A SoapBlox Politics Blog
[Mobile Edition]
About
- About Us
- Email Us (news/tips)
- Editorial Policy
- Posting Guidelines
- Advertise Here
- Buy Michlib Merchandise
Feedburner

Subscribe to Michlib daily email summary. (Preview)
Enter address:

Donate
Become a sponsor and support our work.

 MichLib sponsor list

Michigan Political Blog Ad Network

Advertise Liberally

50 State Ad Network

Liberal Feed Network

Latest hand-selected Michigan political news and analysis headlines

2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination Watch -- Vol. II.

by: Michael McGuinness

Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 16:03:43 PM EST


(From the diaries - promoted by matt)

Happy Sunday, fair people of the progressive online hamlet that we gleefully populate when we have a spare moment on the internets.

I am back with Volume II of the far too soon and far too horserace-ish 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination Watch, as promised last Sunday.

Here are the results from our first installation of the Democratic presidential choice poll, from November 19 to November 26, 2006:

* Wesley Clark - 7 votes (20%)

* John Edwards - 6 votes (17.14%)

* Al Gore - 6 votes (17.14%)

* Barack Obama - 6 votes (17.14%)

* Evan Bayh - 2 votes (5.71%)

* Hillary Clinton - 2 votes (5.71%)

* Tom Daschle - 2 votes (5.71%)

* Bill Richardson - 2 votes (5.71%)

* Joe Biden - 1 votes (2.86%)

* Tom Vilsack - 1 votes (2.86%)

* Christopher Dodd - 0 votes (0%)
* Mike Gravel - 0 votes (0%)
* John Kerry - 0 votes (0%)

The poll for the coming week is included in the extended text. Also included are the following stories that have developed over the past week. Lets see what some of our candidates have been up to:

- Obama talks with top advisers in Iowa

- Denver poised to land 2008 convention

- Presidential candidates court activists

- Edwards, Obama gain attention on book tours

- SurveyUSA approval ratings of Senators

- Emmanuel hopes to avoid Clinton, Obama clash

- Clinton lobbies for New York convention bid

- Carville makes Dem candidacy predictions

- Americans consider Clinton qualified to run

- Feingold does not rule out VP nomination

- Clinton financial advantage depleted

- CNN polls Democratic candidates for president

- Home state voters favor Obama, Clinton runs

- Kerry says he's not out of the '08 race

- Edwards says Obama should run for president

Plus, a focus on the next candidate in no particular order alphabetically: U.S. Senator Joseph "Joe" Biden of Delaware.

Michael McGuinness :: 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination Watch -- Vol. II.
____

"Obama talks with top advisers in Iowa" from the Des Moines Register today.

Shortly after the Nov. 7 election, Obama telephoned John Norris, the Des Moines Democrat who ran John Kerry's winning campaign in the 2004 Iowa caucuses.

"He basically called to talk about the lay of the land in Iowa," said Norris, who described Obama's inquiries as "earnest" and reflecting genuine uncertainty about his future.
...
Obama's three trips to Iowa since his election to the Senate in 2004 came this fall, beginning with his appearance at U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin's annual steak fry in mid-September.

That event brought thousands of Iowa Democrats and dozens of journalists from Chicago and around the nation to Indianola, where the steak fry was held.

Obama spent little time during the visit, or the two subsequent stops this fall, meeting privately with party leaders.

Des Moines Democrat George Appleby saw Obama at Harkin's event and noted the appeal he seemed to have with the crowd of 3,000 at the Warren County fairgrounds.

"Midterms are over; now it's caucus time" also appeared in the Des Moines Register today.
____

"Denver poised to land '08 convention" is in today's Washington Times.

In a state where Democratic registration ranks third behind that of Republican and unaffiliated, the Democrats reclaimed the governor's office after an eight-year Republican run, bolstered their majorities in the state legislature and captured a previously Republican House seat.

"We believed all along that if we elected a Democratic governor, our chances would be stronger," said Denver City Council member Rosemary Rodriguez, who also sits on the Denver 2008 Host Committee.

Mrs. Rodriguez noted that Denver, which last hosted a national party convention in 1908, made unsuccessful bids to host the 2000 and 2004 Democratic conventions. "We're always a bridesmaid," she said, "but I think it's finally our time."

I'm rooting for Denver! New York gets it all the time, especially from our party.
____

"Presidential Candidates Court Activists" from CBS News today.

A particularly interesting excerpt:

He does not come armed with posies and poetry, but when it comes to courting Democratic activists, John Edwards is a determined suitor.

The former North Carolina senator and 2004 presidential running mate never fails to propose when he calls Jim Demers _ and he calls often.

