Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

As Jonathan asked yesterday: "weren't Obama's comments supposed to hurt him?" While there is some evidence that they have at least for the moment in Pennsylvania, nationally there is absolutely no sign of any effect in Clinton's favor in the Democratic primary race. Quite the contrary. Following up on Obama's 10 point lead in yesterday's Gallup daily tracking poll, today's Rasmussen has Obama leaping to a 9 point lead 50-41, a 10-point flip toward Obama in 2 days. At first glance it would seem that Clinton's exploitation of Obama's comments were more harmful to her than the controversy itself was to him. Now, it should be noted that these are national numbers, so not necessarily reflective of the sentiment in the ten final upcoming contests where Hillary really is hoping to win over voters, but the national trends are instructive as to the general feeling among Democratic voters nationwide and it's clear she's simply been unable to rattle confidence in Obama.

And it's not just voters who appear unmoved by Clinton's attacks. As I wrote yesterday, Clinton has been appealing not only to voters in upcoming primary states but also to superdelegates with an electability argument against Obama. Chris Cilizza sums up one hope of the Clinton campaign:

For the last two months or so, there has been a story circulating just outside of the public view that there are a large number of superdelegates who are privately committed to Obama and waiting for the right moment to pledge their allegiance. Do Obama's comments freeze these superdelegates in their current undecided pose? Or, more problematic for his campaign, do some significant number of undecided superdelegates side with Clinton -- citing Obama's comments as their prime reason for choosing the New York senator?

The AP story yesterday that Clinton received the endorsement of Yellowstone County (Montana) Commissioner Bill Kennedy as a result of Obama's comments seemed to perhaps portend some momentum along those lines among superdelegates (Kennedy is not one) but today, via First Read, we learn that, at least among two undecided superdelegates, that's not the case.

The Washington Post checks in with two undecided superdelegates to get their reaction to Obama's comments. "Looking for any possible edge, the Clinton campaign has pressed uncommitted superdelegates to view Obama's remarks as a major debacle that could harm him in November. But as of yesterday evening, there was little evidence that the electability argument is resonating. "Rep. Mike Doyle (D), an undecided superdelegate who represents Pittsburgh and surrounding towns in the Monongahela Valley, said yesterday that he was not particularly troubled by Obama's comments. `I don't disagree with a lot of what he said. My dad was a mill worker. My grandfather was a steel mill worker, and when the steel industry collapsed, nobody's family was hurt more than mine,' Doyle said. `It's not inaccurate to say a lot of politicians have come through these towns, made a lot of promises and failed to deliver. I thought he was spot-on when he said how people feel.'"

And in fact, for one of them, much as we appear to be seeing in some of the national numbers, Clinton's exploitation of the controversy may have been worse than the controversy itself.

Rep. David E. Price, an uncommitted Democrat from North Carolina, which holds its primary May 6, said his frustrations are with Clinton, for the potential damage she has inflicted. `Senator Obama could have chosen better words, but it seems to me that he's stating the obvious,' Price said. `People are feeling a great deal of economic stress, anxiety, and there is a certain amount of anger out there... I think it's most unfortunate that opponents simply pounce, particularly opponents in his own party.'"

Time and again Barack Obama has shown a remarkable ability to weather these political storms and this one looks to be no exception. Which means that ultimately this controversy, contrary to Hillary Clinton's hopes, may end up increasing the confidence voters and superdelegates have in him as a potential nominee.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama, Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton (all tags)



Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?
You can't paint a black guy as a elitist. No such thing exists.
My god, I haven't heard a more funny tag line in my life. Put Obama in a sport's jersey and he looks like a football player or coach. People have already seen him up close, they know the truth. This whole business is a storm in a teacup.
by Cristalgirl 2008-04-15 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

We'll unless you look like Armstrong Williams, but that's going to be one of those exceptions to the rule.

by GobBluth 2008-04-15 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

Or maybe Ken Blackwell...another "exception to the rule..."


Saying a black man cannot be an "elitist" is a little, er...ah....ummm....exclusionary, shall we say?

Wouldn't want to exclude anyone from the "elitist" club just because they're black now, would we?

by Tennessean 2008-04-15 10:08AM | 0 recs
Queen Hillary Is Not Amused By Your Elitism

Seriously, accusations of "elitism" from someone trying to create an American political dynasty?

It would sound stupid if Kennedy said, and if you think about it really really hard, you'll see it sounds just as stupid coming from Hillary.

Actually if you think it through, it sounds just a wee bit loony.

by bernardpliers 2008-04-15 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

..or Thomas Sowell, or Alan Keyes, or Ward Connerly.

Unfortunately, one finds the Vichy sort in all circles.

