2008 polls & money

Looking over the three national polls out done Feb. 23-28, three things: The top is tightening, good news for Gore people, and a top three poll. And the 1Q money race is next.

Hillary's frontrunner stability is close to over. She got a great boost from announcing earlier this year, with a couple of polls showing her in the 40's again, but that's gone. It's not just that, her lead is shrinking. Clinton's lead has gone from 28, 19, 24 last poll to 11, 12, 12 percent in these polls, over Obama. That's getting closer to single-digits, which it has never been this cycle.

Al Gore got a bump. From 10, 9, 11 to 14, 13, 14 percent. Edwards stuck at the same, so it's clear that the rise that Gore and Obama showed came at the expense of Clinton. There's a sliver of hope showing.

Time conducted a polling question that narrowed it down to just three announced candidates:

Clinton     42
Obama       30
Edwards     22
None/unsure  6
Hillary is still the frontrunner, Obama still has momentum, and Edwards still is in the thick of the race. That's a good marker. Now, I bet if Gore jumped in, we'd move to a 4-way race quite rapidly, but let's say this is where the race is at now nationally. If Obama continues to gain, and maybe even overtakes Clinton, will a bandwagon effect begin toward Obama? I think it's possible. The support by blacks of Obama had seemed to be contingent on his candidacy being viable-- that's happening much earlier than I thought it would begin, so how high Obama can go is a big question.

We are entering the fundraising frenzy month. Things like the "add a penny for the internet" began happening 4 years ago on the blogs. This year, it's gonna be a torrent of contribution requests by the candidates for meeting or beating 1st quarter expectations. I don't even know what the expectations are. If I were to guess, I'd say Hillary at $20M, and Obama and Edwards at $10M are the benchmarks. And for everyone else, $5M. That sound about right?

Tags: Al Gore, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards (all tags)



Re: 2008 polls & money

I'm thinking because the top three are raising money for the general as well as the primaries, the numbers are going to be much higher than anyone expects.

Clinton could be as high as 50 million, Edwards and Obama could top 20 million.  How much of that is primary versus general election money will be key to look at.

by Vox Populi 2007-03-02 12:11AM | 0 recs
Important notes

 our democracy is so corrupt, apparently Hillary started a trend of collecting money now for a general election too.  this money cannot be used in the primary, but will trick some of the pundit class.  Others apparently decided to join her but the real number is money that can be spent for the primary..

by TarHeel 2007-03-02 03:36AM | 0 recs
here's a not pretty aspect

of raising money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGxzqwRJU zM

by TarHeel 2007-03-02 04:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Important notes

HRC may have started it, but Obama and Edwards are as well.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-02 05:05AM | 0 recs
Trick who?

Have you ever followed a political campaign before?  Campaigns always go for the double-dip from major donors early.

by Adam B 2007-03-02 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

I think your right, but I would put Obama and Edwards at $35 mill... Neither seems to be having problem with fundraising at this point.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-02 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

$35M for Edwards and Obama?  That's astronomically high!

I would bet that Obama clocks in around $15M and Edwards does $10M (he just went over $1M on ActBlue!).  

by Peter from WI 2007-03-02 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

Obama did officially announce quite recently so that's 2 announcements with plenty of media coverage for him this year. As far as I can recall, HRC and Edwards have only announced once. Certainly HRC has yet to officially announce. Not sure on Edwards' exact position.

HRC about the same, Obama up perhaps 8%, Edwards the same, the rest of the field nowhere, with Richardson showing potential to move up.

