May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Today is primary day in Philly. I'll be standing outside my polling place most of the day handing out literature, so I figured we'd make it primary day on MyDD, too. The May straw poll is up. Go vote.

As always I will do my best to remove stuffed votes after the fact. You can see my method of doing do here. I will post the final results tomorrow. You can see past results here.

Vote in the May straw poll. Also, this is an open thread. (Bumped -- Jonathan)

Update (Chris): I'm back in my apartment for a mid-day break. The scene at my polling place is nuts. We managed huge turnout back in 2006, just about the largest anywhere in West Philly, and so I guess some mayoral campaigns decided it was a good place to stake out. At one point, there were four Evans people, three Knox people, and twelve people overall, standing outside my polling place alone. I'm not used to having competition for my endorsements at the polls. Haven't seen anything from Fattah or Brady around the ward, even though they are supposed to have huge ground games (or, at least, that is what we keep being told). Overall, turnout is fairly light, as only around 15-16% of registered Dems in my division (precinct) had voted by 11:15 a.m. I am still hoping for over 50% Dem turnout by the end of the day, but that might be hoping for too much, as the students just left and quite a few people in my division (over 20%) are registered with "no party" anyway. I've heard turnout is fairly light around the city. Anyway, I'm back off to the polls...

Update 2: Clearly, there was heavy stuffing for Richardson and Edwards. I will work on removing all of the stuffed votes tomorrow. Now, I have closed off voting in the poll, and I need some dinner before returning to the real polls.

Tags: Open Threads, President 2008, Straw polls (all tags)

Comments

97 Comments

Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

That was boring ... Edwards won on first preference, there was no preference distribution to watch.

I'll check in at noon, it will probably be more interesting by then.

by BruceMcF 2007-05-15 03:27AM | 0 recs
OK. so I checked at 9am ...

... but now its working properly, giving those color bar breakdowns of distribution of preferences to get to the ultimate winner on preferences.

Its like watching an Australian election, except in real time.

by BruceMcF 2007-05-15 05:23AM | 0 recs
May Blogosphere Straw Polls

Please enjoy voting in these polls for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination:


Poll I  Candidates: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Al Gore, Mike Gravel, Dennic Kucinich, Bill Richardson, and the "Other" and "Unsure" options.

Poll II. Candidates: Joe Biden, Wes Clark, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Al Gore, Mike Gravel, Dennic Kucinich, Bill Richardson, and the "Other" and "Unsure" options.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-05-15 05:30AM | 0 recs
The corrected version of the first poll

wherein I had inadvertently omitted Barack Obama has been posted here (the incorrect version will remain here).

by NuevoLiberal 2007-05-15 07:26AM | 0 recs
My vote goes to Edwards

because he's the only one of the top three running a bold progressive campaign--so bold and progressive that he has the consultant class scratching their heads. No need to go into detail here about his agenda; suffice it to say, you know he's on to something when the likes of Stu Rothenberg is saying that he's running to far to the left, and when Obama supporters resort to claiming that he's too progressive to win.

As for those policy differences between candidates that Obama supporters want to downplay or deny, Obama says he won't raise taxes on the rich beyond what they were when Bush came into office yet he is open to raising taxes on the working poor. From the New York Times:

"Mr Obama said 'everything should be on the table when considering overhauling the Social Secutity system. He said he would consider raising the retirement age as well as increasing payroll taxes..."

So, if you're keeping score at home, Edwards is open to increasing taxes on the rich beyond what they were when Bush came in, and Obama is open to raising taxes on the poor.

There you have it.

by david mizner 2007-05-15 03:32AM | 0 recs
Why is Social Security popular?

Even with people seeing the bill for SS in every pay stub it remains the most hugely popular. It's popular because it's a fantastic program AND it's the most easily understood program in government. If Obama raises or removes the cap on contributions and adds 1 percentage point to contributions from people of all incomes (including the lowest wage earners) do you really think anyone but the most wonky of wonks would think that is an unfair proposal?

SS taxes would be returned to the working poor in the form of secure SS benefits down the road. SS taxes are the best investment you can make in your future if you are Mike the Janitor or Mike Bloomberg.

by joejoejoe 2007-05-15 04:04AM | 0 recs
On the other hand, it would *be* ...

