I wonder if this will help Bill Richardson--there are no longer other second-tier candidates to split the vote with, which the LA Times said hurt him in Iowa.
--Wyndam
Showing posts with label Chris Dodd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chris Dodd. Show all posts
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Biden, Dodd drop out
After poor showings in Iowa, Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have dropped out of the presidential race.
I wonder if this will help Bill Richardson--there are no longer other second-tier candidates to split the vote with, which the LA Times said hurt him in Iowa.
I wonder if this will help Bill Richardson--there are no longer other second-tier candidates to split the vote with, which the LA Times said hurt him in Iowa.
Sometimes, I lose faith in humanity
You can disagree with Governor Richardson on a number of issues. But his political experience is unparalleled. Hell, you can even believe that experience is a non-issue in the election. But the fact remains: Richardson has the most, and few others come close.That's why I was stunned when I saw the results of this CNN opinion poll from early December.
When asked who has the right experience to be president, respondents said:
When asked who has the right experience to be president, respondents said:
Clinton 55%
Obama 13%Edwards 11%
Biden 6%Richardson 5%
Dodd 2%I will generally refrain from cursing on this site, but are you fucking kidding me?
Let's go to the tape:
Clinton: First Lady of the United States (8 years), junior Senator from New York (6 years)
Obama: Illinois State Senator (a part-time job for 8 years), junior Senator from Illinois (3 years)
Edwards: Senator from North Carolina (6 years)
Biden: Senior Senator from Delaware (33 years, current chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee)
Dodd: Congressman from Connecticut (6 years), Senator from Connecticut (26 years)
And finally...
Richardson: State Department aide (2 years), Congressman from New Mexico (14 years), U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (1 year), U.S. Secretary of Energy (2 years), Governor of New Mexico (5 years).
Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson have the more experience than any of the other candidates yet the public believes that, combined, their experience matches that of Obama, who four years ago, was a professor!
This is infuriating.
--Wyndam
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
The role of Bill Richardson in Iowa
Believe it: Bill Richardson can, and probably will, decide who wins Iowa.
It is unlikely, at this stage, that Richardson will win the state--while that's obviously his goal, I think the campaign would be ecstatic with a third or second place finish. There may be just a candidate or two too many to leap to claim victory.
However, that doesn't mean he can't have a profound impact on who wins the state. Iowa has an unusual caucus system: in order to have their votes counted in one of Iowa's 1784 districts, a candidate must receive 15% or more of the vote. If a candidate does not get 15% of the vote, then his supporters are free to vote again for someone who does reach the 15% threshold.
This where the second-tier candidates can decide who wins each district--they can direct their voters to some other candidate. Voters, of course, are not obligated to follow such orders, but in the past, they have generally complied with their candidate's wishes. And, all of a sudden, a district can swing from one front runner to another.
Hypothetical example: Hillary Clinton received 31% of the vote in District A. Barack Obama got 35%. John Edwards has 18%. Obama has seemingly eeked out a close victory, but wait! Joe Biden, who received 11% of the vote, instructs his supporters to vote for Clinton. Some do, and Clinton ends up edging Obama by a few points.
Bill Richardson will receive 15% + of the vote in many districts, but certainly not all of them. As the leading second-tier candidate, he'll likely have the most voters to give in the districts where he doesn't reach the 15% margin. So, who will he direct his people to vote for?
Dennis Kucinich has already told his supporters to support Obama in the districts where Kucinich doesn't qualify. But Kucinich is a third-tier candidate, and unless the race is exceptionally tight, he doesn't figure to make much of a difference. The people who can change the tide of the election are Biden, Richardson and maybe Chris Dodd. Of that group, Richardson will have the most to give.
So what does he do? He's been a long political ally of the Clintons, despite his recent negative comments on Hillary, so does he send his people her way? It's also been rumored that Richardson is Clinton's top choice for Vice-President--would he give her his people as an act of good will to secure that nomination? Or, will he concentrate on becoming president, and thus send his voters toward Obama/Edwards in attempt to stop Clinton from winning Iowa and thus halt her momentum going into New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada, where she is leading? By doing the latter, he can create more parity at the top of the Democratic race, which leaves the door open to more high-finishes for Richardson.