As for the money, it would be surprising if the 2nd and 3rd tier could raise 1/4 of the money HRC pulls in. I was expecting Obama to raise more than Edwards, perhaps coming midway between HRC and Edwards' numbers.

by kundalini 2007-03-02 01:05AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

Should read HRC down about 5% (not "about the same")

by kundalini 2007-03-02 01:18AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

I think everyone expects Obama to raise more than Edwards.  Nobody expects Edwards to raise more than Obama.  Which means, if it happens, Edwards will "beat" expectations.

by Vox Populi 2007-03-02 02:30AM | 0 recs
it took Edwards a couple months

to raise 1 million on Actblue..

whereas Hillary raised that in a week and Obama in one night with Geffen.

so the money WILL BE  1. Hillary, 2. .Obama  3. Edwards  4. richardson

(although Dodd got to transfer 10 million from his senate camaign)

by TarHeel 2007-03-02 03:04AM | 0 recs
Re: it took Edwards a couple months

Raising money on ActBlue without really publicising is very different from raising money via a link on the announced candidate's front page, though.  It makes sense that it took Edwards longer to raise that much on ActBlue.

by Fran for Dean 2007-03-02 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: it took Edwards a couple months

In all fairness, Edwards did send out an initial e-mail to promote the link, and if you contribute on his website, it goes through ActBlue.

by clarkent 2007-03-02 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: it took Edwards a couple months

Oh ok, didn't realize that.  Then yea I guess that's not great.

by Fran for Dean 2007-03-02 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: it took Edwards a couple months

It's not too shabby. $1 million from the generally small-donor pool of the online activists is pretty good at this point. Generally they are people who can and will give more, too, so it's a nice base of support. He's doing pretty well raising money, it seems.

He'll have enough money to be competitive, but his overall fundraising will probably lag further behind the big two as the year goes out.

by BriVT 2007-03-02 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: it took Edwards a couple months

But that's just the online fundraising ... where a lot of the money from the small contributers will be coming in "on the instalment plan" over the next 10+ months ... the big money at the moment will be at the fundraisers.

If there's $1m raised online through email and the website, its safe to say that the total raised by the end of March will exceed $10m.

I also expect that the Edwards campaign will be shifting toward their own in-house system for their main online fundraising, since at the levels of fundraising they will be doing, a per-transaction processing fee will end up being lower processing costs than a all up than a percentage of the donation as at ActBlue.

If they do that, the focus of the ActBlue activity would shift to the supporters pages.

by BruceMcF 2007-03-02 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

Edwards is official... I'm not really sure with HRC... that's actually a good point.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-02 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

I'm really coming around on Obama, regarding both his viability and my personal preferences. I don't think any rational assessment would call him the front-runner, but I just have a feeling he's going to take the nomination. He's really a top-flight rhetorical politician, and experience means far less than celebrity in today's campaigns.

His 1Q fundraising is probably going to be enormous. I don't think he'll catch Clinton right away, but it'll probably be closer than most think. His grass-roots organization will top Clinton's in passion and size. I think he'll do extremely well in NH. NH may be retail, but it's heavily personality-driven. And while Obama is probably the most progressive viable candidate in the race, his personality is extremely attractive to NH independents. I'm from NH, and everyone I talk to, from my Fox News-watching mother-in-law to my "libertarian" high school friend to my liberal sister, loves Obama. It's extraordinary.

It's too early to say this, but as it looks now, if Obama wins Iowa, he takes the nomination. Even if he doesn't, I like his chances. I used to think Richardson had a decent shot to break into the top tier, but I just don't see Obama giving up enough oxygen to allow that to happen. He's charismatic enough to still be interesting a year from now.

by BriVT 2007-03-02 02:42AM | 0 recs
Cheney and Rumsfeld

have ruined the concept of experience mattering...

being in washington DC for 30 years is a negative not a positive

by TarHeel 2007-03-02 03:05AM | 0 recs
it's very early now

At this point in 2003, Dean had not begun to surge in Iowa.

Even as late as October and November 2003, Kerry and Edwards were well behind Dean and Gephardt in Iowa.

I absolutely think Richardson can break into the top tier. As the only governor left in the race, there is a natural niche for him.

At some point this year there will be a media backlash against Obama. How he handles that will be very important to his candidacy.

I agree with you that Obama's fundraising will be enormous--that Hollywood money will be huge. But I also think that Edwards will raise more money than people expect.

by desmoinesdem 2007-03-02 04:01AM | 0 recs
Re: it's very early now

I still like Richardson a lot. He's still the guy I'll probably support in the primary due to his work on my two most important issues (diplomacy over war, and energy).

And, yeah, he has a natural niche, and he has a knack for retail politics that can gain him support in the early states.

But ... there's just a total abdication of anything but celebrity journalism by our political press. It's extraordinary how content-free the coverage has gotten. I knew this before, but what's changed for me is that I don't think Obama can be brought down by a media backlash. Britney Spears still has many, many fans. And, to our country's great detriment, that's more of an analog to our political process than is the 1976 rise of Jimmy Carter. And I just don't think Obama will make any real mistake. He has rhetorical skills that are head and shoulder above any other politician for quite a few years.

Richardson is not sunk, but he's really got to thread a very small needle. He has to exceed expectations in Iowa against two super-stars and a third guy who's very well known and popular in the state, win Nevada (which is doable), and then do very well in NH (I'd say he needs to win it). So far, I don't see enough of an understanding of what plays in NH to think they can pull off the NH part of things. But there's still time ... so it's possible. But the Dean situation was pretty unusual.

by BriVT 2007-03-02 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: it's very early now

At this point Richardson appears to be the only second tier candidate who could break into the top tier.

by robliberal 2007-03-02 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

I recently jumped onto the Obama bandwagon as well for the same reasons you cite.  = Convinced that he's the most likely to win, and, apart from Kucinich he has the most progressive voting record.

And isn't it nice to be for someone who knew what we knew back in 2002 when Bush was pimping the war?

by Go Vegetarian 2007-03-02 04:31AM | 0 recs
I'd like to see him doing more to end the war now

I appreciate that Obama was against the war in 2002, but right now is when he has a Senate seat and a media platform. I'd like to see him come out in favor of defunding the war.

by desmoinesdem 2007-03-02 05:01AM | 0 recs
He has actually come out in opposition to

defunding the war.  He doesn't think it is a good idea.

by Yoshimi 2007-03-02 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

In the Senate, his voting record is almost identical to Hillary's, except of course, he voted for the bankruptcy bill while she did not.

by timlhowe 2007-03-02 05:44AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

Why are people still claiming Obama voted for the Bankruptcy Bill?

by Socks The Cat 2007-03-02 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

im sorry dude, was that wrong?  i read it here somewhere...thank gods it aint true...it isnt right?

by timlhowe 2007-03-02 09:44AM | 0 recs
Edwards has raised $1M on ActBlue

Edwards and Richardson are doing their on-line fundraising through ActBlue, which (a) means that you can check their totals, and (b) means they pull in some tips to keep ActBlue  in business.  As of today, Edwards has $1,003,637 and Richardson $287,136.  Edwards raised about $100K in the last week with a push for $1M led by a general email.  All the $1M was raised since 28 Dec 2006, when he announced.  Richardson has been stuck pretty near his current number for a while.

Of course Clinton and Obama are doing their on-line fundraising elsewhere, and apparently Clinton at least also raised $1M on-line.

I understand that the deal with primary versus general is that if a single person gives more than $2300, the excess (up to another $2300) goes in an escrow account for the general.  The average Edwards donation on-line has been about $100, and I don't think there have been many $2300 contributions on there, so that $1M should be nearly all primary money.

I don't know how the dinners and so forth for max-out people have been going, but Jerome's guess of $10M for Edwards is probably conservative.  I guess we find out at the end of this month.

by DaveMB 2007-03-02 02:43AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

I think it is in Obama's interest for HRC to maintain that front runner status for as long as possible, without running away with the nomination.

Obama as frontrunner for months on end would really test his character.  But who knows maybe he will suprise us all.

by aiko 2007-03-02 02:55AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

I can't see anyone replacing Hillary as the frontrunner until the very late fall or early winter unless she makes a bad mistake.  Dean peaked too soon in 2003.  I'm sure Obama has learned from that, I hope so.

by howardpark 2007-03-02 04:21AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

Being the front runner is definitely a double edged sword.  It also makes you a target, for the media and your opponents, just ask Howard Dean.  

