Thursday’s political round-up

June 21, 2007

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* The Politico hosted a straw poll of attendees at the Take Back America conference and Barack Obama came out on top with 29% support. John Edwards was a close second with 26%, followed by Hillary Clinton exceeding expectations with 17%. Just as importantly, the top two were also the most popular second choices. As pollster Stan Greenberg explained, “If you look at this, you see Obama’s [supporters’] second choice and Edwards [supporters’] second choice are each other — in this group, the two of them form the top tier.”

* A news Mason-Dixon poll in Iowa shows a very tight three-way race among Democratic presidential hopefuls. Clinton has inched out in front with 22%, followed by Edwards with 21% and Obama with 18%. No other candidate reached double digits.

* Did Michael Bloomberg drop any more hints yesterday after leaving the GOP? Not really. Talking to reporters, the NYC mayor was careful, however, to talk about his intentions in the present tense: “My intention is to be mayor for the next 925 days and 10 or 11 hours. I’ve got the greatest job in the world and I’m going to keep doing it.”

* In light of the multiple scandals surrounding the GOP in Alaska, Dems are starting to look anew at the state that has traditionally been a Republican stronghold. National Dems are specifically targeting Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich to run for Congress next year, against either Rep. Don Young (R) or Sen. Ted Stevens (R). A new Hays Research poll shows both GOP incumbents falling below the 50% approval threshold.

* And Illinois officially moved its presidential primary up to Feb. 5 yesterday, joining just about every other state.

And Illinois officially moved its presidential primary up to Feb. 5 yesterday, joining just about every other state.

In a related story, red states in the south are considering moving their presidential primaries to February 29th.

  • I know the MSM longs for Hillary Nothing-But-Ambition Clinton to get the nomination, but the coverage of her getting booed yesterday was ridiculous. I heard assessments and read headlines that actually spun it as “Hillary gets booed less.” Progress — she’s not being booed as much. How ridiculous.

  • In a related story, red states in the south are considering moving their presidential primaries to February 29th.

    Okay, funny. But you 2008 is a leap year.

  • In a related story, red states in the south are considering moving their presidential primaries to February 29th.

    Okay, funny. But 2008 is a leap year.

  • I know the MSM longs for Hillary Nothing-But-Ambition Clinton to get the nomination, but the coverage of her getting booed yesterday was ridiculous.

    How do you know it if the coverage of her is so unfavorable to her?

    I posted this yesterday about the horserace, for anyone who hasn’t seen it. A couple things I’d just like to qualify- although I’m assuming Blomberg wants to enter, I think I was jumping the gun by calling him “the money candidate” in that it’s an open question whether he’ll really get decided corporate/finance/upper-class support. Another thing I left out but that is important to mention is that the Democrats got very unfavorable questions in their first debate, which tended to be in the form of “devil’s advocate” style set-ups (i.e., what do you have to say about hedge funds- almost hoping Dems won’t have heard about the Edwards story and will indavertently bash their fellow Dem) while the Repubs were given favorable questions in their debate (i.e., do you think it is okay to use torture on a terrorist-suspect if it will help stop an imminent terrorist attack).

  • “Did Michael Bloomberg drop any more hints yesterday after leaving the GOP?”

    Sort of like those dropped in the Sopranos final episode?

  • The Politico Website’s survey of the Take Back America conference is interesting. It shows that 55 percent (29 and 26 percent respectively) are not going to vote for Hillary. That’s roughly the mirror numbers she’s getting from moderates and independents (and higher numbers for Republicans, obviously).

    Turning to Iowa, she still really hasn’t broken out of the pack of the leading three. Already 39 percent are against her. (I’m assuming the remaining number is still “undecided.”)

    What to make of it? The fact that she has to pull Bill into campaigning in Iowa shows a sign of desperation.

    It also shows that there is no such thing as “aura of inevitability” when it comes to Hillary except for a 2008 landslide, allright, AGAINST her. When poll numbers are consistent like that, with 55-60 percent against her, it’s nearly impossible for her to win in a national election.

    In short, if the Dems nominate her, she’ll lose the 2008 elections.

  • It looks like this may be the beginning of the end for the Edwards campaign. He badly underperformed at TBA, which should have been a great venue for him. He’s lost his advantage in Iowa. Heck, even his daughter doesn’t support him anymore. He’s not had a good fundraising quarter. He’s allowed the Republicans to peg him as an egotistical hypocrite and has moved so far to the left that he will be easy pickings in a general election. It’s too early to declare the campaign dead, but it’s heading there.

  • “In short, if the Dems nominate her, she’ll lose the 2008 elections.”

    “It’s too early to declare the [Edwards] campaign dead, but it’s heading there.”

    Maybe, maybe not. All too early to tell. And I really do feel that even if Clinton is the nominee those who say right now that they would not vote for her would in fact vote for her, holding their nose, to avoid another 4 years of Bush-worse (Giuliani, McCain) or Bush-lite (Romney).

  • #8

    Where did you see Edwards’ daughter doesn’t support him? Which one?

  • All three are good candidates and, with the GOP in a shambles as it is right now, all three can easily win the race. It’s almost a fait accompli simply by having that (D) next to your name on the ballot.

    That said, I think the media is going to have the most difficult time smearing Obama, so he has that advantage. So far he’s untouchable, whereas Hillary has been a primary target of the right’s malice for over a decade. What I predict is that the right and the compliant media will be forced to use the race card with Obama and it will backfire on them. They’ll get themselves the racist vote and nothing else. That won’t necessarily happen with Clinton or Edwards. (Won’t necessarily happen with Obama either, so who knows?)

  • copeland @ 2

    it reminds me of a Benny Hill bit:

    Jester: Not all of ’em was booing! Some of them was cheering!
    Minister: They were cheering the booing.

    • Comments are closed.