Monday Evening Election Round-Up

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 22:30


Here are six election items of note for a rainy Monday night:

  1. Lane Hudson Busts Fred Thompson
    Fellow blogger Lane Hudson has filed an FEC complaint on Fred Thompson, arguing that Thompson has violating the "testing the waters" provision of FEC law in several ways. These violations include:

    • Raising $72,000 for the general election.
    • Using money for advertising, specifically Google Ad words
    • Repeatedly referring to himself as a candidate for President, even though he continues to raise money only for an exploratory committee
    • Signing long-term leases on office space.

    Some of these charges clearly have merit, as they have raised red flags from FEC commissioners and election lawyers. It is also receiving a lot of press, as you can see here, here and here. The press surrounding this matter will continue to grow tomorrow. Stay tuned.

  2. Entering Act Two of the Presidential Primaries
    Mystery Pollster takes a deeper look into the question of when we can expect more movement in national and early state polls. He argues that the first stage, or "Act One," took place during the announcement period from December though March, which was indeed a time when we saw some real poll movement. While things have been static for a while, he notes that stage two is now thoroughly underway, and so that could change:

    In Act Two, the candidates begin saturation television advertising in Iowa, New Hampshire and perhaps a few other early states. This process begins to reach those voters who are less attentive to politics and can move numbers more dramatically for candidates who begin with less recognition. Act Two of the 2008 race started early for Mitt Romney and Bill Richardson (thus producing upward movement for both in Iowa and New Hampshire), but appears to be getting underway for most of the other candidates right about now. So it will be interesting to watch the round of early state surveys in September and October to whether greater exposure to all of the candidates changes perceptions and preferences.

    Every Democratic candidate, except Kucinich and Gravel is now on the air in the early states, so Act Two is in full swing. As such, the next set of polls will indeed be very telling of where the campaign will be heading through at least the middle of November. The trends we see in September will likely continue through at least October. Act Three begins when the negative ads start, which typically is about five or six weeks before Iowa. Remember that in 2003, Dean was able to take the lead during "Act Two," but fell apart when the arrows started flying his way in Act Three (the "murder suicide" with Gephardt, among other things).

  3. Giuliani Spent Twice As Much Time At Yankees Games
    From Salon, via Political Wire:

    By our count, Giuliani spent about 58 hours at Yankees games or flying to them in the 40 days between Sept. 25 and Nov. 4, roughly twice as long as he spent at ground zero in the 60 days between Sept. 17 and Dec. 16. By his own standard, Giuliani was one of the Yankees more than he was one of the rescue workers.

    I remember watching a lot of baseball immediately after September 11th, too. It was a good way to avoid depression. However, I was just a lowly graduate student and English teacher who was shocked at the direction the nation was turning following those terrible attacks and whose girlfriend was out of the country. I was not Mayor of New York City. And I don't even like the Yankees, anyway.

  4. Obama Slows Debate Schedule, Then Rocks A Debate
    At MyDD, Todd Beeton notes that almost immediately after Barack Obama said he wouldn't debate anymore, he is now being credited with an excellent debate performance by most pundits. He also seems to be receiving positive reviews from pundits for deciding to not accept anymore debate appearances than he has already made. Personally, I'm not sure what to make of Obama's move, since it is always difficult to cast canceling possible campaign appearances in a positive light. Then again, I think most major Democratic constituencies already have held candidate forums, so he isn't really dissing anyone while simultaneously avoiding potential future political difficulties by individually telling certain groups "no." Also, this means that any potentially revised Fox News debate really is dead. There is no way Edwards or Clinton will show up at a Fox News debate if Obama won't, given the potential netroots backlash that would come if they do.

  5. Why I'm Not Jumping In With Dodd Or Kucinich
    Since my declaration yesterday that I would not be joining up with either Dodd or Kucinich's campaigns as a way of trying to change the focus of the primary toward of substantive policy discussions, some people have asked me why.  To be as simple as I can, Dodd has already been on the air in New Hampshire, and simply has not seen the same upward movement from his advertising that Richardson did.  In other words, I don't think Dodd has any traction, and I don't think I would change that. Second, as far as Kucinich goes, basically I am in agreement with what Markos wrote back in February, except for the part about Kucinich refusing to sell the local power company.