"I don't think there's ever been a time I've talked to him when he hasn't concluded by point-blank asking if I'll sign on to his team," said Demers, a Democratic activist in New Hampshire.

Both John Edwards and Barack Obama are garnering attention and big crowds as they criss-cross the country for their respective book tours.

Edwards, Obama gain popularity amid book tours is the Associated Press story from Wednesday.

Here is a choice passage:

When introducing former vice presidential candidate John Edwards at a book signing this week, a family friend mentioned a bumper sticker she'd seen around town: "Edwards-Obama."

The giddy audience roared with approval. Both Edwards and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama insist they have yet to decide whether they are running for president, but both are drawing big crowds as they follow the modern script of a White House candidate and head out on nationwide book tours.

____

SurveyUSA has released their latest round of approval ratings of U.S. Senators. Of the likely Democratic presidential aspirants who are in the U.S. Senate, here is how they fared:

-- The fifth most popular out of 100 -- Hillary Clinton of New York. 74% of New Yorkers approve, while 24% disapprove, meaning that her net approval is 50%.

-- The seventh most popular out of 100 -- Barack Obama of Illinois. 71% of Illinoisians (I took a stab at it, why not) approve, while 22% disapprove, meaning that his net approval is 48%.

-- The 28th most popular out of 100 -- Evan Bayh of Indiana. 61% of Indianans approve, while 29% disapprove, meaning that his net approval is 31%.

-- The 31st most popular out of 100 -- Joe Biden of Delaware. 63% of Delaware-ites approve, while 33% disapprove, meaning that his net approval is 29%.

-- The 50th most popular out of 100 -- Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. 56% of Connecticuters approve, while 36% disapprove, meaning that his net approval is 20%.

-- The 92nd most popular out of 100 (or the eighth least popular, depending on how you look at it) -- John Kerry of Massachusetts. 48% of Massachusettsans approve, while 50% disapprove, meaning that his net (dis)approval is -2%.

____

From the Chicago Sun-Times on November 22:

What worse scenario could there be for Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), who fiercely values loyalty, than to have to choose between the 2008 presidential candidacies of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.)?

"I think that I am going to hide under this desk if both of them ran," said Emanuel.


____

From the New York Daily News on November 22:

Sen. Hillary Clinton, the early front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, is pushing to have her party's nominating convention held in New York City, the Daily News has learned.
New York and Denver are the two finalists for the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is expected to select the host city next month.

Clinton's aides stressed yesterday that the senator's support for New York's bid has nothing to do with widespread speculation she may run for President, but rather her role as one of New York's top cheerleaders.


____

According to a Quinnipiac national poll released on November 22, the American people by 56% to 41% believe that Senator Hillary Clinton is qualified to be President. Women weighed in on the question at 59% to 37% and men at 52% to 45%.
____

From the U.S. News and World Report's 'Washington Whispers':

While he doesn't plan to join up with any of the 2008 presidential candidates, Clinton political adviser James Carville is giddy with anticipation. "We'll have more run in 2008 than we've ever had," he says. Carville has the primaries mapped out and predicts "larger than life" candidates will emerge. His Democrats: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, and former Vice President Al Gore.

I don't intend on injecting much editorializing in here, but I have to say that I used to think Carville was excellent -- now, not so much. In fact, he pisses me off quite a bit. I don't put much stock in what he says. At. All.
____

Although he has taken himself out of the running for the presidential nomination, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin (a previous favorite or more than a few) has told the La Crosse Tribune that his is not ruling out accepting the vice presidential nomination.
____

"Clinton Won Easily, but Bankroll Shows the Toll" is the New York Times article on November 21.

From the article:

The Democratic Daily, a liberal Web site, accused Mrs. Clinton of “blowing a shameful $36 million” on a shoo-in campaign. The only other Senate candidate to come close to her spending level was Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, who spent about $24 million unsuccessfully defending his seat.

Mrs. Clinton’s cash on hand is certainly less than the $20 million to $30 million some of her advisers early this year predicted she would have in the bank as she moved from her Senate re-election toward a decision about a presidential campaign. She is now in the same ballpark as two fellow Democrats, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who had $13.8 million in his account as of Sept. 30, according to election commission records, and Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who had $10.6 million. The law allows money left in a Senate campaign fund to be transferred to a presidential campaign.


____

CNN has a new national poll out on the Democratic presidential race:

CLINTON  -- 33%  (28%, 38%)
OBAMA  -- 15%  (17%, N/A)
EDWARDS  -- 14%  (13%, 12%)
GORE  -- 14%  (13%, 19%)
KERRY  -- 7%  (12%,  9%)
CLARK  -- 4%  (N/A, N/A)
BIDEN  -- 3%  ( 2%,  3%)
RICHARDSON --  3%  ( 2%,  3%)
BAYH  -- 2%  ( 2%,  2%)
VILSACK  --  1%  ( 1%,  --)
NO OPINION --  4%  ( 8%,  8%)

The late October and late August numbers are in parentheses -- N/A indicates that those candidates' names were not included in those particular rounds of polling.

From the article:

Support for Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, dropped 5 percentage points in the past month from 12 percent to 7 percent, according to the nationwide poll of registered Democrats conducted by Opinion Research Corporation over the weekend. Worse news for Kerry is that a majority of those polled said they do not want to see the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee win the party's nomination in 2008.

____

"Home Cookin' Favors Obama, Clinton" is a story from CBS News on November 20 with the angle of what home state voters think of presidential candidates.
____

"Kerry Says He's Not Out Of The '08 Race" from the Associated Press on November 19.

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry insisted on Sunday his "botched joke" about President George W. Bush's Iraq policy would not undermine a possible White House campaign in 2008.

"Not in the least," Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, said when asked if the furor over his comment had caused him to reconsider a 2008 race. "The parlor game of who's up, who's down, today or tomorrow, if I listened to that stuff, I would never have won the nomination."

For what it is worth, he does have a point there.
____

Edwards says Obama should run for president from the Associated Press:

"I hope he runs. I think he should run," Edwards told The Associated Press. "This is such an important job that I would urge anybody who can make a serious contribution to the campaign and the dialogue _ either in our party or the other party _ to run."

____

In Focus: U.S. Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
____

A helpful lesson I learned in last week's installment that focused on Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana is that Wikipedia does a bang-up job of offering profiles.

Here is the link to Biden's wikipedia profile.

I know, what a cop-out, right? I will link to those profiles and then simply expand upon points that aren't thoroughly discussed or are missing altogether.

One item that is mentioned in passing is Biden's siding with Republicans on tougher Bankruptcy laws.

Biden represents Delaware, which includes Wilmington. As you may know, that city is often considered the Credit Card Capital of America (and, hence, the world?).

Some have taken to calling Biden the Democratic Senator from MBNA. I guess I myself would be guilty of that, but I digress.

Did you also catch that his page indicates that has, in fact, called for greater troop numbers for Iraq? Hello, John McCain called. On that point, did you see that he advocated for McCain to be chosen by Kerry for the VP nomination? Curious.

Biden has a five-point plan for Iraq. A REAL Plan, or so he asserts. He does seem to be pressing the need to address the violence in the Darfur region of the Sudan.

Although wikipedia asserts that Biden is born on November 20, Politics1 states that his birthday is November 24. This would make a difference in his astrological sign.

Okay, I checked it out officially -- November 20. That makes Biden a Scorpio, whose birthday has just passed this week. How fitting that he should be focused on today!

Here is the site for his Unite Our States Political Action Committee. As should be pretty clear, his background and main emphasis is foreign policy and affairs. After all, he is the incoming Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair.

I can't really think of any Michigan connection or relevant point to be made on that front.

____

So! There we have it for this week. What sayeth you?
____

Poll
Who is your choice for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008? (Vol. II)
Evan Bayh
Joe Biden
Wesley Clark
Hillary Clinton
Tom Daschle
Christopher Dodd
John Edwards
Al Gore
Mike Gravel
John Kerry
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson
Tom Vilsack

Results

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
biden (4.00 / 1)
Did you also catch that his page indicates that has, in fact, called for greater troop numbers for Iraq? Hello, John McCain called. On that point, did you see that he advocated for McCain to be chosen by Kerry for the VP nomination? Curious.

^ one of the reasons why Biden won't get my vote.

Check out my mediocre blog.


No on Biden (0.00 / 0)
I have a problem with this comment by Biden (along the lines of George Allen):
"You can not go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent" see it here, from C-SPAN. I think as Democrats we can do better than this idiot.

Visit my blog, With God All Things Are Political's new home!

VOTE EVAN BAYH IN 2008!

check out my blog!


[ Parent ]
bayh and iraq (0.00 / 0)
In addition to what I posted on your blog, I have another issue with Evan Bayh:  He supported the use-of-force resolution against Iraq in 2002.  Despite everything that has happened there, he still refuses to repudiate his vote and refers to pulling out as "cut and run" (a Republican talking point).

At the national level, we won this election cycle because of Iraq.  Americans are sick of our involvement there and our nominee ought to reflect that sentiment.

Check out my mediocre blog.


[ Parent ]
bayh's voting record (0.00 / 0)
He also voted to reauthorize the PATRIOT act in 2006 and yes on the flag burning ban.  I think he also voted yes on the bankruptcy bill.  I know how you feel on some of those issues (along with the Iraq war), but that just doesn't sit well with me.

I do give him credit for his positions on lobbying/ethics/government reform, though.

Check out my mediocre blog.


[ Parent ]
Oversimplifications (0.00 / 0)
To say that the Democrats won solely on the war in Iraq is certainly to use your term as written on my blog an "oversimplification". Last I checked Hillary Clinton, in favor of the war, won with a two-thirds majority in bluest of blue New York. So obviously while Iraq is a major issue, it did not win this election. A reduction in real wages, a lack of DIRECTION in Iraq (not necessarily our physically being there), and I think the ethical lapses of Congress (DeLay, Ambramoff, Ney, etc) is what led to our resounding victory.

Also, as you wrote Evan Bayh "refers to pulling out as "cut and run" (a Republican talking point)." Whether or not it is a Republican talking point is not the issue at all. While I do happen to agree with him because the idea of leaving a vacuum in Iraq is disconcerting (and many Americans would agree with me I am sure), by saying x or y is a "Republican" idea or x or y is a "Democrat" idea is counterproductive. We need good ideas, and while as a Democrat I think 90%+ of the good ideas come from Democrats, there are many that have evolved from Republicans as well. To think that 1/2 of the country is absolutely wrong is both short-sighted and won't ever get our country anywhere. So whether or not it is a Republican talking point doesn't matter. Last I checked, Republicans stand "tough on crime", as do Democrats.

This goes directly to my point of needing non-polarizing figures. We need people in Washington who do not alienate one side of the political spectrum (as has W). It is just as bad for the country if we alienate the right as it is if we alienate the left. We need to improve the political discourse and "capture the center".

check out my blog!


[ Parent ]
Re: Oversimplifications (4.00 / 1)
O.K., Hillary Clinton is an exception.  She is a well known figure in a solidly blue state who had only token opposition.  Despite that, she wasted absurd amounts of money on her campaign and had virtually no downticket influence.

Overall, Democrats received a disproportionate amount of support from independents because they are viewed as much more credible on the Iraq issue.  Of course there were other factors along with the Iraq war, but the war was the central issue that changed the election.  If you take a look at the races in the House and Senate that flipped to us or that were critical in our gaining the majority, the war was the issue that turned voters out and favored Democrats over the Republicans (based on exit polls and the main issues of the races).

You're right that the election doesn't necessarily mean that voters want us to pull out of Iraq right away.  However, it is safe to say that they view our involvement in Iraq as a fundamentally flawed endeavor that has yet to be addressed honestly.  In that light, Evan Bayh ought to at least acknowledge that his 2002 vote was bad policy and bad for our country.

I agree that conservatives make up almost half of our population and they deserve to be respected, but picking a candidate that does not support the war won't necessarily alienate most people.  Perceived "centrists" like Jim Webb are vehemently against the Iraq war, but still won in red states largely off the strength of that issue.

In terms of the "good ideas" and Republican talking points, I agree that good policy should be valued no matter what its origin, and that good ideas often do come from Republicans.  When "good ideas" (a very subjective term anyway) come from Republicans, they should be valued and supported.  The way Bayh used the phrase "cut and run" (in the same sentence as "stay the course") isn't bad because it is a talking point that originated with Republicans.  It is harmful because of its connotation.

When used in the same sentence as "stay the course," "cut and run" implied that Democrats were weak for wanting a new direction in our Iraq policy.  Every time someone says "cut and run" like that, they undermine the credibility of Democrats and help prevent a more nuanced discussion about Iraq from taking place.

About "non-polarizing" figures and moving to the center:  "Non-polarizing" figures are often individuals that haven't felt the brunt of the Republican attack machine.  If we blindly move to the center without thinking about what the implications of the change in our rhetoric has on the long-term interests of our party, the consensus in this country will continue to move steadily to the right.  No matter how hard we might try, voters are always going to pick a real Republican over a fake one.

Too often people make the assumption that election outcomes are purely a referendum on ideology and that we can win by somehow averaging Republican and Democrat positions to find the "center."  It is possible to "capture the center" and still be progressive in our approach, and it doesn't have to be by taking Republican positions on key issues.  "Liberal" Nancy Pelosi's agenda for the first 100 hours is a great example of that:  she wants to enact the suggestions of the 9/11 Commission, clean up government, and raise the minimum wage.  These are all progressive policies, but they also have broad support among Americans and they are hardly polarizing (with the possible exception of the minimum wage).

The Iraq conflict is more than just one issue and I feel that potential candidates' positions on it over time give insights into their values and character.  The situation in Iraq has evolved and candidates need to get beyond this "cut and run" rhetoric and address what is really going on over there.  Elected officials supported the war because they believed in it (for people involved in government, they should have realized what was going on) or because they were scared of the political consequences of going against it.  Either way, that says something about them to me and it is going to be one of my strongest considerations when picking my 2008 candidate.

Check out my mediocre blog.


[ Parent ]
Oversimplifications the Redux (4.00 / 1)
Nirmal,
I could not agree more with you in many of the things that you say. While I do not see Iraq as the prevailing or central theme to the election, more it was just one of many problems that piled onto one another for the Republicans, your assessment otherwise certainly is accurate.

However to say that I am suggesting that my beliefs concur with this: "Too often people make the assumption that election outcomes are purely a referendum on ideology and that we can win by somehow averaging Republican and Democrat positions to find the 'center'.  It is possible to 'capture the center' and still be progressive in our approach, and it doesn't have to be by taking Republican positions on key issues." I am not suggesting just signign onto Republican initiatives, I am saying what needs to be done is to have discourse with the opposition. To keep ties and options open and not to fall into the trap of oldline party politics, i.e. free trade is either good (Republican) or bad (Democrat) whereas really it is nuanced. Or where we say, we are pro-choice or anti-choice when really an acknowledgement needs to be made that there are far too many abortions in America and that we do need to do something to fix that problem. Or where we say taxes are bad or taxes are good. I think too often people find (and I am guilty of this too from time to time) a position and say what is the party identifier with this issue and then follow through and just agree with it when there is more to it.

I am a Democrat, I am pro-choice, I am anti-death penalty, yet I am in favor of the war in Iraq and I think the plan to create personal savings accounts in Social Security is solid. But we run into problems when people start saying "you are not a Democrat" because you believe in those principles or the same with the Arlen Spectors and Lincoln Chaffees of the Republican Party also. We need to realize there is a middle ground, and I am supporting Evan Bayh because I think he can find it. It isn't about dividing the Republican position and Democrat position and coming up with something, because frankly youd have contradictions naturally and there are gulfs that cannot be bridged, but we shouldn't find ourselves so much so on one side of the fence that we lose sight of the other.

Visit my blog's new home With God All Things Are Political

check out my blog!


[ Parent ]
Biden (0.00 / 0)
I agree Biden has a great propensity to tstick his foot in his mouth.

I find Evan Bayh interesting and perhaps the most electable. Am still trying to learn more about him.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson


[ Parent ]
Running for Vice President (0.00 / 0)
This has no real basis in fact, but I've always gotten the feeling that Joe Biden is really running for VP, not president. He spends a lot of time on the Sunday shows talking about foreign policy issues (too hawkish for my tastes), and it just seems like he's trying to build himself as a foreign policy expert and ticket-balancer if someone else gets the nomination.

Not that I want him as VP or president. Without a doubt, the Bankruptcy bill helped Delaware, but if he wants a national office, he should think about national interests, and that was a harmful piece of legislation. I'm willing to forgive, but that and his rhetoric on Iraq are too much for me.

Looks like I'll be undecided again this week, with Edwards, Obama, Gore, and Clark as the most appealing for the moment.


I think you're right about Biden. (0.00 / 0)
And I don't want him for Vice President, either!

Great Lakes, Great Times.

[ Parent ]
Gore will be at the top of my list util we know without a doubt (0.00 / 0)
that he won't run.  Once that happens, I'll have to decide who I'm backing.  I like Obama, but think he'd be better for VP this time around to get some more experience under his belt.  I just don't think a one-term (partial term at that) senator has enough experience to back him up.  I felt the same way about Edwards last time.

As for Hillary, if I felt she could really win it all, I could get behind her, but I still don't think she can, so I won't back her in the primary.  If she gets the nomination, I'll work my tail off for her.


How do you feel about Edwards (0.00 / 0)
this time around, in terms of experience? Any differently?

Great Lakes, Great Times.

[ Parent ]
Nope. (0.00 / 0)
I don't think he's picked up any relevant experience since he ran with Kerry.

Don't get me wrong -- I think he's a great guy and I have a lot of respect for him.  I just don't think he's got enough of the right kind of experience to be president. I wouldn't mind seeing him in a high-level post of some kind -- maybe secretary of education? H&HS? -- I don't know, I'm just spouting off the top of my head, but I think he'd be qualified for some top post.


[ Parent ]
Health and Human Services? (0.00 / 0)
He'd be a good pick for a social service department lead, in my opinion.

