We haven't had a survivor game in awhile. Thought it might be fun to do one for the candidates. Rules are (as I recall) one vote for, two against per day.
10 Mitt Romney 10 Rudy Guliani 10 Mike Huckabee 10 John McCain 10 Ron Paul 10 Hillary Clinton 10 Barak Obama 10 John Edwards 10 Joe Biden 10 Bill Richardson 10 Chris Dodd 10 Dennis Kucinich
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
My votes:
+1 Mitt -1 Kucinch -1 Ron Paul
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
+1 Ron Paul -2 Clinton
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
+ 1 Barack Obama - 2 Clinton
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
+1 Obama -2 Romney
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
12 Barak Obama 10 Rudy Guliani 10 Mike Huckabee 10 John McCain 10 Ron Paul 10 John Edwards 10 Joe Biden 10 Bill Richardson 10 Chris Dodd 9 Mitt Romney 9 Dennis Kucinich 6 Hillary Clinton
*Edit to fix Romney
[ December 31, 2007, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Shawshank ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
12 Barak Obama 10 Mitt Romney 10 Rudy Guliani 10 Mike Huckabee 10 John McCain 10 Ron Paul 10 John Edwards 10 Joe Biden 10 Bill Richardson 10 Chris Dodd 9 Dennis Kucinich 4 Hillary Clinton
I don't know why, but slaying Hillary now that she is in a vulnerable position tickles me. I'll probably go after Giuliani once she is vanquished.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
BB: you have Mitt Romney listed twice
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
+1 Barak Obama -2 Ron Paul Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Shawshank: you gave a +1 to Obama, but took no votes away. Are you reserving your -2 for later today?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Jokes on Shawshank, I copied/pasted his list and he has Romney posted twice. ;P
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
12 Barak Obama 10 Mitt Romney 10 Rudy Guliani 10 John McCain 10 Ron Paul 10 John Edwards 10 Joe Biden 10 Chris Dodd 9 Dennis Kucinich 9 Mike Huckabee 9 Bill Richardson 5 Hillary Clinton
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Wow- my list was weird.
quote: Originally posted by: SenojRetep
Shawshank: you gave a +1 to Obama, but took no votes away. Are you reserving your -2 for later today?
Look two posts above mine. I wrote it out first and then gave an updated list that included Mucus's.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: Wow- my list was weird.
quote: Originally posted by: SenojRetep
Shawshank: you gave a +1 to Obama, but took no votes away. Are you reserving your -2 for later today?
Look two posts above mine. I wrote it out first and then gave an updated list that included Mucus's.
Right; sorry.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
+1 mitt -1 ron paul -1 hillary
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Can I play even if I'm not American?
+1 Obama -1 Guliani -1 Clinton
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
+1 Paul -1 McCain -1 Giulianni
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
+1 Obama -2 Huckabee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
+1 Obama -2 Huckabee
Posted by Liaison (Member # 6873) on :
+1 Paul -2 Giuliani
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
15 Barack Obama 12 Ron Paul 10 John Edwards 10 Joe Biden 10 Chris Dodd 10 Mitt Romney 9 Dennis Kucinich 9 John McCain 9 Dennis Kucinich 6 Rudy Guliani 5 Mike Huckabee 9 Bill Richardson 3 Hillary Clinton
Is where we're at now! Big difference between Obama and Clinton.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Votes through Liaison:
16 Barak Obama 11 Mitt Romney 10 John Edwards 10 Joe Biden 10 Chris Dodd 9 John McCain 9 Ron Paul 9 Dennis Kucinich 9 Bill Richardson 6 Rudy Guliani 5 Mike Huckabee 3 Hillary Clinton
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
+1 Mitt -2 Obama
14 Barak Obama 12 Mitt Romney 10 John Edwards 10 Joe Biden 10 Chris Dodd 9 John McCain 9 Ron Paul 9 Dennis Kucinich 9 Bill Richardson 6 Rudy Guliani 5 Mike Huckabee 3 Hillary Clinton
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
+ 1 Obama - 1 McCain - 1 Clinton
List after my vote:
15 Barak Obama 12 Mitt Romney 10 John Edwards 10 Joe Biden 10 Chris Dodd 9 Ron Paul 9 Dennis Kucinich 9 Bill Richardson 8 John McCain 6 Rudy Guliani 5 Mike Huckabee 2 Hillary Clinton
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
+1 Obama
-1 Huckabee -1 Ron Paul
Edited with an updated list that doesn't mispell Obama's or Giuliani's names:
16 Barack Obama 12 Mitt Romney 10 John Edwards 10 Joe Biden 10 Chris Dodd 9 Dennis Kucinich 9 Bill Richardson 8 Ron Paul 8 John McCain 6 Rudy Giuliani 4 Mike Huckabee 2 Hillary Clinton
[ December 31, 2007, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Tarrsk ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
+1 Obama -1 Ron Paul -1 Clinton
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
+1 Obama -2 Huckabee
<fixed it>
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
(+1, -2 Tatiana)
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
+1 Obama -1 Huckabee -1 Clinton
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
*waves good bye to Clinton*
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Updated list?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
19 Barack Obama 12 Mitt Romney 10 John Edwards 10 Joe Biden 10 Chris Dodd 9 Dennis Kucinich 9 Bill Richardson 8 John McCain 7 Ron Paul 6 Rudy Giuliani 1 Mike Huckabee
<edit to reorder and remove Clinton>
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
+1 Dodd -1 Romney -1 Giuliani
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: Can I play even if I'm not American?
Survivor is no respecter of national boundaries. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm not good at arithmetic, people. Check my work.
19 Barack Obama 11 Chris Dodd 11 Mitt Romney 10 John Edwards 10 Joe Biden 9 Dennis Kucinich 9 Bill Richardson 8 John McCain 7 Ron Paul 5 Rudy Giuliani 1 Mike Huckabee
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I wish we could have negative votes at the polls too!
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Forum says it's tomorrow. I'm voting again.
+1 Obama -1 Huckabee (bye bye) -1 Ron Paul
20 Barack Obama 11 Chris Dodd 11 Mitt Romney 10 John Edwards 10 Joe Biden 9 Dennis Kucinich 9 Bill Richardson 8 John McCain 6 Ron Paul 5 Rudy Giuliani
Oh, and happy new year to ye eastern time zonerz. =)
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Wow- apparently hatrackers really like Obama. I voted for him but so did almost everyone else.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
+1 Obama -1 Romney -1 Giuliani
21 Barack Obama 11 Chris Dodd 10 Mitt Romney 10 John Edwards 10 Joe Biden 9 Dennis Kucinich 9 Bill Richardson 8 John McCain 6 Ron Paul 4 Rudy Giuliani
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
+1 Ron Paul -1 Guiliani -1 Romney
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
+1 Giuliani -1 Romney -1 Edwards
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Hey hey, it's a new year.
+1 Dodd -1 Ron Paul -1 McCain
21 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 10 Joe Biden 9 John Edwards 9 Dennis Kucinich 9 Bill Richardson 8 Mitt Romney 7 John McCain 6 Ron Paul 4 Rudy Giuliani
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
22 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 10 Joe Biden 9 John Edwards 9 Dennis Kucinich 9 Bill Richardson 8 Mitt Romney 7 John McCain 5 Ron Paul 3 Rudy Giuliani
+1 Obama -1 Paul -1 Giuliani
What, no Duncan Hunter? What about third party candidate possibilities like Michael Bloomberg? He's meeting later this week to discuss a bid for the job.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Well, if he's independent, then he wouldn't be in the primary, no?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Well, this thread shows the general leaning of the board. Oh yeah, centered in California. Forgot. I just learned that my stepdad might be voting for a Republican this year. I asked him about the change, and he said that he is earning about 50 grand more this year than last year, and that pushes him over the point where it financially makes more sense. In turn, I asked him if money matters more than selling out his moral views. His response was that he is another year older, and at his age, yes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Well, if he's independent, then he wouldn't be in the primary, no?
If we're going to be that specific, this really should be two polls, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, and not mixed like this, and you should only be allowed to vote in one, not both, so we'd end up with two winners and less tampering. Also, Duncan Hunter has only a little less support than Paul, and I forgot Mike Gravel as well, who only has a little less support than Kucinich, Biden and Dodd. None of those three are third party candidates.
This seems like less of a primary whittling and more of a voting for president amongst the possible contenders. Just saying.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
+1 Edwards -1 Hilary -1 Mittster
edit: Hilary vote out, switched @7:40 PM post
[ January 01, 2008, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Morbo: Hillary's already gone; do you really dislike her THAT much?
Lyrhawn: I have to admit, when I wrote the list I didn't refer to any cannonical list of primary contenders. I just added those that I thought of at the time. That said, I think including Hunter and Gravel would likely just add more rounds without really affecting the outcome. I just haven't heard any enthousiasm either way about either of them.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
My votes:
+1 Biden -1 Richardson -1 Kucinich
22 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 10 John Edwards 8 Dennis Kucinich 8 Bill Richardson 7 Mitt Romney 7 John McCain 5 Ron Paul 3 Rudy Giuliani -1 Hillary Clinton (pending Morbo reassigning his vote)
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
But that puts her back on the board. Does that mean she can be voted for again?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: But that puts her back on the board. Does that mean she can be voted for again?
No. I think if Morbo doesn't choose to reassign his vote, she should be redropped from the list. Otherwise this will work more like a market than a survivor game, and while I think markets are cool, that's not what this is supposed to be.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
+1 Kucinich -2 Romney
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
+1 Romney -2 Obama
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
+1 kucinich -1 romney -1 paul
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Current list:
20 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 10 John Edwards 10 Dennis Kucinich 8 Bill Richardson 7 John McCain 5 Mitt Romney 4 Ron Paul 3 Rudy Giuliani
Dead Hillary Clinton
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
+1 Ron Paul -2 Giuliani
20 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 10 John Edwards 10 Dennis Kucinich 8 Bill Richardson 7 John McCain 5 Ron Paul 5 Mitt Romney 1 Rudy Giuliani
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
+1 Paul -1 Giuliani -1 Kucinich
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
+1 Kucinich -1 Ron Paul -1 Mitt Romney
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Sorry, I missed that Hilary tanked already.
Switch to: -1 Dr. Paul
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Current standings
20 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 10 John Edwards 10 Dennis Kucinich 8 Bill Richardson 7 John McCain 4 Ron Paul 4 Mitt Romney
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
+1 Romney -1 John Edwards -1 Dennis Kicinich
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
+1 Bill Richardson -1 Ron Paul -1 Barack Obama
19 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 9 John Edwards 9 Dennis Kucinich 9 Bill Richardson 7 John McCain 5 Mitt Romney 3 Ron Paul
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
+1 Ron Paul -1 John McCain -1 John Edwards
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
+1 Ron Paul -2 Mitt Romney
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
+1 Edwards -2 Romney
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
+1 Barak Obama -1 Mitt Romney -1 Ron Paul
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Aww...sad day for Romney.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
21 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 9 John Edwards 9 Bill Richardson 8 Dennis Kucinich 6 John McCain 3 Ron Paul
Romney = Deadified.
+1 Obama -1 Paul -1 Kucinich
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
+1 Paul -2 McCain
21 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 9 John Edwards 9 Bill Richardson 8 Dennis Kucinich 4 Ron Paul 4 John McCain
Posted by Liaison (Member # 6873) on :
+1 Paul -1 Richardson -1 Edwards
21 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 8 John Edwards 8 Bill Richardson 8 Dennis Kucinich 5 Ron Paul 4 John McCain
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
+1 Chris Dodd -2 Ron Paul
21 Barack Obama 13 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 8 John Edwards 8 Bill Richardson 8 Dennis Kucinich 4 John McCain 3 Ron Paul
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
+1 McCain -1 Edwards -1 Kucinich
21 Barack Obama 13 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 8 Bill Richardson 7 John Edwards 7 Dennis Kucinich 5 John McCain 3 Ron Paul
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
+1 Ron Paul -1 Bill Richardson -1 John McCain
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
+1 McCain -1 John Edwards -1 Bill Richardson
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
+1 Obama -1 Kucinich -1 Paul
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
+1 kucinich -2 paul
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Current Tally:
22 Barack Obama 13 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 7 Dennis Kucinich 6 Bill Richardson 6 John Edwards 5 John McCain 1 Ron Paul
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
+1 Bill Richardson -1Barack Obama -1 and deleted Ron Paul
21 Barack Obama 13 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 7 Dennis Kucinich 7 Bill Richardson 6 John Edwards 5 John McCain
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
My current feeling on the political climate right now is that conservatives don't feel particularly strongly about any candidate of theirs, but almost universally hate Clinton. No such negative feelings exist for Obama.
I think that if Obama gets to the general election, that he wins in a landslide, much like Bill Clinton before him. ( 1992 electoral map)
I think that if Clinton gets to the general election, every conservative in the country will come out and vote for "not Clinton", whomever that happens to be. She still may win, but it will be very close. I think it will probably come down to a couple of key states, much like the Bush-Gore race ( 2000 electoral map ).
The point of this post was that I think that this thread is pretty good evidence of my theory .
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Those electoral maps got me to poking around for election data on wikipedia.
I think this is a fascinating graph. I'd love to figure out a way to systematically analyze it for trends. There are some that appear obvious:
- 1952 and 1992 were watershed type years; the first saw lots of states switching to (R) after years of (D) and the latter saw the inverse. 1988 and 1948 were obvious transition years, where the change began, but wasn't quite complete.
- 1964, and (to a lesser degree) 1976, were anomalies which saw a large scale, single election (D) defection, followed by a return for many solidly (R) states. 1976 seems obvious given Nixon's resignation and all that went with it; however the landslide of LBJ over Goldwater seems very odd to me; what about that election skewed so strongly to the Dems? Was it that Goldwater was so unpopular? I know he was a big departure from Eisenhower era Republicanism. Or was it (D) sympathy following the Kennedy assassination? Or was LBJ really just that popular after his first two years?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
X, we have pretty much the same theory. The only thing I'd add is that if Republicans nominate someone (possibly Rudy) not considered pro-life enough it may suppress turnout among the religious right (or make them go for a third-party candidate). My offhand guess would be that the "not Clinton" turnout would still be a bigger factor, though.
Which is why it's baffling to me whenever I hear some Dems say they support Hillary because she's "most electable."
--Enigmatic
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
-1 McCain -1 Richardson +1 Kucinich
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Xavier: the prediction markets are coming to agree, it looks like.
Intrade's markets have Obama with a 16% chance of being elected President, and a 25.6% chance of winning the Democratic primary. So, the probability of him being elected president, given a primary win, is the probability of him winning the primary and the presidency (16%) divided by the probability he wins the primary (25.6%), or 62.5%.
Of course, Hillary is given a 43.1% chance of winning the Presidency, and a 66% chance of winning the nom, so her odds of winning the presidency if she wins the nomination are even greater, as a fairly large scale and regularly accurate prediction market sees it.
22 Barack Obama 13 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 8 Dennis Kucinich 6 Bill Richardson 6 John Edwards 2 John McCain
CMMP!
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I totally agree that Clinton won't win if the Dems are dumb enough to nominate her. The process is broken. It keeps nominating Democrats who can't win. Democrats are a shoo-in this year if they only will nominate anyone electable. Clinton just isn't. Too many people hate her. She's too liberal. New Hampshire looks nothing like America. We need to fix the process.
It's interesting that our game is so revealing, though, given that Hatrack looks nothing like America either.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Clinton just isn't. Too many people hate her. She's too liberal."
They don't hate her because she's too liberal... obama, kucinich, edwards, are all more liberal then she is. They hate her because the republican smear machine has been at her for about 14 years.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I actually "hate" her because she's stiff and fake in the exact way no Democrat should be.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
At first it shocked me that McCain is the last Republican standing and there are still six Democrats around. But then I remember that after 8 years of Republicans in the white house most voters will swing Democrat.
Still it's surprising that Richardson, Biden, Kucinich, Dodd, and Edwards all defeated every Republican save McCain who is on the brink of death. Makes one wonder if perhaps most people simply wanted to make sure candidates they did not like were eliminated while the ones nobody really cares about stayed afloat.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
+1 Bill Richardson -1 Chris Dodd -1 Barak Obama
21 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 8 Dennis Kucinich 7 Bill Richardson 6 John Edwards 2 John McCain
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
+1 Edwards -2 McCain
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
+1 Obama -1 Romney -1 Ron Paul
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Clinton just isn't. Too many people hate her. She's too liberal."
They don't hate her because she's too liberal... obama, kucinich, edwards, are all more liberal then she is. They hate her because the republican smear machine has been at her for about 14 years.
Thank you.
And Tatiana, people say she's the most electable because polls show she is the most electable. Polls are right more often than not, and she gets the highest rating against any Republican opposition, beating all of them in head to head matchups. Obama does too, for the moment, but by lesser margines, statistically insignificant ones.
Some of those polls are meaningless though. There's so much that could happen. Giuliani/Hillary will hand the race to Hillary. Hatred of Hillary for a lot of them will NOT drive them to vote for Giuliani once all his faults and sins of the past come out. He'll come out looking just as unpalatable to Republicans, which either means a third party Republican, or thousands of them staying home. Democrats are jazzed this year. They can't WAIT to vote, whereas Republicans are flatlining as far as national energy goes. Everything depends on who the candidates are, and whether or not that results in third and fourth party candidates with real clout. Also don't forget recent gains in traditional Republican strongholds for Democrats. They're going to have less money, where Democrats will have an unprecedented warchest, and they'll have to defend spots they have counted on for decades.
For every vote Hillary loses or brings out on the Right, she might and just may win and bring out on the Left and maybe even the middle. She's not a guaranteed loser, not by far.
22 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 12 Joe Biden 7 Bill Richardson 7 John Edwards 6 Dennis Kucinich
McCain = Deadified.
+1 Biden -2 Kucinich
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
+1 Obama -2 Richardson
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
+1 kucinich -2 richardson
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Why the Richardson hate?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:She's not a guaranteed loser, not by far.
This is, quite honestly, incomprensible to me. A Hillary nomination would result in red sweeps across the south and midwest.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom: strangely, the polls down there don't bear you out. While I don't think polls are the be all-end all (heh, see below), they're pretty darn good at anticipating sweeps. The prediction markets, a tool with an even better track record, if a shorter one, and using an entirely different mechanism, also predict a very strong showing for Hillary nationwide (though they won't have state by states until the main election nears).
Btw, there will be an interesting test of prediction markets tonight. While polls are showing dead heats, the markets are showing likely Obama and Huckabee wins. Part of the reason Obama is shown as a clear winner is probably analysis of how bidders feel the democratic caucusing process will impact Obama's totals.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom: strangely, the polls down there don't bear you out. While I don't think polls are the be all-end all (heh, see below), they're pretty darn good at anticipating sweeps.
I think the key here is turnout, which is something that polls have been notoriously bad at estimating. Republicans who would otherwise not bother to vote will show up to vote against Hillary. There is a level of passionate dislike for her that I don't think has been properly measured.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I disagree with you about the midwest, but Red sweeps in the south? Heavens to Betsy that's news! Bush swept the south in the last two elections, and though the Democratic candidates lost, it was by thin margins, razor thin in Gore's case, where even a SINGLE state, anywhere in the nation, would have won it for him. She'll contest South Carolina, Florida and Virginia heavily. Obama would have a better chance in South Carolina, but she'll do better in Florida.
I disagree about the midwest. She polls pretty much even with the Republicans in Iowa, and far ahead of them in traditional blue states of the last couple elections like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois. She even has a good chance of stealing Ohio away, which I think would seal the election.
Ohio, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and I think maybe Colorado and Nevada are all going to be big battleground states, regardless of the Democratic or Republican nominees, because you also have to look on a state by state basis at the senate, house, and state legislature battles from 06, and looming in 08. Trends point towards Democratic victories in all those states to keep the momentum from their 06 pickups. Those votes are going to give ANY Democrat an advantage.
Besides, if she runs against Giuliani, I think it'll be a landslide victory for her.
I'm curious as to why you think your scenario is more plausible though, or in the case of the south, why you think it even matters.
Edit to add: Two things work against your theory there. 1. Hillary, despite claims I see on Hatrack, will energize a lot of people on the Left to head to the polls who might also traditionally stay home. Like I've said before, Democrats are utterly chomping at the bit to get to the polls this year. I think turnout this year will surpass anything in this decade. Further, people registering as Democrats is skyrocketing (in Iowa for example, for the first time in decades, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans (though both are out numbered by Independents)). 2. Who is the Republican candidate? Placing a vote against Hillary is one thing, but placing it with someone equally bad is another. The Republicans you are talking about will NOT come out in droves to vote against her if they have to vote for Giuliani, and maybe even Romney. You're overvaluing the "not Hillary" crowd and undervaluing the "Giuliani is a ticking time bomb" factor I think.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While polls have been mildly bad at estimating turnout, I don't believe there has ever been an error by a reputable poll as large as what you are suggesting. Strangely, I'm thinking the pair of differing mechanisms, both with good track records, that still largely agree, are at least in the general ballpark of predicting huge, near-nationwide effects.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Strangely, I'm thinking the pair of differing mechanisms, both with good track records, that still largely agree, are at least in the general ballpark of predicting huge, near-nationwide effects.
Yeah, I know. It's kind of cute.
quote:Hillary, despite claims I see on Hatrack, will energize a lot of people on the Left to head to the polls who might also traditionally stay home.
Who? Lizard-people?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No, Bush haters. Again, you're overestimating hatred of Hillary and underestimating hatred of the Republican party. Measure 7 years of solid crap that Bush and the Republican congress (six of those years) has pulled against however many years of Republican smear against Hillary. Why do you think Democrats are getting such ridiculous gobs of money? Republicans have bungled too much in the last seven years, and Democrats have NOT forgotten that. They've got the fire right now.
You have to look at the trends. Rallies for Democratic candidates, even the way back in the back guys like Biden are reaching into the hundreds for attendees, numbers the Republican frontrunners would die for. Democrats in 06 burned through the midwest, taking House seats, Senate seats, flipping legislatures and gubanatorial races.
And you're worried about turnout? Bah. I think Obama will have a much easier time of it in the end than she will, due to, like you said, the fact that he doesn't invoke the same controversy, but the "I hate Hillary" club is given a much bigger microphone than I think they truly represent in the electorate.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:1. Hillary, despite claims I see on Hatrack, will energize a lot of people on the Left to head to the polls who might also traditionally stay home.
I just don't believe this. I think 99% of those who would go vote for Hillary would pull the lever for Obama instead. I don't think this is true in reverse. Obama has FAR more pull with the moderates and independents, from what I can see.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom: we might get a chance to find out. Care to place some sort of wager, conditional on Hillary receiving the Democratic nomination?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
For what it's worth, I think that the hatred of Hilary hasn't been properly measured either. This is just my little area of Kansas speaking, but around here, Hilary would motivate more Republicans to vote against her. I'm not convinced by the polls, yet. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Xavier -
Well, you realize I said "the Left" and not the center. Regardless, she's moderate herself, and a long campaign, especially given her resources, will hammer that effect home and probably change some minds.
But I'll repeat that, the point you didn't address, my second one, makes part of this conversation fun but moot for the moment. Who is she running against? You can't predict Hillary will lose without knowing who she is running against, because almost none of the current crop of Republican candidates will be able to rally the entire party. Single issue voters about abortion WILL stay home, or go third party if Giuliani is the candidate. And that's a biig chunk that was never going to vote for ANY Democrat. He has the lead nationally right now, dominating the others, it all depends on what they can do in national polls before HyperTuesday.
The thing is, we know all about her baggage right here and right now, because Republicans have been harping on it for years. Hillary has nowhere to go but up. Giuliani (and then the others, though I don't know the specifics for Romney and McCain (both will get hit with heavy flipflopper labels) I think has nowhere to go but down. He has more baggage than an airport, and it'll ALL come out during the campaign. He'll get hammered on a wide array of traditionally Republican issues, and even the issues he's supposed to be good at like security, he'll be hammered on for his decision making lapses in judgement during his tenure as NYC Mayor. Huckabee will turn off just as many moderates as Hillary will.
You see where I'm going with this, it's just not enough to say Hillary will lose the election with her name alone. There are way too many other factors that cannot be dismissed.
PS, neither here nor there, but we'll find out today if Obama's suppoters will even come out for HIM, let alone for her. The majority of his support is first time voters, youth, and independents. In other words, if he can't get these people who traditionally don't vote at all to come out and caucus for him tonight, then it doesn't much matter how much lip service they pay him, he'll be left in the dust. He's experimenting with tempermental electoral forces.
Tstorm -
Kansas would still go Republican in 2008 regardless of who the Democratic candidate is. Turnout there is a moot point. It's the battleground states that matter, ones where there is a reasonable chance of the state going one way or the other.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:But I'll repeat that, the point you didn't address, my second one, makes part of this conversation fun but moot for the moment. Who is she running against? You can't predict Hillary will lose without knowing who she is running against,
My contention was not that she would lose. My argument is that Obama would win easily, while Clinton will be a tough race.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Care to place some sort of wager, conditional on Hillary receiving the Democratic nomination?
*grin* I actually already have, somewhere else. But I'll think about it. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
+1 Biden -1 Obama -1 Kucinich
22 Barack Obama 13 Joe Biden 12 Chris Dodd 7 John Edwards 6 Dennis Kucinich 3 Bill Richardson
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
-2 Richardson +1 Kucinich
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Why the Richardson hate?
I really can't speak much for the others, but it is not really "hate" here. After Romney, Huckabee, Guiliani, and Clinton got out (each of which I had major objections based on various threads here) I'm going on little more than wikipedia summaries of each of the candidates positions.
Problem is, each of the remaining democratic candidates seem rather opaque to me, that is their differences on the issues seem rather minor by this point.
My only objection to Bill Richardson is his support for "affirmative action policies in government contracts" and the death penalty.
I am very willing to be convinced otherwise and would appreciate info about the remaining democratic candidates and how they stack up against each other.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I suppose we can jump in at any time?
+1 Obama
-1 Kucinich -1 Biden
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
+1 Obama -2 Kucinich
24 Barack Obama 12 Joe Biden 12 Chris Dodd 7 John Edwards 4 Dennis Kucinich 1 Bill Richardson
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
+ 1 Richardson
- 2 Obama
Posted by Chipmunk (Member # 7975) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I wish we could have negative votes at the polls too!
YES! With the added benefit that some would be confused by them, and cancel out their own intended votes.
I'll be casting my "+" vote in person in a few hours, so I base the following purely on whose TV commercials most damage my calm:
-2 Dodd -0 Romney
I'd have split them, but (thankfully) Romney is already off the island. Just needed to vent - it's the very last day of caucus commercials!
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
This is confusing... I better go read page one and two...
Posted by Chipmunk (Member # 7975) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: This is confusing... I better go read page one and two...
Oops - sorry if my non-standards-compliant vote was the cause of your confusion!
I had intended to vote one negative against each of Romney and Dodd, because they have the most irritating TV commercials (I live in Iowa). Romney has already lost (this) poll, so I shifted "his" point to Dodd.
Trust me, Dodd's commercials are really, really, really irritating.
I didn't cast a positive vote, because I'll be doing that in a few hours "for real".
I love the idea of this "game". Very non-damaging to my calm. Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote: Kansas would still go Republican in 2008 regardless of who the Democratic candidate is. Turnout there is a moot point. It's the battleground states that matter, ones where there is a reasonable chance of the state going one way or the other.
Yes, I'm already aware of this. I was just agreeing with Tom Davidson. The undercurrent of dislike for Hillary is underestimated. I've witnessed a bit of this firsthand, but even though it's purely anecdotal, my 'hunch' is that this dislike is relatively widespread.
I don't need any further explanation of why my vote in Kansas is purely symbolic and absolutely meaningless.
And this is why I'm only in this thread for the voting, so without further adieu:
+1 Obama -2 Dodd
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Current totals:
23 Barack Obama 12 Joe Biden 8 Chris Dodd 7 John Edwards 4 Dennis Kucinich 2 Bill Richardson
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
+1 Obama -1 Edwards -1 Dodd
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
+1 Obama -2 Biden
Totals after my vote: 25 Barack Obama 10 Joe Biden 7 Chris Dodd 6 John Edwards 4 Dennis Kucinich 2 Bill Richardson
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
26 Barack Obama 10 Joe Biden 5 Chris Dodd 6 John Edwards 4 Dennis Kucinich 2 Bill Richardson
Totals after my voting.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
+1 Richardson -1 Biden -1 Kucinich
Richardson's a terrible extemporaneous speaker, and I disagree with him on several issues, albeit none of which are particularly hot-button. However, he's got foreign policy experience that makes the rest of the Democratic field look like infants in comparison. I have a very strong feeling that, if Edwards or Obama takes the nomination, Richardson will be among the top picks for VP. In a perfect world, they'd get Mark Warner (former governor of Virginia) instead, but he's prepping his Senate campaign as we speak and may not want to play second fiddle.
If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm guessing she'll tap Obama for VP. Might as well harness his wild popularity among younger voters to the baby boomer-led Clinton bandwagon.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm guessing she'll tap Obama for VP. Might as well harness his wild popularity among younger voters to the baby boomer-led Clinton bandwagon.
I think that'd be a terrible idea. They'd get hammered on the "inexperience" front (with her 6 years of Senate and his 2). I think she'd do much better to choose either a seasoned diplomat (maybe one of Warren Christopher's deputies, or someone like Tony Lake), or at least a multi-term centrist state-governor like Mike Easley. Or she could take Richardson and get both in one shot.
Assuming she receives the nomination, Clinton will already be facing the problems inherent in moving from the Senate to the Presidency (something no one's done since JFK, and I don't know who before him); she'll need someone with a slick executive sheen to lend her candidacy management credibility. I think Obama's downside of inexperience trumps any upside due to youth voters and idealists.
Posted by PenguinsOnTV (Member # 7369) on :
quote: I think Obama's downside of inexperience trumps any upside due to youth voters and idealists.
The thing that has occured to me about Obama's apparent lack of expierence is that it might not necessarily be a bad thing. Not necessarily a good thing either.
He's had expierence in politics, so he obviously knows how things work. But he hasn't been around as long as some of these other people. Hasn't been playing the game.
I can't say for sure. But I would think that less political expierence would also lead to fewer friends in high places and thus less corruption.
Just a thought I had. Not necessarily true. And not necessarily a way to defend him getting the nomination. Just a thought I had.
Edit:
Just wanted to add that I think a lack of expierence is usually a negative thing. We'll see. If he gets the nod and gets elected, he might be the young and radical sort of leader we need. I think most people can agree that we need something different than what the last few elections have provided.
I think I would almost rather see someone else get elected and then have Obama run again during the next election. This would give him some more time to test the waters. Prove himself. Maybe prior expierence in a presidential campaign would be good for him. *shrugs*
I'm not a political commentator.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
+1 Barack Obama -2 Dennis Kucinich
Posted by Chipmunk (Member # 7975) on :
quote:Originally posted by PenguinsOnTV: But I would think that less political expierence would also lead to fewer friends in high places and thus less corruption.
This was a major theme among Obama's supporters tonight. You're not alone in this view.
I see this groundswell against corruption as a great sign of hope (far more significant to me than Obama's candidacy). It was a great relief to hear such a wide age spread express the same concern. Corruption is the bane of democracies.
Another popular theme among almost all participants was a loathing for Clinton. Several stated they were Republicans who had crossed party lines just to vote against her. Several others said they would definitely not vote Democratic in November if Clinton won. That was a consistent theme during about two and a half hours of chatting.
Figured I'd do my "+" vote to correspond to my caucus vote (as you've heard, it's a multi-round thing, so one's first choice doesn't necessarily get one's vote): +1 Edwards
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm guessing she'll tap Obama for VP. Might as well harness his wild popularity among younger voters to the baby boomer-led Clinton bandwagon.
When was the last time someone pulled in a primary contestant as VP and won? I just really don't think that is how it works. [edited for spleen]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
According to ABC:
Among Independant Voters:
Obama 41% Edwards 23% Clinton 17%
Like Bill Clinton before him, Obama inspires the independent voters. I couldn't be happier with the results tonight.
+1 Obama!
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
It seems this thread is only getting about half the traffic it was before. I wonder why...
I say Dodd's remaining votes should be awarded to the remaining bottom candidates.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
+1 Obama -2 Biden
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote: If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm guessing she'll tap Obama for VP. Might as well harness his wild popularity among younger voters to the baby boomer-led Clinton bandwagon.
When was the last time someone pulled in a primary contestant as VP and won? I just really don't think that is how it works. [edited for spleen]
Reagan did it 1980, despite Bush famously deriding Reaganomics as "voodoo economics". Kennedy in 1960 also did it.
Bush might have, if Cheney hadn't picked himself as the best VP candidate.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
My Votes: +1 Obama -1 Richardson -1 Kucinich
resulting in:
30 Barack Obama 7 Joe Biden (Dropped out) 7 John Edwards 5 Chris Dodd (Dropped out) 2 Bill Richardson
Dead: Dennis Kucinich
Obama is now the only candidate with a double-digit score. Richardson is still hanging on, but barely. With Biden and Dodd dropping out, we're left with:
30 Barack Obama 7 John Edwards 2 Bill Richardson
This game's almost over.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I'll give the coup de grace to Richardson. -2 Richardson
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
+1 Obama -2 Edwards
[ January 04, 2008, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Launchywiggin ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
+1 Obama -2 Edwards
32 Barack Obama 5 John Edwards -2 Bill Richardson (Launchy, you negged him when he was already dead)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
+1 Barrak Obama -2 John Edwards
Launchy Wiggin: You need to revise your negative votes as Richardson was gone before you voted.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
+1 Kucinich
No, minuses, the rest are bland to fine.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Kucinich is already dead Irami.
+1 Obama -2 Edwards -- I like Edwards, but I like Obama better.
34 Barack Obama 1 John Edwards
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
+1 Obama -1 Edwards
I think that means Obama wins at 35.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sen. Hillary Clinton's candidacy is really in trouble. Sen. Barack Obama is attracting a lot of young independent voters, but he is too extreme a liberal to win in the general election. America always shuns extremes.
I was surprised that the man with the Hickish, Mark Twainish name (Huckabee) won going away over Romney in Iowa. If he shows similar strength elsewhere, besides where Evangelical Christians dominate the electorate, he could win nomination.
But Sen. John McCain, the old "Come-back Kid," is at it again. Polls say he has way surpassed Romney in New Hampshire. What has really helped him is being right about Iraq--he favored the "Surge" when the president announced it, and pointed out he had criticized the president before for not sending in enough troops, and now everyone sees that the Surge is working. Even the liberal media pundits admit it. The news out of Baghdad has been really good, with weddings and night life returning peacefully to the streets, with the Baghdad Zoo reopening, and with the Sunnis so clearly turning against Al Qaeda, knowing there are abundant American troops to back them up.
Everyone thought President Bush and his Iraq policy would be a liability for the Republican Party in this election, but as the news out of Iraq steadily improves, the "Bush factor" may wind up being a plus, especially for Republicans like Senator McCain.
Gov. Huckabee may win nomination and the election, but McCain now has a real chance. The odds are becoming long for Romney.
[ January 06, 2008, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Sen. Barack Obama is attracting a lot of young independent voters, but he is too extreme a liberal to win in the general election.
Which of Obama's policies do you consider extremely liberal, Ron?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Funny thing, if you look at some of what Romney has been touting lately (alternative energy, universal healthcare, more money for education), he starts to sound more and more like what Republicans keep calling radical left wing policies.
Obama is nowhere near extreme. He's right in line with moderate Democratic policies, just like the other main two candidates.
And it's those same independet voters that Obama is wooing that are really going to hurt McCain. How many of those polls include Democrats AND Republicans in the same poll? Data I've seen shows that Independents in New Hampshire will swing overwhelmingly Democrat this time around, and McCain will lose the push he got in 2000 to beat Bush. Remember Bush won the Republican vote, it was Independents that gave it to McCain. His lead isn't as automatic as you might think.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sen. Obama's policies--economic, foreign policy, everything--are extremely liberal to anyone except a liberal. Same as Sen. Clinton's.
Lyrhawn does raise a good question about who will appeal to young independent voters more--McCain or Obama. Sen. McCain's main strength in 2000 was independents.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BTW, "liberal" in the US does not mean the same thing as "liberal" in most of the world.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Could it not be argued that those meanings are more similar than one might think, or that one is actually derived from the other on a fundamental level - that any "contradictions" are actually misinterpretations of certain ideas or concepts?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sen. Obama's policies--economic, foreign policy, everything--are extremely liberal to anyone except a liberal. Same as Sen. Clinton's.
Okay, so if Obama and Clinton's policies are "extremely" liberal, what are Kucinich's policies? Do you have to make up an entirely new word now or do you just spell it "XXXtremely liberal"?
--Enigmatic
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
rollainm, I mean that on the conservative (A)- liberal (Z) spectrum, US politics run from A to about G.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: rollainm, I mean that on the conservative (A)- liberal (Z) spectrum, US politics run from A to about G.
That may be true if you consider only Europe and the US, but if you include the rest of the world, I would guess the US would find itself pretty squarely from (K)-(S).
<edit>*caveat: I don't find the whole liberal/conservative classification system all that enlightening. How would you classify, for instance, China? Communism seems like a pretty "liberal" economic policy, but certainly the government severely curtails individual liberties. This may be more what rollainm was getting at.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hmmm...possible. I guess I am mostly considering "developed" nations and those we would consider to be democratic.
edit: I was referring to economically liberal. Capitalist - socialist.
Though I think that in most developed nations, social policy is also less conservative except for the theocracies (mostly Muslim, perhaps Israel, and I suppose the Vatican). Though there is considerably more variety there. A lot of places (Ireland for example) are experiencing a huge and fast swing towards being less conservative.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I don't find the whole liberal/conservative classification system all that enlightening. How would you classify, for instance, China? Communism seems like a pretty "liberal" economic policy, but certainly the government severely curtails individual liberties. This may be more what rollainm was getting at.
Wouldn't that make them liberal-authoritarian? I think the two-axis system strikes the best balance between simplicity and accuracy -- liberal/conservative on one axis and authoritarian/libertarian on the other.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)