  6. Rove Had Nothing To Do With Kerry Being the Nominee
    There has been a lot of buzz about a recent LA Times article that claims Karl Rove and Matthew Dowd masterminded John Kerry's rise to the Democratic nomination in 2004. Apparently, the theory is that Rove and Dowd used reverse psychology on the Democratic base, by attacking the candidate they feared less, Kerry, in order to drive the Democratic base to Kerry instead of Edwards. Here is my simply response to this: What-fucking-ever. The idea that this played any role in Kerry becoming the Democratic nominee is absurd. As Pollster.com shows, that ship had already sailed by "late January" when supposedly rove and Dowd began messing with our feeble minds:

    So, when exactly did the great wave of effectively anti-Kerry attacks from the Bush campaign start? Was it during the week after the Iowa caucuses when Dean was facing character assassination over the "scream," and when Kerry was riding a huge wave of post-Iowa momentum after that win? If it wasn't during that one week, then it didn't matter, as that was when all of the meaningful movement in national polls took place (Kerry went up 30, and Dean went down 15). In fact, if it was during that week, it didn't matter either, because the only news stories that week were about Kerry's victory and Dean's scream. The idea that Karl Rove had any impact on this is nonsense, as is the idea that they are having any impact on the 2008 Democratic nomination campaign.

This is an open thread on elections.

Chris Bowers :: Monday Evening Election Round-Up

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Rove, Kerry and Clinton (0.00 / 0)
I don't get the revisionist Kerry-Rove two-step either.  Rove decided to attack Kerry based on his military service when he saw at the Dem Convention that he would run so heavily on that.  Rightly recognizing that as a weakness for Bush, he tried to bring Kerry low thereafter via the Bob Perry-financed Swift Boat ads.  Kerry stayed there, deciding he didn't need to fight back; even he might see he was wrong now.  But no matter...

It is without question, though, that in this presidential election only Hillary Clinton has the capacity to rally the bat-shit, right-wing base into rabid agitation.  Their own candidates can't do it as well; so really, the Reps only chance at a close election is with HRC as the Dem nominee.


Open thread ... ? (0.00 / 0)
I recognize, and respect, that this site is actual hands-on players, insiders with inside insights.  Not diminishing that.

Then there's a wide world outside here.

This item is symptomatic of how unsettled any 'cinch lock' position is today, regardless how and where it's 'leading in the polls.' I think that site gets more hits than this, and messages there reflect wider consensus than here.  Moreover, the tone of 'that' item carries something more authentic than is felt in serious 'war gaming' messages by handlers, consultants, strategizers, albeit boots-on-the-ground, here.

'They' say Kucinich won the 'viewer phone-in' poll, related to the 'debate,' which was 'last night.'  I don't know any of this, nor what any of it means.  But just the words '... Kucinich won... ' is going to ripple in wide circles.

Yeah, I like Kucinich, I'm biased.  I talked to him, but better yet, he talked to me, and none of the 'others' have, and that matters.  I prefer to vote for Gravel, else Kucinich, else count me out, y'all have yourselves a good one.

Chris, you put that you can't 'come to Kucinich' because 'Markos wrote in February yadda yadda.'  I didn't even bother to follow the link.  Two words:  Markos, February (ancient history).  Since then, there's a wide world outside ... things happen in it ... Markos is not happening.

---
Second point, same as the first:  Something is happening, here.  Something is going down.  I think I see mainly MainSuck Media is going down.  What does the 'horserace' look like if TV goes black? -- as in, discredited.  morally bankrupt.  actually bankrupt.  Like, overnight.

I don't know.  I'm a simple guy.  I have friends in far flung states and a cell phone bill to prove it, (friggin Hartmann cost me 45 minutes on hold today, before I said my two cents, but apparently it was, too, bright sense, because he turned on a dime and reversed himself from his preceding 20-minute monologue -- 'don't vote for that;' 'yeah, do vote for that').  I have ears and eyes and a sense that it ain't gonna be then, like it looks like it is gonna be now.

Here's my 'hunches.'  Hillary is for women.  Obama is for minorities.  Edwards is for southerners.  Mutually assured destruction happens, a MAD simultaneous three-way knockout, all fall down.

This latest thing -- 'pssst! Rove is helping Hillary' -- that's quite the dicey.  This whole slate of contenders is a herd of cats.  Just saying, when all else fails, there's Kucinich. 

Which is kinda the downspout you see your thoughts on a rainy Monday night run to in Item 5.  Except that Markos said Kucinich is NOT there.  So, who you gonna believe: Markos, or your lying eyes?  (that's a Groucho Marx riff)


What? (0.00 / 0)
This is the strangest logic I've seen in a while. 

And, if yo're so passionate about Kucinich, perhaps you should actually read the arguments cited rather than say gibberish about their source.


[ Parent ]
yep... it's a content free post (0.00 / 0)
The arguments Markos makes are bs but I haven't even bothered to read them to know what they are...  I just "know" they are bs.

[ Parent ]
"not for profit health care" (0.00 / 0)
Bless Denny K for putting that on the table.

I was discussing this with my neanderthal right father & when he balked at this "socialism" I blew his mind with, so you are against a not for profit military, I thought you would support our troops?...

Anyways, Denny K. brings some good things to the table. 
I read Kos's diary back in February.  Any of these candidates can be ripped.  Denny K is superior to HRC & JE simply by virtue of not being responsible for the GIANT QUAGMIRE in IRAQ.  & He has much more experience than BO.

Best of all Denny K. is articulating a clear position on health care that voters can then vote for, rather than personality & "trust me"

Denny K.'s positions are those of the people:
http://flprogressive...

I have no quarrel with a Dem supporting another candidate.
I'm not 100% for Denny K. myself, but we should all  acknowledge that Denny K is contributing something substantial. 

If only a more "electable" candidate would adopt more of his *popular* positions.


[ Parent ]
Will HRC represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party? (0.00 / 0)
This is the story of today.  Clinton in her speech today before the VFW stated:

"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war; we have to be preparing to fight the new war."

Is this the voice of someone that is going to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq? 

Clinton, Biden, Obama and Edwards aren't confident enough in their judgment to stand up to the military and political establishment on Iraq or lack the foreign policy expertise to order a complete withdrawal should they get elected.  We saw this at the debate in Iowa.  They'll keep forces in Iraq for years to come. 

What difference then will there be on the most important issue of the campaign between the Democratic and Republican Presidential nominees? 

The path out of Iraq for the Senators will be a long march spread over years.  That will be true as well with any Republican Presidential nominee.

With Richardson, our forces will be out - completely - by the end of 2009, which is one of the reasons I'm supporting him.  William M. Arkin who writes on National and Homeland Security for the Washington Post recently commented:

Clinton made it clear once again that she is a realist and a Washington fixture, demurring on the question of a "world free of nuclear weapons," a notable departure from the other candidates. Clinton supports a "global effort to reduce the terrible dangers of nuclear weapons," but she stops short of rhetorically committing herself to disarmament, preferring "sensible near-term steps."

. . .

It is on Iraq though, that Richardson really shines. "I believe that we need to withdraw all of our troops within six months," he writes. "Other than the customary Marine contingent at the embassy, I would not leave anyone behind. And if the embassy isn't safe, they're coming home too. No airbases. No troops in the Green Zone. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, because we know what that means. It means our troops would still be out on patrol -- with targets on their backs."

We are spending $10 billion a month on Iraq, Richardson says. "Of the many ways in which Mr. Bush's ill-conceived war has distracted us from our real national security needs, this is the most dangerous," he concludes. "There is not a single sign that Iraq is improving. To the contrary, every indication is that it's getting worse, and a smaller force will do nothing to change that."

And so Bill Richardson says something that the other candidates evidently can't or won't: "A regional crisis is worthy of military intervention. A true threat to our country's security is worthy of war. But a struggle between a country's warring factions, where both sides hate the United States, is not worthy of one more lost American life."

Source:  http://blog.washingt...


Re: Rove Had Nothing To Do With Kerry Being the Nominee (0.00 / 0)
I appreciate this analysis based upon contemporary performance.

I'm also getting weary of all this analysis of Turd's fakes, double-head-fakes and triple-crosses.

Of course, Turd is an amoral gasbag. But enough of all the careful analysis of what it says that Rove is bad-mouthing Hillary but leaving Barack alone. The current situation is nothing like 2004. Now, it's a question of gauging Hillary's upsides and downsides: she's both a formidable campaigner and has liabilities. In 2004, Kerry's years in the Senate would have made for easy pickings for the opposition in any case, and his weaknesses as a candidate didn't do much to overcome that.

(I recall my now-boss, an astute political consultant with a quarter century of experience, called me the day Kerry won the nomination and said, We just lost the election. He of course knew nothing about the eventual Swift Boat attacks to come, but knew enough to have looked at Kerry and seen the worst possible candidate.)

Whether in fact Democratic strategists (or citizens choosing which candidate to back) actually knew who Republicans feared and whom they were gleefully anticipating running against was and is irrelevant. Simply said, Democrats should have known that Edwards was the stronger candidate to run against Bush.

(more - to shamelessly pimp):
http://vernonlee.blo...

The plural of anecdote is not data.


more complicated (0.00 / 0)
The idea that this played any role in Kerry becoming the Democratic nominee is absurd. As Pollster.com shows, that ship had already sailed by "late January" when supposedly rove and Dowd began messing with our feeble minds.

I would encourage you to read what Dowd said, not the interpretation of what Rove did, concerning this event. It's much simpler, that in attacking Kerry, they solidified (not choose) him as the nominee; for instance, the Democratic establishment came to his defense (which the Kerry machine probably encouraged).


Obama's Decision (0.00 / 0)
If I were an Obama supporter, I'm not sure I'd be happy about his decision to forgo debates. Debates get a lot of attention (relatively), and he's essentially handed Hillary and Edwards the chance to have that attention all to themselves.

Maybe Obama believes his absence will make the media disinclined to cover the debates as much, but this is probably a miscalculation, and certainly not a risk worth taking.

Was showing up at a debate every couple of weeks or whatever really that onerous for Obama? I don't see what he has to gain by skipping them.


character assassination of Dean - remix (0.00 / 0)
Am I wrong to believe thatthe same forces that executed the character assassination of Dean are the same forces that Rove works for? 

I find that Dean character assassination particularly scary.  I see no evidence that those same forces aren't strongly influencing the works today.

After all, Conventional Wisdom tells us that we will get two pro-Iraq invasion/occupation nominees in a country that is by a large majority  against an extended continuation of the occupation.


Kucinich (4.00 / 1)
Chris,
  Your comments on Dennis Kucinich are extremely disappointing, especially given your labor plus antiwar roots.  What's worse, very little of what Markos said back in February was true--indeed, he was challenged in the extremely long thread on almost every point, but never changed one thing he wrote.
  That piece was a hit job.  For you to endorse it, six months later, makes me wonder if you even read it closely, and certainly makes me wonder if you read the thread.
  If you want a point-by-point, I'd be glad to give it to you, because I've known Dennis for 30 years, and except for today, think you're one of the most insightful bloggers anywhere.
  If you don't want to support Kucinich because you don't think he can win, that's one thing.  To join Markos in distorting his record, that's just disrespectful to the only clear, outspoken antiwar, pro-labor, single-payer, anti-Patriot Act, pro-impeachment candidate running.
  Steve

What are the candidates' positions on ABC News -- Pro? Con? Noncommittal? (0.00 / 0)
Here's a small item, fyi, Chris, if you have time to look here. ABC News Reposts Poll Because Kucinich Won, August 20, 2007 -- Earlier today ABC News posted a poll asking who won the democratic debate and Kucinich won by over 3,000 votes. Just recently they reposted the poll to bury the previous one and cut his picture out on top of that! ...

To my way of thinking, ABC cannot defile itself further than this, and this is irredeemable, no matter what consequently happens.

Whereas, every candidate On That Stage, makes or breaks his or her candidacy on the campaign's position regarding, and response to, this action by ABC.


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search