Pollster.com has Hillary ahead by 7% with approximately 7% undecided. In the absence of a major shift, 7% undecided are not all going to Obama. And where has his "Yes we can" gone? I haven't heard it in weeks. Since bitter-cling-gaffe in fact.
Before any one was paying attention, she was ahead by 20%. As more attention was paid, the gap naturally narrowed to about 12% and in the last 2 weeks, maybe Obama closed to within 5% of Clinton. But if I can tea-leaf-read the wiggles, that has now expanded again. We'll see if the undecideds again break for Clinton in a big way. I'd guess 10% final margin for her, but I don't really put a lot of stock in my prognostication.
Look to Obama's camp pointing out that this was friendly Clinton territory, and that she was ahead by 20% not long ago. All true.
Look to the Clinton camp to point out that he didn't win by 20% and that he outspent her by 2 or 3 to 1. All true.
The truth is it is a big state. Big states are harder to change people's preferences merely because of their size. And like every state in the country, when the campaign started, she had a sizable advantage. When Obama wins a state, he has overcome, at some point in the distant past, virtually zero percent name recognition, and near complete Clinton domination. (I'm ignoring Edwards in all this discussion. ) So figure that when he wins, he needs to pick up the entire margin of victory during the run up to the primary or caucus. Hillary has merely needed to maintain her edge, which is generally easier, and which she has mostly managed in states where she lives, has lived, neighbor states and states that are large where it is difficult to get Obama's message out.
The networks are playing this as a "Will Obama win? Will Clinton Lose?" But Clinton has won, they just want you to tune in for the exciting finale for 4 hours on their news channel.
I'll be glad when this one is over.
Time to move on to Indiana and North Carolina.
I'll be glad when the primary is all over.
Monday, April 21, 2008
License plate of the day
DOWRKSN
My read: Do Work Son
Minority Report: Dow Wrecks 'N'
Well, it does.
I like the first better.
My read: Do Work Son
Minority Report: Dow Wrecks 'N'
Well, it does.
I like the first better.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Clinton Gets it Wrong Again
Clinton's tone-deafness and mis-representations are very irritating.
Obama's words are (taken from the link to Reuters)
Her argument is she's been tortured, and it's ok for her to torture Obama. I wonder what McCain would think of that argument.
Obama's words are (taken from the link to Reuters)
"Last night I think we set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people," he said in Raleigh, North Carolina. "That's just how Washington is. They like stirring up controversy and they like playing gotcha games, getting us to attack each other, and I have to say, Sen. Clinton looked in her element."Clinton's rephrase:
Enought of the mis-phrasing of your opponent's words."I know some of my opponent's supporters and my opponent are complaining about the hard questions," Clinton, a former first lady, told a rally. "Well, having been in the White House for eight years and seeing what happens in terms of the pressures and the stresses on a president, that was nothing," she said."
Her argument is she's been tortured, and it's ok for her to torture Obama. I wonder what McCain would think of that argument.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Comparing Sins: Tuzla versus Wright
Which is worse? Tuzla or Wright? Tuzla is about Clinton's claims of landing in Bosnia under sniper fire.
One is a sin of commission: Clinton was explicitly claiming things that were not true, and she claimed them repeatedly. These were Clinton's words.
Wright is a sin of association. These are not Obama's words.
And for me, it is important that Wright's remarks have been taken out of context, and it is a powerful context indeed.
One is a sin of commission: Clinton was explicitly claiming things that were not true, and she claimed them repeatedly. These were Clinton's words.
Wright is a sin of association. These are not Obama's words.
And for me, it is important that Wright's remarks have been taken out of context, and it is a powerful context indeed.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Ask a Trashy Question
The ABC silly-debate discussion is still reverberating around the blogosphere. I hope the echo deafens Gibson and Stephanopoulos.
The next time a moderator asks a stupid gotcha question, the candidate should turn the question around and accuse the moderator of promoting that repugnant point of view. If you ask gotcha questions, you are promulgating those canards. Moderator asks: You know someone who said something mean. (Implying therefore you're mean). How do you respond senator? (Or more likely, disavow this person Senator!)
Senator: Well Mr. Moderator, you should not be bringing up nasty bits of meanness unless you seriously endorse it. You are directly promoting the position of those people who are bringing this issue up over and over. Is that your intention? The people banging this issue like a drum are not interested in the answer to your question. They are interested in occupying my time with inanities and filling the voters ears with fear mongering hate messages. They are interested in obscuring the profound policy differences between me and my opponents. They and you are not interested in any answer to any foul canard posed as a question. They are solely interested in sliming me so as to steal from the American people an otherwise easily won on the merits of my positions election. (ok, so not that last in so many words).
By raising the issue you are lowering the quality of our national debate. You should be asking us important questions about Iraq and international policy, global warming and the environment, how I will run my White House, what goals I will set for my administration. Why are you asking about the nasty remarks made by that person? Do you ask John McCain about Reverend Hagee? Will you? Would you? If not, and I doubt you will, then you are engaging in partisan politics, under the false guise of non-partisan-pretense.
You should be ashamed of your self Mr. Moderator. Slimy attacks do not make America a better country and your pretense that these attacks go to my electibility are not obscuring your partisanship to the American people.
The next time a moderator asks a stupid gotcha question, the candidate should turn the question around and accuse the moderator of promoting that repugnant point of view. If you ask gotcha questions, you are promulgating those canards. Moderator asks: You know someone who said something mean. (Implying therefore you're mean). How do you respond senator? (Or more likely, disavow this person Senator!)
Senator: Well Mr. Moderator, you should not be bringing up nasty bits of meanness unless you seriously endorse it. You are directly promoting the position of those people who are bringing this issue up over and over. Is that your intention? The people banging this issue like a drum are not interested in the answer to your question. They are interested in occupying my time with inanities and filling the voters ears with fear mongering hate messages. They are interested in obscuring the profound policy differences between me and my opponents. They and you are not interested in any answer to any foul canard posed as a question. They are solely interested in sliming me so as to steal from the American people an otherwise easily won on the merits of my positions election. (ok, so not that last in so many words).
By raising the issue you are lowering the quality of our national debate. You should be asking us important questions about Iraq and international policy, global warming and the environment, how I will run my White House, what goals I will set for my administration. Why are you asking about the nasty remarks made by that person? Do you ask John McCain about Reverend Hagee? Will you? Would you? If not, and I doubt you will, then you are engaging in partisan politics, under the false guise of non-partisan-pretense.
You should be ashamed of your self Mr. Moderator. Slimy attacks do not make America a better country and your pretense that these attacks go to my electibility are not obscuring your partisanship to the American people.
What We Want in a President
All the gotcha politics going on. Questions about who you know and how much you disavow every mean and nasty statement they ever said that was caught on YouTube.
This leads to presidential candidates who won't talk to anyone who doesn't agree with them slavishly on every issue. Who is the perfect candidate under this system? George Bush! He hasn't talked to or seen a dissenting voice or person in years. No gotchas for George. No wonder Rove and the Republicans have developed this sort of politics.
Of course, if everyone ran on their actual political platform, it isn't clear that Republicans would get elected as much as they now do. Better to distract attention away from economic issues towards social issues. Even better, to distract towards non-issues like: Are you patriotic? Do you wear a lapel pin? Is your second cousin's third Aunt's second sister a communist? Do you disavow all knowledge of her?
You'd better.
This leads to presidential candidates who won't talk to anyone who doesn't agree with them slavishly on every issue. Who is the perfect candidate under this system? George Bush! He hasn't talked to or seen a dissenting voice or person in years. No gotchas for George. No wonder Rove and the Republicans have developed this sort of politics.
Of course, if everyone ran on their actual political platform, it isn't clear that Republicans would get elected as much as they now do. Better to distract attention away from economic issues towards social issues. Even better, to distract towards non-issues like: Are you patriotic? Do you wear a lapel pin? Is your second cousin's third Aunt's second sister a communist? Do you disavow all knowledge of her?
You'd better.
License plate of the day
IMAQT 1
and one more for good measure
6DOKxxx
Why is this second license plate of interest? California non-vanity car license plates are issued sequentially in a 1AAA111 format: 1 digit, three letters, three digits. The highest digits and letters that you see are perhaps the newest car and license plate on the road. California recently started issuing 6C (6C followed by 2 letters and 3 numbers) license plates, and now I am beginning to see a lot of them on the road. 6D license plates are still rare, I've seen less than 10 so far. And 6DOK is the latest that I've seen.
and one more for good measure
6DOKxxx
Why is this second license plate of interest? California non-vanity car license plates are issued sequentially in a 1AAA111 format: 1 digit, three letters, three digits. The highest digits and letters that you see are perhaps the newest car and license plate on the road. California recently started issuing 6C (6C followed by 2 letters and 3 numbers) license plates, and now I am beginning to see a lot of them on the road. 6D license plates are still rare, I've seen less than 10 so far. And 6DOK is the latest that I've seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)