I've been generally disappointed with the overall quality of local news coverage via newspapers, radio, and TV of Presidential race topics, but this article from the P-I really takes the cake for amateur analysis. Equating number of donors to projected caucus results is a ridiculous metric.
I'd be more upset, but the P-I's Strange Bedfellows blog recently had another such amateurish attempt at reading the political tea leaves while trying to explain Rudy Giuliani's failed campaign. The blog entry in question theorizes that Giuliani should have spent more time talking about his accomplishments in New York.
Well, except he actually spent too much time talking about the in-the-weeds details of his Mayorship rather than an agenda for how he would serve the American people as President. I said as much, as did Giuliani's fellow New Yorkers Rich Lowry and Patrick Ruffini. Giuliani's campaign failed for a lot of reasons. Not talking enough about his record in New York wasn't one of them.
Depressing.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 03, 2008 10:08 PM | Email ThisToo bad.
Posted by: Snuffy on February 3, 2008 11:11 PMI think it'll be close..a FG or so
Posted by Duffman at February 2, 2008 12:09 PM
...and I'm just as good at handicapping the race for POTUS :)
In the writer's defense, and it isn't much of a defense, caucus results are more affected by local organization than primary results. That much is true. And the best indicator of local organizational strength is often donations. There are exceptions. But with all due respect to Congressman Paul (and Mr. Guthrie), anyone suggesting that his high fundraising makes him a viable candidate to win in Washington is engaging in magical thinking.
Polling is, and will probably always be, the most accurate conventional method of predicting election results.
As an aside, I've heard from the local Pirece County Democratic organization that nearly all of the rank-and-file are behind Obama. Apparently Gravel is performing better than Clinton. I tend to think that Pierce is a Clinton-leaning county, but maybe that means something. Probably not, but maybe.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 4, 2008 10:13 AMOh yeah, I've got it right here: "somebody who is regarded as willing to set aside principles or personal integrity in order to obtain something, usually for selfish motives?"
Does it bother you that your silly idiot lost the election on Super Sunday, with her politically moronic "wage-garnish for health care" garbage? And do all of her lies about a fake "35 years of public service" even give you a moment's pause?
Of course not. Why do I even ask.... because lies like that, and garnishing someone else's wages for something they don't need or want doesn't bother anyone on the fringe left.
So, my advice to Don of yesterday equally applies to you in the reverse: stick to football, because you don't know diddly about politics, even though you've seemed to become a legend in your own mind.
Posted by: Hinton on February 4, 2008 10:50 AMRepubicans are not a bunch of right-wing, bible toting yahoos that you seem to favor. They are aristocrats in the first meaning...a rule of the "best".
Posted by: John Bailo on February 4, 2008 10:54 AMLet's see, Senator McCain is the best "Republican" at conspiring with liberal Democrat Russ Feingold to effectively circumvent Americans' consititutional first amendment rights. Indeed he is also best at combining efforts with leftist Ted Kennedy in a failed effort to grant tacit amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. And don't forget his alliance with Algore in the radical environmentalists' global warming scam. Gee, if that's "Republican" enough for you, John, who are we to argue?
Posted by: Saltherring on February 4, 2008 11:24 AM
Try, NOT!!.... Look who is working for and backing Mc lame. (Mexico supporters)
Frankly, having grown up in "the church" whenever I hear a politician or businessperson use religion as a reason to trust them, I guard my wallet.
That said, I can't help but notice that the dems do their fair share of barnstorming the churches - especially the black churches of the south - and more than once Clinton and spouse have done the photo op exiting church on a Sunday AM bible in hand.
How about considering what would happen to the war on Islamofasicism or the makeup of the Supreme Court if Obama or Clinton were elected ? I trust Sen. McCain as being more of a fiscal conservative than Bush. I do not agree on the McCain-Feingold Bill nor illegal amnesty (for those who may think I am too liberal).
Posted by: KS on February 4, 2008 08:56 PMIf you and other dim-witted, unprincipled fools choose to vote for Democrats masquerading as Republicans, then do so. But how dare you tell anyone to shut their "piehole" for expressing an opinion contrary to yours. You and your Senator McCain seem to have much in common in that respect.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 4, 2008 09:18 PMThe Republican candidate needs to be held to principles as much as possible. How dare you call me unprincipled ! Why do you think we are in this predicament ? (hint: the current President has alot to do with it)
I will gladly vote for Mitt Romney, but will hold the line against nutcase collaborator John McCain. If the agenda-driven MSM and idiotic primary voters dump McCain in our laps, I will abstain come November.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 5, 2008 07:24 AM