Richardson in Iowa ahead of Obama?
by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:47:26 AM EDT
This just in from Richardson's pollster, Paul Maslin:
by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:47:26 AM EDT
This just in from Richardson's pollster, Paul Maslin:
Lets see some independent polling that proves this first. Although to be honest I would welcome a 4th Tier 1 candidate at this point (especially one who could draw support from the HRC crowd.)
Agreed. What polls have shown Richardson getting close to Obama? The last Mason-Dixon poll Had Clinton 22, Edwards 21, Obama 18, and Richardson 6.
American Research Group had Obama at 11 and Richardson at 8, but they also had Clinton up 6 on Edwards and they appear to be the outlier of the early polling so far.
Sounds like they made sure to hit some Richardson houses when they were conducting this one.
Also, anybody else notice this "info" comes out about 5 days before the end of the quarter in which Richardson had said he expects to beat Edwards in fundraising?
Maybe he is reaching the top tier in Iowa, and maybe he is going to beat Edwards, but until it happens, I think this is just bluster intended to create a buzz (Also, I assume this was emailed out to bloggers since there is no link to it...)
Yea, I got it in an email.
Do you think they might be trying to drum up some donations from the online community with a little earned media?
I'm pretty doubtful about their capability to outraise Edwards. They're probably desperate at this point to even stay in the same league as him to avoid bad headlines.
is not a top tier candidate. He's barely a serious one. Go watch his appearance on Meet the Press or the debates if you don't believe me. The guy is a bad candidate, with a bad record to boot. Here's just one thing:
In that same book, Richardson recounts how his proudest achievement in the House was the starring role he played in helping Bill Clinton pass nafta. As the Democrat in charge of gathering votes for the pro-nafta side, he was so devoted to its passage that he actually set up a joint whip operation with Newt Gingrich's team. "Nafta, in my view, was critically important," he writes in his memoir, which was published just two years ago.
forgot the link:
Sadly, agree. I like him as a person and he's got some serious things to say. But he's not a compelling candidate performance-wise.
Richardson had to be reminded that France is a Permanent member of the Security Council.
RICHARDSON V. HIS RESUME CONT'D:
This could be the most damning Richardson gaffe yet:
By the time he got to the day's last public event, a speech at the Flamingo Library to the Stonewall Democrats of Southern Nevada, an audience member had to remind Richardson that France is a member of the U.N. Security Council.
For those not familiar with the Richardson resume, he was Clinton's ambassador to the United Nations.
Russert is far harder on candidates whose chances he has taken it upon himself to dismiss. Richardson is proven as a statesman, unlike every other candidate, and a single lackluster TV appearance can't change that.
As ambassador to the UN and as energy secretary. Both are important roles, but neither are really top tier posts. Hell, you don't even have to be any kind of statesman to be the first of those, as John Bolton ably proved.
He is not an ideal candidate but if he raises more than Edwards and has pulled ahead of Obama in Iowa he will end up being a top tier candidate. That will make for a very crowded top tier.
I agree here. I need to see some more data, vs. speculation.
He hasn't gotten the scutiny that comes with being a top tier candidate, and when he does get attention, he does something like name a dissenter in Roe as his model justice or make it clear he doesn't know when Roe was decided.
I could keep going; he's a gaffe machine,
that would almost be worth losing to see those two guys gaffing and touching everyone
In the latest Ras, Richardson is at 4 percent--the samew as Biden. Now either national polls matter or they don't. If the do, then richardson is third tier; if the don't matter, Edwards is the frontrunner,
support grows, I don't think he takes votes from Edwards. He may take votes from centrists looking for an alternative to Clinton. I do not see why he would take votes from Obama, although it is implied here by the poll.
above the fray - i want to be your friend persona.
I don't want to offend Obama supporters but I could see some coming from people who don't like Hillary but Like Richardson's "diplomacy" background and charm and these voters could come from obama
Exactly. From all the polling from pollster.com and what georgep has provided, I don't see it. And I wrote about the rumor that he may be raising more monies than Edwards. But I would like to see some more current polling numbers.
If the poll numbers are correct and a trend develops with other polls what will this do to to Obama's campaign?
he should pack it in now. The campaign is over.
Okay, that's a little snarky, but c'mon, are you serious? Obama still has a nice benefit of low expectations in Iowa, for some reason. Nobody seems to think he has to win there.
Oh, please, like you are concerned? don't fake, please.
from Richardson's camp. I'm assuming this is referencing a new poll we haven't seen yet. They seem pretty confident about beating Edwards in the money race...otherwise, why put it out there?
or put it out there to spoof folks, into thinking that, to get the rush for cash. We will know this next week.
Obama at 20%, Richardson at 7.7% in Iowa. But I'm sure Bill Richardson's own pollster is a more unbiased source for Bill Richardson's polling numbers.
RCP averages often include outdated polls; for up-to-the-minute info look at recent ones.
