makes it to the general race doesn't enter crippled by her/his own primary opponent (as, for example, Bush did in '92).

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Scenario A:
Voter turnout is down. Hillary wins by 20 points.

Scenario B:
Voter turnout is up 20%. Obama and Hillary are nearly tied.

You tell me turnout in this scenario isn't favoring Obama...

Sure, makes perfect sense -- if you accept the false assertion of Scenario A.

[DinoDoc]

Why should a vigorous campaign perhaps even a negative one automatically leave a candidate crippled in the general election rather than making the candidate stronger and providing the public with more information about him?