... a grossly unfair proposal. I apologize if I sometimes react to policy proposals based on whether they do harm or good, rather than based on whether they will be understood to do harm or good.

by BruceMcF 2007-05-15 05:19AM | 0 recs
How is the burden unfair?

Because the tax rate increases on the poor? Removing or raising the cap would increase FAR MORE on the wealthy - shifting the burden up, not down the income spectrum. Why not ask the poor if they think they should pay the same withholding tax per earned dollar as the rich? If you remove the cap on withholding I don't see how this is any kind of 'burden' on the poor.

I'm well aware that wealthy people have many income sources other than wages that are exempt from SS taxes but I don't believe social security tax rates are the place to redress those inequalities.

As soon as you start having a tiered-tax system in Social Security you undercut it's broad support and easy to understand funding. About six cents of every dollar of wages goes into Social Security - whether you make $19,000 or $90,000. That's why Social Security is beloved by both cohorts - something that can't be said of just about any other government program.

Policies that advocate graduated SS tax rates are a big danger to SS - they undercut the very support that sustains the program against political tides like we saw in 2005.

by joejoejoe 2007-05-15 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: How is the burden unfair?

People see this as unfair because we are so angry about the current administrations disdain and bad treatment of the working poor. Because of this any proposal that would raise taxes on these people has many of us either angry or scratching our head. Maybe a few years from now assuming we have the opporutnity to restore some of the lost benefits and perhaps more importantly gives the working class the respect they deserve people will be more receptive to raising taxes in a way that will benefit this group in the long run.

by JDF 2007-05-15 11:28AM | 0 recs
Because it is a regressive tax, but even more ...

... because the financial problem is caused by the lack of real income growth for the majority of the people in the economy. If real income growth has been spread proportionally across the income ladder, then the growth in income under the cap would have eliminated any "projected problem".

So the proposal would punish low wage workers for the fact that their share of national income has fallen.

by BruceMcF 2007-05-15 02:42PM | 0 recs
Whether Edwards can pay for everything he

promises remains to be seen.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-05-15 04:18AM | 0 recs
add to that the fact that

Bush is currently ringing up some $700bn per year in budget deficits every year, which taxes future generations.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-05-15 04:21AM | 0 recs
Actually

Edwards is being more fiscally responsible than Obama because he's willing to tax the rich and pre-Bush levels and tax oil companies. (Does Obama think income inequality started in 2000?)

Where's Obama going to come up with the money to pay for universal health care and his plan to expand the military by 100,000 troops--which is going to carry a staggering pricetag.

Sorry, but merely rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy isn't a large enough revenue source for what he wants to do.

Oh, and by the way, unlike New Liberals, Edwards isn't going to fixate on yearly balanced budgets--he's going to try to balance the budget in the longterm by stimulating the economy.

by david mizner 2007-05-15 04:47AM | 0 recs
Edwards was a 'New Democrat', DLC-style

before putting on the current suit.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-05-15 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards was a 'New Democrat', DLC-style

And the DLC still has pictures of Obama up on their website, even though he's supposedly told them to take everything down.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-05-15 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Whether Edwards can pay for everything he

His UHC proposal will be paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for families that make over $200,000 a year. He also cut adminstrative costs in the health care industry by going to electronic record keeping. I heard some where that admin costs make up nearly 40% of our health care costs. Have you heard that? It's crazy! As for some of his other programs like his Stepping Stones Jobs program, I've seen how he'll make money in other ways for those programs. He hasn't talked about this, but I've thought about it. His immigration proposal would seriously strengthen the borders, make a pathway to citizenship where illegal immigrants could pay a fine, learn English and start to pay taxes. There's a lot of money in taxes that aren't being paid by illegal immigrants. I also think that many illgal immigrants would jump at the chance to be legal and pay taxes. I also think that Edwards plans to close tax loopholes that allow for corporations to pay only 5.25% income tax rate would help bring some money home. I could go on and on.... I know you're a Gore guy and now seem to lean toward Obama. My question is how does Obama propose to build a 21st century military and provide UHC?

by Sarah Lane 2007-05-15 12:57PM | 0 recs
I do believe the figure is more like ...

... 40% of health care cost increases ... but still, if you have a constant share of rapid cost increases, your share of total costs tends to approach your marginal share asymptotically.

by BruceMcF 2007-05-15 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Whether Edwards can pay for everything he

Just a quick thing here...