This is the second, Obama biased frontpage story of the day, based again. On campaign spin. This time from Richardson. You have decided you are annoyed with Obama and are punishing him on the frontpage.
It is campaign material from such sources, yep, I confess, I post things here that are political-junkie motivated, yep; I got an email this morning from Obama, but all it talked about was his movement... not much news there, but his TV commercials are interesting, especially about the bipartisan one, as that's an interesting segment in Iowa to go after for a caucus.
We know your feelings about Obama. We get it. When there is substantive news from Obama (and it does happen), it either gets ignored or slammed.
Which is fine - hey, you're honest about your opinions and it's your site.
What's a shame is that Obama and his "movement" clearly annoys you so much that I doubt you could ever perceive him in a positive light. But hey, I could be wrong.
Yea, you could be wrong, I recall voting for him in the politico poll cause he gave a terrific speech.
...his TV commercials are interesting, especially about the bipartisan one, as that's an interesting segment in Iowa to go after for a caucus...
Ouch. That left a mark.
I seem to recall some past presidential candidates - yes, it must have been in Iowa in 2003-2004 - spending all their money and annihilating their campaigns against each other.
And it's starting so early this time...
How seriously should we take this pollster who happens to be Richardson's pollster??
In 2004 Kerry's internal polls showed his rise before the state polls did. People practically laughed when he released some of them saying it just was not possible.
I would doubt Richardson would go far out on the limb on the poll numbers or fundraising without some hard numbers.
Well if that is true we are also hearing from the Obama people their internals are higher that the indipendent numbers
Candidates and their supporters do spin but know they cannot get away with completely erroneous stories. When they released this they knew they would have to back it up. Jerome has already asked for a copy of the poll so we will see what their response is.
How do the detractors think we might get them to release the info, by ignoring the claim?
Oh, you are really picking pies from the sky? Candidates don't lie? Please, this is laughable. And give it to AP/UPI, etc. But even the MSM will be doubtful, looking at the current numbers. For someone within 2 weeks gain 10 points? Not that it can not happen, but I doubt it. Gradual yes, overnight, skeptical.
Opinion research firms are subject to censure by their national organization if they make a public claim about a poll and then do not release the methodology and other information to back it up.
According to Salon.com, "In 1997, Luntz was formally reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research for his work polling on the GOP's 1994 'Contract with America' campaign document. Luntz told the media that everything in the contract had the support of at least 60 percent of the general public. Considering the elementary phrasing of that document (stop violent criminals, protect our kids, strong national defense), it seems almost laughably uncontroversial. But one of AAPOR's 1,400 members wasn't so amused, and filed a complaint requesting to see Luntz's research and a verification of the figure. Luntz's response? He couldn't reveal the information because of client confidentiality."
Sure he would -- if he needs the money this week, and this will induce its being spent.
and from the conference call YESTERDAY, that I attended, the word on the Iowa poll was solid numbers, period. so, the spin is on. and yes, from OBAMA pollster.
I simply don't believe this - I doubt they beat Edwards in fundraising. I doubt they are ahead of Obama in Iowa. Maybe they got some sort of outlier poll, but no way we see in 10 point jump in a week.
I love how another anti Obama post from Jerome makes the front page. On word from Richardson's pollster, most public polls have basically a three way tie for the lead in the state. Any campaign can make a poll look the way they want it to look and an anti Obama blooger leads with it, lol.
"I love how another anti Obama post from Jerome makes the front page."
As far as I can tell, Jerome Armstrong and Jonathan Singer run things here now. A post from either does not have to "make" it to the front page.
but people can disagree wtih them, that is why the site is up. for banter. would not exist without us.
Actually, all reputable polls have Edwards with a solid lead and nothing like a "three way tie" for the lead. It's pretty clear that ARG, R2k, and slightly less so, but still noticeably Zogby--also recently mason-dixon who are good, but only did their first Iowa poll so need to refine their likely voter screen--are outliers. DMR is the gold standard and agreed with the vast majority of other Iowa polls that show Edwards up by about 6 points and then it's a matter of whether second is Hillary or Obama and normally it's Obama in third. I can see Richardson peeling off supporters from Hillary in Iowa and nationally.
I've noticed this kind of bias too from Jerome....I mean, come on..This is Richardson's pollster for crying out loud.
Lets wait for an independent poll..I want to see the demoineregister poll.
I've asked the campaign for the poll.
have asked for the poll first in exchange for posting it.
cause now they have no incentive to send it if it's cooky.
Read carefully. Even on it's own terms he is not saying Richardson is ahead of Obama. What he is saying is when you discount those who did not attend the 2004 caucuses or did not vote in the 2006 primary then Richardson is in 3rd place. So when you take out the youth or people who Obama has inspired to become involved, then Richardson's numbers look better.
That is key here. How could that be overlooked, Jerome?
