Archive for the 'President' Category

In light of the post yesterday by Kos citing polling that shows that people are, in order, comfortable with voting for an African-American (84%), a woman (78%), a Mormon (58%), a 72 year old (43%), or someone married for the third time (54%), it's interesting to see whether people know which candidates fit in these categories.  

According to a new Diageo/Hotline poll,

When asked to select which category best describes a candidate's age, a majority of voters chose correctly for HRC, John Edwards and Giuliani. However, 41% believe McCain is 55-64. The senator is currently 71 years of age. Obama, 45, was also mistaken by 43% for being in the 35-44 range.

So only 43% of voters claim to being comfortable voting for a 72 year old.

John McCain is 71 70 - Hotline's mistake but no need to repeat it.  Only 59% of voters know this.  That's a (further) drop in popularity waiting to happen.

It also makes you wonder how many voters know about Giuliani's two previous marriages.  Whereas, rightwing slurs notwithstanding, few people are likely to be surprised by the news that Hillary Clinton is a woman.

Update: Ok, I missed how bad it was.  In comments, Adam B points out that it's worse than Hotline makes it look - only 26% of voters know McCain's over 65.

29.  Please tell me which of the following categories you think best describes John McCain's age. Please stop me when I read the right category. If you are not sure, just tell me and we'll move on.

   (READ CHOICES)
   TOTAL
   18-24: 0
   25-34: less than 1%
   35-44: 3%
   45-54: 11%
   55-64: 41%
   65-74: 24%
   75 +: 2%
   Don't know/Not sure: 18%

• Lieberman's acolytes in the Connecticut legislature seeks to regulate political blogging. The proposed legislation is so unconstitutional it's laughable, but can you expect anything less from the professional thugs and liars in the Lieberman crowd?

  Connecticut bloggers should target these officials in primaries. Every last one.

• The Philly Daily News polls 2008 general election matchips with Giuliani, Obama, Clinton, and McCain going up against each other. The verdict? Republicans win (PDF) all four matchups.
• The Politico let itself be used by Dan Gerstein to settle old political scores.
• Who knew that Keith Olbermann was killing Democracy?
• The Internet kills.
• James Cameron says he found the Jesus family grave.
• What was the first thing bought on eBay?
• NJ-Sen: With Lautenberg's numbers not looking great (as with the numbers for every single politician in New Jersey), let's encourage Republicans to sink a new round of millions into a state that they simply will not win.

Huckabee has failed to get any early traction in the presidential race, leading Republicans to push him into the Arkansas Senate race.

Arkansas is often listed among the top Republican pickup opportunities in the country, but Huckabee is the only Republican who matches up to Pryor and there are no comparable alternatives, observers say.

Although those close to Huckabee chalk up the Senate talk to overanxious bloggers and speculation, some see Huckabee-for-Senate as a real possibility and most Republicans make it clear they would welcome him home [...]

Even if Huckabee were to enter the Senate race, Republicans see the 10-year governor as an underdog. Despite his long tenure in state government’s top office, he was reelected with just 53 percent of the vote in 2002, which was less than Pryor’s 54 percent in a good year for Republicans nationally.

Huckabee is the only option Republicans have for a serious challenge to the popular freshman Democrat -- the only Democrat to pick up a Senate seat in the brutal pro-GOP 2002 mid-terms, and he did so by taking out an incumbent Republican.

From the Hotline blog:

For months, Clinton strategist James Carville has been telling anyone who would listen that he's convinced ex-VP Al Gore will run, Gore's deflections to the contrary.

Here's how we're translating Mr. Carville:

He might think Gore will actually run.

Also, the more Dems pay attention to Al Gore, the less they'll pay attention to Sen. Barack Obama.

The more there's talk of a Gore run, the more impetus there is for a Draft Gore movement, the more pressure Gore feels compelled to run, the more excited some Democrats become, about a Gore run, etc, the more they compare Gore and his resume to the rest of the field...

The Clinton people fear two things above all else -- the entry of Al Gore into the race, and the clear emergence of an "anti-Hillary" candidate.

There's no reason for them to do anything to prompt Gore's entry into the race. So they must be confident that Gore is solidly out of the race. That way, their little misdirection campaign can safely inject enough confusion into the race to keep Obama (or Edwards) from becoming that dominant anti-Clinton candidate.

Update: Atrios isn't the only one.

Apparently I'm the only person who is bothered by this, but it's probably inappropriate for "Clinton strategist" James Carville to maintain his pundit seat at CNN during the primary season.

David Yepsen, the dean of the Iowa political press, writes:

Tom Vilsack's withdrawl from the 2008 race for president is bad news [...] For those offering the most strident anti-war messages. (They also didn't go the distance for Howard Dean four years ago.) [...]

Vilsack's departure is also evidence a strong anti-war message isn't enough. Today, everybody wants out of Iraq and bashes the war. The question is finding a credible way to do it, and Democrats are having trouble agreeing on a plan.

Bullshit. Vilsack was never a credible anti-war voice. Someone who led the premier pro-war "Democratic" organization in the land (the DLC) had no credibility turning 180 degrees and trying to claim that "anti-war" mantle for himself. It was a sick joke, and few bought it.

Does Yepsen really think that Obama's Iraq message is materially different than Vilsack's used to be? The difference being that Obama has credibility on Iraq. Vilsack had none.

In reality, Vilsack's departure is bad news for 1) those without credibility on Iraq, and 2) for no-name obscure candidates easily overshadowed by the Democratic titans slugging it out at the top.

It says nothing about the anti-war message. And watch, by early 2008, even Hillary will have found religion on Iraq.

Just a reminder, spurred by this Atrios post:

Gallup. 2/9-11. Adults. MoE 3% (no trend lines)

[The media has] spent a lot of time discussing whether an African-American or a woman will have a hard time attracting votes. Meanwhile, opinion polls tell us that most people are fine with voting for people who fit those descriptions, but that people are less fine voting for an old guy, a twice-divorced guy, or a Mormon. The media coverage of these issues has been backwards relative to what the polls say. In decreasing order, people happy to vote for: black guy, chick, Mormon, twice-divorced guy, old guy. Judging by the news coverage you'd think the first three are the most troublesome for voters, when opinion polls tell us that it's actually the last two.