Archive for the 'Dem Primary' Category
May 6, 2008 at 7:08 PM by David Pleasant
Early exit polls from CBS:
Voting for the Opponent - The slugfest in the campaign is definitely taking a toll. Only 36 percent of Clinton voters in Indiana and 34 percent in North Carolina said they would be vote for Obama if Clinton does not win the nomination. Forty-one percent of Obama voters in Indiana and 44 percent in North Carolina would be satisfied if Clinton
Negative Attacks — 63% of Indiana voters and 67% of North Carolina voters thought Clinton attacked her opponent unfairly, while only 43% in Indiana and 40% in North Carolina thought that Obama unfairly attacked Clinton.
May 6, 2008 at 6:51 PM by David Pleasant
Exit Polling (MSNBC)
|
Most Important Issue
|
IN |
NC |
|
Economy
|
65%
|
60%
|
|
War in Iraq
|
19%
|
22%
|
Apr 30, 2008 at 8:08 PM by David Pleasant
Page Gardner, President of Women’s Votes, Women’s Voices and a Hillary Clinton supporter, issued a statement regarding their robocalls in NC and the 16-truckloads of mailers post offices in North Carolina were preparing to deliver.
"In an attempt to prevent further confusion surrounding our voter registration efforts prior to the North Carolina primary, Women’s Voices. Women Vote took the extra step of attempting to stop the remaining mail from being delivered to homes. In total, 20 postal trucks are carrying Women’s Voices. Women Vote registration applications. Four of the trucks have already delivered, but Women’s Voices. Women Vote is making every attempt to delay the delivery of the remaining sixteen trucks.
In regards to the questions from the Facing South blog post regarding robo-calls associated with our mailing, we offer this clarification:
“North Carolina is one of 24 states where we mailed a total of more than 3 million voter registration applications.
“Calls were made to mail recipients for whom we have working phone numbers to alert the household they would be receiving a voter registration form and encouraging them to register to vote. In advance of the mail, a letter was sent to Gary Bartlett in the North Carolina Board of Elections Office. A copy of the letter and a press release sent to North Carolina media announcing the registration effort is attached.
“We understand concerns have been raised about the source of phone calls placed by Women’s Voices, Women Vote. These calls were our sincere attempt to encourage voter registration for those not registered for the general election this fall. We understand North Carolina’s primary registration effort deadline was April 11. We apologize for any confusion our calls may have caused. Our intent and purpose was solely to call attention to the registration applications we hope will be completed and returned to the Board of Elections office making thousands more North Carolinians participants in one of the most important elections of our lifetimes.
Women’s Voices. Women Vote has been in contact with the North Carolina State Board of Elections to work together to resolve any confusion regarding our voter registration efforts.
Read the full statement.
Apr 30, 2008 at 7:22 PM by David Pleasant
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper says WVWV broke the law making all those “voter registration” robocalls and demanded the group cease and desist.
Attorney General Roy Cooper said Wednesday that the group, Women’s Voices, Women Vote, broke the state law that governs automated phone calls, or “robocalls.” No charges were filed, and Cooper’s office was seeking more information from the group.
Cooper’s statement is here (pdf).
ATTENTION NC VOTERS
To report any calls that you have made received, you can call toll free 1-877-5-NO-SCAM or fill out a complaint form available for downloading at www.ncdoj.gov.
Apr 30, 2008 at 4:05 PM by David Pleasant
(Update I and Update II below)
Robocalls organized by the D.C.-based non-profit organization, Women’s Voices Women’s Votes, have targeted African-American voters in North Carolina, and possibly 23 other states, in what has all the appearances of illegal vote suppression.
The NC State Board of Elections is investigating calls that African-American voters have received where the caller tells the voter they must complete and return a voter registration packet before the voter will be allowed to vote. This is a transcript of one version of the robocalls being made in the state (audio here):
"Hello, this is Lamont Williams. In the next few days, you will receive a voter registration packet in the mail. All you need to do is sign it, date it and return your application. Then you will be able to vote and make your voice heard. Please return the voter registration form when it arrives. Thank you."
It is worth noting that under North Carolina law, G.S § 163?275(17), it is a Class I felony to “…directly or indirectly, to misrepresent the law to the public through mass mailing or any other means of communication where the intent and the effect is to intimidate or discourage potential voters from exercising their lawful right to vote.”
Facing South has confirmed the non-profit is responsible for the robocalls made in North Carolina, and it may be part of a substantially larger operation spanning numerous states. (Emphasis added).
The D.C.-based nonprofit, led by well-connected Washington operatives, claims in a press release they sent to Facing South…that the North Carolina calls are part of a 24-state effort targeted at a list of 3 million voters, especially unmarried women. The robo-calls, which never mention Women’s Voices, are followed by mailings that include information on how to register to vote. They plan to mail some 276,000 packets in North Carolina alone.
But since last November, in at least 11 states nationwide, Women’s Voices — sometimes working through its Voter Participation Center project — has developed a checkered reputation, drawing rebukes from leading election officials and complaints from thousands of would-be voters as a result of their secretive tactics, deceptive mailings and calls, and penchant for skirting or violating the law.
With respect to Virginia and Ohio, Facing South reported (emphases in original):
[…] Voters in Virginia received calls with the same message before that state’s Feb. 12 primaries. . .
On February 8, WAMU reported:
"[...] The state board of elections says at least a dozen people in central and southern Virginia have received automated phone calls this week telling them to expect a voter registration packet in the mail. The residents say they were instructed by the caller to fill out the packets and mail them in."
Facing South has also learned that, last year, voters in Ohio received almost the exact same calls, using the same name of the supposed caller in North Carolina. In November 2007, a voter in Columbus, Ohio wrote in to the Buckeye State Blog with this eerily familiar story:
"I just got a weird robo-call that I suspect may be a form of voter suppression, albeit kinda braindead. From memory, a stentorian voice reminiscent of James Earl Jones says: ‘Hello. This is Lamont Williams. In a few days you should be getting a voter registration form in the mail. Please fill it out and return promptly and you will be able to vote. Thank you.’
"Since the election is Tuesday, the message is nonsensical. Also, I can’t find any information on this Lamont Williams. The caller ID was blocked (’unknown caller’)."
It would be extremely hard to argue that the calls in NC, VA, and OH are coincidental.
It is amazing that the non-profit confirmed they actually made the calls in North Carolina. And considering all the research Facing South has done that suspiciously parallels similar activities in Ohio, Virginia, Arizona, Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Florida, this could be a very big deal. Read more here.
Update: Sarah Johnson, a spokeswoman for Women’s Voices, Women’s Votes (WVWV), has also confirmed to TPM that the non-profit was responsible for the calls in North Carolina. Johnson said the calls were an "unfortunate mistake."
Update II 4:56 PM: The Virginia State Police investigated the robocalls in Virginia and found that WVWV was behind the calls there as well.
Apr 22, 2008 at 10:28 PM by Political Chase
Although Clinton is the projected winner, it doesn’t look like her margin of victory will be enough to make any noteworty change in the larger picture. Most of the areas around Philadelphia have not reported yet, and Obama was expected to win that area.
Of course, that will not be the spin you will be hearing from Team Clinton or the media. Team Clinton has already declared themselves the winner of everything — past, present, and future.
While Clinton may win the popular vote tonight (by an unknown amount), she may not win what is most important — delegates. At best, allocation of delegates will not be known until tomorrow.
In spite of Terry McAuliffe’s gleeful claims on MSNBC that popular votes will determine the nomination, Democratic rules, not Team Clinton’s, are applicable. Besides, I don’t know if Team Clinton really wants to go down that road. If they do, and are allowed to do so, caucus votes would have to be factored in some way.
Unfortunately, I cannot recall the source or the specific amount, but I distinctly remember a credible source saying an algorithm to convert caucus votes into popular votes had been developed (not party sanctioned yet). In summary, the mathematician had determined that adding caucus votes would give Obama a lead (before tonight) of approximately 1.5 - 2 million votes or more.
I believe Obama will continue focusing on trying to run Clinton out of money, and unless she is very successful with her forthcoming spin, it will be very easy.
Apr 22, 2008 at 9:23 PM by Political Chase
9:23 PM
Ohh god. I don’t think I can sit here and listen to all the lies coming out of the Clinton campaign.
Chris Matthews is squeezing McAuliffe on delegates vs. popular vote, but of course that doesn’t matter to Team Clinton. They won the Democratic nomination tonight to hear them tell it.
Clinton argument: Popular vote is more important than delegate vote and Hillary was just granted that by magic I suppose. All Democratic primary rules before tonight are meaningless. Team Clinton just wrote all the new rules.
9:18 PM
Well, it looks like Russert was right on one thing. Terry McAuliffe just said, “Hillary Clinton will move ahead in the popular vote.” How many truckloads of voters did McAuliffe take into PA today.
9:14 PM
Russert says Clinton is in to stay regardless of the margin and North Carolina is essential. He also doesn’t have a clue what the margin will be, but at least admits it. Says Clinton will go full throttle on the spin. Gives the impression that Clinton will treat as if Obama didn’t get a single vote.
9:08 PM
David Gregory and Pat Buchanan are just giddy with Clinton’s victory. She’s in this game now!!!!
These are the nim-wits that said Clinton had to have an overwhelming victory to stay in and now they’re beside themselves and haven’t a clue about how much she won by
And the number continues to drop.
| Clinton |
52% |
68,189 |
| Obama |
48% |
61,715 |
| Precincts - 6% |
|
|
9:03 PM
| Clinton |
53% |
61,200 |
| Obama |
47% |
53,925 |
| Precincts - 5% |
|
|
Fineman: Clinton started twisting the arms of superdelegates as soon as the networks called her the winner. Never mind the margin of victory.
8:55 PM
| |
Percent |
Votes |
Clinton
(NBC projected winner) |
60% |
21,680 |
| Obama |
40% |
14,517 |
| Precincts 1% |
|
|
More exit polling:
Honesty
Obama 68%
Clinton 56%
Economy
Clinton 74%
Obama 65%
8:45 PM
Listening to the infinite wisdom of Scarbrough.
Apr 22, 2008 at 8:37 PM by Political Chase
8:44 PM Going to a new post
8:39 PM
Clinton 64%
Obama 34%
0% reporting
8:37 PM
Fineman: Obama spent Clinton into oblivion…only a matter of time.
Still to close to call.
8:35 PM
Howard Fineman says the Obama strategy was to force Clinton to spend lots of money in Pennsylvania and it may have worked.”They’re out of bundlers, exhausted, and are reduced to online contributions. No more $2300 contributors left. They’re just tapped out.”
8:14 PM
Chris Matthews, Russert, Andrea Mitchell, Russert, et. al chit-chatting. Blah.
Olbermann wanting to know why the campaigns are being so quiet and not spinning. They’re not getting emails, etc.
Mitchell emphasized Team Clinton’s dire financial status.
Lots of cheering going on at Obama’s rally in Evansville, IN
Clinton white voters with under $50K - winning 2 to 1
8:04 PM - No surprise here. It’s too close to call.
Welcome.
It’s just after 8:00 PM ET. I’ll start out here and see where we go.
Apr 22, 2008 at 8:01 PM by Political Chase
Age
18 - 29 year-olds 10%
65+ years old 27%
Household Income
Under $50,000 - 45%
Over $50,000 — 55%
Urban vs. Rural
City — 27%
Suburbs — 52%
Rural — 21%
Education
No college degree 55%
College grad 45%
Race
White 80%
Black 14%
Hispanic ~4%
Apr 22, 2008 at 7:39 PM by Political Chase
Take these lightly. Exit polling has been largely unreliable this primary season.
From MSNBC:
New Voters by Region
35% - Philadelphia & Suburbs
26% - Central T
20% - Pittsburgh Area
18% - Northeast
Important to Obama Voters
73% - Bring change
14% - Cares about me
8% - Electability
3% - Experience
Apr 22, 2008 at 6:41 PM by David Pleasant
Of course, the networks are not releasing any information that characterizes how people voted in Pennsylvania, but it’s a start.
Eventual Nominee
Obama 54%
Clinton 43%
One in five Clinton voters believe Barack Obama will be the nominee
Apr 18, 2008 at 7:23 PM by David Pleasant
Sinking fast.
Despite her campaign’s relentless attacks on Barack Obama’s qualifications and electability, Hillary Clinton has lost a lot of ground with Democratic voters nationwide going into Tuesday’s critical primary in Pennsylvania, a new NEWSWEEK poll shows.
The survey of 1,209 registered voters found that Obama now leads Clinton by nearly 20 points, or 54 percent to 35 percent, among registered Democrats and those who lean Democratic nationwide. The previous Newsweek poll, conducted in March after Clinton’s big primary wins in Ohio and Texas, showed the two Democrats locked in a statistical tie (45 percent for Obama to 44 percent for Clinton). The new poll puts Obama ahead among women as well as men, and voters aged 60 and older as well as younger voters.
One of the more devastating results for Clinton was that a majority of all registered voters now see her as dishonest and untrustworthy. According to the poll, just four in 10 (41 percent) registered voters view the New York senator as honest and trustworthy, while 51 percent think the opposite. This compares with solid majorities of voters who see Obama and McCain as honest and trustworthy (both polled 61 percent).
Apr 18, 2008 at 3:09 PM by David Pleasant
The Boston Globe has a piece today that suggests there was more to ABC’s drilling of Obama on William Ayers than just a conversation between George Stephanopoulos and Sean Hannity. Based on ABC spokesperson Jeffrey Schneider’s statements in the piece, several motives can be spun multiple ways, but regardless of the spin. Jake Tapper is caught up in the mix.
Jeffrey Schneider, a spokesman for ABC News, said the Ayers question arose because it has been in the political ether and addressed by several other news organizations in recent months - and because the network’s own queries to the campaign had yet to yield a comment from Obama….
Among the mainstream reporters looking into the Ayers story, it turned out, was Jake Tapper, ABC’s senior political correspondent. Tapper outlined Ayers’s background in a April 10 blog entry titled "Stormy Weather." He also asked Obama about Ayers on the campaign trail, but didn’t get an answer, Schneider at ABC said.
Hence, Schneider said, the Ayers question was posed in the debate….
Schneider denied any Hannity connection.
Rewind. On April 3, Ace Reporter Jake Tapper indignantly reported he "ran into" Obama in the U.S. Capitol and his "unusually keen sense of smell" detected "cigarette smoke on Obama." Since his civic duty compelled him to inform the public on this very important personal issue, he asked Obama’s campaign if he was smoking and "they denied it." Instead the campaign "insisted" Obama "chewed nicorette."
So, as evidenced by the Tapper’s April 3 piece, he is angry, which is exacerbated by not getting the answers he wants on Ayers. One week later Tapper publishes his "Stormy Weather" piece, and five days later the whole deal breaks out in the debate before 10+ million people. Sounds like Tapper got the revenge he was seeking and the "political ether" was more ABC’s angry mob than anything else. Moreover, it gives Schneider plausible deniability to take some of the heat off of Stephanopoulos. It by no means absolves the Stephanopoulos-Hannity connection either.
I don’t know what line of questioning Tapper was pursuing before the Stormy piece, but an argument can be made that Obama might could have defused the situation in advance if he had answered Tapper’s questions earlier. Then again, Obama may have decided it was better to defend himself publicly and turn the whole thing around on ABC.
Whatever the case, the Ayers link is little more than fodder for Clinton and the GOP wingnuts.
Apr 18, 2008 at 9:01 AM by David Pleasant
Snark!
This is out of sequence, but…the third paragraph in this excerpt from the Times is almost worth framing. That’s a potent jab and done without making a single negative comment.
Moving on to the remaining two grafs…. I suppose not getting much sleep last night has effected my attitude this morning, but I’m getting rather tired of the prophecies and wisdom about what people purportedly think and will do, when there is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims and assertions. When did Carnac become a member of Team Clinton?
Superdelegates Unswayed by Clinton’s Attacks - New York Times
Clinton advisers acknowledged that they had not seen short-term evidence that their attacks on Mr. Obama were winning over many superdelegates, and they acknowledged that he had picked up more in recent weeks — though she maintained a narrowing overall lead in them. They predicted, however, that the mounting scrutiny of Mr. Obama would lead superdelegates to cool to his candidacy and come to see her as more of a known quantity, battle tested, and shrewd about the best ways to beat the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, in the fall.
“When it comes to picking a candidate, automatic delegates don’t want to guess about what lies behind Door No. 2, they want to know,” said Phil Singer, a Clinton spokesman. “The debate raised more questions about Senator Obama than have been answered, and that means that automatic delegates are likely to keep their powder dry as the process moves forward.”
In response, an Obama spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said Thursday: “Since Feb. 5, Senator Obama has garnered the support of 80 superdelegates to Senator Clinton’s 5. We’ll let the results of Senator Clinton’s ‘kitchen sink’ strategy speak for themselves.”
Apr 17, 2008 at 11:35 AM by David Pleasant
The Philadelphia Daily News endorses Barack Obama. No ambiguity in this endorsement. The headline for most newspaper endorsements are some version of "Why we chose XX" This headline is direct, "Vote for Barack Obama."
Contrary to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign slogan, we believe Barack Obama is more likely to be "ready on Day One" to lead us in a new direction. Because of his experience.
Sure, Clinton has more "experience" of a sort. For one thing, she has 14 more years on earth. How much of this experience is directly applicable to the job of president is, at best, debatable.
We are frankly troubled by her assumption that her husband’s administration and accomplishments were her own. And if her equation holds, that the first spouse is an equal partner in the administration, then the reappearance of Bill Clinton in the White House is a prospect we have a hard time reconciling with the work that needs to be done.
THERE IS a way to match Clinton’s and Obama’s performances on a relatively equal playing field: their campaigns.
A candidate’s campaign may be the best indicator of how she or he will govern. If so, an Obama administration would be well-managed, inclusive and astonishingly broad-based. It would make good use of technology and communicate a message of unity and, yes, hope.
It would not be content with eking out slim victories by playing to the narrow interests of the swing voters of the moment while leaving the rest of the country as deeply divided as ever. Instead, an Obama administration would seek to expand the number of Americans who believe that they have a personal stake in our collective future - and that they have the power to change things.
It would motivate them to hold their representatives accountable for making it happen. That is, after all, the only way to get us out of Iraq, to address global warming, to make us energy-independent. It’s the only way to resist the forces arrayed against providing universal health care, rebuilding our infrastructure and returning our schools to world-class status. It’s the only way to give our children the means to compete with children in other parts of the world who are healthier, better-educated and have more opportunities than many of our own.
An Obama administration would be freer of the the corrupting influence of big-money donors and corporate interests. Obama has raised $240 million overall, with half coming in contributions of less than $200. People who contribute to political campaigns can feel they "own" a candidate and so Obama would owe allegiance to the wide swath of America that has financed his campaign.
Based on his experience in running a quarter-billion-dollar enterprise with thousands upon thousands of volunteers, we could expect an Obama administration to be well-managed and cost-effective, with the president choosing forward-thinking advisers committed to his program, demanding that they work as a team and pay attention to details.
He would be steady and calm, given neither to irrational exuberance or outbursts of anger. He would make mistakes, that’s for sure, but he could be expected to recognize them, adjust, and move forward.
He would adjust his views to reality rather than trying to adjust reality to his views.
Obama’s unprecedented appeal to younger voters is significant not only because it expands the electorate, which is vital. It’s also a validation of his promise as a president to be free of the baby-boomer/Vietnam/segregation-era hangups.
Younger people are more egalitarian, more accepting of diversity, and more comfortable with rapid change. They also are less confined by old resentments or regrets.