And "The Governor has rocketed up 10%...in just three months" is so obviously spin it makes me cringe to think it would just get slapped up on the front page. Polling at 13% in a highly selective sample, while being the only serious candidate running TV spots, does not make you a "Tier 1" candidate, even if it is Iowa.
If you think he seriously has a chance, just watch him in an interview or a debate. It will make you hope he's not.
I wondered if I was the only one that noticed how many qualifiers were there.
In fact, amongst the likeliest caucusgoers (those who attended the 2004 caucuses, voted in the 2006 primary and are definite to attend next year's caucus) the Governor has overtaken Senator Obama for 3rd place.
I will grant that it does appear he is ahead amongst the likeliest of likely to vote who have been involved in Iowa Democratic politics for at least 4 years, but they won't be the ONLY ones showing up.
And please don't read too much into this comment. But I was watching "Little Big League" the other night, and your comment evoked a quote from the film.
"An interesting side note: that's the 14th one-run game for the Tigers already this season. Tops for any team north of the Mason-Dixon Line, whose home games are not played in a dome."
If the Obama campaign had put out a press release saying they were ahead of Hillary Clinton in California, would you post this? I mean, seriously? Do you just run headlines just for headlines sake or is this something else to do with your constant anti-Obama posts?
MyDD definitely needs better standards.
I basically post whatever I feel like posting, if it's interesting. This was, and so would the hypothetical poll that you speak of too... I really don't give much regard to those that think they should tell me how/what to post, but they can say so if it makes them feel better.
I don't know, man, you've gotten awfully snippy with people who disagree with you lately. A form of Stolleritis perhaps. You've really not been Jerome-like lately.
don't seem to understand the concept of a "blog". You offer a pretty darn good definition above.
So it makes you feel good to run front-page posts with trollish comments taken from Obama's blog like you did a while back, all in the name of putting up "interesting" posts?
Quite sad what has become standard around here.
"Trollish" comments? Whoa. Disagree all you like, but come on now. This is getting ridiculous. Can't you argue on the merits? I.e. poll numbers, Richardson's history, his Meet the Press performance and debates, etc.?
now I totally agree her. I gave last quarter to Richardson, because overall (on paper) the best candidate of all of them, with EXPERIENCE. But he was a bumble bee in the debates, a debacle on MTP. That is when I had enough. And wanted him to move up in the polls. He is crafting interest, that is the job of politicians to raise monies and win elections.
Let me get this straight -- it's your site, and you're using it to express your opinions on things that interest you?
How dare you!
One question to ask the Obama supporters - why is Obama behind both Clinton and Edwards and now possibly Richardson in Iowa? The fact that Obama is now on TV in Iowa I believe demonstrates that he is in danger of falling into 4th place in Iowa.
The answer is Iraq. Obama is paying a price for not showing leadership on getting our troops out. Richardson has put forth the clearest position - total withdrawal of forces plus a diplomatic offensive - and is seeing his poll numbers rise.
Obama - while obviously right on Iraq in 2003 - doesn't have a plan for Iraq in 2007 that Iowa Democrats are embracing. I see Clinton suffering from the same problems Obama is facing as the summer progresses.
I don't think it is Iraq. I doubt most in Iowa even know much about the positions of Richardson on Iraq. Richardson does have a strong resume and that is attractive to voters especially in a rural state such as Iowa.
I kind of doubt these exact numbers, and am skeptical about the polling here, but I agree that it looks like that Obama is perhaps seeing some movement away from him in Iowa in his own internal polling, which may explain the ad blitz.
Iowa is not a state I would think as a good fit for Obama. Very few minority voters, generally an older demographic, a rural state. All 3 are strikes against Obama in a way, so I can not see him do very well in that state. Clinton, Edwards and Richardson are better fits for these demographics, so I can see some merit.
Richardson may be jumping the gun a bit, even if his polling shows him getting past 10% now in Iowa. We had seen him do better than before in Iowa and New Hampshire in the aggregate, so there may be some "there" there in regards to a steady upwards movement for him in these two early states. Still, I doubt that upcoming official polling will reflect an actual surge to 3rd place in Iowa at this point. We will see.
I dis-agree. I think that he is putting up Ad's because of the success of Romney and Richardson to a degree. He has been urged by many people to start putting up Ad'S ABOUT A MONTH AGO OR SO.
gEORGEP I am from the midwest and I donot know what your experience has been in IA, BUT this state is very ant-war and not too intersted in the DLC types like Clinton.
The last MD poll really showed a tie between Clinton, Edwards and Obama. The winner of that poll was un-decided at 27%
The history of IA is it's un-predictability and they really donot pay much attention to the national polls. These poll's will change again and again till the vote on Jan.7th.
My prediction is that the winner will experience a surge during the week leading up to the Caucus.
I agree here. I went to Loras College in Dubuque, IA. People there are not DLC Democrats.
My ex-wife is from Iowa, and I have been to the state several times for lengthy visits. The problem with your statement is two-fold:
1. Of the 3 top-tier candidates Clinton is seen as the candidate who would best deal with the Iraq war and the larger "foreign policy" arena. Evidence is all over polls and I will link to the polls that measure that issue upon request. This idea that people are "angry" with Clinton for her Iraq war is a fantasy that is not borne out by polls AT ALL. What people are interested in is what is going to be done about Iraq and the region, and as of right now people trust Clinton with this issue the most. So, if Iowa is anti-war, given that Clinton is seen as BY FAR the best candidate to deal with the war, that would play into her hands and explains why she is closing in on the lead in Iowa.
2. DLC-type: Yet, another unrealistic remark. Currently the voter's perception is that Clinton is the most liberal/progressive of the top-tier. This, also, has been shown in poll after poll. I'll show the perception in one poll sequence, but it is basically that way in every poll I have seen this year, whether the group polled is of the subset DEMOCRATS or a GENERAL VOTER polling group:
Clinton is seen as MUCH more liberal than either Obama or Edwards. Edwards is seen as more of a moderate, with his liberal and moderate credentials exactly even up here. Obama also tends closer to the moderate level when compared to Clinton.
Now, that is the perception, and Clinton has done nothing to change that perception, quite the opposite. Basically everything she has said or done has only strengthened that perception even more. If what you say is true and Iowa is anti-war and not interested much in moderate politicians, that explains why she is virtually even with Edwards in the polls now and seems poised to overtake the state before too long.
This idea that people are "angry" with Clinton for her Iraq war vote is a fantasy that is not borne out by polls AT ALL.
Nope, people (other than dems) just don't like her - they don't really have a reason not to like her. Although, there are many good ones.
I've asked a couple times for an example of Clinton holding herself to a higher standard than the minimum in regards to ethics - I'm sure there is one, but can't seem to find it?
Actually the polls show people do like her often by a 4 to 1 margin. Obama's negatives are now only a few points behind Clinton but I don't see anyone making the argument that people do not like him.
Negative today are based on likely voting - not actual negative opinions.
Hillary's negatives have been pretty standard for 8 years... people just don't like her
They apparently do not like Obama much either then since his negatives have risen almost as high as hers in only a few months.
did you read the comment at all negatives are likely not reflective of actual likability. To my knowledge Obama's likability numbers remain high. People being polled are not dumb and the associated negative with likely to vote for. I think 40% is a lot different than 47% in likely votes.
Hillary has had consistently low numbers...for the last 6 years, which suggest low likability
An amazingly ridiculous statements. 80% of Democrats like her, more than any other candidate. Unless I am missing something, we are on a DEMOCRATIC site here, not Freerepublic.com or some other right-wing fest. Cool it with the crappy "People don't like her" stuff which is provably false.
On any number of occasions you have referred to people who are not democrats - I think their opinion is worth considering... if 80% of Dems like her - what does that say about the other 76% percent of the population taking into acocunt her 47% negatives?
Sure, it is worth considering. But you stated "people don't like her" whereas the truth is that most of those people are Republicans. So, you need to qualify instead of making such broad generalizations. She is the most liked amongst Democrats, Republicans don't like her much, but most of them are low-info about our candidates. She is uniquely positioned to make a bunch of them into supporters by looking competent, humorous and warm in debates against the GOP opponent, because the cartoonization is so "over the top." Many of them will be rubbing their eyes in wonderment that their preconceived notions were actually false about the "dragon-lady."
You'll see in due time. :-)
I think it is a lot of indi's too who don't like her...wouldn't it be better to have somebody with no preconceived notions?
I doubt I'll see in due time - I've followed her, even met her on several occasions...and do not trust her. She has given me no reason to support her - maybe if she took one stand I would take a second look. I am voting on the war, healthcare, and ethics reform - she is week on all three. I'm not really sure on anything that she is strong on actually?
Experience is a qualification not an issue - and on the issues she hasn't taken stands. We are going to have to confront Iran in the next administration. And she still thinks her judgement on Iraq was good? In fact she did, and I think still does, believe this was a war worth fighting.
She has blamed the Bush Administration for poor management.
She has blamed the Iraqi people for lack of self-rule.
But, she has not blamed herself for her lack of clearity in judging rather this war was needed.
What reason do I have to trust her in making a good choice when it comes to Iran, George?
Why does she promise to emplement her non-existant healthcare package by the end of her SECOND Term? I don't see any reason to do this.
Why does she not hold herself to any higher ethical standard in the congress which has been called "the least ethical congress ever." We all know she doesn't need the money - if anybody has the ability to take the higher ground it is her.
What reason to I have to trust her? I would take any dem over her - at least they appear to have some other principal than gaining power.
Oh, and my comment said (besides Democrats) and the poll you citing as 4 to 1 is of democrats.
As good ole Russ said recently...
"I regard [Obama] as clearly stronger [on Iraq] than Sen. Clinton, indeed than [former] Sen. Edwards," Feingold said. "Of all the people I've worked with that are running for president, I think Sen. Obama probably made the proposal that was most helpful in moving the [Senate Democratic] Caucus in the direction I would like to see it go."