On the other side, taking the lead this early, maybe the worst thing that could've happened to Giuliani's campaign.

by MassEyesandEars 2007-03-02 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

Anyone have any idea who is spending thier money most wisely?  Are they just going to build a warchest and then dump it all into massive TV buys a week or two before Iowa, NH, NV, etc?  Just wondering...

That is sort of the conventional model.  In 1996 the very early, national spending on ads by President Clinton was credited with bolstering his political standing.  I know Romney has been up already with a few ads.  Did those ads have any effect?  Does anyone think that ads can be effective for Hillary, whose image is so well established?  It's a completely different challange than that faced by the Clinton team in 1991 & 92 or the re-election in 1996.

by howardpark 2007-03-02 04:00AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

Interesting numbers... but where do Edwards supporters go if he's knocked out early?  My best guess is they go to Obama.

Funny take on Romney's "gay marriage" attack on Giuliani: http://www.solidpolitics.com

by AustinTexas 2007-03-02 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

I'm giving Obama some consideration, but if Edwards is "knocked out" I'm assuming you mean in the primaries, and by the time anyone loses a primary we'll have a nominee, so will it matter?

Where do Obama supporters go if Obama decides not to continue his campaign later this year?

by Vox Populi 2007-03-02 04:47AM | 0 recs
We just wanna win

I think people's first choice will be based on passion.  If their candidate loses, then they will become more practical. Ultimately, Dems just wanna win, so those supporters will choose who they think can win.

by exLogCabin 2007-03-02 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

Based on some of the polls that include second and third choices Clinton and Obama would both gain.

by robliberal 2007-03-02 07:48AM | 0 recs
Edwards will not be knocked out early

He barely started making his move in Iowa last time until December 2003. There is no chance in the world that he drops out before IA, NV, NH and SC.

I think you are right, though, that Obama is a second choice for many Edwards supporters (and vice versa). I certainly don't see Edwards supporters going for Clinton as a second choice.

by desmoinesdem 2007-03-02 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards will not be knocked out early

As long as he has the money to stay viable -- Liddy Dole, Lamar! Alexander, Dan Quayle, John Ashcroft and John Kasich all bowed out by fall 1999.

by Adam B 2007-03-02 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

I'll be supporting Barack if John gets knocked out.  They are very similar.

by jallen 2007-03-02 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

What exactly is Edwards's niche in this primary field? How does he expect to propell himself forward?

by AC4508 2007-03-02 09:27AM | 0 recs
2006 money

Will Clinton's money left over from her Senate account that is transferred to her Presidential account go towards her 1Q totals?  

by KickinIt 2007-03-02 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: 2006 money

Yes it will.  According to this, she had nearly 11 million left in her senate campaign fund.

by maddogg 2007-03-02 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

Just out of curiousity why do you refer to Clinton by her first name but Obama and Edwards by their last names? Frankly it sounds rather sexist.

by mrgavel 2007-03-02 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

Because Hillary does the same.

by clarkent 2007-03-02 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

So what? The fact that a politician chooses to use her first name doesn't mean that anyone writing about her is obligated to use her first name instead of her last name.

by mrgavel 2007-03-02 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008

Sir, would you enjoy some cheese with your whine?

by Vox Populi 2007-03-02 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

Look at her website. It says "Hillary for President" at the top.  She made that decision to be referred to by her first name, not us.

by maddogg 2007-03-02 05:50AM | 0 recs
Mrs. Clinton is very sexist.

by Yoshimi 2007-03-02 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

Check out her website: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/splash/

"Hillary for President"

Most of the time a candidate is referred to by their last name.  In Hillary's case, she prefers her first name to stand apart from her husband.  She has always run as "Hillary" and not "Clinton."

by Vox Populi 2007-03-02 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

And it matches her ego and campaign theme.  It's about Hillary.

by benny06 2007-03-02 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls and money

If Hillary had been the President and Bill the first gentleman, and he was the Senator from NY running, would he run as "Clinton"?

Its a branding/marketing decision, clearly. She's hired consultants who have told her that if she runs as Clinton, then the shadow of Big Dawg only gets bigger.

by BruceMcF 2007-03-02 08:07AM | 0 recs
Obama is a bit like Rudy

His opponents have really gone after him yet and he is still getting fawning coverage from the media.   He has benefited from this.  We'll see what happens when the real fighting begins.

by dpANDREWS 2007-03-02 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

I think the benchmarks are too low.

