by Lost Thought, Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:39:19 AM EDT
Since MyDD seems to have a fair amount of conflict between the two Presidential candidate's supporters, I figured this would be a good place to put forth this simple request.
Who should I vote for?
The purpose of asking this is not just to elicit opinions, but to aid in the development of arguments for each candidate. To that end, there are a few simple rules below the fold :)
by blueflorida, Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:42:58 PM EDT
So, there's been alotoftalk about how much Bill Clinton has supposedly hurt Hillary Clinton. Candidly, there is some polling to support this conclusion. According to a March 2008 Diageo/Hotline Poll, 51% of Democratic Primary Voters viewed Bill Clinton unfavorably. These results were also replicated in an April ABCNews-WashPost poll.
Still, there's an untold tale about Bill Clinton's effect on this primary campaign.
by TheNewMexican, Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:18:57 PM EDT
Cross-posted at Election Inspection
This is the first of two pages meant to show how the states/districts/cities of each candidates' superdelegates voted. Before I get to some commentary on what I believe the importance of this is and the list of Clinton's superdelegates, I'd like to make a few notes:
1. This list does not include any superdelegates from states or territories which haven't voted, so there are no superdelegates listed from Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Oregon, Guam, Puerto Rico, Montana, or South Dakota.
2. This list is based on how the districts or states of superdelegates voted, "Strong" states/districts/cities went for either candidate by a margin of greater than 5 points while "Weak" ones were 5 points or less.
3. There are some places where I had to make estimations, since some states didn't have a breakdown on district-by-district performances. The states which were estimated were Colorado, New Jersey, and Washington State. On the same token, these states will also be estimated for congressional districts when I create the list for Obama supporters.
4. A complete list of superdelegates can be found here.
by southernman, Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:18:37 AM EDT
I'm sorry Clintonites, I really am, but the true position of Hillary Rodham Clinton's on the MI problem has come out and, to torture a simple phrase, It ain't good!!
The MI and FL questions are difficult ones to answer, not b/c of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, not b/c of the DNC, but but b/c of the arrogance of the state party officials. It's too bad really, b/c I initially agreed with them, that the DNC idolizing NH and IA was ridiculous. That said, the rules were set and agreed to, hence they must be followed. FL and MI knew that, and thumbed their noses at the DNC anyway. They deserve their punishment....which now leads us to what that punishment will be.
by Mdm Prz 08, Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:00:35 PM EDT
Never go negative until you have to: this is common political knowledge and strategy. Political wisdom posits, if you are ahead there is no need to attack, whereas, if you are behind, you must attack. The 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary race has not strayed from this common strategy, with one exception (which will be addressed later).
Contrary to popular belief, Senator Clinton did not "go negative" first, why would she? She was light-years ahead, and floating on a wave of inevitability (whether that was a wise move is debatable). Senator Obama, however, was the newcomer, and was behind in the polls - political wisdom dictated he go negative, which is exactly what he did.
First, let us be clear on the working definition of "negative." Policy distinctions and contrasts are not negative - they are required, and are what campaigns are based on. One cannot possibly discuss his or her own distinct positives without making distinctions with other candidates, for to highlight one's positives is to also bring light to the fact that one's opponent does not posses aforementioned positives. It is when this is reversed that it is viewed, by some, as "negative." For example, Senator Obama claims he does not take money from lobbyists, or oil companies. If Senator Obama asserts, "I do not take money from oil lobbyists" the assertion contains within it the implication that his opponent does, but it is not considered negative. Conversely, Senator Obama can assert, "My opponent takes money from oil companies and lobbyists" and the assertion contains within it both the accusation that his opponent does, and the implication that he does not. However, these kinds of distinctions or contrasts are fair game, and have been a part of the political landscape for decades and will continue to be so in the future.
An ad, position, or attack only becomes "negative" when it becomes personal: when a candidate's character, integrity, and motivations are questioned. This is the definition of "negative" that will be addressed herein. However, if we operate with either definition of "negative" the same is true of this primary race: Senator Obama went negative first.