tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post9145651319516177219..comments2008-03-15T01:25:54.259-04:00Anthony Palmer, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00043374303541804437noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-81440788756333918832008-03-15T01:25:00.000-04:002008-03-15T01:25:00.000-04:00Thomas,<BR/><BR/>Glenn Beck wrote an <A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/14/beckfloridamichigan/" REL="nofollow">excellent piece</A> this week about why Florida and Michigan shouldn't count at all. Why should they? They are the ones who broke the rules, and now they are complaining about being penalized for them. Are they serious?<BR/><BR/>Obama and Clinton are only talking about this so much because it would be bad politics for them to be on the wrong side of "disenfranchising voters." Clinton is making a good political argument that "their votes should count." One of them will be the nominee, and that nominee will need the Democratic voters in both of these states to put them over the top because John McCain could potentially win both states. If that nominee is seen as not fighting for everyone's vote, the voters may feel that politician is taking their support for granted, or really isn't willing to work for their votes in general.<BR/><BR/>It's a shame though because neither Obama nor Clinton are responsible for what the Florida and Michigan state parties decided to do. Clinton was wise to leave her name on the ballot in both states even though the other candidates were trying to honor the rules by removing theirs. Just goes to show you that politics ain't beanbag.Anthony Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00043374303541804437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-65617557603956030722008-03-14T03:38:00.000-04:002008-03-14T03:38:00.000-04:00Why does the input of the Clinton and Obama campaigns matter in how Florida Democrats decide how to solve their primary problem? It seems to me that both of these campaigns could have motives that would go against the interest of the people in Florida. For example, Barack Obama would be happy to split the Florida delegates half-half even though this isn't necessarily how Floridians would vote.Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892964135889989419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-44218514993718822442008-03-11T07:09:00.000-04:002008-03-11T07:09:00.000-04:00Schenck,<BR/><BR/>I think McCain's appeal among independents is overstated right now mainly because of his positions on foreign policy. I think the nation is weary of perceived warmongers, so even if indies may like McCain's bipartisanship on some issues, I don't think they'll flock to him in droves because of his rhetoric on Iraq and Iran. The GOP is not going to rout anyone in this election unless the Democratic nominee makes a HUGE mistake because one party simply doesn't win the White House three elections in a row. George HW Bush managed to do it thanks to the inept Michael Dukakis, Willie Horton, and the tank ad, but that was an aberration. Regarding Hillary, I think that for all her warts, her victories in Texas and Ohio have shown to voters that she does indeed know how to fight and win, even if it's ugly. Many people aren't sure if Obama knows how to do so.<BR/><BR/>-----<BR/><BR/>Brett,<BR/><BR/>You are definitely right. Did you hear about the special election in IL-14? That's former Speaker Dennis Hastert's district, and a Democrat won there. Incredible. If Obama's at the top of the ballot, he could potentially have long coattails. If Clinton's at the top of the ticket, galvanized Republicans will turn out and vote to "stop her" and nothing else.<BR/><BR/>-----<BR/><BR/>Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>You make a valid case for Obama, but one counterargument is that he can't win any "big" states. Smaller states are easier to win because of retail politicking and grassroots organization. When you have to campaign from 30,000 feet, it seems that Clinton may be performing a bit better. I really don't know.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comments!Anthony Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00043374303541804437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-24026436223589629352008-03-10T08:30:00.000-04:002008-03-10T08:30:00.000-04:00Lets compare which Obama and HRC won. <BR/>I have left out MI, as that is disputed.<BR/>WA-Obama<BR/>OR-<BR/>CA-Clinton<BR/>MN-Obama<BR/>WI-Obama<BR/>IL-Obama<BR/>MI-<BR/>PA-<BR/>DC-Obama<BR/>MD-Obama<BR/>NJ-Clinton<BR/>NY -Clinton<BR/>CT-Obama<BR/>MA-Clinton<BR/>VT-Obama<BR/>NH-Clinton<BR/>DE-Obama<BR/>ME-Obama<BR/>So- Obama gets 10 states<BR/>Clinton gets 5 states<BR/>So you tell me who is winning 'blue' states.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-8131132883700388252008-03-10T04:59:00.000-04:002008-03-10T04:59:00.000-04:00One additional question might be <B>"Which candidate can help bring other Democrats to power in the process of his electoral run?" </B> After all, there are other important races coming up in November as well, including possibly the best chance in over a decade for the Democrats to deliver a resounding coup to solidify their gains and possibly give them a majority in the Legislature that would be large enough to get past Republican victories.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, a Democratic legislative agenda would be hurt by a Democratic loss in the race for the Presidency, but McCain (were he elected) isn't George W.Bush. He can compromise, and has done in the past. And I would be willing to accept a weak John McCain presidency, suffering severe concerns over its legitimacy from an extremely close race, in exchange for solid Democratic control over the Legislature. Reluctant, but willing.Brettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-65495603726309587262008-03-09T17:35:00.000-04:002008-03-09T17:35:00.000-04:00Anthony, nice post. I'm feeling bold. <BR/><BR/>I really don't see how Clinton is viewed as the "safe choice." Whoever wins the election will win on the backs of Independents. I used to consider myself an Independent until I realized the Maryland primaries were closed (switched just in time). I think there is a much larger chance of a landslide in a McCain/Clinton match-up. I don't see more than 1 in 4 Independents voting for Hillary over McCain = welcome Bush III. I think an Obama/McCain match-up would be a much safer fight for the Dems. Barring some huge gaffe by Obama or an increase in his disability to defend the inexperience and "weak on security" claims (which I doubt considering how he's done against the Clinton machine), he would probably garner half to 75% of the Independent vote, which would nudge him over the top. I just can't see Hillary beating McCain in November.Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11388487522026095619noreply@blogger.com