You left out the more recent statement good ole Russ made in which he basically takes it all back. Is there a reason?
"Senator Feingold's press secretary, Zach wrote in this thread today: 'People should know that this interview was done in mid-March and the highlighted quotation reflected Senator Feingold's views at the time.'"
Matt Stoller's Breaking Blue Post:
I just got this from Trevor Miller of Russ Feingold's PAC.
"The debate in the Senate over the misguided mission in Iraq has shifted significantly in the last couple of months. Senator Reid and I introduced our legislation to use Congress's power of the purse to end our involvement in Iraq and a majority of the Senate also voted in favor of a timetable to end the war in the first supplemental appropriations bill. All four current Democratic Senators seeking the presidential nomination in 2008 voted in favor of a timeline to end the war, three of the four candidates voted against the supplemental appropriations bill, and all four also voted in favor of the Feingold-Reid bill. Taking the tough votes on this issue - rather than just taking potshots from the outside - should be praised as important steps in helping to end this war."
The earlier statement seems to make Obama stand out, while the later comments talks about all four candidates in positive terms (minus perhaps a small dig at Edwards.)
Have you ever been to Iowa?
I think trying to elect a Black man there is going to be very difficult. Though I really admire the Obama campaign for trying.
because we already KNOW that the Richardson camp is saying they are out raising monies and will top Edwards. interesting. now they state from their polling that they are ahead of Obama. interesting. all these comments to evoke "interest", folks read between the lines. anyone that has worked on campaigns, this is what you do. you evoke, create and maintain interest. if Richardson gets a kickback of monies from this, or a bump in the polls from this, then he did what he is suppose to do. create INTEREST.
Be careful...you will receive a banning warning for a comment like that....I did.
attack on Jerome Armstrong? I just do not understand the reaction to any of the slighest bit of bad news. Jerome did not criticize Barack Obama here. It's a story. It's interesting. It's news worthy. Is Jerome supposed to just post items off the Obama blog all day?
These kind of personal attacks on front page bloggers bug the hell out of me.
Stop with the Bill O'Reilly routine (e.g. we don't like what he says, we attack him for saying it, he cries "personal attacks").
No one is saying Jerome is a bad person. We are saying the content of his posts and the frequency of a certain kind of post (i.e. anti-Obama posts, many of them without many facts to back them up) are, in some readers' eyes, unfair. But hey, it's his site. He can post what he wants, and we can disagree with him on it.
But tell us what exactly makes these attacks personal? He's the one who posted the stories, right? Are we not allowed to use his name? He's a big boy, he can handle himself.
You said, "Stop with the Bill O'Reilly routine."
So I am like Bill O'Reilly now, because I questioned your attack on Jerome Armstrong?
Let me get this right: you defend yourself from criticism about making personal attacks by attacking me? Even you must be able to see the contradiction there.
Quite strange, but becoming typical for some Obama fans. I don't want to see it if Richardson ever did pass Obama in a real poll. The attacks on the messenger likely would be overwhelming.
As if you needed to further extend your similarity to Billy O:
"Stop it with the personal attacks."
"It's not a personal attack - that's like what Bill O'Reilly says."
"Aha! You called me Bill O'Reilly! That's a PERSONAL ATTACK! See? See?"
Then to say that your fantasy perception of unfair attacks are typical of Obama supporters...my goodness. I think we may have reached the bottom here, folks.
"Obama fan" - I like the guy, but I'm totally uncommitted at this point.
Please stop crying. I'm attacking the substance of your comments, not you personally. But since you wrote the comments, there will always be a way to spin that it's a "personal attack."
I still think Jerome is a bit bitter about Mark Warner not joining the race, and may see Obama as the biggest reason why he did't.
There was a lot of promise with the Warner campaign, including a possible job in the White House. I'd be a little bitter about it too.
Jerome is a smart and talented guy, but this is yet another occasion where he has given good reason for people to question his credibility. When someone has already spent time working on a campaign(or in his case the runup to it), its hard to know if they are really impartial.
Nah, not at all about Warner, and I would never work for the gov't, much better being a hack. I'm not too worried about what the Obama fans think.
I can see part of why you and Kos talk about Obama the way you do...he more than anyone has the chance to be the kind of candidate that embodies you guys were talking about in 'Crashing the Gate', and yet he seems determined to go just halfway.
For the Richardson critics:
The Presidential election of 2004 demonstrated the fallacy of the argument that all Democrats need to do is line up behind a candidate, generate a massive turnout and victory will be ours.
John Kerry received more votes than any other Democratic candidate for President in history, including President Clinton. Yet Kerry still lost.
On the other hand, as we saw in the 2006 Congressional elections, when Democrats attract votes from Republicans and Independents, Democrats win.
