How is Hillary keeping her momentum?

Isn’t her fundraising lead actually very slim? And more of Obama’s money can be used during the primaries.

Like her husband, she will be an excellent Republican President – way better than the one we have right now, anyway. She’ll keep stuff like torture and rendition under wraps while simultaneously talking about how moral and brave we are. Plus, we’ll finally have a woman who will bomb some people, which will be an important moment for many.

OK, I’ll bite…explain.

What I’d like to know is why does her time as First Lady count as “experience”? Nobody voted for her, she had no official duties, and her major initiative was a flop. So why does she tout her vast experience? One term in the Senate, that’s it. Even that was marred by getting conned by Bush. And where does she get off saying how she lived through 9/11? She was in DC, not the WTC. So she had to get some federal aid to her state. Big deal, it wasn’t exactly difficult to do in those days.

If you think living in DC wasn’t scary as all hell on 9/11 you need to broaden your damn perspective. While I’m no longer living there I can tell you that, even though there’s always jokes about suddenly dying due to some attack, none of us ever expected to have to evacuate.

But that hardly makes her unique among Senators, does it? If so, then Obama, Biden, and Dodd have equal claim to that. She seems to claim that SHE is the one who lived through it.

Well, Obama wasn’t, having been elected in 2004. Biden was, obviously, but in the end she can, and has, ignored him. The only serious challenger is Obama (with Edwards sniping from the sidelines hoping to catch a break).

Presidential elections are always a strong run for the middle. Hillary didn’t have far to run. Of course no one actually does any of the things they campaigned about doing, and the American Voters have the memory span of a goldfish.

Well, maybe not that long.

Tris

#3: Her position in both the national polls and the polls of primary state voters.

Obama’s raising a lot of money, but he hasn’t turned it into a broadening of his support. For all that I don’t want Hillary to be the nominee, she’s done so. And her support seems pretty solid too.

If Obama or Edwards is going to make a move, it had better be soon.

Dukakis in the tank happened while he was campaigning against Bush, Dean’s shout happened during primary season. Nobody is going to vote in the primaries for months, so I don’t think it’s so impressive Hillary has kept her status. How much has really changed in the months of pre-primary stuff we’ve had? Obama is raising a little more money than expected, Fred Thompson eventually admitted he’s running… anything else of consequence?

I want to reemphasize hwo this works with a practical example. The “media” did make Obama its Golden Calf for a while there. But, now look a what happened. Now they can discuss Obama to talk about how he’s not living to par. That is, not living up to the very expectations that the media itself set, all of its own accord. Likewise, some idiot the other day (not sure where I caught it) was saying that Thompson was dead in the water because he “only” got $8 million in donations during 1/2 of the first quarter he’s been collecting them. This facile analysis ignroes whether a canidate is gaining or losing or even how well that is compared to recent alternatives - it just concentrates on an incestuous and ultimately meaningless analysis.

I’m not fan of Howard Dean, but the media’s coverage of him was nearly criminal last election. First they built him up into the Golden CHild of Detsiny. Then, the minute he didn’t do as well as he might have, they pounced on him like a rapid tiger. I don’t think he could have won anyway, but he never had a shot with the media’s treatment. And of course, it was over the most trivial and meaningless of events following the most trivial and meaningless of primaries, which many Presidents, not to mention their eventual competition, have not won.

This behavior favors Hillary because of the media’s attention span, not America’s. It artifically boosts then drops her rivals, while she can continue to hammer away. She faces a challenge only during their peaks. Even if it ultimately is a neutral viewpoint for Hillaryt herself, she can take out rivals during their low-support times. And ebcause the media cycle is fast, she is guarranteed of getting them. Aside from which, Obama is ultimately another machine politician (or at least is trying to be) with an inferior machine. I find his strategy foolish in that regard; he was never going to out-machine Hillary. He’s too young and has too few allies. He’d have been better trying to be contentious and “fearless” (FWIW to a politician, anyway) and trying to gather support by constant speaking.

This kind of thing happens essentially on the following principle: first, the media will go gaga over anyone with a pulse and a moment of raw charisma or an interesting story - anything to separate him or her and put the name in the news. Anything they can make a front-page article over, in short. But, this very attention attracts anyone needing to make the other kind of story. Y’know, the ones where they reveal some dark secret! Only, real dark secrets are rarely hidden and ususally never make cover with any force. We only hear about trivialities or the fact that someone’s second cousin once removed did some bad thing, or somebody’s friend’s friend did something bad.

For politicians today, you can be as dirty as you like; but your friends and everyone they know must be spotless. So it is with Hillary. I don’t know if she personally is corrupt. In fact, I rather suspect not, outside of spending public largesse to build support, which is slimy but hardly unprecedented among any politician. Former President William J. Clinton is as dirty as they come outside of Nixon-types, but the media for no sane reason treats them as one unit: Billary.

I also send a :rolleyes: to anyone talking about how Hillary will be centrist or “a Republican president.” It says nothing about Hillary but plenty about you. Hillary is a machine politician, and she will say whatever gets her elected. She is exactly like any other machine politician, but whether that individual is Republican (cough Ted Stevens cough) or Democrat is irrelevant.

Ah, I shopuld have previewed.

That’s not really true. First off, they run the polls themselves, and they tend to record passing fancy as much as anything else, and they rarely show the complete poll questions, which makes them useless.

