10 Reasons Political Debates are Bunk

[Sonny]

Anyway, I guess we won't get an answer to my query about who morphed this illegal immigrant debate into the explosive and inflamatory charges of anti- Hispanic bigotry, or when, but I guess that that accusation will just have to stand by itself, unanswered.

You did it here Dan:

The pathetic attempt to elevate a different issue into the spotlight to distract the voters will ultimately fail, especially if it is done in this rabidly anti-Hispanic and inhumane manner.

LINK

Zeuslax did here:

The Reps are trying to take a strong stance without communicating racism.

LINK

You also made the claim earlier about this issue coming from "Angry White Males."

We are all equal under the law. And people who enter this country illegally to violate our laws should not be rewarded with a path to citizenship or government handouts.

Amnesty is a no go with many Americans. This will be a major campaign issue once both of the major parties decide on a candidate.

[Dan Wishengrad]

That wasn't my opinion or accusation though, Sonny, but what Rep. Tancredo is being called publicly by many Hispanic political leaders in this nation. But I guess I didn't make that clear... so I'll accept the blame after all. Good catch.

As for the "angry white males" line, I'll stand behind that one as the correct definition for what Jac Coyne referred to as "Middle Americans" who decide elections in this country and who find Democtratic party platforms "repellent". Personally, I agree we can and should debate the issues without name-calling and resorting to personal attacks.

So for my role in all this, let me say Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa. Or does my Jewish heritage preclude me from using this specific atonement?

[Dan Wishengrad]

New poll, just released, is "on point" for this discussion:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ ... _poll.html

[Zeuslax]

Zeuslax did here:
Quote:
The Reps are trying to take a strong stance without communicating racism.

Not even close, but after rereading the comment I can see why you thought that. I was just framing the strategy in a elementary way regarding the Reps. Reps are perceived to be white males and the democratic party doesn't have the same issues associated with perceived racism that the republican party does. That was the point. Quite frankly, many Republicans have said this as well regarding the immigration debate. They have to walk a fine line regarding illegal immigration.

[Zeuslax]

Interesting poll out today.

http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/83.pdf

[Dan Wishengrad]

Interesting poll out today.

http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/83.pdf

LOL almost as interesting as the poll I posted about above yesterday.... oh wait, it's the same one .

[Zeuslax]

Rut Rohh........

[Dan Wishengrad]

Here's a summary of all the respected national polls conducted recently, querying Americans on which issue is the most important to them for the upcoming election. Note where illegal immigration ranks in these -- no higher than 4th in any of the most recent polls conducted this Fall:

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

I respect folks like Sonny who believe it will be of paramount importance to voters next November, but all these polls combined say that just aint so! The war in Iraq, the economy and health care are the three "biggies" on the minds of the vast majority of American voters -- at least right now. The most recent one, just released -- the LA Times/Bloomberg poll -- allowed registered voters to list TWO top priorities, and even in this poll only 15% of the voters picked immigration as among their top two.

The "pick two" methodology is always an interesting one for pollsters, and is always hotly debated among politicos and demographers. It works well for more open-ended polling like this, but of course is meaningless when polling preferences between two candidates or pro/anti on a single issue. Also note how Republicans rank the issues in the polls which break down the responses among parties and independents. I believe this confirms my original opinion that while this issue may be hotly stoked by right wing talk shows and CNN's Lou Dobbs, the American people -- and even conservatives as a whole -- just aren't buying into it this time around.

[Rob Graff]

Re: Huckabee:

On 11/29, I wrote:

3. At this point, I think Huckabee will be the Republican Nominee. Romney was incompetent last night. McCain is too far behind from a $$ perspective last time I heard... Rudy is too vulnerable.

Whether Huckabee will win depends upon too many variables that cannnot yet be quantified.

I think there was some skepticism about my conclusion. And I'll concede that it IS WAY EARLY in the process to determine who will be the Republican nominee. But given that admission, I note the recent variety of Rasmussen polls that put MH very high, if not leading in many states (Mi, IA, to name 2)

And it is interesting that subsequent CNN poll shows MH losing to all three Dem front runners

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/poll.head.to.head/index.html

Again - I caveat that it is EARLY in the process

[Zeuslax]

think there was some skepticism about my conclusion. And I'll concede that it IS WAY EARLY in the process to determine who will be the Republican nominee. But given that admission, I note the recent variety of Rasmussen polls that put MH very high, if not leading in many states (Mi, IA, to name 2)

And it is interesting that subsequent CNN poll shows MH losing to all three Dem front runners

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/ ... index.html

Again - I caveat that it is EARLY in the process

It is early, but starting to get late enough in the process that the top 4 candidates are getting flushed out on both sides. Huckabee may have positioned himself well as the ole shucks candidate with common sense responses to complicated issues. However, his positions and views are coming under examination and being brought to light. A rise to the top, whether in the polls or with increased media attention is always followed by closer scrutiny. His 1998 book sure isn't doing him any favors.......that's for sure.

[OAKS]

It is early, but starting to get late enough in the process that the top 4 candidates are getting flushed out on both sides. Huckabee may have positioned himself well as the ole shucks candidate with common sense responses to complicated issues. However, his positions and views are coming under examination and being brought to light. A rise to the top, whether in the polls or with increased media attention is always followed by closer scrutiny. His 1998 book sure isn't doing him any favors.......that's for sure.

Huckabee's views seem to be further toward the fringe on the right than Kucinich & Gravel's are on the left. His son is certainly garnering headlines - arrested for having a loaded gun in his suitcase in airport security and killing & mutilating a dog a few years ago at camp.

[Rob Graff]

From the R side:
Huckabee wins Iowa. But will probably lose NH (potentially badly). But could easily win SC. Anyone of my respected posters from the Republican side of the aisle want to explain what his ascendenancy means at this point? Or too early?

Does Thompson's strong finish keep him in the race?

And does Fox News have to put Ron Paul on their debate now that he pulled more support in Iowa than Rudy?

From the D side:

Edwards (at the time I write this) is percentage points ahead of HC. Not sure if that will stay. But if it does, I'm curious to see how he reacts and how the 4 major Unions that have endorsed him react. Is this better than most expected?

Obama's thrashing of Clinton is directly a result of the huge increased turnout - radically larger than expected. HC cannot be happy - how do you spin this loss - especially if she finishes THIRD!!! Watch the candidates fundraising in the next 5 days before NH - I'd be willing to bet a Diet MOuntain Dew that her fundraising falls off a cliff.

[Sonny]

Toggling back and forth between the news channels and the Orange Bowl.

No idea what any of this means.... But HC coming in third is as big a shock as Obama not just winning Iowa, but winning going away.

[StrykerFSU]

Still far too early to read a lot into the results. I'm sure Iowans are lovely people but I'm not ready to give them the reins on determining the nominees all by themselves, especially after I learned about the way caucuses are conducted. I think it's prudent to wait and see until after Jan 29 at the earliest. Ask Howard Dean how important the early caucuses are.

But given the choice between Huckabee and the three headed Dem monster, I might have to move to the woods and drop off the grid.

[Zeuslax]

Still far too early to read a lot into the results. I'm sure Iowans are lovely people but I'm not ready to give them the reins on determining the nominees all by themselves

\

Absolutely. I don't want to jump on the band wagon and reduce the roll of Iowa, but I'm not sure that it is the best representative of any of the individual party dynamics. However, I think Iowan's express the overarching sentiment very well.

No idea what any of this means.... But HC coming in third is as big a shock as Obama not just winning Iowa, but winning going away.

I don't think it means much at this point in time. She lost to 2 very strong candidates (one marginally). In addition, many of the last minute Republican registered voters that registered Democratic almost entirely voted for Obama. It's very tough to explain that 5% the day after.

This may be the real story:

356,000 total votes

Percentage of total vote
24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee