At this point, I’m thinking the best of the most likely tickets would be Obama/Edwards, so voting should probably be aimed in the direction of making that happen. To make that most likely to happen, there are two goals to keep in mind: Getting Clinton out of the race, and keeping Edwards viable enough that he’s an attractive pick for VP when Obama gets the nomination. With these aims in mind, I suggest that if you’re in a state where Clinton looks like she could win, vote for Obama. But if your home is somewhere that Obama is trouncing her in the polls, throw your vote to Edwards to keep him alive. Remember that if it’s close, Clinton is probably going to show better at the booths than the polls, because Obama’s support comes from younger people who don’t vote as much.
On the electability issue, I think that all three major candidates could easily trounce whatever slimeball the Republicans throw up, but of the three, Clinton’s the most likely to bring in a squeaker that could be stolen. I’m not 100% convinced by this, of course. I’ve heard people worrying about the Clinton name making your average iffy voter flinch at the thought of 8 more years of the vicious hatred that the Clintons generate in the right wing and the mainstream media, but I think that’s a lesser factor than the one Markos details out:
The more she’s attacked on personal grounds, the more sympathy that real person will generate, the more votes she’ll win from people sending a message to the media and her critics that they’ve gone way over the line of common decency. You underestimate that sympathy at your own peril. If I found myself half-rooting for her given the crap that was being flung at her, is it any wonder that women turned out in droves to send a message that sexist double-standards were unacceptable? Sure, it took one look at Terry McAuliffe’s mug to bring me back down to earth, but most people don’t know or care who McAuliffe is. They see people beating the shit out of Clinton for the wrong reasons, they get angry, and they lash back the only way they can — by voting for her.
Agreed. My objections to Clinton have nothing to do with her personally, and as a person, I like her a lot, and I’m not alone in this. What the MSM pundits forget is that most normal people like the Clintons. We’ve been through this before, with the impeachment nonsense. The more the media attacked Clinton for his private sex life, the more the public supported him, because we felt this crushing sympathy for both Clintons. No one deserves the treatment they got, and Clinton’s ability to put a dignified face on it all reminded Americans, especially women, of ourselves, the way most of us do manage to square our shoulders after some routine humiliations faced by women. I got an email from Emily’s List about the research and efforts they’ve put behind Clinton, and this is their conclusion:
While many of the dynamics of the race have changed, much of the rationale for women’s support of Senator Clinton has not:
* they see her as sharing their priorities;
* as a strong commander in chief;
* and as someone whose life experiences as a woman are similar to their own.
Some of this is why, if she wins the nomination, I’ll be happy to vote for her. That said, here are my concerns—that she doesn’t excite people enough to get out the vote for our team, but she’s got the potential to get out the vote for the Republicans in what would otherwise be an election where a lot of the social conservatives may take their ball and go home.
Let’s look at the most likely people to abandon the Republican party and refuse to vote in the general—supporters of the spoilers Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. In other words, right wing conspiracy theory cranks and Bible-thumpers. These folks share between them a distinct loathing for women and a dedication to a strict, religious patriarchy. The only difference is probably levels of racism and sort of a philosophy on how best to control women, with the thumpers seeking government control of women and the libertarian cranks arguing that if you remove government protections, you can leave the control of women up to individual men. Obama might bring out the Ron Paul supporters to vote for whatever candidate the Republicans run, but a lot of the Bible-thumpers will stay home. But both the cranks and the thumpers will stand in line for hours to make sure that no slithery, vagina-possessing, apple-eating daughter of Eve ever symbolically castrates them by holding an office that they have no hoping of ever having. And doubly because she killed Vince Foster, you know.
On the flip side, I have a hunch the Obama will get out the vote better than any other candidate. People will be willing to stand in line for 10 hours to vote for the first black President, for one thing, and for another, he’s a frigging rock star. He inspires passion in people; that’s undeniable. And that gets out the vote that is traditionally hard to get out. Good for the Democrats, especially considering downticket votes. I’d like to say people would stand in line for 10 hours to vote for the first female President, and maybe they would if it weren’t Clinton. But that she’s so clearly The Establishment Candidate takes a lot of the buzz out of voting for her as a symbolic act of progress. It will still have it for me, if it comes to that, but I’m not sure that it will for a lot of younger voters who aren’t as educated into the ways that women are still oppressed.
I hate having to take these things into consideration, because I think any Democrat could win a fair election. But we don’t have fair elections in this country, and we have to consider our votes with that in mind.
120 Responses to “Strategic voting in the primaries and other thoughts”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I’ll be honest. I’m gonna vote for my guy (Edwards) and watch the fun.
With these aims in mind, I suggest that if you’re in a state where Clinton looks like she could win, vote for Obama. But if your home is somewhere that Obama is trouncing her in the polls, throw your vote to Edwards to keep him alive.
Hmm. I like the proposed end result of your plan, and from the Edwards perspective it is of course a good one. But it seems unbelievably, unbelievably risky, to the point I might use phrases like “recipe for disaster”.
For one thing, in order for this plan to realistically succeed, it’s not enough to make Edwards so viable he’s “attractive”. Even in your best case scenario under this plan, Edwards’ support levels are pretty much most likely to stick around where they were in New Hampshire. If “attractive” here means “having strong voter support”, well, you can make Edwards attractive but Clinton will still be twice as attractive with the twice as much support she holds.
So If you really want this to work you have to put Edwards into the kingmaker position– you have to force us into a brokered convention, and make it so that Obama literally has to trade Edwards’ delegates for the VP slot. That is, you have to wind up with a situation where Obama’s delegates plus Edwards’ are larger than Clintons’, but Obama’s delegates aren’t enough to beat Clinton on their own. This is looking actually pretty likely at this point! And I’d be totally happy with that outcome, as long as the Clinton fans don’t feel gypped and bolt the party or whatever. But here’s the thing. In order for this to work, Obama must be doing well enough that Clinton doesn’t win automatically, BUT not so well that he can win without the Edwards delegates. That is a narrow window, and single voters acting alone don’t have that kind of control over the results of their actions. We’re heading into that window right now, but that could change at the drop of a hat.
Which brings us to the next thing. This second-guessing, vote-the-way-the-other-people-in-my-state-don’t kind of strategery has already been shown in this cycle not to work. Some analysis is already saying that the 10-point swing from Obama to Clinton at the last minute in NH happened at least in part because a lot of potential Obama voters– young people, independents, whatever– assumed what with all the super-glowing media coverage that Obama had already won, and thus just didn’t bother, stayed home or voted McCain or whatever. This could happen again. Trouncings in polls maybe shouldn’t be trusted at this point. If EVERYBODY shifts votes because Obama is ahead, well, Obama isn’t ahead anymore.
I don’t get a vote that counts, so it really doesn’t matter who I vote for.
…did my comment just get held up by the spam filter, or did it fail to post utterly? The site is loading funny for me right now.
I’m half considering signing up as a Republican just to get in an earlier primary. *snrk*
Damn my state’s bizarre voting practices, anyway.
The huge huge danger of voting strategically is that you simply can’t trust the polls boefrehand that you use to make your judgement. I’ve heard several reports that independents went and voted for McCain in NH, since they thought that would do more good than voting for Obama, who seemed to be cruising to victory.
I’m half considering signing up as a Republican just to get in an earlier primary. *snrk
In my younger days, I voted in two Republican primaries in the same year….it was all legal (I moved from Iowa to Minnesota in between), and it was all to vote against a candidate (Branstad in Iowa and Quist in Minnesota).
Only times I’ve voted Republican.