[ Parent ]
Exactly -- which is why I said H&HS (0.00 / 0)
Anything to do with helping people.

[ Parent ]
Dude. (0.00 / 0)
Tom Daschle?  LOLOLOLOLOL x 24.

I giggle at the thought of Tom Daschle.

Still behind Gore until I hear more.  Again, I think it's waaay too early to predict.

-- Signature! --


I voted John Kerry.... (0.00 / 0)
That ought to tell you all something...Please nominate him...or another senator.

In honesty, I think Bill Richardson is your winner unless Mark Warner jumps back in.


"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin


I'll vote for Kerry (0.00 / 0)
When you nominate another Bush.

However, we can agree on one candidate and it sure is looking good for Saul right now.

Success is not final, failure is not fatal. - Winston Churchill  


[ Parent ]
Mr. Republican Michigander -- (0.00 / 0)
I must say I definitely enjoy that you participate at this site. Hope you keep it up.

Two days ago I spent a bit of time at your site reading your analyses of the State Senate districts political profiles. I was wondering: Do you plan on updating those and, if so, when?

I am most eager to hear your thoughts on State Senate District 7, since I ran Mark Slavens' campaign.

Great Lakes, Great Times.


[ Parent ]
i really like him / his blog too (n/t) (0.00 / 0)


Check out my mediocre blog.

[ Parent ]
County updates (0.00 / 0)
I'd like to update that at some point and wanted to before the election, but it'll wait until the precinct results come out from the sec of state and summer break. I got away from the updates since work picked up and I went back to school (a full time job in itself). I'll try and update it and finish it during summer break. 

I thought Slavens had a good shot in this environment between being part of Granholm's home district, the Airport area, and DeVos's blue collar weakness downriver. I would actually have guessed that seat to flip before Toy's seat or Stewart's seat.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a state rep vs state rep bout in 2010. LaJoy vs Corriveau? The state senate district is easier to win than the state rep spot.



"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin


[ Parent ]
LaJoy would have (0.00 / 0)
to sit out two years then. This is his third term. I don't think that will happen.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Phils' son run for that seat in '08.

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." The Importance of Being Earnest, Act I, Oscar Wilde, 1895


[ Parent ]
Richardson ... but really Gore (0.00 / 0)
I think we need Gore the most because I think global warming is going to become a very, very big issue in the next decade.  But, I don't think he's very electable.  He's very popular among Democrats, but thanks to the media hatchet job done to him in 2000, everyone still thinks he's a liar.

Richardson, on the other hand, is pretty close to Gore in many of the right ways, and could help shift a good deal of the West into Democratic hands.  He's a Democrat, but more in the vein of Jon Tester and the other libertarian progressives out there.

Among the Trees


[ Parent ]
warner (0.00 / 0)
I was a Warner guy until he dropped out -- I wish he would have stayed in the race.

Check out my mediocre blog.

[ Parent ]
Excellent series Michael (4.00 / 1)
Thank you so much.

One small suggestion - could we have an undecided and a none of the above categories?

Best,
CL

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." The Importance of Being Earnest, Act I, Oscar Wilde, 1895


Undecided and None of the Above. (0.00 / 0)
Yes, most definitely! That had been my orginial intention, but you can see that I clearly overlooked it. Henceforth, there will be options for those who are still undecided and such.

My apologies!

Great Lakes, Great Times.


[ Parent ]
Flashbacks (0.00 / 0)
I'm having flashbacks to lengthy weekly reports from a certain OU Student Body Vice President, and later Student Body President.  Perhaps you know him?  :-)

Excellent work, Mr. McGuinness!


He does sound familiar. (0.00 / 0)
Apologies for the length, Josh. And I was only trying to include as much information as possible for the benefit of the legislators ;-)

Great Lakes, Great Times.

[ Parent ]
Apologies? (0.00 / 0)
Oh, I'm not complaining.  I just get stunned by the sheer volume of information.  It's like a Mack truck, only digitized.

:-)


[ Parent ]
Barack is my guy (0.00 / 0)
I'm still basing my vote on the passion I saw in person among Barack Obama for Senate supporters at the Camp Wellstone I attended in Chicago in the spring of 2004.  Those folks would walk through fire for the guy ... he inspires people to DO something (kinda like that Howard Dean guy) ... Barack Obama for Democratic nominee ... and Wes Clark for VP. :)

Gen. Wes Clark is my candidate (0.00 / 0)
Did anybody else hear the joke about John Kerry on Conan O'Brian? Something a long the lines of "Sen. Kerry said this week that he has not ruled out running for president in 2008, that man cannot stop making bad jokes." Hmm, it really was funny when Conan said it.