No matter what he chooses, the Markos Zuniga, the founder of the Daily Kos, feels that "Richardson will get to play kingmaker."
Iraq is Richardson's main issue, and Edwards's views on the conflict come closest to matching Richardson's--Clinton's are far off. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
It is unlikely, at this stage, that Richardson will win the state--while that's obviously his goal, I think the campaign would be ecstatic with a third or second place finish. There may be just a candidate or two too many to leap to claim victory.
However, that doesn't mean he can't have a profound impact on who wins the state. Iowa has an unusual caucus system: in order to have their votes counted in one of Iowa's 1784 districts, a candidate must receive 15% or more of the vote. If a candidate does not get 15% of the vote, then his supporters are free to vote again for someone who does reach the 15% threshold.
This where the second-tier candidates can decide who wins each district--they can direct their voters to some other candidate. Voters, of course, are not obligated to follow such orders, but in the past, they have generally complied with their candidate's wishes. And, all of a sudden, a district can swing from one front runner to another.
Hypothetical example: Hillary Clinton received 31% of the vote in District A. Barack Obama got 35%. John Edwards has 18%. Obama has seemingly eeked out a close victory, but wait! Joe Biden, who received 11% of the vote, instructs his supporters to vote for Clinton. Some do, and Clinton ends up edging Obama by a few points.
Bill Richardson will receive 15% + of the vote in many districts, but certainly not all of them. As the leading second-tier candidate, he'll likely have the most voters to give in the districts where he doesn't reach the 15% margin. So, who will he direct his people to vote for?
Dennis Kucinich has already told his supporters to support Obama in the districts where Kucinich doesn't qualify. But Kucinich is a third-tier candidate, and unless the race is exceptionally tight, he doesn't figure to make much of a difference. The people who can change the tide of the election are Biden, Richardson and maybe Chris Dodd. Of that group, Richardson will have the most to give.
So what does he do? He's been a long political ally of the Clintons, despite his recent negative comments on Hillary, so does he send his people her way? It's also been rumored that Richardson is Clinton's top choice for Vice-President--would he give her his people as an act of good will to secure that nomination? Or, will he concentrate on becoming president, and thus send his voters toward Obama/Edwards in attempt to stop Clinton from winning Iowa and thus halt her momentum going into New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada, where she is leading? By doing the latter, he can create more parity at the top of the Democratic race, which leaves the door open to more high-finishes for Richardson.
No matter what he chooses, the Markos Zuniga, the founder of the Daily Kos, feels that "Richardson will get to play kingmaker."
Iraq is Richardson's main issue, and Edwards's views on the conflict come closest to matching Richardson's--Clinton's are far off. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
--Wyndam
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: The Daily Kos (different writer this time) agrees again re: Richardson's "kingmaker" status.
EDIT: The Daily Kos (different writer this time) agrees again re: Richardson's "kingmaker" status.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Richardson is shafted by the media; America pays the price
In most of my discussions with Alex, Mike and other Richardson supporters, the media coverage of the governor's campaign is inevitably mentioned. We feel that it is paltry, and that the mainstream media has made a point of shining the spotlight solely on the front runners and practically never on the so-called second-tier candidates. And when they do shed the rare light on these candidates, they treat it as a novelty piece--look at me, I'm writing about an unknown politician! (Example: Mark Steyn of the National Review recently wrote a piece on Richardson's Pakistan plan. He introduces Richardson as: "Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is apparently running for the Democratic presidential nomination...").
In the debates, Richardson and others of his ilk (Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, etc.) are shunned, as the key policy questions are aimed at Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Funny, since Richardson, Biden and Dodd are seasoned political veterans who have more experience in most fields individually than the "Big 3" have combined.
The media plays such a major role in elections and candidate visibility that anything less than ostensibly balanced coverage does a massive disservice to the American people--they are kept in the dark as the most qualified candidates go uncovered. Without decent attention, the race is essentially narrowed down to three candidates before the primaries even begin, since in the court of public opinion, only the three front runners, and a few "other" candidates exist. Richardson who?
But don't take my word for it: read this article by Brent Budowsky for the Huffington Post. He explains our displeasure.
In the debates, Richardson and others of his ilk (Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, etc.) are shunned, as the key policy questions are aimed at Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Funny, since Richardson, Biden and Dodd are seasoned political veterans who have more experience in most fields individually than the "Big 3" have combined.