The biggest problem with a Clinton candidacy isn’t the Presidential race, its down ticket. Right now you have a chance at a big congressional pick up with Republicans retiring every single day and Republican supporters looking for a reason to stay home. Anti-Clitonism is real and while it might not change the overall outcome, it can mean huge money for Republicans and more competitive races
I’m still hoping on Edwards myself. He’s the only one talking about health care and the economy in a way that I can really get behind. But I will back Obama if things don’t start to pick up for him. I really don’t want to vote for Clinton, despite the fact that like Amanda, I do like her as a person. We don’t need more corporate establishment Democrats.
Goddammit, I’m starting to feel invested in this thing. I like Obama, and I agree, there are people who would proudly stand in line all day in the rain to vote for him, and I think they probably would for Clinton, too. I don’t want an old white guy to win, again.
“I suggest that if you’re in a state where Clinton looks like she could win, vote for Obama. But if your home is somewhere that Obama is trouncing her in the polls, throw your vote to Edwards to keep him alive.”
Or you could just vote for the candidate who you’d most like to see win.
I’ll do the strategic, “hold my nose” voting in the general election. But primaries are our chances to vote with our consciences. And I am of the opinion that the whole play-it-safe, “who’s most likely to win?” thinking is how we got Kerry in 2004.
And as William said, polls can be notoriously wrong — especially in primaries. Remember Howard Dean?
So I’m voting for the candidate I’d most like to see win.
Of course, I don’t know who that is yet…
Is there any sort of scenario where Edwards wins a single state? When’s North Carolina’s primary?
I’m for an Edwards/Obama ticket myself and will vote for Edwards in the primary. I can get behind Clinton if she’s the nominee, even more if she ends up with either E or O as Veep.
This all makes a lot of sense.
One of the things I like about the Obama/Edwards idea is that if he takes office, President Obama will need somebody who can raise hell wherever a vulnerable GOP Senator is filibustering health care reform. Given his post-partisan tendencies, I don’t think Obama will be ready to swing the sledgehammer of economic populism himself. It’s just not the kind of thing he likes to do (which is a big part of why I’ve never been a big fan of his).
But I can see Obama threatening Sen. George Voinovich or Judd Gregg before the 2010 elections: “Stop filibustering, or I’m going to sic John Edwards on you.” And so Edwards spends a couple weeks in Ohio or NH dragging down the Republican Senator’s poll numbers by talking about little girls who died because of insurance company greed, and how Republican filibusters are stopping our chance of saving them.
“I suggest that if you’re in a state where Clinton looks like she could win, vote for Obama. But if your home is somewhere that Obama is trouncing her in the polls, throw your vote to Edwards to keep him alive.”
No, I don’t think so.
I’m with #10. I am so tired of hearing about ‘electability’.
My dad, an old school democrat, is obsessed with making sure we have an ‘electable’ dem. His heart is in the right place - he wants his grandchildren to still have a constitution, reproductive freedom, and various civil liberties - but haven’t we learned something from 2004?
If you want to vote for someone, doesn’t that make them at least minimally electable? Shouldn’t we vote for the person we want to be president instead of the person we think is least likely to offend the indefensible “swing-voters” of this country who don’t know their ass from their elbow?
For the first time in my adult life, I’m not sure who I’m going to vote for. But there’s one thing that won’t make up my mind: who I think is most “electable”.
On the general question of strategic voting, I think it’s important to see voting, in general, as a tool for sculpting the future. Sometimes the best way to create the future you want is to vote for the candidate who would, if elected, do the best job. But because of odd features of the system, this isn’t always the case. And in those cases, we ought to keep our focus on the futures we want to create, and not on the candidates themselves.
What gets good people interested in politics is the desire to make the world a better place. Candidates are just a dispensable means to that end. And if voting strategically is the best way to make the world a better place, we ought to do it.
I have on several occassions switch a vote from a candidate I wanted to block a candidate that I really did not want to win.
Not the most ideal way to use my vote, but necessary none the less. Happily this time I will not be switching any vote to block Hillary.
I’m skipping the primaries cuz the candidates aren’t on the Michigan vote. So whoever ends up front runner is fine by me.
Have fun everybody.
With the “Anyone but Obama” FOH 527 coming out I doubt there will be a Clinton/Obama ticket
I’ll do the strategic, “hold my nose” voting in the general election. But primaries are our chances to vote with our consciences. And I am of the opinion that the whole play-it-safe, “who’s most likely to win?” thinking is how we got Kerry in 2004.
I’m one of those who voted for Dean in California even though he was already either effectively out or official out at that point (I can’t remember which), so I agree.
My problem right now is that I don’t really feel strongly about a particular candidate one way or the other. I’d be reasonably happy with any of the three as President, but I don’t particularly like any of them. I was an Obama girl until he decided to go the gay-baiting and Social Security scare routes.
Yankess, I hate your primary system. :-p
MAJeff:
Heh, you voted for The Gopher!
Tha’s alright, I did too. I’m a pepper, you’re a pepper, wouldn’t you like to vote a gopher too?!
Now that was the very definition of strategic voting. Fred Grandy was by all definitions a much more moderate Republican than the incumbent, Brandstad, for the Iowa Governor’s job. While I still found Grandy someone I’d ditch for a decent Democrat, a number of dems changed registrations and voted for him in the primary, all for naught. Branstad coasted by the primary.
Yup. Grandy did win Story County, where I was voting (AFSCME was really big in trying to get rid of Braindead).
I moved later in the summer, and it was Arne Carlson vs. Allen Quist in the primary. I voted for Arne just to make sure Quist had no shot at even getting to the general. He was running hard in the primary because Quist had won the party endorsement at the convention, against the sitting governor Carlson. Arne won but has since left the Republican party.
I hate all this strategic plotting and scheming. It all relies on polls and theorizing and guesswork.
I’m pushing for Edwards as long as he stays in, and i still have hope that he goes all the way. if he doesn’t, i’ll back obama.
Obama voted for the Patriot Act and his bipartisan rhetoric hurts my ears. Clinton voted for the Patriot Act, twice, and Kyl-Lieberman. Edwards has said he’s against gay marriage because…wait for it….of his religion.
Now, I will gladly support any of these people for President. But for now, I’m voting for Kucinich.
Not every state is winner-take-all. Following your recommended voting strategy, shouldn’t people pay more attention to who’s winning in their delegate district than to the statewide polls? And how feasible is that?
I think it would be a mistake to get tangled up in the who’s-palatable-to-Middle-America game. The Democrats nominated John Kerry largely because they thought his war record would stand up to the traditional attacks on Democrats’ patriotism, and look how well that worked out.
Vote for the candidate you think is best, and trust (or at least hope) that what resonates with you will do so with a majority of your fellow countrymen.
I’m not real impressed with Edwards and I’m not giving him my vote.
I support Obama (and by the way, Amanda, I’m a registered Republican)and agree with you that he is the strongest potential candidate. However, I believe Edwards in the VP spot would be a mistake. The ticket would be far stronger in the general election if Obama pairs with someone who can pull at least one Red state and/or has strong foreign policy creds. Remember, last time Edwards was in the VP spot and did not even carry his home state, North Carolina. (I’ve recently heard that he did not even carry his own county or precinct, but I don’t know that first hand. Obama is a unique strong candidate who will also make a great president.
I think it would be a mistake to get tangled up in the who’s-palatable-to-Middle-America game. The Democrats nominated John Kerry largely because they thought his war record would stand up to the traditional attacks on Democrats’ patriotism, and look how well that worked out.
This is one of the things that drives me crazy. “The Democrats” voted for him for a variety of reasons. Remember, it was in primaries and caucuses that he was chosen as well. “The Democrats” include many of us here who voted both for him and for others.
We need to break down this idea of a monolith that is “the Democrats” (and “the Republicans”). These are social entities, and particularly the reasons that millions of people used in chosing whom to vote for, are far too complex to say “the Democrats went with electability.”
I’m with Elizabeth. My least favorite canidate is Clinton, and I’ll still vote for her if she gets the nomination. But, for the primaries, I want to vote for someone I actually LIKE (Kuchinich).
I’m not entirely sure how Obama voted for the Patriot Act, in that it was passed several years before he entered the Senate. The reauthorization?
Which is to say I wish Russ Feingold (the lone vote against the original Patriot Act?) was running, or that Chris Dodd (a Senator who actually tries to do things) was more popular.
Remember, last time Edwards was in the VP spot and did not even carry his home state, North Carolina.
I think what people tend to forget about this is that North Carolinians were a little bitter towards Edwards, after he bailed on his first Senate term–which he won by a fairly narrow margin to begin with, IIRC, but I admit I haven’t checked–to run for President. This is not to say that he would necessarily carry any Southern states, just that North Carolinians had their own reasons to shun him.
I’m delighted that I’m suddenly a participant in the Feb 5th demolition derby, since our only Guv has dropped out of the race.
My support for Edwards has not changed, but I’m more willing to do something beyond vote for him now that my state is not a foregone conclusion.
I have no intention of swinging my primary vote to something that seems more strategic to me or anyone else. Since HRC has so many super-delegates committed to her, and since there is a strong chance that she will be at least second and maybe first in SC and second in NV, I’m not sure there is a strategy that gets Obama the nom in the stead of my first choice and ahead of HRC, my third choice.
YMMV, but I’m going to vote for the guy who I think is most likely to kick ass and take names unless something drastically shifts on the 19th.
a Senator who actually tries to do things
Those people never end up on the ticket.
God, I’m so fucking sick to death of the primaries.
I keep thinking, “where can I go to both enlighten and amuse myself?” and at every turn I am instead reminded of the taste of acid bile in my throat.
i’m voting edwards, tho my vote is largely irrelevant, as i live in illinois and im pretty damn sure obama is taking his homestate by a landslide. the people here looooooooooooove him, as do the local media. even the kids who i kno who arent at all political are excited to vote for obama.
personally, there are things i dislike about him, and things i dislike about clinton. to be honest, the more i study their positions and hear their statements, the more i lean toward clinton as my second choice (now that richardson has left the race). pertaining to the general election i think she is prepping herself for a fight, while he preps himself to shake hands and make nice. i want someone in office who will fight for what is right. which of course, is why i support edwards now.
as to kucinich, yeah, hes fantastic, i agree with him on everything, except one important factor, he supports ron paul and stated were he to get the nomination, then he would pick paul as his running mate. so, he lost my support, cos really, fuck that noise.
Oh Clinton is a Senator who does things.
She just also voted for the war, the patriot act and the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.
Is that a wash? I don’t know.
And for Obama, I’m sure he has done many things in the Senate. I’m just from NY so I know Clinton’s record better. I meant he voted for the Patriot Act on the reauthorization.
Which was so stupid and dearly showing of how they don’t understand things aobut the west and mid America. No candidate from MA (at least democrat) is ever going to win the presidency. That ship has saled and it aint coming back. The public just views them as Brahmins and out of touch with everyone else.
I really don’t think Mitt would have a real chance even if he weren’t Mormon.
I don’t think that the “palatable” measure is the best idea for a candidate. But Obama isn’t palatable. He’s a rock star. Like completely different electability factor than Kerry.
Kucinich said he was I don’t think he was serious.
It would be sooo nice if Mitt doesn’t take MA
I know it’s been said, but frankly after NH I don’t trust the polls. (Either that, or the people running the election.) Something went haywire for the polls to be so completely different (outside the margins of error) from the actual votes. Either the pollsters were really bad; a hell of a lot of people changed their minds, or there was some funny business at the ballot boxes. So even if I agreed with this strategy, I wouldn’t recommend it on the offchance that Obama wouldn’t actually run away with it in that particular state. (Also, since many states aren’t winner-take-all and I want my candidate to come away with as many delegates as possible, not simply the majority.)
My post about Kucinich/Paul was eaten or deleted before, so here is the short version: the *intersection* of their politics is very appealing, the union is not.
Obama/Edwards seems very unlikely. Candidates usually choose to cover weaknesses, Edwards appeals to the same voters and he was a loser in ‘04. It’s hard to imagine the addition of Edwards garnering many additional votes.
I would expect something like Obama/Biden, pairing up with a white old dude with international experience and gravitas.
It would be sooo nice if Mitt doesn’t take MA
There are a lot of reasons for Republicans to not like him. He left the party weaker than it was when he took office as governor. Many of the more conservative factions don’t think he fought marriage equality hard enough. His constant slams of the Bay State while he was governor to audiences in every other state have also alienated a lot of people. I don’t know who else would get the votes (that’s the problem), so he’ll probably win here. But it’s not going to be an enthusiastic win.
By next summer, there may be upwards of 5000 US servicemembers dead and the economy may be tanking heavily. As long as the Republicans keep singing the Bush tune (and no one is really running away from him, are they?) it’s hard to imagine how a Republican could win the general without …massaging key states. If it’s looking that way, the Democratic nominee may be able to take on a “bolder” VP (i.e. Feingold). Chances are they’ll want to place it safe.
Adding …Too bad Richardson got out of the race before they got out West. I would have liked to seen how he did in more demographically diverse states.
Obama’s record in the senate is very interesting reading indeed. I’d highly recommend checking it out. Messiah my ass.
**Not that any of the other front runners are much better…I just don’t understand the guy’s rock star appeal when he’s really not much different from the status quo and clearly outgunned in both experience (Clinton) and actual policy goals (Edwards).
does anyone kno why dick durbin hasnt ever ran for president, or if he has, and im wrong, you could tell me that too. i really really like durbin, and thats my biggest hope if obama becomes president, that he puts durbin in a cabinet position, or approaches him as an advisor, even in an unofficial capacity. i daydream about an obama/durbin ticket if obama gets the nod, but it would be silly to pick the other senator from illinois as his running mate.
On a human level - I think it would be too humiliating to Edwards to be VP twice, on two different tickets. I hope he runs in South Carolina, bows out after the race after getting a good showing, and commits himself, like Gore, to exploring the wide open spaces of influencing politics outside of holding office or running for president for a while. It is a much underused space. I think being a big name crusader for people like me, in the bottom 20 percentile income bracket, would be an excellent thing. Who else is there?
whoa, olbermann just said the AP wire about richardson dropping out of the race was refuted by his campaign. so, richardson is still in for now.
Your whole country’s voting practices look bizarre to me. Speaking as a (completely unelected) representative of the rest-of-the-world, any of the three would be an improvement on the current idiot.
You guys need a preferential voting system so bad. It’s the absolute best way to have your cake and eat it too. In my country I get to vote for the party that most reflects my own values (Green) and give my preferences to the left(ish) party that’s most likely to win (Labor).
Mind you, from an outsiders perspective, I guess my own country’s voting system also looks bizarre (compulsory voting anyone?).
Oh, forgot to add. The primary outcomes are making front page headlines in my country. Now that’s bizarre!
I totally second your post, Amanda! Great analysis. That said, my vote for Edwards stands, but when push comes to shove, I’m a YDD (yellow dog democrat), anyway.
That said, I think that Clinton may be our weakest (as in, most polarizing) candidate to win against a “good” Republican candidate who can sway the independents (for example, McCain). That’s also why I’d be delighted with Obama/ Edwards.
Are you serious? How can you as a woman trust a man who is so clearly a fundamentalist Christian to treat women as equals?
Fuck Edwards. He sucks. Big phony super rich trial lawyer. Obama must win. Hillary is the Queen of Evil. Shift all Edwards votes to Obama, and he can take it all. Split the two, and Darth Vaderess wins.
