The NY Times tells us that Hillary and Obama are competing for Hispanic support but offers little else. From Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft comes a request for more:
Ok, let's talk about the issues. How are the two candidates different on issues of importance to this increasingly influential group of voters? Which one has proposed a policy for them to rally behind? Who's got the better track record?
We'll all be better off if we keep the discussion on that level.
Hmm, waddya mean, "we"? I am not miserable watching the hara-kiri Dems in actions. But this is not about me! On a particular point which deepley vexed the Hillary campaign, she and Edwards flip-flopped while Obama stood firm (sort of) in the face of overwhelming polls telling him to cut and run.
I refer of course to the question of whether illegal immigrants should be issued driver's licenses. Hillary was asked about this in a Democratic debate and drew gales of laughter by firmly planting herself on both sides of the issue, before tracking with Governor Spitzer and finally coming down on the side of pollsters and common political sense.
But Obama boldly Kept Hope Alive or at least, declined to deliver the full flip-flop, electing to filibuster the question when it was put to him in a subsequent debate.
If the Times wants to write about the attempt of the two candidates to appeal to Hispanics they ought to mention driver's licenses for illegals and give Obama props for his poll-defying, politically suicidal (but helpful with Hispanics!) pander. And Times editors are crafty enough that they ought to be able to do that while side-stepping their laughable coverage of the Spitzer debacle.
The Clintonistas have loosed the teachers against the casinoworkers in Nevada. Note the racial, and class, faultline there.
===========================
Posted by: kim | January 15, 2008 at 08:53 AM
We'll all be better off if we keep the discussion on that level.
ISTM the Dems are more than happy to talk about appealing to racial groups when the premise is that Democrats do and Republicans don't.
Posted by: MayBee | January 15, 2008 at 09:15 AM
So do Hispanics historically vote for blacks? Something tells me they don't.
Gee how many racial divides can we expose this election cycle. Let me count the ways!
Posted by: Janeo | January 15, 2008 at 09:33 AM
If Romney loses today, he should be able to show that it was crossover votes from the left which supported McCain. Grist for the smoke-filled mills.
============
Posted by: kim | January 15, 2008 at 09:40 AM
Oh, Clarice! Jay Cost is considering a brokered convention in the Northland.
============
Posted by: kim | January 15, 2008 at 09:41 AM
Kim,
Isn't that an outcome that effectively counters part two of the Alinsky strategy of isolate and attack? Even if the Odious Slattern (No, usted no puede!!) achieves part one of her plan, early ascension, part two is stymied until after the convention.
Given that she has so very, very little of a positive nature to recommend her and so very, very much in all those baggage cars behind her, I'd say that the Alinsky petard could blow her right out of the water.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 15, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Hablamos Espanol.
===========
Posted by: kim | January 15, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Wouldn't that be wonderful, Jane. And, yes, Rick, as we say in the Midwest, looks like the chickens are coming home to roost.
BTw since there is simply a sliver of difference in their positions, one could expect that the contest would be on personal dirt and gotchas.
Posted by: clarice | January 15, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Rick-
I was seeing coverage that the campaigns were walking back from the race rhetoric, but how all that plays out [and how long it lasts] is beyond me.Jay Cost has some really good posts up with some numbers regarding IA and NH. Interesting that the Red Witch trounced Hussein among Catholics in NH [and the data for IA was unavaiable].
Also great picture at your site.
Posted by: RichatUF | January 15, 2008 at 11:44 AM
It was the Catholics that put Bill in office.
The problems should be obvious.
Catholics don't want pain, disease, death, strokes, heart attacks, eyes or anything eles from Lucifer. Bill did enough for everybody.
Posted by: Evolved | January 15, 2008 at 11:51 AM
From RCP:
In a USA Today/Gallup national poll (Jan. 10-13, 1,598 LV, MoE +/- 3%) testing general election matchups between 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans, McCain came out undefeated.
Head-to-Head Results:
Clinton 51 - Huckabee 45
Clinton 47 - McCain 50
Obama 53 - Huckabee 43
Obama 45 - McCain 50
Posted by: Other Tom | January 15, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Rich,
Do you have any ideas as to why the NH Catholics would split that way?
The big problem that I see in the NH results (if La Bruja Roja can replicate them) is the 43/57 male/female split in turnout. The split in '04 was 48/52 in the general and and a 43/57 split is a whole 'nother ballgame wrt political strategy.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 15, 2008 at 01:05 PM
So today is Primary Day in Michigan, there is a democrat debate in Nevada at 9:00 PM EST(assuming MSNBC doesn't say "never mind if we have to have Kucinich") and the beginning of American Idol.
I can live without idol. Elliott are you around to blog the debate?
Posted by: Jane | January 15, 2008 at 01:18 PM
Rick-
Do you have any ideas as to why the NH Catholics would split that way?
I might be inclined to look if the Red Witch started a whisper campaign regarding Hussein's "faith"-lots of information to mine in that vein. If it were targeted at the ideologicals and the universities, a move such as that could travel the sub-surface without much, if any, coverage [a lot like the Clinton/Gore 96 campaign of using the Dole/Gingrich ads, but not airing them in the DC or NYC media market]. Something like that would need to be tightly focused and Penn could put something like that together with his polling and focus groups [push polling is also a possibility].
The turnout split blows me away, but again a focused whisper campaign targeting womens groups and issues is a possibility.
The data probably doesn't exist, but I'd be curious to see if the Red Witch's campaign really put the effort they said they did into IA [sort of like a rope-a-dope to let the Obama campaign hyper-inflate and take the media spotlight off her and shift it onto Obama].
Posted by: RichatUF | January 15, 2008 at 02:55 PM
Rich,
I would bet on a New England feminist social network that simply does not exist in the same manner in Iowa. Similiar to the Huckabee network but much stronger - in New England.
I'm betting on Romney by a surprising (+4%) margin today. The focus in MI has to be the economy and he has a definite edge in that regard.
Dem turnout is going to be rather amusing if it conforms to early reports. "I'll pass" appears to be the clear winner.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 15, 2008 at 05:47 PM
If Hillary survives the primary, her ability to turn out the squishy female vote will be everything. New Hampshire could be a strong predictor. This has been Rush's theory for awhile - that women who don't usually vote at all will turn out for her in droves and this will put her over the top.
But she'll turn off a lot of women during the campaign, too. The constant gender-baiting will get really tiresome and a lot more people will be tuned into it than are currently paying attention. And we'll likely see a male backlash as a result. So maybe it'll end up a wash.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 15, 2008 at 05:58 PM
I'm seeing that there are "exit polls" showing Romeny ahead, but it is early and polls are unreliable! So, I am trying not to get my hopes up.
I find it interesting McCain left town and went to SC. If he thought he was the winner, wouldn't he at least stick around to says "Thanks, Michigan?" Romney is the only one who stayed.
Posted by: centralcal | January 15, 2008 at 06:46 PM
Also, I streamed Rush's show at work today. Did any of you listen? KLO at the corner has some of the transcription, but the key graf was this:
Rush issued a warning about Huckabee and McCain: "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party, it's going to change it forever, be the end of it. A lot of people aren't going to vote. You watch.”
Posted by: centralcal | January 15, 2008 at 06:49 PM
Ummm... remember on 'Anybody but Hillary', there was a mention of a certain red witch painting a pentagram in the corner?
Did you see Hill's flag in NH?
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/Default.aspx?page=4
Posted by: Ali | January 15, 2008 at 06:57 PM
Re: New England women. A couple of weeks ago a NH woman who I know from on-line, who is in her 60's announced to me that George Bush has set up border patrols between the states in his own Gestapo way and had to be stopped. I asked her which states and she refused to reply. Since NH is about a half hour from any given border, I don't think she gets out much. She is a committed democrat and my guess voted "hillary".
Last week I ran into a MA teacher in her late 40's I would guess. She told me she could never forgive herself if she didn't vote for the "first woman president". I asked if she cared what kind of president she would make. She did not.
My 82 year old mother is a staunch Edwards supporter. The woman who raised me to believe I could be whatever I want to be as long as I worked hard enough likes the idea of "busting big corporations".
There you have New England women.
Posted by: Jane | January 15, 2008 at 07:05 PM
centralcal, you can read
"The Reagan era is over - NOT" at his site. This was up on Drudge this morning. It's interesting - he's taking Gingrich to task for claiming the Reagan era is over, and suspects Gingrich is behind the mushing down of some of the Republican candidates. Supposedly no Republican can get elected if he stands on Republican principles, and has to mush down to some centrist mushball just to get elected. I agree with Rush, I think this is wrong. I haven't donated to any candidate or the RNC for years because they are all turning into a bunch of mushball, touchy feely RINOs. At least until Thompson - the first one I have donated to in years.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | January 15, 2008 at 07:10 PM
Bill in AZ: I listened to it today as it happened. There was something in Newt's voice that was troubling. I have heard him speak a lot, and he is usually energetic and good humored, even when disagreeing. Today he sounded like the whole conversation with Rush was just really tiresome.
I'm with Rush, btw. Not all of Newt's grand ideas are so grand.
Posted by: centralcal | January 15, 2008 at 07:17 PM
si.... si puedo
your expatriot report from Mexico
it's hard to give a damn but I try
I think Romney is the best bet, I loathe the Huckster, McCain is too old and too loco, Rudy has a lot of baggage and he ducked a contest with the Shillary (I know, New York) so I will settle for Mitt, he's a good executive, squeaky clean, and likable. Yes he panders but they all do. If he wins nomination and appoints a good conservative for VP I will make the effort to vote.
PS love the racial splintering I'm seeing in the RATS
Posted by: windansea | January 15, 2008 at 07:38 PM
RUSH was really on a roll today and I agree about Newt's appearance. Here he is trying to sell his book and he couldn't stay through the commercial break. Odd.
Tom has opened up a new thread just for the debate. Thank You Tom!!!
Posted by: Ann | January 15, 2008 at 07:50 PM
Well the early prattle on Fox sounds like it was Romney's night. I certainly hope so. Apparently Hillary will eke out a win over "uncommitted". No one has committed to anything, but that's what it sounds like.
Posted by: Jane | January 15, 2008 at 08:00 PM
Well the early prattle on Fox sounds like it was Romney's night. I certainly hope so. Apparently Hillary will eke out a win over "uncommitted". No one has committed to anything, but that's what it sounds like.
Posted by: battery | December 30, 2008 at 02:50 AM
Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some flyff money
Posted by: sophy | January 06, 2009 at 10:34 PM