Election Central Sunday Roundup
Barack Obama: "The More The Merrier" At Debates
Barack Obama has said he disagrees with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who said to each other at a recent NAACP forum — when they were apparently unaware the microphones were on — that the field of candidates at debates should be smaller. "My attitude is the more the merrier," Obama said. "I don't know how you'd draw the line to say some can participate and some can't, particularly when you know historically, for example, Bill Clinton was at 2 percent in the polls in some of these early contests." And on that note, the Human Rights Campaign is now inviting underdog Mike Gravel to their upcoming debate, after previously trying not to have him there.
Former Frontrunner McCain Down To A Three-State Strategy
The New York Times reports that John McCain's stripped down, money-conscious campaign — bereft of even his signature Straight-Talk Express bus — is now focusing on three states: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. "I’m not a very good fund-raiser, I’ll admit it," McCain said at a New Hampshire town hall. "But I can out-campaign these guys, and I will, and I can, and we’re going to be doing just fine both here and Iowa and in South Carolina, and I have every confidence."
Conservative Dem Rep. Dan Boren Explains Why He Voted Against House Measure Mandating Withdrawal
Dem Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma, one of the few House Dems to oppose last week's House measure mandating withdrawal by April of 2008, explains why he voted that way: He says that voting now, rather than after General Petraeus' report is released, constitutes "moving the goal posts."
Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds Think Surge Has Failed
Some dismal numbers for the President in the new Newsweek poll: "Sixty-four percent of Americans feel the surge in troops has been a failure, while less than a quarter (22 percent) deem it a success. Nearly a third of Republicans surveyed (31 percent) declare the surge a failure."
Huckabee: Poor Straw Poll Showing Could Force Me Out
Mike Huckabee said a fourth-place showing in the August straw poll in Ames, Iowa, could bring an end to his campaign. If the campaign fails to make third place or better, Huckabee said, "at that
point, I have to seriously ask, 'Do we keep going?'" Helping Huckabee and other lower-tier Republican candidates is the fact that Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have both pulled out of the straw poll, anticipating a big win by Mitt Romney.
Ohio Legislator Proposes Joining Florida In Primary Coup
In Ohio, Democratic state Senator Eric Kearney is proposing moving the state's primary up from March, when "Super Tuesday" races used to happen, to ahead of even the new date of February 5, and joining with Florida on January 29. Both parties in Florida are currently battling the national parties over their new primary date, with the national parties threatening to strip delegates not only from the state, but even from candidates who campaign there for the primary. Will Ohio join in with Florida?
Gilmore Drops Out
Jim Gilmore has ended his underdog campaign for the Republican nomination. Gilmore had been a fixture at the debates, ridiculing the conservative credentials of the top three candidates, whom he ridiculed under the composite name "Rudy McRomney." Gilmore told The Politico that he is looking at other political opportunities back home in his native Virginia, including a run for Senate in 2008 if Senator John Warner (R) retires, or a run for his old job of governor in 2009.
Good for Obama. I'm very disappointed in Clinton and Edwards if they are trying to hog all the debate time for frontrunners. Apparently Obama understands that debates are not supposed to just be horse races. They are supposed to be platforms for ideas and discussion of real issues. Those ideas and that discussion rarely comes from the frontrunners. It takes a Kucinich or Gravel or Dodd to question the basic pieties that the anointed ones so disingenuously cling to.
Polls are not elections. They are nothing, in fact. They have no role to play in which candidates get to talk and which ones don't. Debates exist for the benefit of voters, not for the convenience of today's frontrunners.
July 15, 2007 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all this brouhaha about the moving of state primaries, when will we decide what is the best way of handling this issue? I think that there is some sense in spacing out the primaries so lesser funded candidates have a chance, but what should the order be? What is wrong with states like florida and ohio moving up their primary? As pivotal swing states, I would think that the candidates they prefer are candidates the rest of the states should consider.
July 15, 2007 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is wrong. The marginal candidates are preventing incisive questioning of the major candidates, and the process suffers as a result.
July 15, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is playing games, trying to score points by talking out of both sides of his mouth. Trouble is, this is a non-issue in terms of scoring points, as most agree the debate formats are a mess.
According to the linked article, Obama suggested dispensing with brief answers as a way to bring more substance to debates.
So HOW does HE propose to do this? Why does the press never ask the follow-up questions?
At this point, candidates get 4 or 5 questions total over the course of a debate. Shall we reduce this to 2 or 3? What's your solution Mr. Obama, the more the merrier AND longer opportunities to answer for all candidates? Or just for you?
Let's recall New Hapmshire, for example, where according to Dodd's time closck, linked below, Obama received the most time of all, over 3 times more than Gravel.
http://chrisdodd.com/node/1377
July 15, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the primary elections were held in June the year of the election, that made a lot of sense. It kept the campaigning going in most states until June, and it didn't bring about primary fatigue in the voters, or lead to a long dull time between the primaries and the conventions. But, the minor states, with few delegates dreamed up a way to seem important - Iowa and New Hampshire insisted on being the first place to have voting. There isn't the slightest rational reason why they should be first, but they are. Now, the bigger states, who really are the ones with the most say about who the candidates will be, find themselves almost irrelevant as the campaign contributions flow to the winners of the almost trivial early voting states. So, they all wanted to be important too, and moved their primaries ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire, who moved their primaries back ahead again, etc. None of this makes any sense as a way to select the party candidates. But, it is all we have, until or unless we go to a national primary day.
None of this should bother us. We have an utterly irrational way of selecting a president anyway.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 15, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that why Obama got 16 minutes in the New Hampshire debate, while Gravel received just over 5?
July 15, 2007 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose the only other logical alternative would be to have debates lasting four or five hours.
And I'd be all for it.
July 15, 2007 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is absolutely ridiculous, a candidate should have to do some campagning outside of debates in order to be considered an actual candidate. Gravel and Kucinich are barely campaigning, there are actually a likely to be a number of other "candidates" who get on the NH ballot, will Obama refuse to deabte unless everyone on the ballot is included in every debate?
July 15, 2007 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure there weren't any debates going on when Bill Clinton was at 2 percent in the polls. Remember, the campaign season starts much earlier than it did in 1992.
July 15, 2007 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or more focused, single-issue debates.
Stil, I'm with Obama to a point. Right now, the more the merrier, sure. Whether or not Kucinich and Gravel are really running, they're at least able to give voice to a segment of the Dem base AND maybe pull the Dem "center" more leftward. That's an important function. They also prove as nice foils to the front-runners.
However, down the line, we're gonna need to separate the wheat from the chaff, I think.
July 15, 2007 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
How exactly does one determine who is "marginal" 6 months before the first primary?
July 15, 2007 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How exactly does one determine who is "marginal" 6 months before the first primary?"
someone who has never won any statewide elections (Kucinich) or someone who couldn't even win re-election (Gravel)
i mean its nice to have the entertainment but come on.... I mean Sharpton was fun in 2004 in the debates but the guy couldn't even get elected in New York City much less nationwide.
July 15, 2007 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
of course Obama wants a large debate... unfortunately he would get exposed quickly for his lack of experience if it was just him and say Hillary and Richardson on stage.
of all the candidates i would have to say Joe Biden, Hillary, and Richardson have the best grasp of knowledge of anyone.
July 15, 2007 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid that by those standards, Abraham Lincoln would have been excluded from a hypothetical presidential debate in 1860.
July 15, 2007 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I hope obama's people stop complaining then about how the differences between the candidates are not being very well articulated by the process.
cause you're not ever going to get there in a one hour format and 20 different candidates being given equal time.
if obama wants less time to speak during those precious one hour forums, more power to him.
best of luck.
July 15, 2007 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to see people offer zero ratings for no purpose other than they disagree.
Obama supporter, I suppose. Soft ego there, whoever you are.
July 16, 2007 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally disagree with your sentiment here, as I think this is just him intelligently using his rivals gaffe (additionally, it's not his fault that the moderator gave him way more time than Dodd) but the "0" was way out of line.
July 16, 2007 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
FDR probably wouldn't have been a viable candidate in the current era as a result of his polio.
Similarly, Lincoln probably wouldn't have been sufficiently telegenic.
None of which vitiates my point about winnowing out the candidates in the Democratic field who are unequivocally marginal by virtually any standard.
July 16, 2007 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
How exactly does one not see that Kucinich and Gravel are marginal, as demwinger pointed out?
Or maybe jfrey can tell us, since he decided that my post was marginal despite its accuracy.
Great sense of humor, dude.
July 16, 2007 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that in less than 2 hours, having 8 or more candidates leads to sound bite answers with little follow-ups and almost no candidate interaction.
The Democrats can do one of two things to remedy this. Kick out Gravel and Kucinich, leaving still a number uncomfortably large for a debate, or split the debates into groups of 4, where there can be real interaction and candidates can question each other.
I don't think a 4 hour long debate is a good idea because if only 2 people watch you won't be informing the populace any more.
July 16, 2007 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a much better idea.
Keep Gravel and Kucinich and kick out Hillary. She says she agrees with everybody so what's the point?
Best, Terry
July 16, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
**"I learned the lesson from Bob Dole, that the less you care about getting mentioned, the more you get done," Feingold said.**
Hey, Russ, you may not have been mentioned much lately, but I, for one, have not forgotten you and I continue to much appreciate your work in the Senate!! Wish they were all like you.
Doreen
July 16, 2007 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink