The Obama camp has always felt that their numbers wouldn't go up until close to the end of the general election. I don't think they're worried at all about these early poll numbers.
"Closing the deal" or "Why can't he close the deal?" is something Pat Buchanan initiated on MSNBC, IMO. Pat knows why he can't "close the deal" (because some people are still taken aback by his race). Obama thinks, though, that by the time November rolls around he'll be so familiar to average Americans that they'll no longer notice his race. I think he has a good chance of getting that done, as well.
I was a Deaniac last cycle and one of the reasons why Dean this cycle (as head of the DNC) insisted on delegates making a choice was to give the fans of the loser time to heal. He remembers that it took his people THREE MONTHS. It's just not time yet for Hillary fans to think beyond the grief of losing her as their candidate. The time will come, but it's not something that can be/or should be rushed, IMO.
While that makes sense and I'd agree with it, my experience with the Christian "help the poor" groups is the same as the author's (all positive with no preaching AT ALL). The Christians (or any other faith interested, for that matter) already have the network set up. Getting secular groups started would be like reinventing the wheel. I suppose we could TRY (just to show that we're not heart-less people who could care less about the poor or downtrodden), but it's a lot easier to volunteer at an already-established place and/or deliver our donations to the already-established place.
My husband balked immediately at Barack's speech on this, but I think it's something he needs to do as a Christian. My husband said, "Well, he's got to" (beginning to suggest that it's political), but I don't think it IS political with Barack. He's Christian and, IMO, one of those Christians who walk the talk of Jesus. Neither my husband nor I are Christian or anything else, but we buy stuff on sale using coupons and donate it all to a mission that helps people in our area. There's no secular group in our area who set up homeless shelters or soup kitchens. A Christian group did. Same thing with Katrina aid. Christian groups gathered donations of food, clothing, and I went with a Christian neighbor to volunteer to help sort/label, etc. If he were to demonstrate the prejudices of some Christians, I'd be concerned, but so far he hasn't and he's pro-choice. What's not to like?
This is the plan of the Michigan Democratic Party, based on their own understanding of the vote.
This is most important to note, IMO. While both Clinton and Obama supporters had great interest in yesterday's proceedings, the committee's job was not to please THEM, but the voters of Michigan and Florida. Afterall, it's the delegates from Michigan and Florida (not representatives of either campaign) who are authorized to appeal the results.
I already mentioned a while back how I think our Texas Two-Step is preferred. The primary measures the breadth of a candidate's support and the caucus measures the depth of a candidate's support. I think both are important measurements with slight safeguards from crossparty shenanigans.
I've read that Super Tuesday (in February) was designed to get the strongest candidate the lead ASAP. I've also read that several of Senator Clinton's team engaged in the process to set this up for her win. I've seen video of her saying that she intended to "go all the way" through Super Tuesday (assuming she would be the winner at that time). I guess my point is that modifying the existing method may for a reason not now obvious come back to bite your preferred candidate.
Well the majority of pledge delegates is relevant because some superdelegates have said they would vote for the winner of the pledge delegates. This includes Pelosi and Carter.
Exactly! I (almost) felt as though Pelosi was trying to weasel out of her statement on this when I saw an interview with her yesterday, but I think she just wants all the primary votes to come in before endorsing anyone.
As a Texan, I support the two-step process. The primary is designed to indicate the breadth of support while the caucus which follows is designed to indicate the depth of support. We had a number of Operation Chaos Clinton voters in our primary, but they weren't going to waste their time caucusing, so Obama won that portion of the process. It works as it should, IMO.
I think the potential blowback could undo Hillary sooner then would have been the case without last nights sleaze fest. You won't hear Obama whining about how unfair the press was to him, he will use the debate to go on the offensive, the perfect illustration of the old politics versus what the country needs. I think this could be a big plus for him.
I agree completely with this simply because I think we're moving on to a new kind of politics in the US. It's partly because of Obama that we're doing this, IMO, but I also think it's because we're just tired of the politics that take good people down and elect losers by slim margins who can't get anything done.
I think there really IS something going on with this cycle being different than previous cycles. It started with the differences in fundraising and Hillary and/or McCain counting on the DLC/R equivalent standards while Obama favored the "bottom-up", digital standard. It moved on from there, though, IMO. I don't think the standards from previous cycles apply this cycle on ANY of it. I think the voters really ARE tired of the negative campaigning, as well.
I'm an Obama supporter despite my demographic as an old white woman; I was also a Dean supporter and think that the 50-state strategy is best. Might be that I'm foolin' myself, but I listen to folks like Chris Matthews bemoan how Obama just can't seem to "put her away" and I think, "You pundits just have NO clue how that was the OLD way of politics ... so last cycle." I see Hillary's campaign as expecting 20th century methods to make a difference in the 21st century. I don't think it can happen for her, but if it does, I'll vote for her in the GE.
Yeah...Lampson is a Conservative, but I don't think that the people in 22 are interested in anything BUT a conservative. I think they'd like an alternative to DeLay, and Lampson could be it for them. Guess you can tell that I don't live in 22, right?
Chris Bell [possibly running for Governor] is ALSO a conservative. Little steps are better than NO steps, IMO. The right wing didn't take over Texas politics in a year or two; it took them about 20 years. We've got to be more patient.