Exit Poll of Democratic Voters in MI (0.00 / 0)

I have seen on other websites discussion of crosstabs and internals from an exit poll of Democrats, apparently done by FoxNews!  I was surprised, but now I see that I should never have expected the media to keep quiet over the MI Dem results.  The Republicans are so boring this year that they can't resist.

I was foolish to disagree with those who said Michigan would have an impact.  We may not ever know what the impact is, but clearly people can't help but beat to death any numbers pertaining to the Dem race.

Obama and Edwards better be prepared to spin like crazy on the night of Florida.  I expect Clinton supporters to ramp up their "unofficial" FL campaign after witnessing how much play the Dem numbers in MI get tonight.

---

by: benjamins @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 19:51:37 PM CST

Ban Caucuses (4.00 / 3)

Yet another reason to ban caucuses.

Another 65,000 Jews and Seventh Day Adventists in Nevada will not be able to participate due to Sabbath restrictions.

The Las Vegas Sun weighs in on the side of the NEA.

---

by: JoeCHI @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 19:51:57 PM CST

Would they have been allowed to vote in a Saturday primary? (0.00 / 0)

It's not immediately obvious to me that this has anything at all to do with caucuses vs primaries.

---

by: texas dem @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 19:55:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A primary would've let them vote absentee (4.00 / 4)

John McCain

---

by: djm84 @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 21:09:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Perhaps they should reexamine what their.... (0.00 / 0)

.......'faith' is all about. Did not Jesus of Nazareth say,

And Jesus answering, said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him

Me?

'I am sickened unto illness that they that would worship the Lord would require for the rest of us, obeisance. Sickened unto death.'

Short form....yer don't vote because of yer primitive religious superstitions....

Tough.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 22:24:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Able? (0.00 / 0)

It's not ability that constrains them. It's religious choice. Sometimes we have to make a choice between religion and living in an open, democratic society. They're free to make choose for themselves which matters more to them on that day.

---

by: D'arby Salt @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 22:29:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Also (4.00 / 1)

If the primary was held at 6:30 pm like in Iowa the jews could vote because it would be after shabbat. the problem is that it is during the day time not that it is a caucus.

---

by: Seth Pearce @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 22:31:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Trust Me. Jews Can Vote. Even At Noon On A Saturday. (4.00 / 1)

There is a Mezuzah on my front doorpot, and trust me, if it were noon on a Saturday, and there were an election, I'd be at the election. Some of the fellows down the street with the big beards might stay home. Their loss.

---

by: D'arby Salt @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 22:36:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As An Ex Religious Jew (4.00 / 1)

  Who is as critical of them as anyone, your comment is insulting and ignorent. Their is no way the average orthodox jew would vote on saturday, no matter how politically active they are.

  Believe me, I lived it. It is a real issue. I may think they are ridiculas (just like I think Christ Followers and Muslims are) but don't claim they don't believe it.

  Speaking of the Seventh Day Adventists (as an earlier poster mentioned) my only contact with them was when I had to travel to their Hood to take the LSAT. If I didn't have that option I would not have taken the test (given on Saturday). Do you think that would have been fair in a society that we hope respects others views? 

---

by: hatbox @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 00:53:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hear, hear (0.00 / 0)

Fucking tolerance, people.

---

by: Taylor @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:05:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ability (0.00 / 0)

As a Jew, I find the comment that "Jews are not able to vote on Saturday" to be demeaning and paternalistic. We're not handicapped! Being a Jew is not a disability! Jews *can* vote on a Saturday. Jews can do anything we want to do on any day of the week. If some Jews choose to value Torah over participating in the world around them, that's their free choice. But it's a choice.

My bacon and eggs this morning were delicious!

---

by: D'arby Salt @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:45:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You have a Mezuzah on my front doorpot? (0.00 / 0)

Wow weird superstitions you believe in. But I guess all silly superstitions (except for yours of course) are ridicules

---

by: hatbox @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:44:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

In Lancaster County Nebraska (4.00 / 1)

We specifically made sure that no Caucus would start until after sundown to allow Jews and Seventh Day Adventists to vote.

I'm a little surprised that any local Democratic Party would not consider this.

Of course, this gives us the added bonus of being the county that reports right before the 10:00PM news cycle.

phat

---

by: phat @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:59:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama on weakness (4.00 / 2)

Perhaps honest, but you should really have a 'sometimes I'm just too awesome'-type answer for that like Edwards did

---

by: nomen @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 20:41:43 PM CST

"We" (0.00 / 0)

Have candidates always used the "royal we" to refer to their campaigns? like "we did well in Iowa because we convinced the voters..." Maybe they did that in the past and I'm just noticing it more now.

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers

---

by: kbuck @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 20:47:09 PM CST

This is a good debate (0.00 / 0)

I like the topics and the tone. This is the best debate I've seen so far. Distinctions are being clearly drawn, and mild attacks are certainly taking place, but the rhetoric is toned down and their is a certain degree of camaraderie that I think does a service to the perception of the Democratic party. Good job Edwards, Obama and Clinton. 

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 21:53:49 PM CST

Good Debate (0.00 / 0)

Gotta say, this is the debate that they should have been happening for a while now. You get to see the real differences between all the candidates. It makes me pretty happy to be a Democrat.

Before the debate, I was unsure over whether or not I could vote for Hillary Clinton in a general. While I am still casting my first ever vote (just turned 18) for Obama on Feb. 5 and hope that if he doesn't get the nod, John Edwards does, I feel that even with the iraq war vote and the voter suppression I could see myself possibly voter for her in november.

I also think Barack Obama in this debate stood out because I got a much clearer view of his policy and he managed to retain his personality.

---

by: Seth Pearce @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 21:55:07 PM CST

Well (4.00 / 3)

maybe if more than 17 people voted for Kucinich in the first two contests, or if he was spending time in Nevada campaigning.

I'm watching the debate right now, and it's refreshing that it's a small, intimate affair. Kucinich had done nothing to justify his inclusion. Or would you have Gravel and every fringe candidate in the race also included?

And btw, there's nothing "big tent" about NBC's decision. It wasn't the DNC who excluded him. It was a television network.

---

by: kos @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 21:56:31 PM CST

p.s. (4.00 / 3)

The difference between Giuliani and Kucinich is that Giuliani still polls relatively well in several states. He leads in NJ and NY, and Pollster.com's trendlines still have him leading Florida.

Kucinich leads nothing. An early December Q-poll had Kucinich with a pathetic 2 percent of support in OHIO, his freakin' home state.

---

by: kos @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 21:59:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Giuliani bit was snark (4.00 / 2)

But I will admit that this was a good debate, once the moderators shut up and the candidates started asking each other questions. With Kucinich there, it would not have been as good.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 22:08:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I wonder...... (0.00 / 0)

......was it just luck that Edwards happened by?  heh......

Sorry I missed it sounds like it was pretty good.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 23:02:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Polls (0.00 / 0)

Kucinich had done more than 40 campaign appearances in NH. He was excluded from the last two debates before the NH primary. That exclusion was based on his polling numbers. Those same polling numbers are the ones that predicted a strong Obama win in NH.

Now, nobody's going to say that there was a chance in hell that Kucinich would have won NH, but given the fact that the the polls from the week prior were unable to predict the winner of the race, how could they possibly be considered a valid standard to exclude someone from a debate three days prior to the election?

So Kucinich gets excluded from the debates before IA and NH. His showing in New Hampshire is almost certainly affected by the fact that he isn't in the NH debate (can you imagine any of the candidates voluntarily skipping it?) and that is used as further evidence to exclude him from further debates. Now maybe he'd never gain any ground, but you people are taking an awful lot of glee in watching the process by which his campaign is stomped out before it even has a chance. Why not let voters have the opportunity to do that for themselves?

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

---

by: darrelplant @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 23:54:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The polls in NH (0.00 / 0)

were actually accurate for all the candidates except for Hillary. People forgot that there was an "undecided" block, and they broke for Hillary. But Obama's and Edwards' numbers were pretty spot on with what pollsters predicted.

They also predicted Kucinich's lack of support. Although to be honest, you didn't need polling to see that.

---

by: kos @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:32:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Debate (0.00 / 0)

That doesn't validate the polls, however. Either they're 100% accurate or they're not.

You don't know that they represent what Kucinich might have received if he'd been allowed to debate on the Saturday before the election. His appearance might not have had any effect. It might have given him another couple of percentage points. It might have driven his numbers all the way down to 0.

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

---

by: darrelplant @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:54:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

kos (0.00 / 0)

I'm surprised you're posting on Open Left instead of celebrating the Mittmentum coming out of Michigan!

---

by: BCdem @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 23:21:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fringe (4.00 / 1)

Had all of the "fringe" candidates done 40+ campaign appearances in NH?

I know you've got some sort of beef with Kucinich because you think he's too "out there" for you, but his religious beliefs are no crazier than Clinton's, Obama's, or Edwards's. And he's a hell of a lot more trustworthy than any of those three.

It's almost like you've got the same kind of "he-man" fixation as Chris Matthews, but one that's met by the Democratic front-runners. Sure, Kucinich won't win, but the crap you bring up about him is no different than the kind of stuff Drudge runs about Democrats. It's almost like you're scared of his policies. You shrug them off ("Department of Peace?") as is the concept itself is so ridiculous at its face you don't even need to know what it is.

Like calling someone "gay", I guess.

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

---

by: darrelplant @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 00:09:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I would have to talk about him incessantly (0.00 / 0)

for it to be a "fixation".

I'm perfectly happy to ignore him as long as he no longer pollutes our presidential debates. It was nice to have a substantive one last night, for a change.

---

by: kos @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:34:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Pollute (0.00 / 0)

You see, that's just another example of what I was talking about. Saying that he "pollutes" the debates without any rationale of how he pollutes the debates -- in your opinion -- is just name-calling. You don't seem to be able to deal with him on a substantive basis, you just think he's icky (polluted) or unclean.

If you were talking about him all of the time, that would be "obsession". If your response is to shudder and try to wipe your hands clean every time his name comes up, that's a fixation.

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

---

by: darrelplant @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 13:01:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Edwards "mistakes" don't work for me (4.00 / 3)

He keeps saying he has spent his "whole life" fighting for people's interests. Except for the years he was in the Senate. The big one was the bankruptcy bill. That was just terrible legislation (by the way Clinton's - it did not become law though is also a stupid out).

---

by: benb @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 22:37:30 PM CST

It's still refreshing to hear a politician admit he's wrong (0.00 / 0)

---

by: BCdem @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 23:24:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Quality Not Quantity (0.00 / 0)

Once or twice, yeah. Not  when it's a constant litany of mea culpas.

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

---

by: darrelplant @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 23:57:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Motives (0.00 / 0)

I suppose it might be more "refreshing" to hear a politician admit their "mistakes" - if those "mistakes" were not politically expedient at the time they were made and the aknowledgement and reversal of them - at this time - is also politically expedient.

Makes one wonder - if the results of those earlier "mistakes" were more positive, or offered a point of distinction from one's political rivals - would they be acknowledged as "mistakes", or played as "foresight"?

On the other hand, a politician that will simply "stick to their guns" (interesting idiom, eh?) and never change their mind, is not all that attractive as a national leader, either.

Its a matter of trust.  Can the "mistaken" candidate portray their change of heart in a way that makes the logic underlying  it apprent to the voters in a way that they can appreciate?  That is, can they instill enough trust that the voters will be relatively certain that these kind of "mistakes" won't happen in the future. Trustworthiness is the difference bewteen a "flip/flopper" and a "reasoned change of positions"

This is where Edwards has fallen short, I believe. Rightly, or wrongly - whether because of the media narratives, or whatever - it appears he has not convinced many Democrats (or whomever votes in these primaries) that he can be trusted.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:23:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

sorry hillary, that just doesn't make sense (4.00 / 1)

Saying you voted for it but were happy it didn't pass is about as Washington as it gets. Hillary's worst moment of the night.

---

by: dave marley @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:53:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Howard Dean gets involved in Nevada (0.00 / 0)

Go Howard, a real progressive,

http://ruralvotes.co...

---

by: gaiilonfong @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 23:10:14 PM CST

an encouraging development (0.00 / 0)

We've complained a lot around here that the two Democratic Senators still running for president could, rather than running around the country collecting money and TALKING about change, actually do some Senatoring on the subject (like Chris Dodd on FISA, for example). And Hillary Clinton, of all people, decided to do just that by trying to outflank Obama on his LEFT by proposing legislation to keep Bush from cutting permanent occupation deals with the Iraqis. When was the last time a Democratic presidential frontrunner voluntarily moved left on ANYTHING? Obviously Bush would veto anything of the sort, but it still strikes me as a really positive development that Clinton clearly thinks it's smart to move left on the war (and is willing to use her position in the Senate to do something NOW, not just wait for 1/20/2009), and that Obama and Edwards are on board.

Overall, this struck me as an excellent debate among three smart, competent people who genuinely seem to want to move this country in the right direction. Any one of them could win a general election and be an effective president. With Mitt winning in MI, and our top three looking so good, this was a great night to be a Democrat. Please excuse the unrestrained positivity in this post.

---

by: dave marley @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:30:19 AM CST

Kucinich (0.00 / 0)

They shut him out in Nevada tonight but he will not be denied in New Hampshire.  He got his money in on time, so the recount is on.  That's a lot of money for him stand up for voting integrity.  Good for him.  From Bradblog:

Dennis Kucinich's campaign did in fact get their money in on time. The recount will be starting tomorrow. However, on the Republican side, though the money was wired to the bank for candidate Albert Howard, something at the bank delayed release of the funds in time to meet Secretary of State Gardner's 3:00 p.m. deadline. As I wrote last night, Gardner's demand for full up-front payment does not seem to be in accordance with the law, which requires only a written guarantee that payment will be made.

---

by: DD2 @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:46:29 AM CST

So it's refreshing for Edwards .... (0.00 / 0)

But Mitt is a flip flopper?  Which is it?

The list is getting longer for his apologies, at some point isn't there a cut off where you starting thinking again about a candidate?

---

by: johnk @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:22:20 AM CST

The list isn't that long (0.00 / 0)

The war was the big one. The bankruptcy bill of 2001 (which wasn't as craptacular as the 2005 version) and Yucca Mountain are the other two. Obama and Clinton have shifted their positions, too, but you don't see them apologizing or even acknowledging a shift in an honest manner.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

---

by: clarkent @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:44:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]