Does anyone know how long he was there? Was he really doing some work or just spending a few minutes there for a photo op?

Don't get me wrong; I think that even if he was just there for a five minute photo op there's nothing wrong with that and I'm happy that he took the time to go visit and meet with the folks there.

But if he really did spend some decent time there helping out, that would be pretty amazing.

So does anyone know if he put some decent time in there or did he just drop in for a short time?

Posted at June 15, 2008 4:19 PM in response to Obama Helps Midwestern Flood Victims

Okay, that's a fair point; their policies are not identicle. I am an Obama supporter, but I can certainly see how a case can be made that Clinton's policies are superior. I don't agree with this case, but I can certainly agree to disagree.

But for the sake of this conversation, let me concede the point and say that Clinton's policies are superior.

Why the outright hatred? This is what I really don't understand. Even if you think Clinton's policies are superior, certainly Obama's policies (from a Democratic perspective) are FAR superior to McCain's?

I completely understand why someone would prefer Clinton to Obama. Completely. No argument from me whatsoever.

What I do not understand is how a Democrat could go vote for McCain if Obama wins the nomination. I can understand how an Independent or Republican could do that, sure. But how can a Democrat do that?

That's what makes no sense to me.

Posted at May 31, 2008 11:06 PM in response to An honest question for Clinton supporters

I'd recommend looking at how these folks stand on certain issues and then recommend a candidate that fits their view. For example, if your friends are pro-Iraq war and that's a hot button issue for them, then the ethical thing to do is probably just leave them alone to vote for McCain and work on convincing someone else.

But let's say that government spending and high taxes are their hot button issues. Here's what I would do; I'd point out that Bush and his Republican Congress spent like drunken sailors and tremendously increased the size of government. Point out that low taxes are fine as long as they are accompanied by reduced spending, but if you're going to spend money the responsible thing to do is pay for it with taxes instead of borrowing and passing the buck to your children. Now point out that an Obama presidency can't be *worse* than the Bush presidency in that respect. The size of government might increase, but we might balance the budget instead of passing the buck to our kids. And hey, Bush increased the size of government, too, so Obama is no worse.

See where I'm going? Using THEIR stances on issues, I've established an argument that an Obama presidency is probably no worse than a McCain presidency. Now, if you can honestly establish such an argument, I see no ethical problem encouraging them to vote for Barr because even if it helps Obama win you've already established that that result isn't THAT bad.

You can do the same thing if they complain about wanting Supreme Court appointments that honor "original intent" of the constitution. You point out how Scalia and the two new Bush appointees have sided with the executive branch on civil rights issues, etc... That's a pretty hot button issue with Libertarian types. Now, if Scalia, Roberts, Alito, won't support original intent readings of the constitution, how much worse could an Obama appointment be?

So in summary, I think you look at their stances on certain issues and find spots where McCain doesn't support that stance. Now prove that Obama isn't any worse than McCain using THEIR stances on the issue. Now you have an honest reason to tell them to vote Barr.

If you can't establish an argument, and if McCain really IS better than Obama using their stances on the issues, then the "ethical" thing to do is encourage them to vote for McCain.

Posted at May 24, 2008 6:14 PM in response to Is it wrong to encourage certain friends to vote 3rd party?

I really like what you did here and it's an argument that I've been throwing around in my mind for a while, but I would like to add one caveat.

Obama's ground organization has been exceptional and I believe drives up his percent of the vote in caucus states. Now, there's nothing wrong with this; it's good strategy on his part and it's worked out well for him. However, I do believe that if every caucus state had a primary his vote percent and overall delegates would be lower.

If I had to venture a guess, I still think he'd gain popular vote. In other words, I suspect that he'd drop from a 70%-30% victory to a 58%-42% victory but with 10 times the turnout. So I suspect that his popular vote total would increase overall but not by as much as you're saying.

But kudos to you on bringing up this point; bigger than the math that you did is the point you made, which is that this "popular vote" thing is complete garbage when you have different states nominating in different ways. We really have no idea what the popular vote is within any reasonable margin.

Posted at May 22, 2008 9:38 PM in response to Nomination Math 101: How Obama Is Ahead by over 1 Million in the Popular Vote (Even Counting FL & MI)

"If the rules are just there to be disregarded and they seat their delegates after flouting the rules - how the hell is it fair to the other 48 states who did it by the rules?"

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I do think that FL and MI should be penalized by some proportion. Hell, on a matter of principle I tend to agree with you that the rules are the rules and they shouldn't be changed. However, I think the party benefits more overall by finding a way for the FL and MI delegations to attend the convention, be seated, and have a vote (a vote that is reduced by some amount of weighting).

I also think that in no way, shape, or form, should either candidate benefit from the decision to seat the delegations. They need to agree on a solution for the benefit of FL and MI, and for the benefit of the party.

Posted at May 22, 2008 9:20 PM in response to FL and MI - nobody is getting disenfranchised, and there's no moral high ground in getting out of this

Regardless of the wisdom of NARAL's timing, I simply don't understand the *anger* at them for this endorsement. Looking at both Clinton and Obama in a vacuum, there's not really a whole lot of difference with respect to reproductive choice. You can probably make a case that one or the other is a *stronger* advocate of reproductive rights even though their voting records are similar, but still, both candidates are clearly pretty darn pro-choice.

What's the worse possible thing that can happen to NARAL's cause? Quite simply, it's a McCain presidency. Look at the Supreme Court right now and it's pretty easy to see that the next president will have a good shot at making 1 or 2 appointments to the bench even in their first term. It seems to me that NARAL probably wanted to sit out and refrain from endorsing in the primary and to then come out and endorse the Democratic candidate after the nomination is over.

But what if NARAL starts sensing that the Democratic Primary is damaging to the Democrats and gives McCain a better shot at winning the presidency? In that case, even if you think that Clinton is on the merits better for reproductive rights than Obama, isn't it reasonable to place a higher priority on keeping McCain out of office and doing whatever is possible to prevent that?

I guess what I am saying is that I can understand Clinton's supporters being *disappointed* in NARAL's decision. But *angry*? Give me a break. Democrats on both sides are missing a hell of a lot of perspective these days.

Posted at May 15, 2008 10:54 AM in response to NARAL Affiliates Question Mothership's Endorsement Of Obama

Yup, and I think that's why it always seems that the "bar" is set higher for Obama. It's also why I kinda understand why people sometimes state very high "needs" for him because, given what his goal is, he really DOES need victories big enough that the media has no choice but to report them positively.

Posted at May 6, 2008 12:10 PM in response to Who "needs" to win what?

My use of "maintain" was misleading. I didn't mean to imply that he's already got a favorable media narrative (which he doesn't). I meant to imply that in order to push Hillary out of the race he's got to (at some point) maintain a positive media narrative for a period of time to give superdelegates cover to endorse him. You're right, though, in order to maintain a positive media narrative he's got to get one first. :)

Posted at May 6, 2008 12:02 PM in response to Who "needs" to win what?

What gets me is not that this poll is an outlier compared to the other polls released this week, but that it's OWN swing was so great. Obama goes from -26 to +2? So not only is this poll a probable outlier, but the previous one was too, but in opposite directions? A bit bizarre, no?

Posted at April 2, 2008 11:13 AM in response to Poll Gives Obama The Lead In Pennsylvania

I don't recall North Carolina being mentioned (outside of people affiliated with one of the campaigns) as being a "true test".

I think what is meant by this is that neither campaign has a natural demographic advantage in Indiana so the end result will more closely match up with whichever candidate is campaigning better, making a stronger case, etc...

In Pennsylvania, Clinton has a natural demographic advantage because of the relatively large numbers of elderly and lower income white folks.

In North Carolina, Obama has a natural demographic advantage because of the relatively large numbers of black folks and higher income white folks.

So duh, Clinton will win PA. Duh, Obama will win NC. If either of those does NOT happen it would be considered a huge upset.

Indiana is a tossup, thus the results are perhaps more revealing.

I don't necessarily buy the logic that I just outlined, but I think that's what the prevailing theory is.

Posted at March 25, 2008 9:51 AM in response to Heavily GOP Indiana Becoming New Battleground In Dem Nomination