This is perhaps the most convoluted strategy to vote for someone other than Clinton that I have read:
Normal citizens like the Clintons (and so do I!), but there are so many abnormal people (conspiracy cranks and Bible-thumpers) in America that the election can be stolen by Republicans, therefore Democrats must strategically vote to place Edwards in second so that Obama cannot select the Veep of his choice…
Honestly, like nearly everyone else, I will vote the Democratic candidate regardless of who it is, but I grow weary of reading the reasons/inanities that progressives conjure in order to vote for candidate NOTCLINTON.
Amanda, your reasons for voting for candidate NOTCLINTON have absolutely nothing to do with Democratic, policy, experience, or character issues. The only way you seem able to explain your voting strategy is to remind your readers of the crankery of the right-wing noise machine, and you do so as if you yourself are not engaging in that noise.
Your voting strategy seems to be constructed courtesy of the RNC. Good luck with that.
I’ve thought about the voting strategically thing a few times in the past, and I just can’t bring myself to do it in the primaries, especially in a year like this one where I’d vote for any of the big three with a smile on my face (as opposed to 2004, when I groaned as I voted for Kerry). The primary is the one time where you really can vote your heart–it’s rare to be able to do that in a general election–so you might as well take advantage of it unless you’re stuck with Chthulu and Chthulu-lite. Eric may disagree with this, but I think I’ll manage to live through it.
I know it’s been said, but frankly after NH I don’t trust the polls. (Either that, or the people running the election.) Something went haywire for the polls to be so completely different (outside the margins of error) from the actual votes. Either the pollsters were really bad; a hell of a lot of people changed their minds, or there was some funny business at the ballot boxes. So even if I agreed with this strategy, I wouldn’t recommend it on the offchance that Obama wouldn’t actually run away with it in that particular state. (Also, since many states aren’t winner-take-all and I want my candidate to come away with as many delegates as possible, not simply the majority.)
On the polls, primary polls have been widely wrong in the past. They are hard to do well in some states where independents can skip to a totally different primary at the last minute, and some think this may have happened in NH.
But the most likely explanation, I think, is a pretty large change in the last few days. Zogby did mention that the prediction for the last day was almost exactly what happened, but they had to use a three-day average instead. Not sure why. One pollster, working on the day of the elections, did predict the results correctly.
That’s the reason why I think there was a big last minute change.
Zogby: I remember one pollster, and IIRC it was Zogby, calling it for Kerry in the election by a wide margin, on camera in The Daily Show studio.
So, polls: meh.
Obama actually benefits if Edwards stays in through SC — Edwards cuts into Clinton’s share of the white vote there more than he cuts into any Obama constituency.
I’m really disturbed by the idea of voting this way. The very same misogynist vitriol that will bring the wingnuts out to stand in 10 hours of rain to vote against Hillary is what will spur me to volunteer for her campaign, knock on doors, and stand in the same 10 hours of rain if I have to to vote for her. Not voting for her simply because I think the people hate her enough to defeat her is not an option for me.
I’m leaning towards her now, despite some misgivings, because I think Obama is an idealist full of platitudes, vision, and charisma. Of course he’s an electable rockstar, it’s hard to see past all that refreshing sparkle. But I think he’s a lamb to slaughter. I’m also a little weirded out by his religiosity. It may be Clinton’s main talking point, but it’s a good one: She has experience. She knows about campaigning, she knows the sexist bullshit she’s inviting into her life, and she’s going for it anyway. That’s passion, (for a cause? for herself? for the country? for power? hard to say) She’s smart, and nothing is going to blindside her in office.
I like Obama, and I like Edwards, but Obama/Edwards? I find that a bit dubious. Neither have executive experience, they were both senators who served or are in the process of serving a single term, etc. I’d sooner see Kathleen Sebelius, Wesley Clark, or the like.
Caveat: I have little in the way of political wisdom, but I feel as though Edwards and Obama are both fine presidential material, but not on the same ticket. I could easily be terribly, terribly mistaken, however.
PS. Does anyone find that the picture of Obama and Edwards at the top of this thread is kinda creepy? Obama especially looks rather ghoulish and depraved, but Edwards looks kinda creepy too. At least, so it appears to me.
It’s all a bit Survivor-esque. Who will you vote off the island?
You guys need a preferential voting system so bad. It’s the absolute best way to have your cake and eat it too. In my country I get to vote for the party that most reflects my own values (Green) and give my preferences to the left(ish) party that’s most likely to win (Labor).
Amen, JC. For those interested, the Center for Voting and Democracy is the leading non-partisan organization working toward instituting preferential voting in the US.
Also: a disagreement with Amanda on a side point: it’s not clear to me that Huckabee is merely a spoiler candidate for the GOP nomination. NH was pretty much the worst sort of state for him: a primary that allowed independent voters, low numbers of Evangelicals, huge amounts of money pumped into the state for over a year by the candidates with deep pockets. And he still finished in third place.
I certainly don’t expect Huckabee to get the nomination…but then again, none of the GOP candidates looks to be a likely winner at this point, and absent something bizarre like a hung convention, one of them will win the nomination.
In this rather bizarre primary campaign, Huckabee is a serious candidate with a real, if slim, shot at the GOP nomination.
1. I do not believe in a politician who doesn’t have the courage to express an opinion. Voting “present” is the act of a coward. Voting “present” on the issue whether 15 year old black kids should be tried as adults is COWARDICE.
2. The fact that he was conveniently not available to vote on Kyl Liebermann. However, what some people forget, he co sponsored “The Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007.” which states:
Quote:
(14) the United States should designate the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which purveys terrorism throughout the Middle East and plays an important role in the Iranian economy, as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of specially designated global terrorists, and place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of weapons of mass destruction proliferators and their supporters;
3. The pandering to the homophobes- see SC tour.
4. The fact that he complains about lobbyists while having one in his NH campaign as co-chair, namely Jim Demers, a lobbyist for drug company interests in NH.
5. The fact that while bleating away about “change” he fails to explain what exactly he plans to change.
6. Voted for Dick Cheney’s energy plan.
7. Voted for all the spending bills for the Iraq war despite claiming to be against said war. Exactly the same votes as Hillary ( with one exception, Hillary was against confirming General Casey, the former Commander of Multinational Forces in Iraq, to be Army Chief of Staff.
Also this:
Quote:
In July of `04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of `04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it. (”Meet the Press,” 2004, via MyDD, Nov. 11, 2007)
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/12/214957/09
Or we can remember his speeches on Iraq? ya know, the one in which he opposed Kerry’s plan for troop withdrawal?
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/06062…r_statement_6/
Quote:
… .. For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry Amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.
But having visited Iraq, I’m also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them.
It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.
We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.
I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry Amendment. We should send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won’t be there forever, and that by next year our primary role should be to conduct counter-insurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support.
sounds like Bush to me
8. Skipped the MoveOn.org vote
9. The only “present” vote on a law that would require teaching respect for others in schools.
Lookie
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us…ewanted=2&_r=2
Quote:
Mr. Obama was also the sole present vote on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted present on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship. It passed the Senate.
10. he didn’t even held one single hearing on his Senate sub comitee
Quote:
A do-nothing? You can’t even find it listed at his Senate Web site, but Sen. Obama is the chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs for the Senate Foreign Relations committee. That subcommittee oversees “U.S. involvement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), relations with the European Union (EU), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Matters relating to Greenland and the northern polar region are also the responsibility of this subcommittee.”
Shockingly — although his campaign has tried to beef up his thin international experience by citing his chairmanship of the subcommittee on European affairs — according to Congressional Quarterly, Sen. Obama has not held a single hearing since he assumed the chairmanship nearly a year ago. It’s little wonder, then, that Sen. Obama’s Senate site doesn’t list his chairmanship.
I really believe that the above stuff needs to be addressed before endorsing him. Because these are the things that will be thrown at him if he wins the nomination. The Republicans won’t even need a new catchphrase, “flip flop” will work just fine
That picture creeps me out. There’s a “we put that bitch in her place” feeling to it .
I’m with sidewriter. There’s misogynists everywhere. You can’t run away from them forever.
I’m still undecided for my primary vote, but I’m not going to vote to block Clinton just because “women are unelectable.” That’s what they WANT me to do.
That’s what keeps women from being elected to office all the time. They can’t get funds, not because the fundraisers themselves think women can’t do the job, but because a woman is unelectable because of all the fuckwits who will vote against her because she’s a woman.
And where do these fuckwits come from? A society with very few women in positions of power to contradict the assumptions that women’ can’t hold positions of power. That society continues to assume women CAN’T do the job, because no one will LET them do the job.
To hell with that.
Vote for who you want. If the only female candidate loses, better it be fair and square on the issues and not based on blocking her because she’s “unelectable.”
any of the three would be an improvement on the current idiot.
Amen. I just wish the three of them would keep focused on the fact that we have a general election to win, which is more important than any of them individually, and that they should refrain from beating each other up.
Phew! Thank you Sidewriter, Soopermouse, and Ragnell.
When I first saw that picture, I thought: Oh good, here comes some first-rate Amanda-snark about the good ol’ boys.
Instead, I found a detailed outline of how I should vote, and why.
Is “rock star” really a deciding quality in a candidate? Am I just old now?
HRC has my vote because I’m sick. to. death. of. this. male-centered. bullshit.
I think strategic voting generally matters more in local elections (where your vote is more powerful because the tally overall is less).
That said, I did once, as an independent, cross into Elephant rangeland to vote for Bill Weld. Stephen Pearce, a knuckledragging anti-woman busybody git, was all ready for his closeup when tens of thousands of independents and democrats crashed the party and sent Weld to the final match.
Part of it was the lameness … part of it was to get a candidate that was vastly more progressive than BU Uberfuhrer Psychotic University President Short John Silber. Silber somehow won the democratic nomination besides being vasty more Republican than Weld.
I would be willing to vote for Obama ( assuming I voted in the US), if any of the Obama supporters or campaign would be so kind to address the following points. I have tried to post them before and they got eaten, so I am trying again.
1. I do not believe in a politician who doesn’t have the courage to express an opinion. Voting “present” is the act of a coward. Voting “present” on the issue whether 15 year old black kids should be tried as adults is COWARDICE.
2. The fact that he was conveniently not available to vote on Kyl Liebermann. However, what some people forget, he co sponsored “The Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007.” which states:
Quote:
(14) the United States should designate the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which purveys terrorism throughout the Middle East and plays an important role in the Iranian economy, as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of specially designated global terrorists, and place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of weapons of mass destruction proliferators and their supporters;
3. The pandering to the homophobes- see SC tour.
4. The fact that he complains about lobbyists while having one in his NH campaign as co-chair, namely Jim Demers, a lobbyist for drug company interests in NH.
5. The fact that while bleating away about “change” he fails to explain what exactly he plans to change. To quote my girlfriend:
[quote]
he’s like CHANGE and they’re like WOOO and hillary’s like ‘what exactly are you going to change’ and he’s like CHANGE and they’re like WOOO
its jimmy carter all over again[/quote]
6. Voted for Dick Cheney’s energy plan.
7. Voted for all the spending bills for the Iraq war despite claiming to be against said war. Exactly the same votes as Hillary ( with one exception, Hillary was against confirming General Casey, the former Commander of Multinational Forces in Iraq, to be Army Chief of Staff).
Also this:
[quote]
In July of `04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of `04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it. (”Meet the Press,” 2004, via MyDD, Nov. 11, 2007) [/quote]
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/12/214957/09
Or we can remember his speeches on Iraq? ya know, the one in which he opposed Kerry’s plan for troop withdrawal?
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/06062…r_statement_6/
[quote]
… .. For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry Amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.
But having visited Iraq, I’m also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them.
It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.
We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.
I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry Amendment. We should send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won’t be there forever, and that by next year our primary role should be to conduct counter-insurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support. [/quote]
sounds like Bush to me
8. Skipped the MoveOn.org vote
9. The only “present” vote on a law that would require teaching respect for others in schools.
Lookie
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us…ewanted=2&_r=2
[quote]
Mr. Obama was also the sole present vote on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted present on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship. It passed the Senate. [/quote]
10. he didn’t even held one single hearing on his Senate sub comitee, you know the one dealing with foreign affairs. Go figure that
[quote]
A do-nothing? You can’t even find it listed at his Senate Web site, but Sen. Obama is the chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs for the Senate Foreign Relations committee. That subcommittee oversees “U.S. involvement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), relations with the European Union (EU), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Matters relating to Greenland and the northern polar region are also the responsibility of this subcommittee.”
Shockingly — although his campaign has tried to beef up his thin international experience by citing his chairmanship of the subcommittee on European affairs — according to Congressional Quarterly, Sen. Obama has not held a single hearing since he assumed the chairmanship nearly a year ago. It’s little wonder, then, that Sen. Obama’s Senate site doesn’t list his chairmanship. [/quote]
I seriously believe that Obama is misrepresenting himself. His actions speak a lot louder than his words, and regardless of his rockstarness, I am NOT BUYING.
I don’t think the USA needs a rockstar regardless how wet he manages to get someone’s panties. I think the USA needs someone competent.
Right about now, it appears that a lot of people are staking everything on the fact that sexism is stronger than racism and that’s why a woman has less of a chance than the black guy. In case those people failed to notice it, those same states where racism is alive and well have pretty decent records of electing women. just saying… and I don’t plan to bring the whole racism vs sexism into the play here.
But that is not my point. Only a moron would think that a fundie would consider to vote for either Hillary or Obama. They won’t, so let’s stop dreamig already.
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr mod queue
Amen Tinfoil Hattie! Amen.
I’d also like to say that seeing Amanda encourage people to vote with the specific goal to help two men defeat one woman is disappointing and a little bit sad.
@ soopermouse
I agree that it’s sad, but not as sad as Kos’s reason for picking Obama. Apparently he did it because he doesn’t like Clinton’s *advisors*. LOL!
The ethical werewolf (what would that be; a vegetarian werewolf?) said that John Edwards as vice president in an Obama administration could be used to hammer Republican senators who were threatening to filibuster health care reform.
Trouble is, the last time such was on the table, Mrs Clinton’s 1993 plan, the Democrats enjoyed much larger congressional majorities in both Houses of Congress than any of the majorities in the six subsequent Republican congresses, and still not one single section of the Clinton plan was approved by one single committee or subcommittee; the Republicans didn’t filibuster it because the Democrats never brought it anywhere close to the point at which a filibuster could be used. It was the Democrats who killed it, not the Republicans. (Republicans certainly didn’t support it, but they didn’t have the power to stop it.)
In 2006, y’all regained control of the Congress based on the rather simple concept of getting us out of Iraq. All that the Democrats had to do was say, “No, we will not appropriate any more money to fund the war, period,” and they couldn’t manage to do even that simple thing. They didn’t have to actually pass anything; all they had to do was, quite literally, nothing, and they couldn’t even do that. Yet you expect the Democrats in Congress to pass something as complicated as the complete overhaul of our health care coverage system? Good luck with that.
I agree that it’s sad, but not as sad as Kos’s reason for picking Obama. Apparently he did it because he doesn’t like Clinton’s *advisors*. LOL!
Actually, i think that’s a good reason. If I care about the Iraq war as a top priority, and all her advisors are pro-war, it means she is EXCEEDINGLY unlikely to end it. And that is not a a minor matter. Bush would have been a far less terrifying president had he not had “advisors” such as Cheney, Dumsfeld, and the other members of the presidential clown car advising him. I think who is advising you is actually a pretty good indication of where you’re gonna stand on a number of issues. It shows what ideological slants you’re willing to pay to listen to.
My fantasy is Edwards/Kucinich, but it’s quite a fantasy. I’d go for pretty much any ticket with Edwards at the front, but my best realistic hope is Clinton/Edwards.
I’m loathe to throw any support to Clinton, though, as I have quite a bug up my ass about music and video game censorship, to say nothing of her tendency to roll over whenever the republicans want something (Iraq, Patriot Act… though, I suspect this will be less of an issue if she’s at the helm.)
I’d really like to see Romney get the republican nom, because I don’t think the successors to the Christian Coalition will have any part of a Mormon candidate when it comes down to it… we’d see another Robertson candidacy and it would split the party.
My biggest fear is McCain winning the republican nom, and I really thought we’d dodged that bullet until he won NH. I cannot for the life of me figure out why so many people like him!
I will be very honest with you all : I dont think we will see a blitz withdrawal from Iraq regardless of who’s gonna win the elections. It’s not possible, unless you want to leave Al Quaeda and co a shitton of logistics and weapons, and throw the 60k Iraqis who worked for the US and allies to the wolves.
Expecting immediate withdrawal is naive. However, a staged withdrawal and a possible replacement of the US troops with UN troops is what I would support and seems like the best option.
Sure, Dana. And if Bush had kept the troops in Iraq anyway, persons such as yourself would have criticized the president for his stubbornness, and completely refrained from demagogic attacks on the Democrats for “starving our brave troops,” right?And the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore on the merits. And I’m having lunch with the Easter Bunny tomorrow.
I don’t get a vote that counts, so it really doesn’t matter who I vote for. - Zuzu
Could we have another strategy? Do you think there could be a netroots agreement that everyone in a state voting after the primary race has been “decided” should vote for the same candidate (and one who is not the annointed winner)? As a native of CA (back when CA had a late primary and the last time anyone paid attention to the way CA voted in the primary*, they killed the candidate for whom CA voted) and resident for more than a handful of years in NJ, I really resented having no say in the Democratic nominee.
It’s time voters send a message that every voter in every state ought to count. If a late state ends up swinging toward a candidate who had a good percentage of the vote but couldn’t stay viable until the end, maybe it’ll make a difference in how things work? Even if the front runner is denied first place in a late state, that’ll send a message.
Nu?
I say let’s collude a bit and vote strategically in the late primaries as well.
* heck, nobody cares how CA votes in the generals either unless it’s a squeeker. by the time most people vote in CA (after work), the polls have already closed on the east coast and enough early reports are in that the election is practically over … I can only imagine how voters in Hawaii and Alaska feel!
I would much rather see a Edwards/Obama ticket, but anythings better than a DLC candidate.
Well, I meant more along the lines of election advisors than political advisors. Yes Terry McAuliffe and Mark Penn are slimy and annoying, but I wouldn’t doubt that there’s any number of unsavory characters behind the curtain of any major election campaign and I wouldn’t vote against a candidate for such a silly reason (especially if voting against them meant voting *for* a candidate who puts homophobic bigots center-stage). I get more than a hint of “these guys didn’t think I was a big enough mover and shaker so fuck them” in Kos’s stance against them.
The most bitter of scribes wrote:
Oh, no, of course not; we’d have attacked mercilessly. But what you are saying is that the Democrats who promised y’all withdrawal have no backbones, that they were more afraid of criticism from the party they just beat than in keeping their promises.
“Mercilessly.” Interesting word choice. Our troops could use a little mercy; specifically, they could use leadership that’s more interested in their well-being than in scoring cheap and easy political points.More than 100,000 troops are in harm’s way because George W. Bush and the Republicans would rather play tawdry political games than admit they made a mistake.
“I dont think we will see a blitz withdrawal from Iraq regardless of who’s gonna win he elections. It’s not possible, unless you want to leave Al Quaeda and co a shitton of logistics and weapons, and throw the 60k Iraqis who worked for the US and allies to the wolves.”
The Late Great Steve Gilliard did a lot of analysis of what it will take for the US to get out of Iraq, and his conclusions were not good.
The groups fighting over the corpse of Iraq will not simply declare a truce for several months while we pull our men and material out. Especially around Baghdad, the logistics of getting just people to the airport quickly and safely are highly in doubt. (Steve even went to the extent of looking at detailed satellite image to see of there were potential helicopter landing areas near the Green Zone - not good…)
As the number of troops decreases, and therefore their ability to protect other soldiers and US-connected civilians from attack also decreases, the number of casualties goes up tremendously.
And, of course, the Iraqi militias have every incentive to force the Americans to leave behind as much equipment and arms as possible - they’ll need them to kill each other after we’re gone.
Two rotten facts:
1. The US WILL leave Iraq, sooner or later. All this talk about staying there for another 10-, 20-, 50-, 100-years is utter crap. We can’t sustain the troop levels we have now, let alone keep paying $200+ billion/year indefinitely.
2. Leaving Iraq will be very costly, no matter when, and no matter how.
This is the legacy of stupidity Cheney/Bush leave to us. Thanks a lot, assholes…
can someone put Cheney in jail for fraud? Just asking
Soopermouse 76 : I’d also like to say that seeing Amanda encourage people to vote with the specific goal to help two men defeat one woman is disappointing and a little bit sad.
So you vote for Elizabeth Dole instead of Obama or Edwards? Are you trying to say that Amanda is enouraging people to vote against Clinton *because* she’s a woman? Erm, if so, you might want to reconsider. NB : voting for someone based on their positions and record regardless of their gender is pretty $@!% feminist if you ask me.
The Late Great Steve Gilliard did a lot of analysis - MikeEss
Ya know, a big part of the problem with our country is how far we have drifted from any semblence of a meritocracy. Nowadays, if you have a certain kind of conservative political world view (and the right parents) you can be on wingnut welfare for life and your “analysis” will filter through our public discourse, eventually affecting and even effecting policy.
OTOH, truly brilliant people like Steve Gilliard — who was setting them up for life? Why arent’ people saying “hmm … Mr. Wingnut has been wrong about a lot of things. ‘Course it’s not sin to be wrong — we’re all wrong about a lot of things all the time. But maybe we should take what the often wrong person says with a grain of salt and listen to people who are right?”? Why is it that being wrong is not a disadvantage, but rewarded? Why is it that being right (and saying what it is the Emperor is wearing) gets you marginalized rather than rewarded?
The problem is, if you keep rewarding mediocrity, mediocrity is what you’ll get. And is that what we really want?
“The problem is, if you keep rewarding mediocrity, mediocrity is what you’ll get. And is that what we really want?”
“We” might not want it, but obviously somebody does.
Between Jonah Goldberg’s asinine “book” and Bill Kristol’s appointment to the editorial pages of the NYT…I just don’t know what to say anymore.
Real life seems more and more immune from parody…
Xero
if you look carefully above, you will notice that I have listed the reasons why I do not feel that Obama can be trusted. Regardles of that however, the comparison between Hillary and Elizabeth Dole is a red herring.
I do not know Amanda’s motivations for endorsing the two men against the one woman. I also do not know what makes her wipe the slate clean for all of teh sexist attacks that Hillary has seen from both Edwards and Obama. maybe she is juts very eager to prove that she doesn’t hold a grudge against the campaign who did not stand up for her and Melissa, I do not know.
But coupled with that pic, her request is shameful for any feminist or anyone who considers themselves as such.
The fact that she willingly decided to be part of the movement against the one female candidate to ever have a real chance at the position of POTUS tells me a lot more about her than I expected, and I feel sad.
On the issues? Obama and Clinton are so close on the issues that it hurts. Her healthcare plan is better, she is the one who didnt put homophobes on center stage. She is also the one not afraid to stand up and be counted instead of hiding cowardly behind a “present” vote.
Those ARE the issues. Those are the signs that show that Obama has all the potential to be a panderer, because he has been doing just that. Pandering, and it will get worse as the stakes get higher.
I really don’t know what Amanda’s agenda is. but I would have expected better of her than to try and sic the readers of pandagon into voting against Hillary. it’s a disgusting thing to do on a so called feminist blog.
Obama has already sold the LGBT for the homophobic vote. Amanda has sold out on feminism when writing that line. I am disgusted.
You might want to reconsider your opinion that Republicans/conservatives find Edwards palatable. They tend to see his questionable role as senator (attendance/negligence/running for office on the public dole) in a negative light.
I’ve heard people say with all honesty that they’d rather see Clinton dead than in the White House. I received a birthday card from my uncle with a picture of Sen. Clinton in the oval office and the punch line was something like “there is something worse than growing older”. I’ve heard many people say that they’ll move to Canada if Clinton becomes president. I can’t understand why. She has her faults, but I just plain can’t understand the hatred. And I don’t understand the somewhat more muted disapproval from the progressive side either, given that none of the major candidates are any more or less progressive than she.
I thought I was apathetic towards this year’s field, but when I heard that she won the NH primaries, I felt a surge of pride and hope. That maybe America can handle a woman president. That maybe it’ll really happen someday.
So I decided I’ll be supporting Hillary Clinton.
Indeed, Dana, I’m pretty close to being a vegetarian werewolf.
A couple things should be said in response to your points:
While Senate Democrats have an alarming lack of confidence on foreign policy, they’re fairly confident on economic issues. Consider the fate of Social Security Privatization — Reid and Pelosi held basically the entire House and Senate caucuses together (I think one guy in the House defected, that was all) and defeated Bush. This bodes well for health care.
I don’t think the 1993-1994 example applies that well for a number of reasons. For one thing, the Clinton health care plan was really complicated and hard to explain in a way that today’s Democratic plans aren’t. It also would change the health care even of people who are currently happy with their health care, which stirred up opposition — contemporary Democratic plans don’t. And there’s also the fact that Clinton simply didn’t expect Republicans to fight back and tried to negotiate with them in good faith (part of the reason I like Edwards is that he understands that Republicans have already sold their votes to the insurance lobby on this issue, and he’ll take us straight to the fighting).
But probably the biggest factor is that in 1993-1994, we had a bunch of very conservative Southern Democrats like John Breaux and Sam Nunn. It was a much more fragmented Democratic caucus. We have much more unified parties today, so a Democratic majority means more than it did then. (Well, as long as it isn’t a Democratic majority where Joe Lieberman is the tiebreaking vote.)
. But what you are saying is that the Democrats who promised y’all withdrawal have no backbones - Dana
Haven’t you read the Federalist Papers? Are system is not designed to rely on politicians having backbones. It’s supposed to rely on politicians having ambitions and that a politician will be rewarded for making a splash, opposing another politician (in another branch of government) etc.
The problem is not that the Democrats lack backbones, the problem is that the Democrats don’t perceive that it is in their political interest to oppose Bush & CO, because they know that if they do, they’d be tarred and feathered by “even the liberal media” and it’d kill their political careers.
A key aspect of where we have abandoned Madisonian democracy is simply in our attitude toward political ambition. According to Madison’s framework, if Rep. Dem decided to make a stink about the war and Rep. Dem. was called on it “you’re only doing this to further your own political career”, everyone would say “nu? so Rep. Dem.’s a politician? what’s news? anyway, Rep. Dem. is making a stink about that which deserves a stink made about it, so I’ll vote for Rep. Dem. for Sen.”. Nowadays, though, everyone would respond with “how dare Rep. Dem. be ambitious — it’s unseemly” and so if Rep. Dem. wants to advance, s/he ought not to show any sign of actual ambition.
*
BTW: why didn’t health-care reform go forward? well, it was perceived as wildly unpopular due to the aggressive ad campaigns against it … that’s why.
I swear the more people are attacking Clinton for her so-called “crying,” the more I want to vote for her. I’m amazed, but there it is. Americablog has yet another post about it, this one with Obama’s campaign manager questioning why she didn’t cry over Katrina for fuck’s sake!! I used to like Obama, too.
Too many comments to scroll through and see FOR SURE, but- have we all forgotten about Obama’s rally for “people of faith” at which he was introduced by a white guy and big anti-gay marriage drumbeater? Weren’t we all talking about how Obama’s pandering to the “black church” with that, even though it was a misstep to have the white guy? What- did Obama suddenly stop coveting the “faith-based” vote, in favor of the “younger women” vote? Because ya KNOW- those two bases??- generally at HUGE odds with one another, as the former is primarily interested in putting the latter back in its place, that being the kitchen & the bedroom. Definitely NOT the White House…. Not for nothin’, but I moved from Edwards (healthcare, poverty) to Hillary in the last couple of weeks, and I believe I’m going to stay right there.
I’d also like to say that seeing Amanda encourage people to vote with the specific goal to help two men defeat one woman is disappointing and a little bit sad.
Not at all. Amanda made her evaluation quite clear:
That said, here are my concerns—that she doesn’t excite people enough to get out the vote for our team, but she’s got the potential to get out the vote for the Republicans in what would otherwise be an election where a lot of the social conservatives may take their ball and go home.
She is committing to a Democratic victory - any Democrat - and evaluating the candidates’ chances in a gender-neutral analysis. It’s precisely what you should do if you place a person’s gender beneath their qualities as a person (or, in this case, their chances as a politician).
Of course, if Clinton is less electable because she’s a woman, that’s maddening. But even if Amanda’s decision is affected by a misogynistic environment, I think it’s fair to say that Amanda hasn’t been spending her time passively accepting the status quo.
At the last election, I voted for Labour - effectively voting for a woman as PM. I didn’t do that because Clark was a woman; I did it because I thought her administration was the most competent.
Expecting immediate withdrawal is naive. However, a staged withdrawal and a possible replacement of the US troops with UN troops is what I would support and seems like the best option.
As a member of a country that supplies the UN with peacekeepers on a regular basis, no fucking way, Jose.
There are conditions under which peacekeeping forces are used. They don’t apply in the mess Iraq has degenerated into. Other countries are either there to back up US forces, or they shouldn’t be there at all.
I’m surprised that Pandagon’s “feminists” are telling us not to vote for the female candidate with the most experience. Thanks for the opinions, but I think I will vote for the person who is most qualified and most electable: Hillary Clinton.
At this point, I’m thinking the best of the most likely tickets would be Obama/Edwards, …
But why? What’s the thinking here?
I’m voting for Kucinich - the only candidate whose words and actions have been consistent. What Edwards is now saying about big money in politics, Kucinich has been walking that talk for many years now.
But we don’t have fair elections in this country, and we have to consider our votes with that in mind.
That’s pretzel logic. Or are you suggesting that Clinton won twice because of unfair practices on his part?
I’m surprised that Pandagon’s “feminists” are telling us not to vote for the female candidate with the most experience.
Experience is the reason I’m not voting for Hillary - I’ve seen her governing philosophy in action, and even though I’m certain she’ll execute it better than Bill did - maybe the result won’t be as bad as NAFTA, DOMA and Welfare Reform - I don’t like it any more now than I did three elections ago. So I’ll vote for a different one.
Which in my case means Edwards.
“Which in my case means Edwards.”
My husband says the same thing that you say. And I keep telling him that a closet socialist will never win in America.
God, I do get a chuckle when I see people say they like Dennis Kucinich.
“God, I do get a chuckle when I see people say they like Dennis Kucinich.”
Kinda like we feel when we hear somebody say they like Ron Paul? Except, we get a chill down our backs when we realize they live here too…
“Which in my case means Edwards.”
My husband also wants to vote for Edwards. I keep trying to tell him that a closet socialist will never win in America.
Phoenician
As much as I would like to go with the gender neutral analysis, I can’t. Why?
First, because we don’t live in a gender neutral world. here is where your argument is lacking. Amanda said this:
“she’s got the potential to get out the vote for the Republicans in what would otherwise be an election where a lot of the social conservatives may take their ball and go home.”
and why is that? because they hate her. And why do they hate her? Because she is a woman who wants a man’s job.
“Of course, if Clinton is less electable because she’s a woman, that’s maddening. ”
ya think?
So yes, she is unelectable BECAUSE she is a woman who wants a man’s job. And Amanda’s actions are therefore enforcing the status quo, while conveniently supporting her preferred candidate and attempting to put him from his third position into one of relative importance. Or to be more precise she is supporting the candidate who’d be willing to tolerate Edwards as VP, regardless of the fact that said candidate cannot be trusted. That is not integrity and sure as hell isn’t feminism. It is however bullshit.
So that is where the issue stands.
And by sabotaging the woman because the Repugs hate her, we are reinforcing the same vicious circle that led to the current situation.
And in the name of all that is holy, I don’t want to hear about how Amanda is supporting Obama “on the issues”.
Clinton and Obama are almost indistinguishable on the issues, except for the fact that Clinton’s healthcare plan is actually better.
She is also the one with a long career in politics, a better understanding of issues, and enough courage to stand up and be counted when it matters.
Obama is a newcomer with a long history of avoiding to stand up and be counted, a flip flopper that puts Mitt Romey to shame ( see my post further up for the details) and a tendency to pander. Nobody with half an integrity would support him as a Democrat.
He has charisma? Big hairy deal, so does Bush. So did Mussolini.
Obama is a demagogue and nothing more.
My concern with Clinton is that I don’t see her running an inspiring campaign. I do see her running a Kerry and Gore style campaign of just barely distancing herself from her opponent and offering nothing resembling an overarching message. As we seen, that strategy would just barely get her enough votes to win, assuming no theft of votes by the Republicans and we can’t assume that.
I’m convinced that both Obama and Edwards can offer an inspiring campaign, giving either one of them a better chance of winning in an impossible-to-steal landslide.
Like on authorizing the Iraq war.
Her campaign courted McClurkin and she has buddied up with other homophobes.
That sounds like you, soopermouse, or did you not write this:
Are they allowed to combine candidates’ delegates in the way mcc mentioned? I wasn’t aware that was possible… and plus, though Sen. Clinton won the vote in NH, didn’t Sen. Obama win one more delegate than she did in that state?
Erika
“Like on authorizing the Iraq war.”
So did Edwards. So did pretty much everyone who was in that position at the time. And by the looks of it, so would have Obama.
“Her campaign courted McClurkin and she has buddied up with other homophobes.”
I don’t quite recall her pandering to the homophobes, neither putting them on stage and refusing to cancel and event that knew was painful and betrayal to the LGBT .
“That sounds like you, soopermouse”
At the moment wen the Kerry proposal happened ( the one that Obama sabotaged), the situation was different tha it is in january 2008. At that point, before the “surge”, there was possible to achieve at least a partial withdrawal. That is what Obama stopped. So Yeah, I do hold him at least partially responsible for the current situation
Do you have any idea the kind of rabid racists that lurk out there? Do you know what they’re capable of in the face of an Obama presidency?
And yet you wouldn’t discourage his nomination on the basis of the real danger he and his supporters face at the hands of extremists. Nor should you. I will be proud to support Barak Obama if he is the nominee.
But you encourage women to knock Clinton out of the race of the issue of her electability. Obviously, enough women in NH didn’t agree that the move to make in the face of a constant barage of sexist attacks being aimed at her (which I believe she has handle with much grace under pressure) was to abandon her at the voting booth to send the message to the Christian Right that we’re shitting our pants over them.
Jesus. H. Christ.
How can we let Obama off the hook when he criticizes Clinton for voting to authorize the Iraq war?
Did he vote against it or something?
Even if he’d had the opportunity, there’s nothing in his record to suggest he wouldn’t have simply voted “present.”
He is a coward, and I am sick of him and his supporters attacking Hillary Clinton for taking stances on issues.
You don’t bring about “change” (puke) by failing to actually choose positions.
“You don’t bring about “change” (puke) by failing to actually choose positions.”
Without defending Obama’s avoidance of certain politically charged votes, I must say that you can’t “bring about change” by not getting elected.
Given that America’s current presidential election process is hopelessly screwed up, it’s hard to get too mad at any individual politician with presidential aspirations for being less than consistent in their voting and bill sponsoring patterns…
OTOH, I wonder how he is to have a beer with?… [/snark]
Actually MikeEss
“Given that America’s current presidential election process is hopelessly screwed up, it’s hard to get too mad at any individual politician with presidential aspirations for being less than consistent in their voting and bill sponsoring patterns…
”
I disagree. The voting pattern and record of a certain candidate are the ONLY measure for a candidate. We all know campaigns are staged in almost every move, so let us be serious.
And sadly I have to agree with Gloria Steinem and Roseanne, barack Obama is an empty suit who would not have stood a chance if he was not bepenised. Should Hillary have had an outie instead of innie, there would have been no democratic race worth mentioning, because, guess what: she is the most qualified than the rest.
So yes, it is all about sexism. Nothing more.
Soopermouse, you just raised a point I have not considered until now.
I wonder if everyone’s candidate of choice would remain the same if a person with Clinton’s record, qualifications, and personality resided in a male body while Obama’s record, qualifications and personality resided in a female one.
Would a female Obama even be a blip on the radar? Would people take her desire to become president at all seriously?
I am going to ask this question of every person who insists they don’t take race/sex into consideration.
Sarah — Hmm.. Problem with that is both of these candidates have stereotypes to overcome, so they are probably downplaying personality traits that would be a strength if they were from a different demographic. Also, even as feminists and liberals we’re not above seeing them through a sexist and racist lens without realizing it.
Take Clinton, for example. As a white man, she would be awfully stiff but still perhaps she’d make it. As a black man, she wouldn’t. The stereotypes around black men force black male politicians to be as friendly as possible or else face the accusations of being an “angry black man.” Clinton may be naturally friendlier than she seems, just covering it because she’s trying to downplay the “soft female” image, but as I see her she’s too serious and stiff. Then again, I’m not sure if I’m seeing her as stiff as women go or stiff as anyone goes.
Obama, on the other hand, is WAY too outgoing and friendly to make it as a female candidate of either race. He would marked as soft and idealistic and not taken seriously. But again, we don’t know if he’s suppressing any qualities that our society may find intimidating in a black man for the sake of his career (I was watching the replay of his concession speech in NH on the TV at work, and several of my coworkers found that speech TOO angry and were criticizing him for it), and we don’t know if as a woman he would be overcompensating for his friendliness and manifest a different personality. I also don’t know for sure if my conclusions about Obama are the way they are because I’m comparing him to black male stereotypes or male stereotypes or just plain everyone.
I doubt, however, that he would be a Presidential candidate at all as a women. His strength and popularity lies in his oratory skills. Women don’t get known for their incredible public speaking abilities, even when they have incredible speaking abilities.