New Mexico politics mirrors the partisan split in America today. In the last two Presidential elections, the outcome of the vote in New Mexico was decided by less than 1% of the ballots cast.
Richardson has been the most successful governor at the ballot box in New Mexico history. In a state evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, Richardson won his first term in office by a 56 to 39 percent margin.
Four years later, when the campaign issue was his leadership and performance, Richardson was re-elected by a 68 to 32 percent vote - more than twice his margin of victory in 2002. Forty percent of the Republicans that went to the polls in New Mexico last November voted for Richardson.
Richardson knows how to communicate with and obtain the support of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. That is precisely the type of candidate we must have to retake the White House in 2008.
Then add Richardson's Latino and Western heritage into the mix. Just as it was a source of pride for Irish-Americans and Catholics when JFK ran for President, the same phenomenon will take place in 2008 among Latinos. One of the key reasons Bush won in 2004 is that he gained over 40% of the Latino voter, the best result ever for a Republican Presidential candidate. The Latino and Western vote is critical in 2008 - which is why the Democratic National Convention next year is in Denver.
With Richardson at the top of the Democratic ballot the Bush success with Latino voters will be reversed. California will remain solidly in the Democratic camp. Republican states such as Nevada, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico will shift to blue states. Florida is ideally suited to revert to Democratic control with Richardson as the Democratic candidate for multiple reasons, including his stance on 2nd Amendment issues. The same can be said for Texas - which is becoming increasingly Democratic and could be in play in 2008 with Richardson on the ticket.
No longer will the fate of the Democrats depend upon the outcome of one state - that the Republicans can expend enormous resources on and win. It will be the Republican Presidential candidate's turn to play defense and struggle (in vain) to preserve Florida and the Southwest as red states, while losing badly in the blue states Kerry carried in 2004.
Richardson can't win in08.The reason being the same reasons I've been reading about Obama.If the country not going to vote for a black man,what makes you think there going to vote for a mexican.Sorry just face the facts this is still a racist nation even though we like to think it's not.
I disagree with that. There will always be some bigots who will not vote for a woman, black, or hispanic but that does not mean they cannot win especially if they pull in large numbers of people who might not otherwise vote.
also, it's pretty doubtful that someone who's a bigot is going to vote for a Democratic candidate in the first place. Obama or Richardson wouldn't really be turning off swing voters as much as mobilizing racists, and the positive mobilization should overcome that
The exit polls that showed Bush's success with Latino voters were actually wrong. The 44% figure came about because they sampled suburban, rural, and urban areas proportionate with numbers in the general population, not specific sub-groups. There are very few Latinos living in the suburbs, and those that were did tend to vote for Republican, but they were grossly oversampled. In reality, another exit poll that came out months later showed Bush's support in the mid to 30s, and the truth probably lies somewhere in the mid-upper 30s.
That said, having a diverse field is never a bad thing. While California damn well better be solidly in the Democratic camp if we want a prayer at this election, I see your point about the Western states. I don't see Richardson gaining the traction needed to get him the nomination, but maybe he'll impress sufficiently to get a spot on the bottom. He needs to turn around his debate performances, though. He's been a little disconcerting in those, and that's not helping his case.
For one simple reason: he's a bad performer as a candidate. He hasn't been able to handle himself in debates or on MTP - imagine him going head-to-head with slick Romney or Rudy.
I love Richardson and think he's a great guy. But he's not a great candidate.
If one bad performance on MTP disqualified one for President Howard Dean should have dropped out of the race in 2004 and John Edwards should quit now. Edwards was terrible when defending his views on Iraq when on MTP earlier this year.
That noted, yes, Richardson needs to improve his debate performances. But there is time and plenty of debates to go. Keep in mind too that unlike Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd and Biden, Richardson didn't go to law school and practice law. The training one gets in law school is excellent preparation for excelling in debate. Whether it matters for governing is another question.
Richardson went to grad school in international relations and has excelled over his career at bringing people and nations together.
Like I said, I think he's a great guy who would make a very good president. But the law school excuse is a bit lame - he's been in politics for years now. And, sadly, George W. Bush actually held his own effectively (such as it is) in a couple debates, and he certainly never went to law school.
I'm rooting for Richardson to improve, but as of now, he's just not ready for prime-time.
Friend or foe whatever you prefer to be as I direct the Following to you:
YOU ARE WRONG, THERE ARE BIGOTS EVERYWHERE
BUT NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE A DIFFERRENCE.
BILL RICHARDSON WILL WIN IN 2008,
BECAUSE HE IS THE BEST QUALIFIED.
IF HILLARY, EDWARDS, OBAMA, OR ANY OF THE OTHERS WERE BETTER QUALIFIED
THEY WOULD HAVE OUR VOTE, BUT THEY LACK THE CAPABILITY. AND AS I SAID BEFORE
THERE ARE MANY RACISTS OUT THERE. THE ONLY DIFFERRENCE IS
THEY KNOW THEY HAVE A BETTER CHANCE WITH RICHARDSON THAN WITH
TWIDDLE DEE DEE AND TWIDDLE DEE DUMBS.