And in anycase, they are looking at how their [the pundit’s] own poll stands relative to to what they [the pundit’s] predicted. If Obama was at, say 10% approval, and they predict he’ll move to 50%, but he only hit 40%, then Obama has “failed” and his campaign will be said to be “on the edge of disaster” or he’s “running out of steam.” The fact that Obama might have made a huge gain and substantially improved his position means nothing to the talking heads. Only his loss compared to what “the experts” [read: some guy in a studio whose job is to blather idiotically and who takes himself way too seriousl] predicted.

In short, THEY decide what is “normal” and therefore rate reality according to the pridciotn rather than the prediction according to the reality.

Poll numbers. Clinton’s pretty much had a consistent lead among the Democratic candidates all along. (Obama’s Iowa lead is mostly a fluke. His campaign is devoting a much higher percentage of its resources to Iowa then anywhere else in hopes that they will win an Iowa victory and then use that to regain the numbers they sacrificed elsewhere to achieve it.)

Being the front-runner has pros and cons. The big disadvantage is that the front-runner is the principal target of all of the other candidates. But I’ve said all along that Clinton can handle that better than any other candidate - she’s already been exposed to all the political attacks that can be made against her during her husband’s administration and she’s a smart campaigner who won’t make any major mistakes. So she can just suck up the advantages of being the front-runner - she gets more media attention, she’s the bandwagon people want to climb aboard, and the other candidates have to take the risks to try and catch up.

Irrelevant to what? Policy? I guess if we’re going to go that far we can just drop the charade that Democrats actually differ materially from Republicans when it comes to foreign policy, since they’re just another faction in the national security state consensus. They differ on tactics and demeanor, not so much strategy.

At this point TPTB are obviously on Mrs. Clinton’s side, as she is seemingly the most responsible person running who could take the mantle of the imperium.

Your views on the corporate media are spot on, for sure.

If you think she got conned by Bush, I think you got conned by her. Her only surprise was that Bush was so bad at empire. That’s the Democrat’s main problem with Bush: he is massively incompetent. The fact he can’t pacify Iraq is a serious blow to both party’s ideology, and that can be dangerous in the long run if the American population ever becomes activated.

At this point, the two parties have one major difference: the GOP has basically morphed into a bunch of stereotypical steroid abusing knuckleheads who want to force their will on the enemy and torture some Ay-rabs, just for kicks. And the Dems are the nerds who study history and counter insurgency campaigns and understand the use of intelligent propaganda, targeted assassinations, and targeted torture.

In war, always bet on the nerd.

A lot of people look at her First Lady tenure as valid OJT even though she may not have done much in an official capacity. Much the same way a VP can claim experience even though few of them do anything much more noteworthy than attend the funerals of foreign heads of state.

I suspect that Nancy Reagan may not have made a half bad president for similar reasons.

A disinterested viewpoint all the way from the Philippines: The only reason Obama has not gotten traction is that he has made stupid gaffes in the debates, IMO. For a lot of people, there were a lot of moments where Hillary was able to make the accusation of “inexperience” stick, while Obama hasn’t really been able to make her pay as much as he wanted to for her vote for the Iraq war. There were a lot of moments where Obama looked positively lightweight in comparison to the other candidates, not just Hillary. I won’t be surprised if Edwards eventually overtakes Obama though with Edwards’ less-than-stellar fundraising, I find this doubtful.

I firmly believe that Obama is running for VP and is now blocking for her by splitting the anti-Hillary vote with Edwards. What I can’t figure out is why he’s in second place- he is a truly gifted speaker but he has run a pitiful campaign.

Do you have any evidence that those who run the polls are skewing the results?

My problem with this is, polling goes on almost nonstop these days. RCP (the link in my last post) records 18 polls of the national Dem Presidential preferences taken since Labor Day alone.

Maybe one poll shows a passing moment, but it’s hard to argue with their combined weight.

All 18 of those September polls showed Hillary with between 35% and 53% support. 15 of them showed her between 39% and 47%. I suppose one of the outliers could be right, but the safe bet is that her support really IS at between 39% and 47% of Dems.

All 18 of the polls showed Obama’s support between 20% and 28%, Edwards’ between 10% and 17%, and the 16 polls that measured Richardson’s support had him at 5% or less.

That’s news to me. The WaPo, for its polls, always has a link to the actual questions, giving their order, whether names were rotated, whether the question was asked of a half sample, and so forth. IIRC, the same is true with the NY Times, and the other major news orgs.

I agree that that’s happened before. But I’m not sure of the applicability to this particular campaign. Ultimately, the primary voters will vote, and delegates will be apportioned according to those votes, and whoever gets a majority of the delegates will be the Democratic nominee.

Until you can show that this expectations game is skewing who gets the votes, I don’t see the relevance of your argument.

Take Obama, for instance. Sure, there’s an expectations game here. He quickly rocketed to ~25% in the polls last February, and for the most part, he’s been there ever since. Which would be great, if 25% could do you some good.

The problem is, he’s being compared against the totally objective yardstick of winning. Six months ago, when Hillary was polling in the mid-30s, and Obama was in the mid-20s, her lead was smaller, and there was a lot more time to overcome it. Now it’s bigger, and there’s less time. Obama’s being judged against the quite reasonable expectation of, what’s he going to do about it? How’s he going to change people’s minds? And if he hasn’t already done so, can he? He’s raised 80 million dollars, and if he’s got something compelling to say, he can reach the early-primary voters.

And even if he loses in IA, NH, NV, and SC, the fact is, he’ll still have a good pile of money. At that point, the media’s expectations game will be that he’s a dead duck. But he’ll still be able to run a campaign, to reach voters, and all that. The media chatter won’t help him, but if he’s on everyone’s TV, then it won’t matter much. Either he’ll give people a compelling reason to vote for him and not Hillary, or he won’t.