There's no way that admin costs of healthcare can be largely mitigated by using electroic health records.  I work in the world of EHRs, in fact for the company that is pretty well understood as the industry-leading vendor.  And never will we say that admin costs will be wiped out because of intalling our software suite.  You can minimize costs and remove some admin layers, but largely, you can't eliminate huge chunks with electronic health records.  But our world has been glad to see JRE include EHRs in his healthcare plan, simply because using EHRs improves the quality of care, healthcare in general, and health at large.

by Peter from WI 2007-05-16 06:52AM | 0 recs
"open to raising taxes on the poor"? No.

As far as I know, that just means raising the threshold at which one's paycheck is no longer taxed.  Right now, any income beyond $97,500/yr isn't taxed for social security purposes.

by Adam B 2007-05-15 05:51AM | 0 recs
"open to raising taxes on the poor"? Yes

Raising the percentage that the worker puts in every month is what david mizner is talking about, and that does make it tougher for those struggling at a lower income level.

by clarkent 2007-05-15 06:21AM | 0 recs
tax

Yes, but there's no evidence that Obama is considering that.  

by Adam B 2007-05-15 06:30AM | 0 recs
see david's comment above

what do you call being open to raising the payroll tax?

by clarkent 2007-05-15 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: see david's comment above

Exactly what I said: keeping it at the same rate but expanding the income subject to it.

by Adam B 2007-05-15 06:40AM | 0 recs
If and when

Obama rules out raising payroll taxes on the poor, I'll say Awesome. Or, good. Or, of course. But he didn't say that. He said "everything should be on the table" except privatization.

I don't know if Obama thinks it's necessary to raise a regressive tax. I think his saying "everything should be on the table" is an effort to present himself as an independent, open-minded consensus builder who can bring the parties together. But SS's financial status is a Major Problem that needs requires a Bipartisan Commission.

Do we really want to put the future of our social democracy in the hands of Chuck Robb and Warren Rudman?

I hope Edwards says We don't need a Bipartisian commission, we just need to this liitle thing and that little thing, and SS will be solvent for a long long time.

by david mizner 2007-05-15 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: If and when

If Obama proposes raising taxes on the poor to assist SS, I'll jump ship.  I can't imagine he'd do that.

by Adam B 2007-05-15 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: see david's comment above

He's not gonna propose it, he's not gonna propose anything, he's gonna leave the tought work up to a bi-partisan commission.

I want him to take it off the table. That should be an order to his bi-partisan commission.

by david mizner 2007-05-15 09:07AM | 0 recs
He ruled privatization, full or partial,

... off the table, then said all options are on the table ... which would mean that the proposals that some have made to increase the payroll tax rate are indeed on the table.

This also hits self-employed workers quite visible, since they pay both halves of the payroll tax directly, without the "employer contribution" half being hidden out of sight.

by BruceMcF 2007-05-15 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: My vote goes to Edwards

In his book he talks about his meeting with Warren Buffet who talked about how unfair it is because he gets taxed at half the rate of his assistant because he gets money from dividends and capitol gains, those are taxed at about 15%. Income is taxed at about 30%.

He was talking about how those who get the most from globalization (those who make money from dividends and capitol gains) should pay a bit more to help those that globalization hurts. Basically. Raise the capitol gains tax a bit to help pay for UHC,SS and other social safety things. He even talked about wage insurance. Not sure how possible that would be but you know. Good idea. Also he was talking about using it to invest in other things, research, science and technology. Etc. I don't think he's going to magically make the tax system fair again by taxing income and capitol at the same rate but I don't think he'd leave that out.

I think it's unfair to say he won't tax the rich more then BH(Before Hell) He hasn't proposed it but if I remember rightly he has often said that he WILL repeal the tax cuts on the rich and the death tax and beyond that he's open to anything. That seems to me like he's open to taxing the rich more.

"Edwards is being more fiscally responsible than Obama because he's willing to tax the rich and pre-Bush levels and tax oil companies. (Does Obama think income inequality started in 2000?)"

Obama has proposed taxing the oil companies. He wants one percent of there profits to go to alternative energy projects and research.

"Where's Obama going to come up with the money to pay for universal health care and his plan to expand the military by 100,000 troops--which is going to carry a staggering price tag." It's 92,000 , and I'm no military expert (thank god) but I think most of those will be National Guard and I don't think those would cost as much.  How is he going to pay for that? Roll back the tax cuts for the richest, roll back the death tax. Increase taxes on big oil and increase the capitol gains tax. That's for investing in R&D, Energy Independent, UHC, Fighting Poverty and Homelessness, Etc.

"Sorry, but merely rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy isn't a large enough revenue source for what he wants to do."

That why he isn't just going to do that.

"Oh, and by the way, unlike New Liberals, Edwards isn't going to fixate on yearly balanced budgets--he's going to try to balance the budget in the longterm by stimulating the economy. "

I agree with this totally. Why makes you think Obama is a "New Liberal"

You should really read Obama's books. The Audacity of Hope mostly. Even if you don't support him it will give you more of an idea of his policy.

My vote goes: Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Gravel, Bill, Joe, Hillary, Dennis.

I like it when we are debating about who is better not who is bearable.

by Populista 2007-05-15 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: My vote goes to Edwards

"That seems to me like he's open to taxing the rich more."

He said he wasn't on This Week.

by david mizner 2007-05-15 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: My vote goes to Edwards

Could I get a quote, I listened to the interview and didn't hear that.

by Obama08 2007-05-15 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: My vote goes to Edwards

I think you are right.  I don't have a transcript, but my impression - and I was listning closely for this - was that he said the roll back of the bush tax cuts was a starting point.  then the priority was whatever it takes to get UHC.

Which means that he is open to raising taxes further just as John Edwards said he would do.

Same basic positions, but Edwards is clearer and was first.

I think the concerns Mizner is raising about SS are separate from this overall tax discussion, where I really don't think there is much policy difference between the two.

by Orlando 2007-05-15 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

FWIW, I support Chris Dodd as a first choice.  Past that, I backed John Edwards.  I just think he's a good, decent chap.

However, I'd love it if Al Gore jumped in.  That'd be a candidacy to get excited about.

by Illustrious 2007-05-15 03:49AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Isn't possible to make it so you can see how people rated each candidate?

It would be interesting to see how many people rated each candidate first, second, third, etc. even the normal distribution wouldn't show you that. (and with edwards so strong in this poll, even normal distribution doesn't happen)

by Ernst 2007-05-15 03:55AM | 0 recs
I think that would require an in-house ...

... poll, something I have been hoping for since MyDD started doing the straw polls in preference format.

by BruceMcF 2007-05-15 05:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I think that would require an in-house ...

Might even stop all that nonsense with edwards and obama supporters if they saw that their respective choices tend to be the second listed on the other supporters list.

by Ernst 2007-05-15 05:27AM | 0 recs
I put Obama

as my second choice and I'm still eager to engage in the "nonsense" better known as arguing the merits of each candidate.

by david mizner 2007-05-15 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: I put Obama

No when I say nonsense I mean nonsense.

Arguing merits? I love it.

But the comments that sometimes also appear? (OMG YOU'RE FOR EDWARDS/OBAMA SO EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS DISCOUNTABLE, YOU FOUL OBAMA/EDWARDS HATER?!?!!?)

Those I can do without. I strictly meant the nonsense, not the legitimate stuff. A good and healthy debate were everybody listens too each other is just what I want. So I though that if people saw how close their support is even more of actual arguing of the merits of each candidate.

If I gave any impression that I was against debating the candidates, or that I thought that that didn't happen I'll be more careful in the future.

by Ernst 2007-05-15 06:52AM | 0 recs
Fair enough

Gotchya.

by david mizner 2007-05-15 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I think that would require an in-house ...

I chose Edwards 1st and "Other" second. That's because I like Gore and Clark!

by Sarah Lane 2007-05-15 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I think that would require an in-house ...

Yeah, my first two are Edwards and Gore, and I'm not decided on third, so I put undecided there. At that point I find it easier to vote from the bottom up.

by BruceMcF 2007-05-15 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

If the poll was run at BetterPolls.com (my site) all that and more data would be available.

by bolson 2007-05-15 08:43AM | 0 recs
May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Vote

Clear all history

Vote again

Clear all history

Vote again

Clear..........

Then post a nice big story claiming that John Edwards is the best candidate.

See you next month.

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-05-15 04:16AM | 0 recs
Edwards First, HRC Second, Richardson Third

I voted for all the options for the first time.  John Edwards was my first, followed by HRC, then Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, and Biden.  I chose Obama last because I do not believe he is qualified (at this point in time) to be president.  If he's running for a veep spot like Biden is running for sec of state, then, fine.  Perhaps he'd make a good VP pick.

