American Presidential Candidates: Democratic v2

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

I may have read the stories wrong, but wasn't it more like $850,000 US that her campaign returned? He'd also raised a bit for the DLC (they also plan to return most of what he gave them).

I read something about how several of the contributors were less than affluent people - one man was a postal employee who made less than $75,000 a year and he gave close to $240,000 to the campaign. Weird, huh?

Yeah, weird. It sounds like Noe all over again, giving money to people to donate to political campaigns in their names, as a way around the limitations imposed by law. I'll be interested to see if he's convicted. Noe is in the Ohio State Penitentiary and still faces federal charges.

ETA:

Will someone please explain to me why Hillary Clinton has such a big lead in the polls for the Democratic nomination and then is polled to be in too-close-to-call presidential races against the leading Republican candidates - while Barack Obama trails her for the nomination but, if he is the candidate, beats the socks off all the Republican candidates? What's the point of her winning the nomination if she can't carry that win into the White House? And if Obama looks so good in the general election, why is he trailing her for the nomination?

[PLIMPY]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

Will someone please explain to me why Hillary Clinton has such a big lead in the polls for the Democratic nomination and then is polled to be in too-close-to-call presidential races against the leading Republican candidates - while Barack Obama trails her for the nomination but, if he is the candidate, beats the socks off all the Republican candidates? What's the point of her winning the nomination if she can't carry that win into the White House? And if Obama looks so good in the general election, why is he trailing her for the nomination?

As I'm sure you know (but for those who don't) the political affiliations of the people being polled for the two is different, I'm sure, with registered Democrats or likely Democratic primary voters being polled for the Democratic nomination question, and registered or likely voters being polled for the comparisons. Hillary has the greatest Democratic support, but also the greatest percentage of people who will never vote for her (at least among the Democratic front runners); Obama has less Democratic support, but he is better known than many of the other Democratic candidates (there is certainly a buzz about him) and is apparently favored over the Republican candidates individually.

As for why Hillary is being supported more by Democrats when she seems less likely than Obama to win the general election...I'm not sure. Probably also for reason you would think. I would guess, in part it is because there are people who still don't know much about him (and people feel like they know a lot about Hillary, whether they actually do or not), some people are worried about/question his experience, others don't like him because his middle name is Hussein or because he's black and for lots of Democrats, I'm sure it is just personal preference. They simply like Hillary better or think she would do a better job. Personally, my concerns about her have always been more about her electability than her abilities...(to be fair, my thoughts on Obama are similar in this regard)

I think lots of liberals/progressives/Democrats/whatever you want to call them are less willing to compromise on what they want in order to win the election (look at all of the Nadar voters) and are in some ways dismissive of the other side (and as a result tend to underestimate them). The left can be blinded by ideology on occasion and lots think that catering to elections is beneath them. I think lots of people are also so certain of a Democratic victory that they feel even less of a need to compromise their desires than usual...ultimately, I think just being in the lead also helps to keep her there in a lot of ways.

Originally Posted by monster_mom

I read something about how several of the contributors were less than affluent people - one man was a postal employee who made less than $75,000 a year and he gave close to $240,000 to the campaign. Weird, huh?

What am I missing? I feel like I'm missing a major FEC loophole... He is said to have given that much to the Hillary Clinton campaign? That is significantly more than is allowed to be given personally under campaign finance law. While they perhaps don't check out all of their fundraisers as throughly as they should, I would hope at least that her staff keeps track of such donations and makes sure that they remain within FEC guidelines. If he was bundling funds from other people I don't know that it is too surprising that the amount he gathered to donate was greater than his salary...

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

ETA:

Will someone please explain to me why Hillary Clinton has such a big lead in the polls for the Democratic nomination and then is polled to be in too-close-to-call presidential races against the leading Republican candidates - while Barack Obama trails her for the nomination but, if he is the candidate, beats the socks off all the Republican candidates? What's the point of her winning the nomination if she can't carry that win into the White House? And if Obama looks so good in the general election, why is he trailing her for the nomination?

I've wondered the same thing for many many months now. I know politics is what it is, but the fact that Obama seems to be a much more viable candidate but is trailing Clinton blows me away.

Originally Posted by PLIMPY

What am I missing? I feel like I'm missing a major FEC loophole... He is said to have given that much to the Hillary Clinton campaign? That is significantly more than is allowed to be given personally under campaign finance law. While they perhaps don't check out all of their fundraisers as throughly as they should, I would hope at least that her staff keeps track of such donations and makes sure that they remain within FEC guidelines. If he was bundling funds from other people I don't know that it is too surprising that the amount he gathered to donate was greater than his salary...

From what I understand Hsu was bundling donations from people primarily from Hong Kong and China and giving those bundled donations to the Clinton campaign and other Democratic causes. He has been raising money for these causes for several years. Among the listed donors are a number of families who are of modest means but whose donations were significant.

The Wall Street Journal reported that six or seven members of one family apparently gave contributions of about $213,000 in total over several years to the Clinton campaign and other Democratic causes, yet the family all list one small house at the end of a runway in LA as thier address. The home they live in is valued at around $270,000 and was owned by Hsu (and may still be owned by him). One child in the family was described as an employee of Hsu's.

This just seems very strange.

[purplehawk]

You know, they really do need to close all these stupid loopholes and come up with a campaign finance law that would be acceptable auditing standards.

It's too much of a temptation for some people... collect and bundle big bucks and have the prestige of access to the candidate. Maybe even be awarded an ambassadorship somewhere. Noe said at his trial that he was heavily leaned on by the Bush-Cheney national campaign operatives to come up with more cash.

[monster_mom]

I agree!!! I didn't even know there was such a thing as a bundler. The whole concept just seems smarmey (kind of like a door to door salesman for political campaigns)

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

I agree!!! I didn't even know there was such a thing as a bundler. The whole concept just seems smarmey (kind of like a door to door salesman for political campaigns)

I'm only three or four years ahead of you. If not for the Noe case, which occurred right here in my state, I still wouldn't know about them. The 527s are pretty horrific, too. So much is wrong about the way we finance presidential and congressional campaigns in this county - not least the fact that the deep pockets have far too much control over the process.

[monster_mom]

Word has it that Senator Clinton will be appearing on Fox's Sunday program with Chris Wallace. Former President Bill Clinton was interviewed by Wallace some time ago and I can't help but wonder how Senator Clinton's interview will differ from her husbands.

What are your thoughts on this?

[purplehawk]

Was that the interview in which Clinton had his hissy fit?

[monster_mom]

Yep. I know Wallace interviewed Senator Biden a while ago but thought Edwards was still boycotting all things FOX. There are times when Senator Clinton frightens me and times when I'm awed by how politically savvy she is. It just might be an interesting interview.

[purplehawk]

I think I'll tune in for a bit of it.

You know, Mom, I feel a lot like that where Mrs. Clinton is concerned. She's awesome, as you say, in political smarts, but she leaves me feeling so empty otherwise. There are times when the only recommendation that appeals to me in regards to her is the fact she's still married to Bill. This country could sure use another eight years of Bill Clinton, in whatever incarnation he is put to use.

[monster_mom]

I totally agree! There are times when I think WOW about her and times when I think she needs to get a grip. Sometimes she seems so courageous and other times she seems to shirk responsibility. The thing is, with Obama I'm pretty much always WOW! even when I don't necessarily agree with him.

[purplehawk]

Obama is the absolute best president we could ever hope for, if the desire is for us to pull together as one America and no longer be divided into red versus blue. I happen to consider that a crucial goal and not one of the other candidates from either party has a chance. Well, Hillary might if she listens to her best adviser.

[harryismyhero17]

I'm not american but i voted Hillary. I think that the USA needs a strong female comander in-chief. Her issues sound good (at least the ones ive heard, i havnt completely been following everything) and i think she has some good experience by watching her husband as president. And for sure, he will no doubt help her out if needed.

[Midnightsfire]

I've been reading up on Clinton's Health Care idea. (Have another link)

Almost identical to Edward's and Obama's plan. Almost.

[purplehawk]

She hit all five Sunday talk shows trying to capitalize on the favorable reception her plan has gotten.

Midnight, which plan do you prefer?

I'm one of the Obama supporters who is flummoxed by his failure to close his gap in the polls behind Clinton. He has raised the most money during the first two quarters, he draws mega-crowds at every appearance - yet Clinton has held a stranglehold on the top spot among Democratic candidates. People are continually asking "What's going on with the polls?". The linked article sheds some insight as to what Team Obama is trying to do to cut into her double-digit lead. Predictably, he has refused to attack her through Bill's eight years in the White House. I'm so glad! We'll get enough of the nasty tricks from the other side.

[Midnightsfire]

The difference between Clinton's plan and Edward's and Obama's is Edwards and Clinton both want to make the insurance plan mandatory for all citizens, much like auto insurance is for drivers, Obama wants to leave it optional for individuals.

I haven't seen any real details with Clinton's plan; only that insurance will be mandated. It doesn't mean it will be good insurance and that devil is in the details for which we have very few. if anything this could be a huge boon to the insurance industry. You might get a card in the mail and the provider might get a nice subsidy for doing so but when push comes to shove what are they really willing to offer you?

Another difference is that Hillary's system relies heavily upon the insurance companies behaving in a fair manner.

Handicapping the Democratic Presidential Hopefuls

[harryismyhero17]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

Another difference is that Hillary's system relies heavily upon the insurance companies behaving in a fair manner.

Ya, cause they always do eh?

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

I'm one of the Obama supporters who is flummoxed by his failure to close his gap in the polls behind Clinton. He has raised the most money during the first two quarters, he draws mega-crowds at every appearance - yet Clinton has held a stranglehold on the top spot among Democratic candidates.

The University-age crowd doesn't generally vote in large numbers. The youth vote is potentially powerful, but undermined by apathy or location. Which might explain why he draws such huge crowds, but has middling polling numbers compared to Hillary.

[monster_mom]

Did anyone catch the debates last night? What are your thoughts? Any clear winner / loser? What did you think about Edwards, Clinton, and Obama's responce to the question about when they would bring the troops home from Iraq?

--------------------
I only watched bits of it, but didn't notice a clear winner in those segments I was able to watch. I did watch the bit on Iraq and Iran (and whether Israel would be justified in attacking Iran should it learn that Iran has nuclear weapons).

I was a little disappointed in Obama because he seems so subdued, but then I heard this morning that he has a bad cold and was running a fever before the debate.

[Dark Emperor]

Yeah, I think I've had enough polarization to last me a life time from the Bush Era. Don't need Hilary to throw it in the opposite direction, thus Obama gets my vote (but only because Richardson doesn't stand a chance for Prez).

Assuming your fellow won, who would you have be his/her Vice prez?

Obama/Richardson 08' baby!!