Anyway, vote for Wes Clark!

http://www.SecuringA...

Success is not final, failure is not fatal. - Winston Churchill  


I really like the thought of Clark for VP (0.00 / 0)
but I have not closed the door on him as a great presidential nominee, either.

Great Lakes, Great Times.

[ Parent ]
This is where IRV would really shine (4.00 / 1)
Just to point out that this is another example of the superiority of ranked-choice voting over plurality (vote for one only).  People are unable to answer your question because they are having to calculate whether their preferred candidate will garner enough support.

Crazy.  With IRV, everybody simply ranks the candidates in the order they prefer them (or leaves them off entirely).  We would soon find out the identity of the candidate with the most support, which we cannot do through this method without eliminating candidates who might, after others are eliminated, be the most worthy of support.

Regardless of how long it takes to get IRV for public elections, the Dems ought to make it mandatory for primary states in 2008.  (Caucuses already work like IRV because those candidates who don't have enough support to win a delegate release their voters, who go and caucus with their next choice, so it's like IRV in the flesh.)


Under Instant Runoff Voting (0.00 / 0)
It could be very probable that Senator Clinton earns the Democratic nomination, yet, would not do so in a simple plurality situation.

Just had that initial thought when conceptualizing it for this race -- judging from the preferences and polling I've come to know.

And I do not say that to the detriment of IRV. A process should never be changed to accomodate or influence the expected result.

Great Lakes, Great Times.


[ Parent ]
I think you've got it backwards (0.00 / 0)
Clinton is a threat to take the nomination because we DON'T use IRV, just as Joe Schwartz took advantage of the multi-candidate field in 2004 to "win" the nomination with 76% of GOP voters preferring someone else (and who probably would NOT have put Schwartz as a second or third choice).

If we use IRV, Hilary would only get the nomination if she had a majority of support--and if that's the case, she _ought_ to have the nomination (disastrous as I personally think that would be--as you say, you don't pick your election method by estimating how it would help or hurt your favorites).

With IRV, it's not Hilary vs. the field of men; it's every candidate being considered on the merits, AND with the plus that negative campaigning is strongly discouraged (because you have a hard time getting "next choice" votes from people after you've trashed their favorite candidate.

And that's a big plus for primaries--the way that plurality rewards negative campaigning is a big turnoff for people, and it helps give the GOP some of their best insights into how to trash Dems most effectively.

With IRV, the Dems would be campaigning collectively, each one making the case for themselves but also making joint appearances and pointing out where they agree with each other (to harvest those lower choice votes).


[ Parent ]
Excellent work (0.00 / 0)
Just the thought of the research that went into this post exhausts me. Great work, keep it up!

I want to change the world, not help people adjust to it. - Millie Jeffrey, MI - National Women's labor and Democratic activist, Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient

Thanks! (n/t) (0.00 / 0)


Great Lakes, Great Times.

[ Parent ]
Ranking (IRV) (0.00 / 0)
This is the order I would rank them if we had IRV for the primary:

Barack Obama
John Edwards
Hillary Clinton
Al Gore
Joe Biden
Evan Bayh
Wesley Clark
Bill Richardson
John Kerry


Biden's baggage (extra charge for overweight) (0.00 / 0)
He's too much of a Beltway insider, especially for the 2008 election cycle in which an "outsider" would be much more electable. Governors, former governors, and people who have been out of Washington a while like Gore, Clark, and Edwards, are much better choices than sitting senators.

Biden, like Bayh, voted for the Iraq Blank Check Resolution, and his convoluted, policy-wonkish plans for Iraq are going to try voters' patience. They've long since tried mine.

Finally, he's a gasbag. Watch him on the Sunday morning chat shows (he's on almost every week) and you'll want to fling a shoe at the screen.

Bottom line: The University of Delaware Blue Hens have a better chance of winding up in the Final Four than he has of getting elected.

Please read "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now" by George McGovern and William R. Polk.


But...Who will really Win? (0.00 / 0)
Not the Nomiation...the Presidency.  Who would actually WIN?

Hillary? Nope..Her voice turns off alot of people, and she is a woman. McCain will eat her alive.

Obama? Nope..He is Black and not experienced enough..yet.

Edwards? Not yet. Maybe as V.P.

Gore?  Tough one. Maybe.  People might wonder "what could have been" since 9/11.

Biden? More so then people would think.  He has been around since he was 30 years old as a Senator.  He is well known.

Clark? Nope...maybe as a V.P.

Richardson? I believe he is the best shot.  He is likeable, "folksy" even. He needs alot more exposure though, people do not know who he is all that much.  Plus he is a governor, that is a big plus.

I like everyone there except Hillary.  She speaks "bitch" to me an alot of other people as well. I also think this is "overthought" and way too early to tell. After a year of Oversite and finding out what the hearings bring out to the American people we will have a better look at everything.


Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I WANT MY HABEAS CORPUS BACK!!


Hillary can't win because she is a woman? (0.00 / 0)
More women vote than men, there are more women in the Senate now than ever before, and don't we have women as our Governor and junior Senator?

Please explain.

Success is not final, failure is not fatal. - Winston Churchill  


[ Parent ]
None needed...But I will try anyways. (0.00 / 0)
Come on...use yer head.  The country can only take so many changes at one time.  We are just getting our first Female Speaker of the House.  The country can only "stomach" so much.  I really don't care who is voted in gender wise. I think there are alot of pluses to having a woman in charge for a change.  Men have screwed up the planet for eons now.

The Democrats have to WIN.  They will not win with Hillary.  She carries way too much baggage. Her voice is shrill.  She does not come off as "compassionate".  She comes off as a loud mouth bitchy Mom.  This is where Granholm is the opposite.  Granholm is soothing. 

What does "More women vote than men.." mean? So? Are you telling me that women will for for her just because she is a woman?  Women voters do not look beyond that? That is a bit thin. I know many women that can't stand Hillary. If she is nominated then you might as well kiss off the Presidency in 2008 Buh-Bye. 

Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I WANT MY HABEAS CORPUS BACK!!


[ Parent ]

Search
Progressive Blogroll
For MI Bloggers:
- MI Bloggers Facebook
- MI Bloggers Myspace
- MI Bloggers PartyBuilder
- MI Bloggers Wiki

Statewide:
- Blogging for Michigan
- Call of the Senate Dems
- [Con]serving Michigan (Michigan LCV)
- DailyKos (Michigan tag)
- Enviro-Mich List Serve archives
- Democratic Underground, Michigan Forum
- Jack Lessenberry
- JenniferGranholm.com
- LeftyBlogs (Michigan)
- MI Eye on Bishop
- Michigan Coalition for Progress
- Michigan Messenger
- MI Idea (Michigan Equality)
- Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan
- Rainbow Mittens
- The Upper Hand (Progress Michigan)

Upper Peninsula:
- Keweenaw Now
- Lift Bridges and Mine Shafts
- Save the Wild UP

Western Michigan:
- Great Lakes Guy
- Great Lakes, Great Times, Great Scott
- Mostly Sunny with a Chance of Gay
- Public Pulse
- West Michigan Politics
- West Michigan Rising
- Windmillin'

Mid-Michigan:
- Among the Trees
- Blue Chips (CMU College Democrats Blog)
- Christine Barry
- Conservative Media
- Far Left Field
- Graham Davis
- Honest Errors
- ICDP:Dispatch (Isabella County Democratic Party Blog)
- Liberal, Loud and Proud
- Livingston County Democratic Party Blog
- MI Blog
- Mid-Michigan DFA
- Pohlitics
- Random Ramblings of a Somewhat Common Man
- Waffles of Compromise
- YAF Watch

Flint/Bay Area/Thumb:
- Bay County Democratic Party
- Blue November
- East Michigan Blue
- Genesee County Young Democrats
- Greed, Eggs, and Ham
- Jim Stamas Watch
- Meddling Outsider
- Saginaw County Democratic Party Blog
- Stone Soup Musings
- Voice of Mordor

Southeast Michigan:
- A2Politico
- arblogger
- Arbor Update
- Congressman John Conyers (CD14)
- Mayor Craig Covey
- Councilman Ron Suarez
- Democracy for Metro Detroit
- Detroit Skeptic
- Detroit Uncovered (formerly "Fire Jerry Oliver")
- Grosse Pointe Democrats
- I Wish This Blog Was Louder
- Kicking Ass Ann Arbor (UM College Democrats Blog)
- LJ's Blogorific
- Mark Maynard
- Michigan Progress
- Motor City Liberal
- North Oakland Dems
- Oakland Democratic Politics
- Our Michigan
- Peters for Congress (CD09)
- PhiKapBlog
- Polygon, the Dancing Bear
- Rust Belt Blues
- Third City
- Thunder Down Country
- Trusty Getto
- Unhinged

MI Congressional
District Watch Blogs:
- Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood (CD08)

MI Campaigns:
MI Democratic Orgs:
MI Progressive Orgs:
MI Misc.:
National Alternative Media:
National Blogs:
Powered by: SoapBlox