Hillary should be closer to 25million (maybe 30million).  Obama should be 15million, Edwards 12.5million, everyone else 5-7million.

Hillary wants 100million this year.  That means 25million a quarter.

-Zen Blade

by Zen Blade 2007-03-02 05:28AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

"good news for the Gore people"?

Ummm...what shred of evidence do you have that Gore will run?  At this point, Gore supporters are in the audience of "Peter Pan," eyes scrunched tightly shut, saying "I believe, I believe...."  C'mon folks, let's maintain the reality-based community.  

If you must mention Gore, at least use the subjunctive (hypothesis contrary to current fact).

by InigoMontoya 2007-03-02 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

This is just silly.  The point has been made many times here and elsewhere.  Gore knows exactly what a Sherman statement sounds like.  He made a Sherman statement in 2004.  He has declined to make a Sherman statement this time.  Therefore, he is obviously keeping the possibility open.

The reality is, the rules are well defined by previous campaigns.  Looking at precedent, he's keeping it open.

by micarrdc 2007-03-02 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

I don't see any possibility Gore would run. One of the recent polls showed him with more unfavorables than the top 3 in the race.

by robliberal 2007-03-02 07:50AM | 0 recs
Gore people?

Are these the same people who were the butt of his joke on Oscar night?

Who says there is no "faith" in the left blogosphere? :)

by Yoshimi 2007-03-02 06:57AM | 0 recs
Guiliani vs Obama; Guiliani vs Clinton

Who among the Dem candidates will beat Guiliani?

Guiliani boasts of his success in NY--improving it  financially, crimes, appearance, etc.

If Guiiani wins GOP nomination,  if he rans the country like he did NY then the country will be okay.

I like a Democrat to win but I also hope that the Republican nominee is a good and competent nominee just in case they win.

by jasmine 2007-03-02 07:25AM | 0 recs
Running the country is nothing like running a city

Well... I guess we'll have our trash removed on schedule. That's a good thing.

by Yoshimi 2007-03-02 07:52AM | 0 recs
And another thing:

Ask anyone in New York what they think of Giuliani.  lol

He doesn't stand a chance.

by Yoshimi 2007-03-02 07:52AM | 0 recs
I can't help myself. This Giuliani?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpa i8

by Yoshimi 2007-03-02 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't help myself. This Giuliani?

I only saw that for the first time yesterday. There is no way much of the GOP base would vote for him if he is the nominee. Whether for humor or not there are Republicans who would fall out of their chair when they see the video. A loss of even a small percentage of the GOP base (staying home or third party) would guarantee a victory for Clinton or Obama.

by robliberal 2007-03-02 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: And another thing:

Maybe in the Upper West Side or some other home of limousine liberals.  Most New Yorkers with a memory are very happy that Rudy made the city safer, drop investment and jobs back into the city, and reformed welfare.  

To quote Jimmy Carter "Rudy Giuliani is America's best mayor."

by ditka 2007-03-02 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Guiliani vs Obama; Guiliani vs Clinton

All of them. Giuliani wouldn't be the powerhouse general election candidate some think him to be. He'd get crushed by, particularly, Richardson and Obama. Clinton and Edwards would beat him, too.

Giuliani wielding the expanded powers that Bush has grabbed is a very, VERY scary proposition. If ever there was a guy that couldn't be trusted with a strong Presidency, it's Rudy Giuliani.

by BriVT 2007-03-02 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

Those numbers, with just those 3, make this seem like a close race indeed. Highest spread is 16 between Hillary and Edwards and only 8 between Obama and Hillary, Edwards.

I think we are in for a damn good election and a lot of twists and turns coming as we get closer to Iowa.

by okamichan13 2007-03-02 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

oops, miscalculate, Hillary up by 12. But very very reachable.

by okamichan13 2007-03-02 08:06AM | 0 recs
And we don't even know the primary calendar!

