|
mdemone posted:I may be off-base here, but I'm not sure there are too many Democrats even eligible to run for office in Montana. To be fair, Montana Democrats hold the entire state executive set (apart from Attorney General) but none of them have really got much of a popular record yet.
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
FMguru posted:Hilary crushes all possible Republican candidates in trial heats by double digits, even in states like Texas. In polling, she gets 25% support from Republicans. All signs are that she will steamroller the GOP in 2016. They don't need to bother with that; if she runs, her ratings will drift down over time anyway, and she's not even close to invulnerable (she's arguably in a weaker position right now than 2007). The reason it's happening right now is not because anyone wants to knock her down two years from now. Instead, it's because she's the frontrunner and no one behind her has declared yet so there's no real reason to ran anti-Mike O'Malley hitpieces (and also because nobody gives a poo poo about Mike O'Malley). The viable alternative is to run anti-Biden stuff instead but it's tough to smear a sitting veep with anything that isn't already out there. Nevertheless, when he spends another six months in Iowa while she keeps on...not being in Iowa...you'll start seeing little reminders that Biden loves his financial services sectors.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
His name's Martin 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:His name's Martin Case in point
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
I don't think Hillary Clinton is in a weaker position today than in 2007. She doesn't have an obvious weakness like the Iraq War vote and Biden/second person in national polls winning Iowa isn't going to bring in a huge wave of support by proving his viability.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
The problem for Hillary, and one of the reasons that she might be weaker now, is because of the 2008 primary. The Clintons are infamous for holding grudges and cut out anyone who supported Obama against her, to the point where Bill was making appearances with their primary opponents. As a result, there's a bit of a party divide with some people who aren't going to lift a finger to help her and may instead endorse Biden, who is definitely running.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
That sounds about right. Terrible Clinton strategy is a more likely problem than the circumstances of the race being as bad as 2007.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The problem for Hillary, and one of the reasons that she might be weaker now, is because of the 2008 primary. The Clintons are infamous for holding grudges and cut out anyone who supported Obama against her, to the point where Bill was making appearances with their primary opponents. As a result, there's a bit of a party divide with some people who aren't going to lift a finger to help her and may instead endorse Biden, who is definitely running. I wonder how well her 2016 campaign will be managed.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The problem for Hillary, and one of the reasons that she might be weaker now, is because of the 2008 primary. The Clintons are infamous for holding grudges and cut out anyone who supported Obama against her, to the point where Bill was making appearances with their primary opponents. As a result, there's a bit of a party divide with some people who aren't going to lift a finger to help her and may instead endorse Biden, who is definitely running. Anyone who supports Joe Biden for 2016 is a loving retard. And the 2008 primaries are not going to come up in 2016, 8 years is a lifetime in politics. That said, I hope Joe Biden has the decency to not run in 2016. He's been running for president for 25 years and has failed miserably every time. Hillary doesn't have to worry about the GOP challenger. The only thing that could gently caress things up for Hillary is if Joe Biden, a sitting VP runs for president. That doesn't look good at all when a sitting incumbent gets challenged for the nomination, remember 1980? Also, who do you think someone like Chris Christie has a better chance of winning against, Hillary or Biden? I'll tell you, it's Biden. That's what we should be afraid of.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Devour posted:Anyone who supports Joe Biden for 2016 is a loving retard. And the 2008 primaries are not going to come up in 2016, 8 years is a lifetime in politics. That said, I hope Joe Biden has the decency to not run in 2016. He's been running for president for 25 years and has failed miserably every time. Did Mark Penn pay you to post this? Be honest.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Devour posted:And the 2008 primaries are not going to come up in 2016, 8 years is a lifetime in politics. You don't know the Clintons.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Joementum posted:You don't know the Clintons. The Clintons were already finding their allies conspicuously thinned out in 2008 and were flabbergasted that people were moving their time and money towards Obama.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Devour posted:Anyone who supports Joe Biden for 2016 is a loving retard. And the 2008 primaries are not going to come up in 2016, 8 years is a lifetime in politics. That said, I hope Joe Biden has the decency to not run in 2016. He's been running for president for 25 years and has failed miserably every time. Eight years isn't all that long when there's still some bad blood with increasingly important parts of the base (and the activists and institutional figures who get those parts of the base to vote) over certain tacks during the 2008 primary and that poo poo that happened in 1992 affected hiring decisions and campaign decision-making for Clinton '08. It's probably not prohibitive, but it definitely puts Hillary at a two-fold disadvantage because on the one hand, her operation holds grudges and on the other, she pissed people off.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Devour posted:That said, I hope Joe Biden has the decency to not run in 2016. He's been running for president for 25 years and has failed miserably every time.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Eight years isn't all that long when there's still some bad blood with increasingly important parts of the base (and the activists and institutional figures who get those parts of the base to vote) over certain tacks during the 2008 primary and that poo poo that happened in 1992 affected hiring decisions and campaign decision-making for Clinton '08. It's probably not prohibitive, but it definitely puts Hillary at a two-fold disadvantage because on the one hand, her operation holds grudges and on the other, she pissed people off. This is just pointless bullshit right here. Hillary Clinton will get the nomination in 2016 no matter what if Joe Biden declines to run. She appeals to many demographics, including a sizable portion of republicans. Political parties nominate people who they believe can/will win. So you're telling me if Biden declines to run for the nomination, that Hillary will have trouble getting it because "activists and institutional figures" (Obama supporters/voters) are still upset over the fuckin primaries in 2008 with Obama? 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Joe Biden has run for President twice. The first time he'd have done a lot better without a really minor scandal. The second time has was up against two of the best politicians the party has produced in the modern era. There are three big problems for Biden. 1. His age. He can wave it away with talk of "vigor", but we'll see how much vigor he has after a few months in Iowa. 2. His constituency is not nearly as large as he thinks it is. The folksy charm stuff isn't as convincing when you're Vice President. 3. His record. This has always been a problem for him, but when you've racked up that many votes you're going to have been on the wrong side of everyone's pet issue once.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Devour posted:So you're telling me if Biden declines to run for the nomination, that Hillary will have trouble getting it because "activists and institutional figures" (Obama supporters/voters) are still upset over the fuckin primaries in 2008 with Obama? Not ground-level activist figures, party leaders. There is a reason that Harry Reid had a conversation with Barack Obama in 2007 and that reason is Hillary Clinton. There are substantial elements within the party who have been shut out of Clintonland permanently and want to work against their efforts because Hillary becoming the President will mean a reduction in their influence.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Hillary built up a lot of goodwill within the party as SoS, but it will disappear in seconds if Bill, Maggie Williams, Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, etc. start closing ranks and trying to purge the party infrastructure of their perceived enemies. And the one way an Elizabeth Warren or a Martin O'Malley or a Deval Patrick wins this nomination is if Clinton runs and Plouffe/Axelrod/Mussina/friends decide to prop someone else up because Hillaryland won't play ball with their former enemies - something they've had major problems doing in the past.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Devour posted:This is just pointless bullshit right here. Well, for instance, Hillary Clinton pissed off a lot of minority outreach people in 2008 with clumsy dogwhistles. Not just minorities and not grassroots people, either - Ted Kennedy decided to endorse Obama because of some really loving unsubtle poo poo Bill pulled, by all accounts. If they do the Hillaryland thing where they freeze out anyone perceived as disloyal, that's going to be a problem because they're a) not going to correct their mistakes and b) they're not going to make amends. This isn't a matter of voting for her in the general, but it does create problems in primaries and when the problem isn't who people are voting for but if they're going to turn out. Found the relevant text from Game Change: quote:But as badly as Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee. poo poo like this is bad and should be stamped out of the Democratic Party, not waved away or legitimized. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 00:30 on May 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
All this being said, based on Bill's actions in 2012, I think there's a pretty good chance that this stuff is settled and Hillary, having learned from her insular disaster of a 2008 campaign, would run a more inclusive operation that largely uses the existing OFA infrastructure. And if that happens she's basically untouchable.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Not ground-level activist figures, party leaders. There is a reason that Harry Reid had a conversation with Barack Obama in 2007 and that reason is Hillary Clinton. There are substantial elements within the party who have been shut out of Clintonland permanently and want to work against their efforts because Hillary becoming the President will mean a reduction in their influence. Nancy Pelosi already pretty much endorsed Hillary. During the Benghazi hearings, Hillary was overwhelmingly supported by the Democrats and some republicans in the court room. I understand what you're saying about some party leaders that don't like Hillary, but hey, this is Hillary. She's pretty much always had the polarizing "love her, or hate her" image. And I don't think Harry Reid is as credible as he was in 2007. The Warszawa posted:Well, for instance, Hillary Clinton pissed off a lot of minority outreach people in 2008 with clumsy dogwhistles. Not just minorities and not grassroots people, either - Ted Kennedy decided to endorse Obama because of some really loving unsubtle poo poo Bill pulled, by all accounts. If they do the Hillaryland thing where they freeze out anyone perceived as disloyal, that's going to be a problem because they're a) not going to correct their mistakes and b) they're not going to make amends. This isn't a matter of voting for her in the general, but it does create problems in primaries and when the problem isn't who people are voting for but if they're going to turn out. If she runs she'll probably keep Bill on a leesh this time. And if Biden declines to run I'm pretty sure Obama will endorse her after her popularity as SoS.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Devour posted:Nancy Pelosi already pretty much endorsed Hillary. During the Benghazi hearings, Hillary was overwhelmingly supported by the Democrats and some republicans in the court room. I understand what you're saying about some party leaders that don't like Hillary, but hey, this is Hillary. She's pretty much always had the polarizing "love her, or hate her" image. And I don't think Harry Reid is as credible as he was in 2007. Oh come on, the idea that Bill "went rogue" ignores Mark Penn, Geraldine Ferraro, and countless other examples that Clinton '08 basically tried to adapt the Southern strategy for the Democratic primary, which is one of the reasons I'll be working for anyone who challenges her in the 2016 primary. If the primary is anything more than a token keep-'em-honest challenge from the left, Obama won't endorse - and Harry Reid wasn't brought up to say that Harry Reid specifically will be an influence against Hillary, but rather that the Clinton operation has frozen out a lot of people and that (combined with the decimation of the DLC and the Blue Dogs) have left them in a more precarious position than one might otherwise think.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
Devour posted:If she runs she'll probably keep Bill on a leesh this time. I'm not sure that's possible, but it won't matter since if she runs every other serious candidate will stay home.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Hilary crushes all possible Republican candidates in trial heats by double digits, even in states like Texas. In polling, she gets 25% support from Republicans. All signs are that she will steamroller the GOP in 2016. Hillary Clinton 43% John Edwards 14% John Kerry 14% Joe Biden 8% Bill Richardson 3% Mark Warner 3% Evan Bayh 1% Tom Vilsack 1% A lot can change in three years. Edit: edited to not be such a sarcastic shithead SombreroAgnew fucked around with this message at 00:52 on May 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
To be fair, it's Gallup.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
ufarn posted:To be fair, it's Gallup. EDIT: Nope I'm confused nevermind.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Oh come on, the idea that Bill "went rogue" ignores Mark Penn, Geraldine Ferraro, and countless other examples that Clinton '08 basically tried to adapt the Southern strategy for the Democratic primary, which is one of the reasons I'll be working for anyone who challenges her in the 2016 primary. Ok, explain to me how you believe Joe Biden/someone else has a better chance of defeating someone like Chris Christie than Hillary does. Chris Christie is the first republican that actually knows how to use his mouthpeice in a long time. It doesn't matter if you agree with him politically, he's great at communicating his message. Biden is precisely the opposite. He's terrible at public speaking, not to mention his age, his record, and he's going to have to defend some criticisms of the Obama administration. Hillary can also distance herself from the Obama administrations' domestic policies. Like I said a few posts above, Joe Biden assuming the nomination gives the republicans an edge, probably even a chance. And I don't think any of us want that.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Devour posted:Ok, explain to me how you believe Joe Biden/someone else has a better chance of defeating someone like Chris Christie than Hillary does. Chris Christie is the first republican that actually knows how to use his mouthpeice in a long time. It doesn't matter if you agree with him politically, he's great at communicating his message. Biden is precisely the opposite. He's terrible at public speaking, not to mention his age, his record, and he's going to have to defend some criticisms of the Obama administration. 1) I don't think Chris Christie will be the Republican nominee in 2016; 2) I think that age, record, and association with the Obama administration are all things that Hillary will have to deal with, too, and I think that if Hillary's going to distance herself from Obama's domestic programs, she's going to do it by moving right, and that's bad; 3) I don't think that Biden is inherently weaker than Hillary and I think that your criticisms of him being "terrible at public speaking" are hilariously wrong, nor do I think that Biden is the only alternative (or that we know the full range of candidates in the Democratic primary); 4) I refuse to work for someone who thought that race-baiting was a legitimate path to victory in a Democratic primary in 2008 - not because it wasn't feasible, but because it demonstrates stupidity, short-sightedness, and a willingness to sell out people of color at best - and I think that legitimizing that poo poo through primary support is bad for my community and bad for the party. I mean, "the last best hope for Democratic victory" was the rallying cry for Clinton '08, too, and I didn't find it particularly persuasive then.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Devour posted:Ok, explain to me how you believe Joe Biden/someone else has a better chance of defeating someone like Chris Christie than Hillary does. Chris Christie is the first republican that actually knows how to use his mouthpeice in a long time. It doesn't matter if you agree with him politically, he's great at communicating his message. Biden is precisely the opposite. He's terrible at public speaking, not to mention his age, his record, and he's going to have to defend some criticisms of the Obama administration. In vague order: - You don't have to qualify "someone like Chris Christie" because there's literally only one person who, at this stage of the process, has a significant value over generic Republican candidate. Christie stands alone. - While Christie isn't quite as dead in the water as Jon Huntsman, he will face tremendous resistance from basically all levels of the Republican grassroots and significant parts of the Republican establishment. He is also a morbidly obese man in his 50s, which raises a whole separate set of problems, some fair and some unfair, that will significantly reduce his chances of both running and getting the nomination if he runs. He does bring certain unique positives to the table too, even in the nomination fight, but it's going to be a very uphill climb for him. - About three and a half years out from the general election, we have utterly no idea whether the Democrats will want a candidate who can distance himself from the Obama administration and its domestic policies. There are scenarios in which they very much would, scenarios in which they very much wouldn't, and scenarios in which it would not matter, but we're just not close enough to make even any sort of educated guess on that. And if Obamacare is what they're supposed to be running away from, Hillary Clinton is an even worse candidate for that than Joe Biden.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Devour posted:Hillary doesn't have to worry about the GOP challenger. The only thing that could gently caress things up for Hillary is if Joe Biden, a sitting VP runs for president. That doesn't look good at all when a sitting incumbent gets challenged for the nomination, remember 1980?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:All this being said, based on Bill's actions in 2012, I think there's a pretty good chance that this stuff is settled and Hillary, having learned from her insular disaster of a 2008 campaign, would run a more inclusive operation that largely uses the existing OFA infrastructure. And if that happens she's basically untouchable. This. The Clintons are smart and learn from their mistakes. Yes, if they pull same 2008 bullshit she loses but if she plays into the OFA world, the nomination is hers.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
spoon daddy posted:if she plays into the OFA world, the nomination is hers. Barring hilarious cuts in line, the first four states are Iowa, NH, SC, and NV. If more than one person is running (as opposed to selling books or vanity campaigning or whatever), Hillary will lose SC, probably lose Iowa and NV is an open question. Against a sitting veep from the Obama administration, if she loses Iowa she loses all three. In 2007, she had one serious opponent (whose name, in case anyone's wondering, was John Edwards) and one sort of plausible dark horse who would not have been serious at all had he run any other kind of campaign. The main advantage for her at the moment, and a point where I disagree with Warszawa, is that we do know everyone important who's probably running in '16 and Obama II is not one of those people. The disadvantage is that there are half a dozen quite serious dark horses in the race already and if she begs and pleads Biden out of the race, it'll just mean support will gather around one of them instead. There is already a tangible Hillary vs. Not Hillary dynamic in the air, and we all know how easy a path she wound up having the last time this happened. Her best case scenario for the nom as things stand is Mitt Willard Romney '12.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
Adar posted:Barring hilarious cuts in line, the first four states are Iowa, NH, SC, and NV. I probably misstated my point, but I think we know in the sense that it's probably some combination of the seven to twelve people that get floated, but we really don't know which of those potential candidates will actually be candidates and, to a much bigger extent than I feel comfortable with to make projects on, whether those people run depends very heavily on who decides to run and when. We probably know every potential candidate, but not the full range of candidates who will be competing. I don't see O'Malley running if Cuomo announces (but I can see Cuomo announcing if O'Malley does, for example), and I'm pretty wary of falling into a Mario Cuomo situation where everyone assumes someone will run and it turns out that he doesn't. One thing I'd also add is that one of the defining aspects of an Obama II campaign isn't really knowable at this point, and that's organization.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 10:04
|
|
|
You can have all the organization and early state mojo you want and it won't mean a thing if you don't also have institutional party support. You can build a massive grassroots organization, tapping new donors nobody else can find, and still lose Iowa because you can't lock down the precinct captains when two of the Senate buddy candidates collude against you and you'll be... Howard Dean. You can hustle Iowa in your pickup truck, travel to all 99 counties, end up winning the state, go on to win an upset in three other states in February and you'll be... Rick Santorum who couldn't even get the conference of evangelical pastors to back him over Newt Gingrich because Rick is a giant rear end in a top hat that nobody really likes. In the era of the Super PAC you can limp along like that for a couple months because you've convinced a billionaire to love you, but the opportunities for that are narrower on the Democratic side and you still lose in the end anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 10:36
|
|
|
Joementum posted:You can have all the organization and early state mojo you want and it won't mean a thing if you don't also have institutional party support. You can build a massive grassroots organization, tapping new donors nobody else can find, and still lose Iowa because you can't lock down the precinct captains when two of the Senate buddy candidates collude against you and you'll be... Howard Dean. You can hustle Iowa in your pickup truck, travel to all 99 counties, end up winning the state, go on to win an upset in three other states in February and you'll be... Rick Santorum who couldn't even get the conference of evangelical pastors to back him over Newt Gingrich because Rick is a giant rear end in a top hat that nobody really likes. In the era of the Super PAC you can limp along like that for a couple months because you've convinced a billionaire to love you, but the opportunities for that are narrower on the Democratic side and you still lose in the end anyway. Sure, but I don't really see where that applies to what either I or Adar or jeffersonlives are saying. I don't think Hillary's got all that stuff locked down (especially if/when Biden runs), and most of us are saying that the biggest weakness of a Clinton campaign is, based on past behavior, that the campaign will alienate some of that support and they'll coalesce behind a challenger.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 10:43
|
|
|
I'm just downplaying a bit of the stuff about Obama's success coming from organization or early state strategy. He had substantial support within the party during the invisible primary stage, which made the difference. As you just said, this will be more difficult for a non-Hillary, non-Biden candidate to lock down in 2016 because it is likely the Clintons have stopped trying to freeze people out and, even if they do, Joe is waiting with open arms.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 10:49
|
|
|
Adar posted:There is already a tangible Hillary vs. Not Hillary dynamic in the air Hillary will soak up alllll the money, Obama might have seemed like a dark horse unless you were watching the money race. John Edwards might have seemed like more of a threat to Clintonland at some points because he was running the same strategy that Bill had used decades before but that time has long passed.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
I remember reading some '08 postmortem with Plouffe or Axelrod about how they really were putting all their election hopes on Iowa, which may or may not be an exaggeration, but in retrospect I think you can say that Obama needed a win in IA way more than Hillary, who was playing the inevitability game. While it's certainly true that Obama didn't come out of nowhere and had plausible party support prior to the Democratic primary, he really did need Iowa to raise his profile as a credible alternative to Clinton. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while Iowa is not the end-all-be-all of presidential elections, it is still really important!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I'm just downplaying a bit of the stuff about Obama's success coming from organization or early state strategy. He had substantial support within the party during the invisible primary stage, which made the difference. As you just said, this will be more difficult for a non-Hillary, non-Biden candidate to lock down in 2016 because it is likely the Clintons have stopped trying to freeze people out and, even if they do, Joe is waiting with open arms. I'm not as versed with the 2006 and 2007 Obama campaign as I'd like to be - is Game Change the best source for this? - but one thing about Obama is that he was Barack Obama, First Ever Viable Black Candidate, on top of being the most charismatic possibility the Dems had had since Clinton. Obama was the best Not Hillary possible (though Edwards had a shot for a while there!) None of the current crop is close to him. There are a few possibilities: -O'Malley is maybe the best of the lot, but a total no name. If Hillary doesn't run, he could maybe kinda sorta be viable as a non-Biden. But then he gets to face one of the following three + Biden and is a nationally unknown governor of Maryland facing off against a popular two term sitting veep from Delaware and whoever inherits the Hillary camp. There's no way he winds up with money before proving himself, so he'd have to win Iowa. Not happening. -Rahm Emanuel/Cuomo/Gillibrand are three completely interchangeable (in national campaign political terms) people who will be fighting for leftover Hillary money if she doesn't run. Biden is probably 80/20 vs. any of the three and 95/5 if more than one run. -Patrick is Corey Booker Lite, sort of like Booker except worse in every way -Warren won't run and can't campaign if she did -Schweitzer won't run and won't play well enough nationally if he does -If you're not on this list, nobody cares what you do exquisite tea posted:I remember reading some '08 postmortem with Plouffe or Axelrod about how they really were putting all their election hopes on Iowa, which may or may not be an exaggeration, but in retrospect I think you can say that Obama needed a win in IA way more than Hillary, who was playing the inevitability game. While it's certainly true that Obama didn't come out of nowhere and had plausible party support prior to the Democratic primary, he really did need Iowa to raise his profile as a credible alternative to Clinton. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while Iowa is not the end-all-be-all of presidential elections, it is still really important! If Hillary'd won Iowa, she'd have won by another 10 in NH, written off SC/refused to campaign there and cruised in NV as a pre-ordained candidate. It's hard to overemphasize just how much winning Iowa meant for Obama in terms of big party figures and donors alone. Hillary teared up 2 days before NH and the polls failed to reflect a shift back to her that resulted in her win, so the story afterwards was how wrong they were. But the story before that was the 20 point swing in three days when Obama proved he could beat her. It was soft support (which was why Hillary's tears proved the difference) but Obama absolutely needed to win Iowa to get that support in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Well, looks like we will be hearing about Benghazi until November 2016 (and beyond, probably): 41% of Republicans think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history, according to a PPP poll.  (Also, 39% of those people don't know Benghazi is in Libya.)
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 18:16
|
|