But as far as being experienced enough to walk in on January 20, 2009 and start doing the job as president, I just don't think he's up to the task right now.  Not anywhere near experienced enough to be a serious contender to the presidency.

I like Edwards okay.  Lukewarm on HRC.  And Obama is just not there yet.  So, my dream candidate would be Al Gore.  If he were to run, I'd jump ship right now from Edwards to Gore.  I believe we NEED Al Gore to be president at this point in time in history.  But I doubt he's gonna run.  :(

by jgarcia 2007-05-15 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards First, HRC Second, Richardson Third

jgarcia: what does experience mean to you?

by mboehm 2007-05-15 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards First, HRC Second, Richardson Third

I know what you're getting at, that experience isn't everything.  Well, I agree.  However, Obama's made me uneasy lately with 1) the debate performance, 2) the "playing chicken" comment, 3) the latest silly gimmick about emailing 16 GOP sens to pressure them and then saying that's better that "playing games with our troops (that's a straw man attack on our own Democratic Party, btw), and 4) his lack of specificity in his plans as president.  

Number four really wouldn't be an issue at this point in a campaign season because you'd assume that someone like HRC or Gore would be deft enough to get around to it.  However, I am sorry, but for someone with as little experience as Obama has, and with his blank slate, it is more necessary than normal for him to be specific if he's to have any credibility in this campaign.  Perhaps someone from Obama's camp reads that last sentence and it makes sense to them.

by jgarcia 2007-05-15 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards First, HRC Second, Richardson Third
Thanks for responding.  I was not trying to challenge you but only trying to understand what you mean by saying he lacks the experience to take over in 2009.  The "too little experience" tag is a hurdle for the Obama camp and it is my opinion that only by directing engaging people to talk and think about what experience means that we will be able to overcome this perception.
     
by mboehm 2007-05-15 09:42AM | 0 recs
I suppose 2 years more in the Senate

and 6 years less in state office means a world of difference to you? That is the difference between your first choice (Edwards) and your last choice (Obama, in 2009).

Of course neither Guliani nor Romney could claim to be more experienced than Obama. McCain could, but then again experience is the only thing he has going for him. The wrong kind of experience unfortunately.

by Populism2008 2007-05-15 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I suppose 2 years more in the Senate

Yeah, I knew this would happen.  I like Obama well enough, but some of the things he's been doing lately are showing his greeness.  For instance, DailyKos had an fp of Obama wanting people to pressure 16 GOP senators and said that that was better than playing games with our troops on the ground.  

That's silly.  Both the games comment, and the email "pressure" on the Repug senators.  Something really not befitting a US Senator.

by jgarcia 2007-05-15 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: I suppose 2 years more in the Senate

I am right with you jgarcia.  It is not about measuring experience in numbers of years here or there (as some like to do).  It is about demonstrating through your campaign that you have it together.  That the experiences you have had have led you to be the candidate that is "best".

The four examples you gave were good examples and make a better case than counting years.

by Orlando 2007-05-15 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: I suppose 2 years more in the Senate

thanks!  :)

by jgarcia 2007-05-15 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards First, HRC Second, Richardson Third

If experience is important to you, then how could you support Obama for VP.

The VP should be able to step in immediately if something happened to the president. That means on day one.

by BDM 2007-05-15 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards First, HRC Second, Richardson Third

well, because, in reality, that's not very likely to happen.  VP would give the man EIGHT years of national political and foreign affairs experience.  

you know as well as i do that VPs are often the less experienced of the two on the ticket, with Bush and Cheney being a glaring exception.

by jgarcia 2007-05-15 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards First, HRC Second, Richardson Third

So you would have told Abraham Lincoln to take a hike as well?  You do realize that Obama has approximately the same experience Honest Abe did, right?  Or what about JFK's experience?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-05-15 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards First, HRC Second, Richardson Third

JFK had WAY WAY more experience than Obama.  So that is not comparable.  I'll give you Lincoln, our greatest president by far.  I am not a religious person, but it's kind of blashemous to compare Lincoln to ANY person in America right now, especially before they're even theoretically president.  Lincoln was different.  The circumstances were weird and unique and it was a stroke of luck.

