For obvious reasons we spend much of our time here talking about the GOP rather than Democratic race for President, but I have to say I increasingly think Barack Obama might grind this race out.
Let's be honest, the more Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters hear his message the better he does. That's not an infallible rule, but it's a reliable trend.
Thus, Obama benefits from the Democratic Party's structure that strictly apportions delegates to the national convention on a proportional basis rather than the winner-take-all by state or Congressional district that the GOP has allowed states to implement at their discretion (which is a topic for another post since it could well be a key factor in a McCain nomination). If Barack Obama finishes a close 2nd in every Super Tuesday state he'll still right in the hunt. He, however, will likely win more than just Illinois that day. On February 6th the Democratic race is likely to be very close either way.
Following that, Washington's caucuses (which on the Democratic side allocate all that party's delegates) set up well for him on the 9th. Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC on the 12th likewise look promising with heavy pockets of African-Americans and a healthy batch of affluent suburbs too.
I haven't followed the Democratic race nearly as closely as the Republican contest, but it seems increasingly clear that slowly but surely Obama is overtaking Clinton on a national level. Given that proportional delegate structure it will take him some time to fully sow up a victory if the trend holds, but it sure looks like it will happen...eventually.
Part of why that's happening is the fact he's an uncommonly gifted speaker, both giving a prepared speech and on the stump. He reaches rhetorical heights most politicians can only dream of attaining.
The exit of the Clintons from the national political stage would be nice. But the reasons for Obama's steady rise should give Republicans pause for November.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 03, 2008 01:33 PM | Email ThisAt some point in this process, the details will do him in. The fact is that he's an empty suit with no experience, no accomplishments and contrary to Kerry's blather, he isn't any JFK or FDR.
In the end, the devil is in the details... and somebody in Clintonville will make the right adjustments and take him out.
Posted by: Hinton on February 3, 2008 02:05 PMBut those of you who are Iraq war hawks should probably prefer Hillary. Anne Coulter even endorsed Hillary in the event that McCain wins. She thinks that Hillary is tougher on the never-ending war on terror.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 3, 2008 02:43 PMWasn't Samuel Adams the fellow who didn't attend the convention to amend the Articles of Confederation because he "smelled a rat?" For him, the Constitution was a major usurpation of power, and a betrayal of the principles of the revolution.
I'd say he was even more libertarian than I am! :)
By the way, Sam Adams' war was as an underdog against the greatest imperial power of the day (Great Britain.) I wonder, would he be starting a revolution against the US federal government were he alive today? I doubt he would think that radical Islam was a greater threat to our Liberty than the USA PATRIOT Act, or the Military Commissions Act passed by our own government.
But a lot of people in the US today are happy to "lick the hand that feeds them."
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 3, 2008 04:17 PMRadical Islam Bruce. Easy one. Oh wait, going to start a Ron Paul blog-a-thon. Never mind.
Posted by: pbs7mm on February 3, 2008 04:49 PMYou forgot to include Romney and Huckabee in your list of potential candidates that will continue us on the path to a deep deep recession. They all want to continue the massive spending the GOP congress and President gave us, continue funding the war in far off lands, and increase the role of government, and most importantly they all think that we can just keep printing money and everything will be okay.
Let me ask you... Do you think it is acceptable for the federal government to spend money it does not have? Do you think it is acceptable for our government to print as much money as it wants?
Posted by: Lysander on February 3, 2008 05:12 PMLet me see Mr. strict constitutionalist....yes, both are specifically allowed in the US Constitution under Article I section 8 - do you think they don't have that power?
Let's have another Boston Tea Party! I think Sam would approve.
And Doug @ 12, you can take that position if you like, but then you are no longer a fiscal conservative. The dearth of fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party is what is alienating libertarians like me, and a lot of the mainstream as well, and it is costing you elections.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 3, 2008 07:44 PMHere is proof in a press release @
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
February 3, 2008 11:45 am EST
Q4 FEC Reports: Ron Paul Receives More Military Donations Than All Other Republicans Combined
Total military donations nearly as much as the total of all other remaining candidates - Republican and Democrat
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - According to newly released FEC reports, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has received more military donations than the other three remaining Republican candidates combined.
"The latest numbers make it clear: the troops support Ron Paul," said Ron Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Dr. Paul has worked his entire career working for veterans, and has many awards and endorsements due to his dedication to their cause."
A search of the FEC database by employer reveals that Dr. Paul has received 1160 donations from military donors, nearly triple that of John McCain, and more than McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee combined.
Dr. Paul's total military donations of $249 thousand are almost as much as the $260 thousand of combined donations received by the other five remaining candidates.
Congressman Paul is no stranger to military support. Former president Ronald Reagan once said, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country!"
According to the FEC reports, these are the total number and amount of military donations for each of the presidential candidates*:
Ron Paul: 1160 $249k
John McCain: 438 $83k
Mike Huckabee: 126 $37k
Mitt Romney: 126 $24k
Barack Obama: 443 $76k
Hillary Clinton: 154 $41k
*Methodology: Searched FEC reports for occupation/employer contains: "Army" "Navy" "USN" "USAF" "Air Force" "Marine" "USMC" "Coast Guard" "USCG" then removed duplicates and non-military occupations (i.e. "marine repair")
Bruce again: I'd say if you really support the troops, you should want to bring them home. That is what THEY seem to want, after all.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 3, 2008 08:39 PMOf course. Who are democrats and liberals, anyway?
They're people who are generally ruled by their emotions and tend to make decisions based on the short term.
At any rate: An Obama or a Hillary! presidency is a disaster waiting to happen. Obama hasn't shown that he can decide his way out of a paper bag. And Hillary!? Geez, I've never seen a national politician so brittle in my entire life.
Both of them would be absolute disasters for the economy as well.
Posted by: Steve in Queen Anne on February 3, 2008 10:30 PMBut I think she will be the Dem nominee. Just wait until the Clinton attack machine goes in to high gear.
1. Deep Recession: If we have one it will be here way before the next President. Whoever the next President is, they will get the glory of pulling us out, irrespective of anything they may have done. You have to understand economic cycles. The recession if it comes will be the results of the current housing/sub-prime problem and the slowing of the current economy due to the drain of the war on the economy. Other than the 70's the economy has rebounded after wars.
2. Ann Coulter: You mean people still actually listen to here. I thought Fox just puts her on for entertainment purposes. It makes Hannity seam like a mainstream or liberal when Coulter is spouting off. Why did Geraldo ever bring her to national spot light (during OJ trials)?
3. Obama's Lack of Experience: This I have to laugh at, as if GW had a lot of experience. The fact that he hasn't been in Washington long should be a plus. OBTW, if you actually checked out his Illinois career, community organization career, and teaching of constitutional law, you may realize that he has definately as much experience has Hillary (who claims all 8 years of Bill's Whitehouse as experience). Of course, McCain can claim the upper hand on legislative experience (and military experience), and Romney on running a business experience. It will give the voters a choice in what type of experience they are looking for. Besides, Obama, isn't scared with the 60's in-fighting and who became voting age under Reagon, has a different viewpoint on the world. The Democrats may not like it, but like myself, given I am the same age as Barack, we see the view on what it can be instead of refighting the Vietnam war forever (thanks to Reagon).
Posted by: tc on February 4, 2008 07:53 AMTC what in the heck are you talking about.
Vietnam? Give me a break dude. Dumb parallel.
Posted by: pbs7mm on February 4, 2008 11:41 AMI don't see the tax stimulus helping much, I plan on banking it rather than spending it. Personally, I am waiting for Bush to bring back Nixon's price controls.
2. Ann Coulter
She is irrelevant....will say anything with shock value to keep her face on the talk show circuit. If she had any factual opinions people would just ignore her.
Obama's Lack of Experience
I agree with you on this one.
O-brother.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 4, 2008 12:29 PMPaul has 1160 military contributors out of a total of 2447 reported. In what parallel universe does this constitute overwhelming support by the military? Do you have any idea how many people there are in the military? I don't either, but I know it's well over a million. 1160 isn't a drop in the bucket. And Obama is second with 443. Do you really think the military sees Obama as the second best choice? More Paulbearers grasping at straws.
Posted by: deedub on February 4, 2008 01:01 PMIn college, it was Reagan, and the start of MTV. Album rock stations were king in the midwest. Politics was still civil (at least in the Midwest). There wasn't the school violence we see today, instead it was Ferris Buehler view of the world. The biggest threat to the nation was the Soviets.
This is the age that Barack came to be and that shaped his view of the world. It is very much post-Vietnam. Growing up in the same age (and same region), it is unconsciable that the parties don't work together. Government's job is to get things done, not waste money. All this infighting and right-versus-left fighting is a plain waste of taxpayer resources. If this is all they are going to do, then they should stop wasting time and come back to their districts to listen to what constituents have to say. Barack knows this. He isn't a permanent Washington residence. His family stayed in Chicago and he is only in DC for the minimal amount of time needed during the week (e.g., 4 days, instead of full time).
Posted by: tc on February 4, 2008 02:41 PMAnd you are right, 1,160 members of the military is a minority.
All I am saying is that active members of the military give more money to the Ron Paul campaign than to all other Republicans combined, and almost more than all other candidates D or R combined. That is true. You may conclude what you will from that.
Why do YOU think that Ron Paul gets more money from active military than any other candidate?
I suspect it is because a large proportion of the troops want to come home, or to bring their budies home. They no longer think that it is worth it for America to be in Iraq. Ron Paul is more likely than McCain, Romney, Hillary and Obama to bring them home quickly, so they send their money to him in higher numbers.
Make sense?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 4, 2008 03:17 PM" What truly confounds me are those cuckoos who would prefer to see such Socialists as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama win the election than to sully themselves by voting for a Republican who was only their second or third or even fourth choice. To them I say, before proving that you place your own ego gratification above what's best for America, keep in mind that most of the Supreme Court justices are in their 70s or even, in the case of John Paul Stewart, fast approaching 90. Do you really want one of those two Democrats stacking the Court for the foreseeable future? Presidents come and go, but justices go on seemingly forever. "
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 4, 2008 03:21 PMI recently upped my donations to Ron Paul to the McCain/Feingold limit of $2,300.
I want to give more, but McCain has now personally violated my rights to liberty, property and free speach by limiting how much I may contribute. Top this off with the fact that his campaign finance legislation had the effect of limiting contributions to a competitor of his, and I am doubly ticked off at him.
Since McCain has more name recognition, he can raise more money in small amounts from more people, whereas small-name competitors like Ron Paul depend more on big donations from fewer contributors. McCain knew this when he introduced McCain/Feingold. His purpose was to protect incumbents, especially himself, from challengers, as well as to gain votes from liberals who think that restricting money contributions from individuals is acceptable.
The fact that today, 99% of incumbent congressmen who run for re-election, win.
There are some third world countries that have more competitive elections than we do. Part of the reason is gerrymandering, part of the reason is the natural advantage of incumbancy, and part of the reason is abominations like McCain/Feingold.
The people have let the fox guard the henhouse. Power corrupts, and McCain is as corrupt as they come.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 4, 2008 03:26 PM"...those cuckoos who would prefer to see such Socialists as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama win the election than to sully themselves by voting for a Republican..."
This phrase contains a massive error in logic. It assumes that your, single, popular vote has any chance in heck of changing the outcome.
IT DOES NOT.
Voting is a personal matter. People vote to supprt the system, to do their duty as they perceive it, to make an act of free speech, to register their values...
but NOT to change the outcome. A single popular vote does not have the power to put Hillary Clinton in to the white house. The electoral college makes the call. I suggest you talk to the electors. There are few enough of them in a state that in a close election, in a state that does not divide it's electoral votes proportionately, one elector has some small chance of changing the outcome. But don't give me, the individual voter, that line. It is in error.
To hear "ego gratification" being denigrated by someone speaking under the nom-de-plume of Ragnar Danneskold just boils my cookies. Ayn Rand would be spinning in her grave.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 4, 2008 03:35 PMIn regard to the rest of your whine, I happily refer you to #151, #153, #156 and #157 under the thread "A home for Ron Paul Supporters?" (Updated)
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 4, 2008 03:45 PM"We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality." {Ayn Rand WMail Issue #48}
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 4, 2008 03:49 PM