THE LIKES OF BUSH AND HIS GEEK SQUADS.
Jerome we get the point you don't like Obama.But this is just to much.It makes you look like a hack.At this point your no better then the republicans.
How dare you post things on MyDD that are anything other than Obama adoration pieces.
I started reading MyDD years ago because of your posting. I appreciate your viewpoints and hope you continue to bring up valid points of discussion. It should be noted that rather than debate the merits of your claims, the Obama clan has attacked you personally. Do they have nothing better than personal attacks?
Richardson has made the claim he's going to raise more money than Edwards. Richardson has made the claim he's ahead of Obama in Iowa. These are things to be looked into. My guess? Richardson is making the claim that he's ahead of Obama in Iowa so he can get more donations in the home-stretch.
exactly; he is making such claims so that his fund-raising actually does top edwards; it is called strategy, and he is throwing a bomb
Richardson is not making that claim, look carefully.
Yeah, I tried to raise that point up top--I think the Richardson camp may have jumped the gun on the Edwards thing, and they're looking for anything they can cling to that might put them in at least the same league as Edwards.
And I agree... no personal attacks. Though it's frustrating to see a page I've read for a while attacking a candidate I support for reasons I can't understand, it's not helping the Obama case to get personal. Let's make fact-based arguments, like the fact that the way the Richardson people twisted this poll to make it sound like he's ahead of Obama in Iowa is pretty silly (people who attended the caucus in 2004, voted in the primary in 2006, and are definite attendees of the 2008 caucus? come on...)
I'm not saying he IS ahead of Obama even under the conditions he describes, but there's nothing silly about what he's saying. The sample he lays out is basically super voters. Richardson says he's coming in third amongst super voters who are extremely likely to show up. That's not a silly claim. It may not be true, but it's not silly. It's also obviously not the be all and end all either as a poster below notes turn out in the 2006 primary was a record low in Iowa and obviously a lot of lower info (compared to super voters) are also going to come out in the 2008 presidential caucus compared to those that showed up in 2006.
I doubt Richardson is ahead of Obama, but it's really interesting that Richardson is making the claim.
Cool it with the "Obama clan" stuff, m'kay? And these aren't personal attacks. They're what we might call fact-based opinions: Obama isn't Jerome Armstrong's favorite candidate, by his own admission. He uses the front page of this site to reinforce this belief. Obama fans come to this site and get tired of seeing failry regular posts that, while not explicitly anti-Obama, nevertheless cast the Obama campaign in a negative light. People are right, it's Armstrong's site, he can write whatever he wants. But it does get tiring.
In order to make it into the poll sample which has Richardson beating Obama, you have to both attended the 2004 caucus and voted in the 2006. Well it turns out, the 2006 Primary voter turnout was the lowest in the history of Iowa.
even more notable even out of the small 2004 caucus group, the primary people in 2006, which is apparently the smallest, he still requires that the people in 2008 be a definite attendee for the caucus.
"those who attended the 2004 caucuses, voted in the 2006 primary and are definite to attend next year's caucus"
I think it's fantastic that Richardson is moving up in Iowa. Good for him.
Americans love a good horse race.
I don't have any divine right to say Bill Richardson is a strong candidate except that he was seriously good for New Mexico and thats a really diverse state with alot of different interests, the Latino vote, the DOE, the Arts Community (Sante Fe, Taos) and the like.
Americans like governors too, i think 5/7 of the last presidents came from Governors. They intuitively apply that the skills from the executive branch of office apply more directly than legislative.
He's pulling me in. I am so damn busy with my little company right now I'd be involved, but as soon as I tighten things up around here, I'm going to throw my name in the hat for bill.
I still feel pretty comfortable about Obama though except he's just getting too many opportunities and passing them by. Bill has never missed a trick.
Edwards has been holding his own fairly well... the electability smokescreen is up , which I translate to mean that he's going to have to do a little collective bargaining to keep the special interests happy.
McCain Feingold just got weakened today. :-/
After reading the diary blockquotes I thought of that movie as well and my comment was modeled after those quotes and others.
I've also noticed richardson stated "he's 3rd among super voters"...I also find it hard to believe he's ahead among them too, but let's be for real, this upcoming primary will be HUGE...I see record breaking turn outs because Obama has so much money that i cant see him not turning out his supporters...The guy is breaking all kind of money records.
I hate to be another lean-Obama poster ragging on Jerome's statements regarding the Obama campaign, but I can't help but notice a decidedly bitter tone towards Obama. For example, the revelation that the republican state senator speaking of Obama's bipartisan problem solving skills is working for the McCain campaign is accompanied with snarky rag on the Obama campaign. The remark is sloppy and uniformed for three reasons.
1) The Senator never claims to be an Obama supporter in the presidential election, but instead speaks to Obama's skills as a problem solver and unifier.
2) The fact that one of McCain campaign supporter/advisor agreed to film a campaign ad for Obama shows that McCain's campaign is on it's last leg and simply exemplifies the fact that Obama represents a sort of 'post-political' era...
3) Do you actually believe that the Obama campaign didn't know about Senator Durkin's affilition with the McCain campaign?
You're clearly entitled to your opinion, but I think you owe yourself and MyDD a more in depth analysis than "Great research, team Obama." I think all candidates deserve intense scrutiny before any of us decide to support them, but intense scrutiny is not off-hand comments.
ps. random sidenote- I wish Mark Warner would change his mind and run for president
pps. I don't disagree that this post's subject is interesting and worth being on the frontpage
Well said. That comment assumes the Obama team didn't know the fact of his affiliation with McCain. But maybe Jerome confirmed that they produced the ad without that knowledge before making that comment?
Co-chair thing is a mix-up. McCain's legislative co-chair is the Illinois state rep. Jim Durkin, who also was McCain's campaign co-chair in Illinois in 2000 --- not state senator Kirk Dillard. Similar names...
RCP's Iowa polling average shows Obama ahead of Richardson 20-7. So frankly I don't care what a Richardson pollster says.
What Debate? Richardson is a 4th tier candidate with no shot.
All of Jerome's ifs are simply nothing.
An internal Richardson poll taken after he spent a ton on ads in Iowa puts at what? 15%
This is a silly post.
Here are the results to the question "If the caucuses were held today, who would you support?" (likely caucus-goers)
John Edwards 34%
Hillary Clinton 24%
Barack Obama 17%
Bill Richardson 13%
Joe Biden 2%
Dennis Kucinich 2%
Chris Dodd 0%
Don't Know/NA 8%
Here are the results to the same question, broken out among "likeliest"caucus-goers (representing just over 40% of the sample - voters whoattended the 2004 caucuses, voted in the 2006 primary, and say they aredefinite to attend next year's caucus)
John Edwards 31%
Hillary Clinton 23%
Bill Richardson 18%
Barack Obama 16%
Joe Biden 3%
Dennis Kucinich 2%
Chris Dodd 0%
Don't Know/NA 8%
...This poll doesn't seem to far off at the moment especially considering how intensely Richardson's been courting iowa voters. Still, it's a poll commissioned by the campaign. I'm sure a poll from the Obama campaign would have him closing in on Edwards and ahead of Hillary etc..
If Obama comes in 4th in Iowa that will shake up the race. He does not have as many comeback opportunities as Clinton since she is leading everywhere
Well if you believe this poll than Edwards would beat Clinton by 10 pts and it would give him a great boost for NH.
This would be a huge victory for Edwards.
Unless Edwards loses and comes in second I think both Edwards and Clinton would come out of Iowa in good shape. If Obama does come in 4th it would seriously damage his campaign.
There are alot of if's and buts.
I guarantee you that these poll numbers will change aagain and again. It is very hard to poll for a caucus and Iowan's traditionally make up their minds late in the process and do not follow the national polls.
i PREDICT THE WINNER OF THE ia CAUCUS WILL BE THE CANDIDATE THAT SURGE DURING THE LAST WEEK OF THE CAMPAIGN.
haha...I love how because this poll shows bad news for Obama, good news for Edwards and neutral news for Hillary we're treating is if it were in any way credible. It's a poll released by a candidate to increase fundraising prospects. Luckily, the Obama campaign isn't in a position where they need to resort to such measures, but I'm sure they could feign a poll showing Obama ahead in Iowa. The truth is, Obama has about as much of chance of coming in 4th in Iowa as Hillary does. No junk poll released by a campaign can change that.
a campaign poll can say whatever the campaign wants it to say end of story.
The poll of 500 likely Iowa caucus-goers was conducted for the Richardson campaign by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates June 18-20 and has a margin of error of + 4.4%.
The last five postings in BB from you have been direct or indirect attacks on Obama. I know that you don't believe that bloggers should be balanced but it's getting ridiculous. At least come out clean about who you do and do not support.
Just read the press release - and Richardson is full of it you can't claim to be ahead by segmenting "40% of those polled" especially when it is common knowledge Obama's lead is in the 18-30 year olds.
Maybe since I have not really committed to any candidate yet, I am not examining the connotations of every word Jerome uses, but this argument makes little sense to me. The post itself simply seems to be observing a possible interesting movement in the horse race, even if the Richardson campaign is blowing sunshine.
Plus, I think it is a little premature to dismiss a candidate based on a few bad appearances before Labor Day. Granted, he did not do well in the debates or on MTP, but how many voters have set their votes based on these performances for Richardson or other candidates? He might simply not do well as a candidate or maybe he and his team will grow as the campaign comes down to the wire. I think he and all of the candidates should be given that opportunity to prove themselves (barring any "clean" comments from Joe Biden).