Unfortunately, with the stupid GOP framed "war on terra" still in people's minds, I think the GOP would savage someone with Obama's experience.  And if I, a very progressive individual, is thinking that, then what about others who aren't so prog?

by jgarcia 2007-05-15 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards First, HRC Second, Richardson Third

Your point is accurate, your examples are not. Lincoln actually only had one term as a Representative and a defeated campaign for the Senate to his name, so it's fair to say he was significantly less experienced than Obama. Kennedy had six years in the House and eight in the Senate, so he's significantly more experienced.

by Englishlefty 2007-05-15 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards First, HRC Second, Richardson Third

Sure Lincoln had less experience.

But that was also a century and a half ago.  Not really applicable to the current political situation.

by fbihop 2007-05-15 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread
Edwards was my 3rd or 4th.  I think he is fiscally irresponsible and less effective then either obama or richardson.
Hillary I put last.  Why put a republican lite up the polls.
by vwcat 2007-05-15 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

I don't see how Clinton can be accused of being Republican lite whilst Richardson gets a free pass.

by Englishlefty 2007-05-15 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Maybe because he supports removing EVERY last soldier from Iraq, or because he supports responsible drug policy (he's the only governor ever to sign medical marijuana policy into law), or because he's also signed the most aggressive renewable energy legislation of any state into law. Hilary, on the other hand has been equivocating and getting Murdoch's support.

by BeekerDynasty 2007-05-16 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

A couple of threads back NuevoLiberal made a very  good comment about that.

Choice excerpt:
Hillary has very high liberal and progressive ratings in many ratings systems:

   progressive punch
    15  92.11 Clinton, Hillary Rodham D NY
    Nearest republican scores:
    52  35.62 Specter, Arlen R PA
    53  33.57< Snowe, Olympia J. R ME    
    54  31.46 Collins, Susan M. R ME    
    55  16.36 Coleman, Norm R MN

   Also:
    58  13.90 McCain, John R AZ    

And, here are ADA scores for some senators:

   2006:
    Clinton: 95%
    Obama: 95%
    Dodd: 95%
    Lieberman: 75%
    Biden: 100%

   Nearest Republicans:
    Snowe: 45%
    Specter: 30%
    Also:
    McCain: 15%

by Ernst 2007-05-15 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

How is he fiscally irresponsible? His campaign has been more fiscally responsible then HRC's campaign or Obama's. Do you think he's fiscally irresponsible because he proposed to roll back the Bush tax cuts for families that make over $200,000 a year to pay for his UHC plan? You do know that Obama wants to build a 21st century military and provide us with UHC, Hillary also wants to provide UHC so I don't see how Edwards is the fiscally irresponsible one. Please elaborate.

by Sarah Lane 2007-05-15 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

you're talking to vwcat. Logic doesn't apply.

by clarkent 2007-05-15 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Your ballot was cast as:

1st    Barack Obama
2nd    John Edwards
3rd    Other
4th    Bill Richardson
5th    Chris Dodd
6th    Hillary Clinton
7th    Mike Gravel
8th    Joe Biden
9th    Dennis Kucinich
10th    Unsure

by Socks The Cat 2007-05-15 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

I hate these polls. If you aren't voting for Edwards or Obama, you aren't really voting. It just gives your vote to either of the two, whichever is currently in the lead. Kos's polls also suck. You can vote for Edwards all you wiah but others just once. (wink, nod) No wonder the national polls are so far off of the blogs polls.  

by ND1979 2007-05-15 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Are you accusing Kos and MyDD of rigging the poll?

by clarkent 2007-05-15 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

I would hope there are a myriad other reasons why blog polls differ from national polls.

by LandStander 2007-05-15 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

1st    Barack Obama
2nd    John Edwards
3rd    Other
4th    Unsure
5th    Chris Dodd
6th    Joe Biden
7th    Hillary Clinton
8th    Bill Richardson
9th    Mike Gravel
10th    Dennis Kucinich

Richardson moved way down because of his crappy debate performance. I don't really care how funny his ads are.

by PsiFighter37 2007-05-15 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Exactly my ranking too.

by Populism2008 2007-05-15 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Another thing about Richardson that irks me is that I think he's really kind of a closeted pro-lifer.  A few quotes from the debate I saw in the press kind of tip you off to it.  I refuse to vote for anyone like that.  He's #9 on my list.

by Conquest 2007-05-15 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

1st    John Edwards
2nd  Other
3rd   Unsure
4th   Barack Obama
5th   Chris Dodd
6th   Hillary Clinton
7th   Joe Biden
8th   Bill Richardson
9th   Mike Gravel
10th Dennis Kucinich

Like PsiFighter, Richardson moved way down because of his debate performance and some of what he said at the CDP convention. "Other" in my ballot = Al Gore. I'm still not sure what to make of Barack, hence ranking Unsure above him. If Obama and Edwards weren't running, I could see getting behind Dodd - I like what he has to say about the Bush policy on detention.

by clarkent 2007-05-15 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Echoing the last two comments, Richardson moved down on my preference vote. It was not his performance in the debate per se, but his comments at the debate. OTOH, Dodd moved up in my book (as did Gravel, but going from 10 to 8 is not much of a leap).

by thetadelta 2007-05-15 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

I made the same shift myself - Dodd and Gravel up, Richardson down. Top two remain Edwards and Obama, in that order.

by LandStander 2007-05-15 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Having been around these boards since the Dean days, I'm really surprised Obama is polling this strong. I would have guessed myDD readers would tend to choose a viable candidate that takes the more aggressive positions against the war and other core progressive issues. Edward's doesn't pander with the "cant we all just come together" talk when dealing with GOPers. Also they tend to shy away from candidates who make these vague political speeches low on specifics.

Don't get me wrong Obama was my third. But Edwards is the most inline with the liberal blogosphere's priorities. Obama seems a more superficial choice.

by padcrasher 2007-05-15 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

I don't know about others, but I can't get passed the thought that Edwards is pandering to the left.  He didn't always represent these ideals in my mind, and definitely was a centrist in the 2004 campaign.  He's not going to get much traction with me.  Not to mention his Iraq policy is a little wacky and his comments to AIPAC totally contradicted everything else he was saying.

by Conquest 2007-05-15 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

I shared the same concerns, but right now I'm working through reading his books & his wife's book.  The impression that I'm getting is very strongly hinting at the idea that the centrist bit in 2004 was the pandering effort, and that this is more genuinely "him."

by mourge 2007-05-15 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

I myself really admire the way Obama analyzes issues, and while he may not spout progressive memes, his record has been mostly progressive.  Despite the more popular opinions around mydd, I can't seem to get past Edward's centrist record.  Even if he holds his current progressive views to be his true views, was he then pandering as a senator?  I like Obama's views on the issues he's laid out, and I trust his judgement.  Although certainly not blindly,  He's still got time to lay out his policies.

by enarjay 2007-05-15 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Obama does not pander, building consensus around progressive positions has been his way of conducting politics since he started.  

by Populism2008 2007-05-15 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

WHY OH WHY DO YOU IGNORE AL GORE!?!?!?!?!?! He is my first, second and third choice.

by jess999 2007-05-15 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Because he's not running.

by clarkent 2007-05-15 08:32AM | 0 recs
Ok, who's your fourth choice?

You know, the choice that might matter? </snark>

by bolson 2007-05-15 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Vote Other for Gore. there is no other other.

by Ernst 2007-05-15 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Good luck with the campaigning/endorsing out there, Chris.  I would be one UCity student who HASN'T left for the summer who would vote, but just as I grabbed my registration card to run to the polls (out at 42nd and Pine) I realized I never changed my party affiliation from independent (someone convinced me to register as an independent three years ago).  Doh!  I feel pretty stupid now, but hopefully Nutter will win this thing without my vote.

by Penn08 2007-05-15 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Either John Edwards fans are showing up in droves, or some idiot is stuffing. I think it's the latter, and I think that it's probably not an Edwards supporter who is doing it.

by clarkent 2007-05-15 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Yeah, it went from a 3% Edwards lead to over 20%.  Definitely some Edwards ballot stuffing going on.

by dmfox 2007-05-15 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

I'd rather really know where my candidate stands here than get a victory like this. I mean, we're not sending our home team's first baseman to the All-Star game here.

If a supporter of another candidate did it, I'm really pissed off. If an Edwards supporter did it, I'm even more pissed off.

by clarkent 2007-05-15 10:32AM | 0 recs
Agreed

The whole point of this exercise isn't to chalk up some meaningless 'win', but to get a feel for who the MyDD community supports these days.

Whoever's doing the stuffing may feel they're doing it for the benefit of Edwards, but as an Edwards supporter, all I feel it's doing is throwing sand in my eyes.

by RT 2007-05-15 11:43AM | 0 recs
I dont think we know

who is doing it or why. Agreed on the meaningless win but I dont think we should automatically assume its an Edwards supporter or even doing it for his benefit.

by okamichan13 2007-05-15 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

1st    Barack Obama
2nd    Other
3rd    John Edwards
4th    Bill Richardson
5th    Mike Gravel
6th    Chris Dodd
7th    Joe Biden
8th    Dennis Kucinich
9th    Unsure
10th    Hillary Clinton

Other is Gore.  I know he's not running, but I still like him better than everyone else but Obama.

Also, Gravel moved up to 5th based on his quips at the debate.  He's probably not presidential material, but he is enjoyable to watch.

Hillary is last as usual, behind Dennis and Unsure.  My policy differences with Hillary are well documented.  However, my overriding concern with her not getting the nomination is to stop the whole Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton circus.  There are plenty of better candidates for the future out there.

by dmfox 2007-05-15 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread
1st    Barack Obama
2nd    Chris Dodd
3rd    John Edwards
4th    Unsure
5th    Hillary Clinton
6th    Dennis Kucinich
7th    Joe Biden
8th    Bill Richardson
9th    Unsure
10th   Mike Gravel
by mattmfm 2007-05-15 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Please you people!  EDWARDS??

I'm ashamed.
The world's burning and you pick as if you're on Idol.
Here's some facts you'd better look up, because it will destroy John when it's made public.

But he is a nice Democrat, I don't attack that side of him.
In the last primary in Iowa, check the records please, he switched his stump speech in mid-stream.
Here's the chronology:

  1. Edwards wasn't doing very well at all, pre Iowa.
  2. Stanley Greenberg is interviewed on 'Tim Russert" about his new book "The Two:Americas: Our Current Political Deadlock and How to Break It,  about 10 days before the Iowa primary.  I know because I watched it.
Greenberg explained in depth to Russert what he means by The Two Americas.
3.  Edwards first speech right off the bus in Iowa is almost a verbatim copy of Greenbergs words to Russert.  I know because I watched that too.

John must have watched that Russert tape over and over.

Edwards then wows the world with 'his' new campaign.

Every word taken from the mind and lips of another.  Greenberg is a Dem strategist and probably gave John the right to do it.

But that leaves John a very empty shell.

by hazmaq 2007-05-15 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

I understand where you're coming from hazmaq.  I do suspect Edwards has been pandering to the left during this campaign.  That being said, should Edwards win the election on these issues, he would be bound to follow through on his campaign promises.  I don't see that being a bad thing.

I support Obama for a number of reasons.  One of the bigger ones is how genuine he seems, and how honest he is when debating issues.  That would be a welcome change from the politics of the past 2 decades.  However, should Edwards be the nominee, I think that great things would come out of his administration as well, even if the accusation of his pandering is accurate.

by dmfox 2007-05-15 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Edwards was talking about "Two Americas" long before that show aired. I don't really know what you're talking about.

by Sarah Lane 2007-05-15 01:08PM | 0 recs
I went and forth on where to rank

other and unsure, I guess it's other by a nose!

by nevadadem 2007-05-15 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread
1st    John Edwards
2nd    Other
3rd    Bill Richardson
4th    Chris Dodd
5th    Barack Obama
6th    Hillary Clinton
7th    Unsure
8th    Joe Biden
9th    Dennis Kucinich
10th   Mike Gravel
by philgoblue 2007-05-15 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Wow, talk about some serious ballot stuffing. Hopefully Chris can clean up the results once he's back from the polls in Philly.

by PsiFighter37 2007-05-15 12:09PM | 0 recs
Stuffing

If Obama supporters had stuffed the polls there would have been at least four diaries already attacking Obama as a person for this. It is clearly fair game to blame Obama for everything no matter how far from his control. The new "it's Bill Clinton's fault".

It will be interesting to see the unstuffed results.

by Populism2008 2007-05-15 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: May Straw Poll and Open Thread

Gee. I'm shocked! I come home from work this morning and Obama and Edwards are tied. I go to bed and get up and I see this?

Gee. I'm soooooo shocked. These polls are noting but an Edwards Supporter Pep Rally. He's not high in thee polls so we'll just invent some. Yeah.

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-05-15 03:03PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads