First, the pledge was not to campaign. Ads are campaigns, no matter which way you see it.
Secondly,The SC chair is not a pushover. My take is, she is biased. How can placing ads not be considered campaigning? I don’t care that Obama got her permission. The fact is, Clinton still doesn’t have ads in Florida. They do conference calls and that’s it. I don’t see that as campaigning but rather, touching base with your staff. Just compare the reach of ads vs. conference calls and tell me which violates the spirit of the pledge more?
Also, compare the intent of the ads vs the conference call. One seeks to influence the results of the vote, the other seeks to touch base with staff.
Integrity? Clinton wins this instance and practically every instance in this campaign.
So what if she’s biased? I mean, you have absolutely no evidence for that statement, but let’s assume it’s true. It misses the point entirely. The question is not about whether she’s a neutral arbitrator. The promise was made to the institution she leads. So if she says that national ads don’t violate the promise, it’s her word that matters regardless of her bias. If I promise not to correspond with you, but then get your permission to write an article in a newspaper you read, I haven’t broken my promise to you because I got your permission–regardless of what some objective observer might believe.
The intent is pretty clear. They wanted to run a national ad. If they could have excluded Florida, they would have. They couldn’t, so they got permission. And the intent on Hillary’s side is pretty clear too. It doesn’t take a cynic to see that she’s trying to capitalize on her lead in FL. Again, this is the woman who didn’t take her name off the ballot in Michigan and who is now calling for Florida’s delegates to count.
But what does that say about the pledge if she’s biased. “Okay you can not violate the pledge but BO here requested and that’s OK?” You’re right that I don’t have any proof that she’s biased except for the actual act itself. But, I think that’s enough. 54% in SC voted for Obama - I’d say the odds are 2 to 1 that she’s for Obama. (I know this is not a valid statistical inference )
Re: intent: I agree. They intended to touch on Florida because he is sorely losing there. There are ways to campaign that will leave off Florida. It’s tough but other campaigns are complying.
He needs Florida so much more than Hillary does. (He won’t get it anyway). Also, re: Michigan - there was not pledge to remove their names off Michigan’s ballot - why should she? She leads both Michigan and Florida. It is in the best interest of the other candidates to disenfranchise both States.
Maybe. And I don’t expect SC to go Democratic in the fall - no way, nohow.
But (a) I hardly expect that tens of thousands of Pubbies skipped the GOP primary last week so they could vote against Hillary this week. And (b) this is a continuation of a trend that’s run through Iowa and New Hampshire, of people showing up for the Dems in substantially greater numbers than for the Pubbies. But it’s one thing to see it in northern swing states like IA and NH; it’s something completely different to see the Dems outdraw the GOP by 20% in South Carolina.
Like I said, it doesn’t mean the Dems will win SC this fall; I’d bet the house that they won’t, though they’ll surely do better there this year than they did in 2004 or 2000. But it bodes well for their prospects at the top of the ticket in places like Ohio, Missouri, and Virginia, and for their prospects in down-ticket races across the country, which is where I think the real action is.
After all, I think either Hillary or Obama can win the election. It’s what happens next that’s key. And that’s going to depend in large part on how many Senate seats the Dems pick up this fall. The closer to 60, the better the prospects for real change.
Just a few months ago, Clinton and Obama were running dead even among blacks. Mason-Dixon, polling on Tuesday and Wednesday, showed Obama pulling [PDF] 59% of the black vote, with Hillary getting 25%. Reuters/Zogby, polling on Thursday and Friday, ticked that up to 62%.
It’s all well and good to say “that was expected,” but I don’t see any evidence that it was the expectation of more than a handful of observers, let alone a consensus expectation.
If you think it was widely expected that Obama would get >80% of the black vote in SC, then please provide some evidence of who expected it.
I disagree, but there’s really no point in debating it. We’ll find out for sure in 10 days.
There’s still a lot of volatility in those polls, and Obama has one hell of a ground organization in most of those Super Tuesday states, on a scale never attempted before in the Presidential primaries.
It sure didn’t work, did it? In fact, it seems like it backfired. At any rate, please cite the portions of the exit polls that are problematic for my analysis.
False. He’s proposing a 16-month withdrawal timetable for all but a handful of our troops. She’s taken no comparable position.
And she hasn’t proposed increasing it, either.
OK, but she still has to get out there and make her case, on something besides Rezko. That BS ain’t gonna win it for her.
I’ve noted that Clinton has advantages on this and other issues. But no, the campaigns DON’T always clearly articulate their differences. Clinton is (deliberately, IMHO) pretty damned fuzzy in her Iraq plans, so that in a general election she can correctly say that she’s not proposed a quick exit from Iraq, while letting Dem primary voters believe that’s what she wants. (“If Bush won’t end the war, I will.”)
It’s certainly fair game. And I’m not arguing its relevance one way or the other. I’d say that to the extent that it’s relevant, it’s small potatoes - and more importantly, the voters seem to agree.
Ditto the Clintons’ bullshit claims that Obama agrees with Reagan’s ideas, as opposed to using him as a model for transformational politics. Ditto all the high-level Clinton surrogates who played the race card in various ways. People don’t want to hear this sort of stuff, if there’s no ‘there’ there.
Alright, Obama is going to remain above reproach, and the clinton machine will become more and more vicious in their attacks. They’ll continue to play the race card, and “try” to discredit Obama in every way possible. The more desperate the clinton machine becomes, the more ugly they’ll get. They’ll continue to play good cop/bad cop with Bill acting up to deflect any attention from his homely wife. People are concentrating on him and not as much her or the real issues. Like her likeablility factor… it’s non-existent.
Actually, I"m not saying anything that’s not already happening, so… But it will get uglier. They’ll have other sources attack obama - he’s going to get hit from all angles. It’ll be like a gang war on a message board. Obama think’s he’d fighting two candidates, two for the price of one? Just wait, nothing is beyond reason with the clintons. They have no soul.
I disagree, but there’s really no point in debating it. We’ll find out for sure in 10 days.
It sure didn’t work, did it? In fact, it seems like it backfired. At any rate, please cite the portions of the exit polls that are problematic for my analysis.
False. He’s proposing a 16-month withdrawal timetable for all but a handful of our troops. She’s taken no comparable position.
And she hasn’t proposed increasing it, either.
OK, but she still has to get out there and make her case, on something besides Rezko, or absurd trivial ‘gotchas’ on universal health care, or the Reagan nonsense. That BS ain’t gonna win it for her.
I’ve noted that Clinton has advantages on this and other issues. But no, the campaigns DON’T always clearly articulate their differences. Clinton is (deliberately, IMHO) pretty damned fuzzy in her Iraq plans, so that in a general election she can correctly say that she’s not proposed a quick exit from Iraq, while letting Dem primary voters believe that’s what she wants. (“If Bush won’t end the war, I will.”)
It’s certainly fair game. But who considers it relevant is another story, and that’s what I’m saying - the voters don’t seem to consider it relevant.
Actually, I expect they will, just not in the direct sense. What the voters in the Feb. 5 states will see is that Obama took some below-the-belt punches, and won BIG anyway. They know the GOP will throw the kitchen sink at whichever candidate the Dems nominate, and this will provide some support for the notion that Obama can handle that when the time comes.
What? He was the first Black President! Oh. He’s playing the Blues now you say?
Sorry.
Well tactically it is had to predict how they’ll play it. Bill’s prominent role didn’t seem to help much. Attacking Obama doesn’t seem to have gotten much traction. They may pull back from both just because they aren’t helping the cause.
He best approach is to play on her strengths as a policy wonk in debates and to focus on her healthcare plans and on the economy. Bush’s State of the union may help her out, placing economic worries foremost in peoples’ minds.
Separate issue: she is now advocating, with a few days left and her polling data showing her solidly in the lead, for Florida (and MI where she ran unopposed) to count after all. She has been the establishment’s candidate (see her superdelegate headstart). Will her wishes prevail? Or will it sour some of the superdelegates on her?
It wasn’t much of an improvement over his Nevada performance (at least for AA). All I’m saying is, he was expected to SC. The fact that his AA vote in SC was similar to Nevada’s doesn’t seem to defy any expectation nor change the narrative.
Obama played the race card to the hilt. There’s enough blame to pass around with Obama getting the lion’s share, IMO. I could provide cites when pressed.
Present polls indicate that Clinton will take 17 out of the 22 contests on Feb 5. Polls indicate that of the states that Obama will carry, only two have a sizable delegate count. I don’t see any need for the Clinton camp to challenge Obama’s integrity and positions. As I see it, it’s Obama that will try to do so much more of that. He needs it more.
Hypocrisy. Race-baiting. He also strikes me as a bit of a punk. But more than that, I really feel that Hillary is not getting a fair shake. When I look at the facts and compare them with the impression, it just doesn’t add up. I expected SDMB to be much more aware of the facts than most, but it doesn’t seem to be the case.
I misstated my point. I should have said that nothing in the exit polls support your analysis. The exit polls indicate that a majority of the electorate thought that each one attacked each other unfairly. Re-reading your analysis, I find now that I have been hasty. I agree with your points. I disagree with the impression that Hillary attacks Obama more times and with more distortion - the facts do not support it and in fact, the reverse is true.
Still - no appreciable difference on their positions on Iraq. She’s not willing to commit to any positions on Social Security but so long as she doesn’t leave anything out of the table - it’s fine. While I might agree that REZKO and the Reagan issues were more gamesmanship than substantive - the universal health care is quite substantive. Obama is on the wrong side of the argument when it comes to mandates.
What are these below-the-belt punches? I don’t see it. If you’re referring to REZKO or Reagan, I don’t see that as below-the-belt. That’s fair game.
Because it’s the most significant portion of his support and any changes to it will change the narrative. He did not perform appreciably well in the other demographics enough to change the narrative, too.
)