The media plays such a major role in elections and candidate visibility that anything less than ostensibly balanced coverage does a massive disservice to the American people--they are kept in the dark as the most qualified candidates go uncovered. Without decent attention, the race is essentially narrowed down to three candidates before the primaries even begin, since in the court of public opinion, only the three front runners, and a few "other" candidates exist. Richardson who?
But don't take my word for it: read this article by Brent Budowsky for the Huffington Post. He explains our displeasure.
--Wyndam
Friday, December 28, 2007
What can be gained by a third place finish in Iowa?
David Yepsen wrote a piece yesterday for the Des Moines Register in which he examines the benefits and disadvantages of a third place finish in Iowa.
Yepsen opines that in the Democratic race, a third place finish would be bad. The top three candidates (Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton) are all within a point or two of each other, based off recent polls. Eventually, the primary race with narrow itself down, and no one wants to be left behind. A third place finish for Clinton or Obama, who are perceived as the two front runners in a more general sense, would weaken their chances in the later primaries against each other, and such a result would be particularly disasturous for Edwards because, as Yepsen writes, "He's already seen as a bit of a one-trick pony who has a great campaign in Iowa and little elsewhere."
But Yepsen says that for the Republicans, finishing in third place could be a good thing. Instead of a "Big 3," there is currently only a "Big 2," Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. Since both have double digit leads over the second-tier candidates, it's unlikely that either will finish third. That means that for Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani (who leads in general election polls), Ron Paul and John McCain, a third place finish solidifies them as the top candidate of the second-tier, and is a potential spring board to greater things in New Hampshire and further.
Yepsen describes Governor Richardson as such: "Polls also show there is so much distance between the top three and the bottom tier of Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd that their hopes for a third-place showing would seem to be dimming."
This is a perfectly valid statement: in the recent polls, Richardson is at 5% in Iowa, over 20% behind the three front runners. And he has dipped off in recent weeks, so much so that he is no longer the clear top-of-the-second tier candidate: Joe Biden has begun to catch up to him.
To hear Richardson describe it though, 40% of Iowa voters are undecided with many make up their minds in the last week before the caucus. He also has a history of defying huge poll deficits.
So, although we may think we know the governor's rank, the truth is, we have no idea. And while Richardson will of course aim for victory, it is not likely--even second place would take a small miracle. A third place finish, though, is not entirely out of the question. It's a (very) long shot--even I can admit that. But it's not as hopeless as Yepsen and the rest of his ilk make it out to be. And let's just say it does happen. What then?
Obviously, it can not be a negative for the governor, who has stated several times that third place (or higher) finishes in the early caucuses are necessary for a successful campaign over the long term. If Richardson could pull a third place finish, then Yepsen's scenario for the Democrats gets rewritten, and it would almost resemble that of the Republicans.
But I think such a finish for Richardson would have a greater effect than that. Whereas one of the second tier Republicans (Thompson, Giuliani, etc.) is expected to finish third, Richardson is not. The momentum gained by the Republican third-place finisher would likely come at the expense of other second tier candidates (read: not that much) and Romney and Huckabee, who are the front runners in New Hampshire and Michigan as well, would continue to reign supreme over the Republican primary.
But if Richardson finished third, he could potentially pull support from one of the three current Democratic front runners, since one would have to finish fourth in order for Richardson to do so--such a result would throw their campaign in shambles, and all but end it. The voters he could siphon from them would be of much greater quantity than the Republican third-place finisher could pull. Even Edwards, whose numbers drop off significantly after Iowa, would give Richardson a large contingency of voters. A Clinton or Obama debacle in Iowa would be the best possible result of the governor.
Of course, no matter who falls to let Richardson in, it is all but guaranteed that some of their supporters will go to the two remaining front runners. But by establishing himself as a legitimate alternative in Iowa, Bill Richardson has an excellent chance to win over more voters and gain the momentum he needs going into New Hampshire and beyond.
Yepsen opines that in the Democratic race, a third place finish would be bad. The top three candidates (Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton) are all within a point or two of each other, based off recent polls. Eventually, the primary race with narrow itself down, and no one wants to be left behind. A third place finish for Clinton or Obama, who are perceived as the two front runners in a more general sense, would weaken their chances in the later primaries against each other, and such a result would be particularly disasturous for Edwards because, as Yepsen writes, "He's already seen as a bit of a one-trick pony who has a great campaign in Iowa and little elsewhere."
But Yepsen says that for the Republicans, finishing in third place could be a good thing. Instead of a "Big 3," there is currently only a "Big 2," Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. Since both have double digit leads over the second-tier candidates, it's unlikely that either will finish third. That means that for Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani (who leads in general election polls), Ron Paul and John McCain, a third place finish solidifies them as the top candidate of the second-tier, and is a potential spring board to greater things in New Hampshire and further.
Yepsen describes Governor Richardson as such: "Polls also show there is so much distance between the top three and the bottom tier of Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd that their hopes for a third-place showing would seem to be dimming."
This is a perfectly valid statement: in the recent polls, Richardson is at 5% in Iowa, over 20% behind the three front runners. And he has dipped off in recent weeks, so much so that he is no longer the clear top-of-the-second tier candidate: Joe Biden has begun to catch up to him.
To hear Richardson describe it though, 40% of Iowa voters are undecided with many make up their minds in the last week before the caucus. He also has a history of defying huge poll deficits.
So, although we may think we know the governor's rank, the truth is, we have no idea. And while Richardson will of course aim for victory, it is not likely--even second place would take a small miracle. A third place finish, though, is not entirely out of the question. It's a (very) long shot--even I can admit that. But it's not as hopeless as Yepsen and the rest of his ilk make it out to be. And let's just say it does happen. What then?
Obviously, it can not be a negative for the governor, who has stated several times that third place (or higher) finishes in the early caucuses are necessary for a successful campaign over the long term. If Richardson could pull a third place finish, then Yepsen's scenario for the Democrats gets rewritten, and it would almost resemble that of the Republicans.
But I think such a finish for Richardson would have a greater effect than that. Whereas one of the second tier Republicans (Thompson, Giuliani, etc.) is expected to finish third, Richardson is not. The momentum gained by the Republican third-place finisher would likely come at the expense of other second tier candidates (read: not that much) and Romney and Huckabee, who are the front runners in New Hampshire and Michigan as well, would continue to reign supreme over the Republican primary.
But if Richardson finished third, he could potentially pull support from one of the three current Democratic front runners, since one would have to finish fourth in order for Richardson to do so--such a result would throw their campaign in shambles, and all but end it. The voters he could siphon from them would be of much greater quantity than the Republican third-place finisher could pull. Even Edwards, whose numbers drop off significantly after Iowa, would give Richardson a large contingency of voters. A Clinton or Obama debacle in Iowa would be the best possible result of the governor.
Of course, no matter who falls to let Richardson in, it is all but guaranteed that some of their supporters will go to the two remaining front runners. But by establishing himself as a legitimate alternative in Iowa, Bill Richardson has an excellent chance to win over more voters and gain the momentum he needs going into New Hampshire and beyond.
--Wyndam
Friday, December 14, 2007
Notes on the final Democratic debate before the Iowa caucus
I've read too much about "who won" each debate. Allow me to express my impressions of each candidate after what I watched the other night. Richardson was there, this time.
Biden: The guy has guts. He is pushing for a partition of Iraq, which may be our best policy option but is a tough sell. He's the only candidate who spoke honestly about how lost Iraq really is. He gets riled up when he sees injustice, and he speaks his mind when he disagrees with anyone. The man will not back down even from his friends. I worry that his passion may undermine his ability to work with a legislature.
Clinton: The line the press is making a big deal about really did hit me hard. She's all about the details – all about banging out policy after meeting with a bunch of people. But with her I still can't shake the feeling that she doesn't have a stronger conviction than simply wanting to do a good job at whichever job she does. That said, her push for healthcare back in the day showed plenty. In Clinton, I see a hard worker who's very willing to adapt to any political climate in order to be successful.
Dodd: His speech on his commitment to public service impressed me. His crisp explanations of the limitations on the President made good retorts to both Edwards' promises and Richardson's bragging. Also, Dodd is the only candidate who supports a carbon tax, which I find bold and admirable.
Edwards: All the Democrats were anti-trade, but Edwards took it to another level. He promised voters to fight all the bad guys, and this apparently has won him some support. I think his trade policies would undermine our economy's strength – for some reason, Edwards does not accept that we must lose some jobs in order to create new ones. But I do not doubt his conviction or his morals.
Obama: My favorite moment was the specificity with which he laid out his top priorities for the first year of his presidency. Right at the top of his list was reviewing, with his attorney general, every single executive order that W. Bush has made. The top is where that belongs. On foreign policy, he takes more flack than he deserves. Yet I was disappointed by his willingness to pander in regards to trade. Standing for change should mean more than standing with the Democratic Party's base on every issue.
Richardson: I usually laugh and hurt at how hard he has to try to smile, but this night was different. He's the only candidate, he finally showed, that's capable of not always taking himself seriously (and I'm not just talking about the weight joke). To me, his ability to subtly make fun of himself shows his confidence. His policy on Iraq is bold, clear, and unique among the candidates'. Energy (independence) and education (teacher pay) are his next highest priorities.
I wish with all my heart that Richardson hadn't pandered to all the anti-China guys, but no Democrat didn't. Richardson dwelled on human rights record longest, so of all things, I'll take that. I sure would have preferred he left out the currency "issue," but I can't have everything. We have real choices in front of us.
I think Joe Biden said it best: "This debate isn't about change or experience. It's about action."
You look at these guys and you tell me who's the most capable of taking meaningful positive action. I've made my choice, and I'm sticking with it. Bill Richardson for President.
Biden: The guy has guts. He is pushing for a partition of Iraq, which may be our best policy option but is a tough sell. He's the only candidate who spoke honestly about how lost Iraq really is. He gets riled up when he sees injustice, and he speaks his mind when he disagrees with anyone. The man will not back down even from his friends. I worry that his passion may undermine his ability to work with a legislature.
Clinton: The line the press is making a big deal about really did hit me hard. She's all about the details – all about banging out policy after meeting with a bunch of people. But with her I still can't shake the feeling that she doesn't have a stronger conviction than simply wanting to do a good job at whichever job she does. That said, her push for healthcare back in the day showed plenty. In Clinton, I see a hard worker who's very willing to adapt to any political climate in order to be successful.
Dodd: His speech on his commitment to public service impressed me. His crisp explanations of the limitations on the President made good retorts to both Edwards' promises and Richardson's bragging. Also, Dodd is the only candidate who supports a carbon tax, which I find bold and admirable.
Edwards: All the Democrats were anti-trade, but Edwards took it to another level. He promised voters to fight all the bad guys, and this apparently has won him some support. I think his trade policies would undermine our economy's strength – for some reason, Edwards does not accept that we must lose some jobs in order to create new ones. But I do not doubt his conviction or his morals.
Obama: My favorite moment was the specificity with which he laid out his top priorities for the first year of his presidency. Right at the top of his list was reviewing, with his attorney general, every single executive order that W. Bush has made. The top is where that belongs. On foreign policy, he takes more flack than he deserves. Yet I was disappointed by his willingness to pander in regards to trade. Standing for change should mean more than standing with the Democratic Party's base on every issue.
Richardson: I usually laugh and hurt at how hard he has to try to smile, but this night was different. He's the only candidate, he finally showed, that's capable of not always taking himself seriously (and I'm not just talking about the weight joke). To me, his ability to subtly make fun of himself shows his confidence. His policy on Iraq is bold, clear, and unique among the candidates'. Energy (independence) and education (teacher pay) are his next highest priorities.
I wish with all my heart that Richardson hadn't pandered to all the anti-China guys, but no Democrat didn't. Richardson dwelled on human rights record longest, so of all things, I'll take that. I sure would have preferred he left out the currency "issue," but I can't have everything. We have real choices in front of us.
I think Joe Biden said it best: "This debate isn't about change or experience. It's about action."
You look at these guys and you tell me who's the most capable of taking meaningful positive action. I've made my choice, and I'm sticking with it. Bill Richardson for President.
--Alex
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Democratic Rep. Dave Nagle, who is neutral in the presidential race, offered an intriguing theater review of the debate. "The second tier beat the first tier," Nagle said, boosting Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd...Richardson did deserve plaudits for what may have been his best debate performance of the long theatrical season...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
