home

On The Relevance of The Presidential Campaign Now

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:39:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Kos writes:

Being a blogger has been on-the-job training for me. I was obsessive about the presidential polls in 2003. Then, as you see above, they meant squat. Kerry had 9 percent heading into Iowa. He won the thing easily. I learned my lesson. These months are an opportunity for candidates to raise money, build organization, hone their message, and prep for the storm that'll hit them in September when they'll enter the stretch run of the race. At this point, the numbers mean little, and candidates have little incentive to lead the horse race.

You are correct sir. With a caveat. At Blogometer, Conn Carroll commented:

After noting that "current national polling of presidential preferences for 2008" show Hillary Clinton will likely be the nominee, Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat blogs: "Horserace blogging on the Presidential election may be fun, but it is completely nonserious and not based on anything. And it will continue to be so until about a couple of months before the Iowa caucuses." . . . Reading these posts (and many others), it appears that many in the netroots have resigned themselves to a Clinton presidency despite a clear understanding in the community that she does not share their policy position on Iraq. While they berate Dems in Congress While they berate Dems in Congress for not doing more to end the war, are the netroots doing enough to make sure the next WH occupant will? If now isn't the time to use netroots power to push an HRC alternative, when is? If the netroots waits til IA for a U.S. out-of-Iraq candidate to emerge, they just might have to wait til '12 before they have a real chance to affect policy again.

The time is now and, as I try to express on occasion, my only focus with regard to the Presidential race is how it can effect today's Iraq debate. I believe oin using the Presidential race to move issues now. As anyone can tell, the issue uppermost in my mind is Iraq.

So the relevance of the current goings on in the Presidential race relate not much to the horserace, but a whole lot on the issues, particularly Iraq.

< Who Is Digby? | Missing Emails and Casual Compliance With the Law >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    On The Relevance of The Presidential Campaign Now | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Interesting Statements (none / 0) (#1)
    by talex on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:57:44 PM EST
    While they berate Dems in Congress for not doing more to end the war, are the netroots doing enough to make sure the next WH occupant will?

    Just what can the netroots really do to affect who is the nominee besides vote? And at that we are a small fraction of the vote.

    John Edward's leads the Straw Poll at dkos which I think is pretty representative of the netroots as a whole. But he only carried 39% in the last poll. Obama carried 24%. So total between the two they carry 63%. I'm sure as time moves on they will carry and split all but the 6% that Clinton has.

    Which brings me to the point I have made over and over at dkos. If the netroots can do anything for their candidate to win then they must pick between either Obama or Edwards. Because if they don't then the netroots vote is split in the primaries and Clinton runs away with it. The only chance the netroots has is to consolidate their vote behind one or the other. Will that happen? Probably not because most netrooters are not sharp enough to figure out that is what they have to do - even when it is explained to them. As I said the netroots represents a small fraction of the Dem vote. so the only way to have an impact is through the consolidation of our vote.

    Howard Dean is a good example. He practically had the entire netroots vote - but still lost. So this cycle electing a netroots candidate is even going to be tougher with two netroots candidates. Yes one or both (Edwards & Obama) will get non-netroots votes. But so did Dean. The fact is that we are a minority vote in the Party. With one candidate we stand a chance. With two candidates we drastically reduce our chances.

    So the relevance of the current goings on in the Presidential race relate not much to the horse race, but a whole lot on the issues, particularly Iraq.

    Well it is good to see Armando come around to what I said weeks ago. This race is about more than Iraq and does include a whole lot of issues. He disagreed with that before. But given that the candidates are pretty close on their Iraq policies and that Clinton has done a good job of 'blurring' the minor differences the other issues have become more important.

    And in addition to the other issues what is as important in the minds of the voters, if not more important, is the quality of leadership and experience. And so far Clinton is blowing away both Edwards and Obama in that department. Take Edwards for example. His Iraq rhetoric in this race to get out of Iraq is the most aggressive of all three. But yet he is running a distant third in all but the Iowa poll. Same for Obama - he is behind also. Why? When asked in polls who they think has the most experience and leadership qualities Clinton's lead in those departments are even greater than her overall lead which shows that it is those qualities that are for the most part giving her her lead. Can either Obama or Edwards make that gap up