If Feb 5 is Super Duper Tuesday, then clearly Hillary will try to carry so many delegates that it looks impossible to catch her and funding for Obama and Edwards dries up. Obama may focus on trying to gain one early four win and taking away enough across Super Duper Tuesday to ensure the race is open. Edwards would seem to be focusing on sweeping the early four and launching into Super Duper Tuesday with a wave of free publicity. And Richardson of course would be looking to finish as high as possible in Iowa and win Nevada and then pick a Super Duper Tuesday target to pull an upset.

Its quite possible for Hillary to have the delegate lead out of Super Duper Tuesday and be covered as the loser because instead of knocking people off, the field is seen as having expanded from three to three and a half.

Ten months is a long time ... a six point erosion over ten months would be an almost imperceptible shift month-on-month for Hillary, but if it split evenly between Edwards and Obama it would make a 36/33/25 race, which going into January looks like a recipe for a long primary campaign.

by BruceMcF 2007-03-02 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: And we don't even know the primary calendar!

The thing is although I can see Hillary possibly keeping her support, I don't see how its possible for her support to go up (barring a complete breakdown of Obama or Edwards campaigns). So its either steady or, imo more likely down, for Hillary. I would bet that things will look very different in January.

Agreed about Edwards strategy. I think he almost has to win Iowa and at least do very well in the rest, and maybe has to get 1st or 2nd in South Carolina. A 3rd place there would hurt.

About Obama, also agreed. His best chance would be New Hampshire or South Carolina. If he doesn't win any, going into Super Tuesday will be harsh.

I like Richardson's chances, esp without a Gore run. He really has nowhere to go but up and seems to be gaining some steam as he probably rightly should.

by okamichan13 2007-03-02 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: And we don't even know the primary calendar!

Iowans like their retail politics, and as well breadth of support is very important ... Obama could easily have fewer delegates than proportional to the people turning out in support of him, and Edwards more, of Obama's support is more concentrated and there are many precincts where it falls below 15%, whereas if Edwards retains his previous breadth of support he will pick up delegates almost everywhere.

Mind you, New Hampshire ... New Hamshireans? New Hampshirites? ... well, residents of New Hampshire like their politics retail as well. If Richardson decided to focus on NV and NH, and if Obama continues to grow his support among black voters, it would be conceivable for Hillary to finish the first four with no first or second places anywhere, which would really dent a front runner halo going into Super Duper Tuesday.

And with California really looking like its moving up, what with the bill getting through the State Senate this past week, Feb 5 really will be Super Duper Tuesday.

by BruceMcF 2007-03-03 05:49AM | 0 recs
by Adam B 2007-03-02 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

I don't see Edwards moving right at all, unless possibly in a general election. Even then I doubt it. He's made himself a very visible progressive and no turning back now.

About funding, its really hard to say. Its really hard to have any kind of realistic expectations for any of the candidates. Although if anyone gets more than Hillary, that will certianly be news.

by okamichan13 2007-03-02 10:51AM | 0 recs
Obama moving right?

I was suspicious of Obama that he might move to the right to get elected.  It looks like he is doing that.  I think he is making a mistake.

In what ways do you see Obama moving to the right?  

I keep waffling between Obama and Edwards.  Right now I'm leaning heavily towards Obama, but if you can point out where Obama might be moving to the right I could switch again.

by maddogg 2007-03-02 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama moving right?

You could support both.  Both are good guys, they are pretty similar, and I may be for John Edwards, but I'm rooting for Barack, too.

by jallen 2007-03-02 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama moving right?

I'm rooting for both.  But when my Democratic leaning friends and family ask my opinion, I still can't say whom I would prefer.  Also, I'm not going to give money to both of them once I decide on one.

by maddogg 2007-03-02 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 polls & money

Hotline had projections for all the Democratic presidentials:

Clinton - 35+-5
Obama - 20+
Edwards - 15+/-5

I think those are all a little high.  I would say 20, 15, and 10.  That's assuming we're just counting primary fundraising.

(The hotline link is here.)

by ItsDrewMiller 2007-03-02 03:52PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads