Friday’s campaign round-up

February 22, 2008

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:

* With about 10 days to go before the closely-watched contests in Ohio and Texas, the two Clinton “firewall” states look pretty competitive in a new WaPo/ABC poll. The results show Clinton ahead in Ohio by seven points (50% to 43%), and ahead in Texas by just one (48% to 47%).

* That new pro-Clinton 527 group is drawing quite a bit of scrutiny: “Obama lawyer Bob Bauer reiterated the charges made in a memo yesterday that the new pro-Clinton 527, the American Leadership, is breaking the law and warned that donors and aides to the group could face criminal liability — an apparent effort to stop the group before it starts, and to scare off other, similar efforts.”

* Obama picked up the endorsement yesterday of Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson, announced at an event with Obama’s wife Michelle at Cleveland State. Obama now has the earned the endorements of the mayor’s of Ohio’s two biggest cities: Cleveland and Columbus.

* Rasmussen offered some data yesterday that will fuel Democratic electability arguments. In Michigan, for example, Clinton ties McCain in a general election match-up, while Obama leads McCain by eight. In Ohio, though, McCain leads Clinton by three, and McCain also leads Obama by one.

* On a related note, SurveyUSA found that in a hypothetical general election match-up, Kansas voters prefered McCain to Clinton by 24 points, while Kansans preferred McCain to Obama by just six points.

* Oddly enough, SurveyUSA also found that both Clinton and Obama enjoy huge leads over McCain in New York, though Obama’s margin is slightly bigger.

* Usually, major federal corruption investigations, especially those in which members of Congress look pretty guilty, are enough to prevent re-election plans. But Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) filed for re-election yesterday anyway. Dems are desperately hoping Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich enters the race.

* Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) announced in November that he’s retiring. Yesterday, he changed his mind, saying his Republican colleagues and 33 outside conservative groups convinced him to stay.

* It looks like Ralph Nader is going to announce on Meet the Press on Sunday. Joy.

* Clinton told Texas Monthly that she’ll have to fight to seat delegations from Florida and Michigan because voters from Florida and Michigan participated in their contests. While she had previously agreed to play by the rules, Clinton now says she doesn’t want anyone to be “disenfranchised.”

* Stanford University’s Lawrence Lessig, an online pioneer and the founder of the Center for Internet and Society, said this week that he’s considering a run for Congress in California. Lessig is eyeing the now-vacant 12th district seat that was represented by Tom Lantos, who died earlier this month. “It is very rare to have the chance to live in times where there’s the opportunity for fundamental change; this is one of those times,” Lessig said. He didn’t express a party preference, but I’m assuming he’s a Dem.

I know, I know, “Life is not fair” – but just how does Clinton think that this will fly? “…fight to seat delegations….”. From this article: “The other two candidates name were not on the Michigan ballot… in Florida – no active campaigning.”

Since she “won“, does she think she should get all the delegates?

  • I can’t believe you left of Rick Renzi’s indictment—he is one of the heads of McCoin’s Arizona campaign group.

  • It looks like Ralph Nader is going to announce on Meet the Press on Sunday. Joy.

    Yes, it will be awful to have someone on the national stage attempting to debate the merits of those insignificant areas where their voting records demonstrate that Clinton and Obama agree.

    We will have to stomach that old grouch reminding us that the “Patriot” Act is anything but patriotic or constitutional and that, as indicated by their records, voting for such legislation merits serious consideration and debate. We’ll have to hear all about how Clinton and Obama both voted for the Defense Authorization Act of 2007 which granted the authority to Lord Bush to declare martial law at his discretion (for “other conditions, for example) and use the National Guard as a police force within the United States without the consent of the Congress or governors. We might even be forced to recall that Clinton and Obama have both voted to continue funding the occupation of Iraq and voted against immediate withdrawal.

    But don’t let any of that bother you. Blame Nader for all of these ills. After all, he cost Gore-Lieberman the election in 2000. Right? Perhaps he will cost McCain-Lieberman the election this go-round.

    Whatever anguish it may cause, consider the words of American Patriot Patrick Henry: “We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?”

    Apparently so. At least in the “Reality-Based” Community.

  • “I can’t believe you left of Rick Renzi’s indictment—he is one of the heads of McCoin’s Arizona campaign group.”

    Seems I spoke too soon.

  • Rasmussen offered some data yesterday…

    Are there any credible analyses that compare Rasmussen vs. SurveyUSA vs. WaPo/ABC vs. ____ polls? I’ve heard that Rasmussen leans GOP, but I’m less interested in partisan leanings and more interested in accuracy.

    Thanks in advance.

  • Edo, do a search in Kos or TPM. They had analysis of that kind (relative accuracy of predicted results) fairly recently.

  • With regard to Lessig, I noticed the same thing about not identifying himself as a Democrat (I wrote: “I can’t tell from your website if you are a Democrat or not.”). Within minutes, Lessig responded: “Yea, real problem. Fixed soon. Thanks,” although that response still didn’t resolve the issue. I, too, am assuming that he’s a Democrat, but he certainly does not seem to be eager to advertise that fact.

  • Clinton told Texas Monthly that she’ll have to fight to seat delegations from Florida and Michigan because voters from Florida and Michigan participated in their contests. While she had previously agreed to play by the rules, Clinton now says she doesn’t want anyone to be “disenfranchised.”

    The reality is that in all likihood these state’s deligates WILL be seated in some manner or other. The form and ratios of these deligates may depend on how things go over the next few weeks. Here are my takes for the likely outcomes:

    1- Clinton very narrowly wins Texas and Ohio and the fight goes on to the last contest with Obama retaining a very narrow margin of pledged deligates. The DNC eventually decides to seat the pledged deligates from Florida and Michigan in a 50/50 split while instating the superdeligates to vote as they wish. This compromise would keep the voters from feeling completely disenfranchised. It then falls to the supers to decide the contest.

    2- Obama wins Texas but loses Ohio by a large margin and essentially continues to grind out an increasing lead in pleadged deligates, though still short of the minimum needed to clinch it outright. The DNC could seat Florida and Michigan’s pledged deligates in their current ratios (assuming Obama would get the 40% uncommitted votes) without fear of resistance from Obama because they would not be enough for Clinton to take the lead in pledged deligates. The supers again decide the outcome.

    3- Obama wins both Texas AND Ohio and essentially forces Clinton to concede the nomination. The DNC seats Florida and Michigan’s pledged deligates in their current ratios (assuming Obama would get the 40% uncommitted votes) without fear of resistance from Obama because he would have the party’s nomination.

    4- I suppose there is a possible fourth scenario, though this one seems highly unlikely. Clinton clobbers Obama in both Texas and Ohio, completely turns it around and claims momentum in the remaining contests, arriving at the convention with a slight lead in pledged deligates. The DNC seats the Florida and Michigan pledged deligates in their current ratios (assuming Obama would get the 40% uncommitted votes), but again neither candidate has the nomination outright. The supers again decide the outcome.

  • Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) announced in November that he’s retiring. Yesterday, he changed his mind…

    Maybe Barack is right. Maybe there are some republicans out there who haven’t guzzled the kool-aid. This from the AZ Daily Star:

    http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/226343

    Shadegg is expected to be challenged by Republican Steve May, who already announced his candidacy. “The Republican Party has to change,” said May, a former Arizona lawmaker.
    When the Republicans took over the House 14 years ago, “I was a believer, like everyone else was, like John Shadegg was, that we could actually make a difference,” May added. “Once we took charge, we spent like Democrats, and we behaved like jackasses. And there was no difference.”

    More on Steve May, a log cabin republican:

    http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0214may0214.html
    http://gaytoday.com/garchive/people/090699pe.htm

  • Wouldn’t you know it? Out of all of those areas that I mentioned where Clinton and Obama’s voting record in the Senate have agreed, so too does the Shit-Talk Express, John McCain’s voting record coincide.

  • * It looks like Ralph Nader is going to announce on Meet the Press on Sunday. Joy. — CB

    Will he even be able to get enough signatures to get himself on the ballots in all 50 states? Announcements on TV cost nothing but getting up a real campaign — even a non-viable one — is a different story. This is not 2000 and Nader is now a spent force, politically.

  • independent thinker,

    One problem with dividing up the Michigan delegation is that there is no guarantee that the uncommitted delegates will go to Obama. There’s been talk in Michigan lately that, as uncommitted delegates can go to anyone, in theory they could all vote for Clinton at the convention. Since the party leadership in Michigan is strongly pro-Clinton, the fear is that if the Michigan delegation is seated it will be turned into a delegation which is virtually all for Clinton.

  • You know, the name of that Nader article is somewhat of an understatement, since that reads more like a baseball bat to the face than any kind of “hint” I’m aware of.

    As for JKap’s equating Clinton and Obama with McCain, are you honestly serious? So voting to fund the military so that it can somewhat supply and support the troops in Iraq/Afghanistan is a bad thing, and I also recall that both Obama and Clinton were of the opinion that immediate withdrawal would cause more problems than it solves, not to mention essentially trying to wash our hands of a mess we created.

    Having such a selective memory must be nice.

  • I think that Kansas poll number is pretty amazing. If the Republicans have to play defense in Kansas it’s going to be a tough year for the GOP.

  • Funny, just yesterday CB, you claimed McCain didn’t lead Obama in ANY of the polls… I guess you actually did some work today and found a couple.

  • Ok, I’ll bite (or take a little nibble).

    First of all, I was not comparing Clinton, Obama and McCain. I was comparing Clinton, Obama, and McCain’s voting records in the Senate. There’s a difference.

    Second, to insinuate that I am not “serious” (“are you honestly serious?”) for simply comparing Clinton, Obama, and McCain’s voting records is disingenuous at best and at worst an either conscious or unconscious reinforcement of what Noam Chomsky described as the limits of “acceptable opinion.”

    “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

    Third, as far as the continued U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq, I have 70% of the American people on my side who favor withdrawal. But I’ll play along. You and John McCain can tell us all how “the surge is working” and how it’s time for the “liberators” to get out the chocolate and nylons.

    So, when does this Iraq occupation end? Is the occupation indefinite? Are we to maintain this domestic “war-state” indefinitely? How does one “win” a “war” on a psychological state (terror) or a nefarious tactic (terrorism)? How long must we maintain a military empire with 575,000 military personnel stationed in 700+ military bases in 130+ countries around the globe (there are only 195 “sovereign” nations in the world)?

    Count me in the “out-now” camp. There, I said it.

    Lastly, I noticed that you completely ignored the threats to our Constitutional Republic posed by legislation like the “Patriot” Act and the Defense Authorization Act of 2007 which Clinton, Obama, and McCain unanimously supported. Looks like you’re the one with a selective consciousness.

    Buy hey, I can tell that you got the audacity of hope, so, who am I to say?

    “This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

    Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

    For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth — to know the worst and to provide for it.” -Patrick Henry

  • Mary:

    Thanks ever so much for demonstrating so clearly what I learned in the year I wasted at the University of Northern Colorado – to wit, what they make teachers out of and how they go about it. You’re the perfect example of the one of two types of teacher everyone rmembers – the one who was really good and the wone who was a real waste of everything. I’ll leave it to you as to which you are. No wonder American public miseducation is in such a state.

  • I would definitely like to see another candidate for President besides the poor choices we have now, but I’m not sure Mr. Nader is the one. I just checked his website votenader.org and found that the biggest issue hurting Americans at home, ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, is not even on his 12 Issues That Matter Most in 2008 list. Illegal imigration should be a number one Priority, right up there with the Iraq war. I am looking for an anti-amnesty Presidential candidate, he’d get my vote!

  • I heard Ralph Nader on Meet the Press Sunday. What an egomaniac. He admitted trying to influence the other campaigns. Obama said it was clear that if you don’t agree with Nader, then he discounts you completely. Nader was busy ripping off many of the things Obama already stands for, as if they originated from himself, Nader. It was pathetic.

    This guy needs to realize that it’s time to retire from whatever it is he thinks he’s trying to do. Does he even do anything? He didn’t say. If he’s so interested in running for President, why doesn’t he start at the beginning and do all of the work and campaigning like the other candidates have to do? He’s just some spoiled, narcissist, who does nothing more than shoot off at the mouth, and copy other’s ideas. He has no platform whatsoever. Go away Nader. Been there, done that! Get a reality check. This election business is serious stuff and Nader is completely clueless,.

    He made it clear also that he has something big against Democrats. There is a chip on his shoulder the size of the Grand Canyon. So much for our country. We’ve suffered enough the past 8 years. We need OBAMA more than ever now. The crazies are coming out of the woodwork.

    • Comments are closed.