Fortunately, Obama is not one of them.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-15 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

The vulnerability comes from the intellectual tradition of the perceived "false consciousness" of the working class.  This view is common amongst liberals and is part of the reason politicians seek to distance themselves from the term "liberal."   The idea of the false consciousness of the working class is that they are too dumb to vote in their own best interest and instead vote on things like gun rights, religion, or gay marriage.  What Obama said fits this tradition perfectly, i.e. small town voters "cling" to religion, guns, antipathy towards people who are not like them, trade etc.  

Every indication is that Obama subscribes to this "false consciousness" view and his attempts to soften his statement only bolster this fact.  

A lot of posters here also agree with the "false consciousness" view and it is also typically on display in all its glory at DailyKos on a regular basis.  Those who agree with it are blind to the damage it will cause Obama.

Amongst voters in the industrial midwest and the south, most the country really, the "false consciousness" view is seen as arrogant and condescending.  This is Hillary's point about electability.  You can't win in November if you are seen subscribing to the "false consciousness" view of the white working class.

by dMarx 2008-04-15 09:41AM | 0 recs
You also can't win

without blacks, independents, and those elitists that she now hates. You also can't win when more than half the country hates you. It just doesn't happen.

by regina1983 2008-04-15 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: You also can't win

Hillary has shown that she can put together a coalition of voters that has carried the Democratic party in every winning Presidential elections since FDR.  Union workers, the poor, and women.

by dMarx 2008-04-15 10:01AM | 0 recs
What about Blacks and core democrats?

Bill won because of Blacks. Period. She has put together only a third of the coalition.

by regina1983 2008-04-15 10:08AM | 0 recs
Bill won because of Perot

..actually. And it was for Perot the "Reagan Democrats" voted. It just happened to benefit Bill.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-15 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: What about Blacks and core democrats?

It's comments like this that make me want to remind everyone of the absurdity of the race-bait CW.  That Bill and Hillary cooked up a ongoing scheme to infuriate blacks and drive away their support.  

by oh puhleeze 2008-04-15 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: You also can't win

It might be time for a new strategy. Gore almost got 50%, but aside from that the Democratic coalition has topped 50% once in the past 40 years. (Obviously there is no telling where Bill Clinton would've landed if Perot hadn't been in the race -- I like to think he would've won with a majority; but the Republicans will solemnly tell you Bush the Elder would've won. They usually kind of gloss over Dole.)

by mhojo 2008-04-15 10:41AM | 0 recs

You cannot claim a winning coalition when you are handly losing.

by nwgates 2008-04-15 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: You also can't win

HAhaha.. she'll lose.. and lose big without blacks..might even lose illinois

by CaptMorgan 2008-04-15 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Weakness as Nominee Surfacing

Well, working class voters may not call it the "false consciousness" of Marxism.

But, they know they're being condescended to when they hear it, And, they heard it from Obama on Billionaire's Row in San Francisco, no less.

Hillary Clinton beats Obama hands down among white, working class voters making $50,000 or less; in Ohio, in Pennsylvania, in West Virginia, and Kentucky, these are substantial portions of the Democratic voters. In Indiana, white working class voters make up 66% of the electorate.

Woe is He--Barack Obama may end up the bitter one in November ry.html?id=bf08a566-7c44-446a-aa34-7889b 0f24b5a

Back to the Future: The Re-Emergence of the Democratic Majority

John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira | June 19, 2007

Right now, Democrats need to win between 44 percent and 48 percent of the white working-class vote to carry states like Missouri, Ohio, or Pennsylvania, a little higher for Iowa, and higher still for West Virginia or Kentucky.


While Democrats enjoyed significant gains among noncollege whites earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually, they made their most dramatic gains among white working-class voters making between $30,000 to $50,000. In the 2004 congressional elections, these voters had favored Republicans by 60 percent to 38 percent; in 2006 they divided their vote equally between Democrats and Republicans. That's a 22-point shift...." rticle=back_to_the_future061807


Exit Polls Reveal Obama's Weaknesses

Barack Obama has rested his campaign partly on the claim that he is the more electable of the Democratic presidential candidates...


If you look at the exit polls for Ohio, and to some extent, Texas and Rhode Island...Hillary Clinton does better or much better than him among women [55-60% of the electorate overall], whites (particularly those who make less than $50,000 a year), Latinos, and older voters....


The question for the fall is whether there are Clinton voters who won't vote for Obama and Obama voters who won't vote for Clinton. The exit polls don't really answer this question. The closest they get is to ask respondents whether they would be "satisfied" or "dissatisfied" if Clinton or Obama were the eventual nominee. The results tonight do not look good for Obama.

In Wisconsin, for instance, only 17 percent of Democratic primary voters said they would be dissatisfied if Obama were the nominee.

In Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas, 30 percent or more of voters said they would be "dissatisfied" if he were the nominee.

That means that a sizable percentage of voters who backed Hillary Clinton may not back Obama in the fall....


Obama has to worry about the Reagan or Bush Democrats, white working class voters who used to be Democrats, but often back Republican presidential candidates. Bill Clinton won many of these voters back; but Al Gore lost them in 2000 and John Kerry lost them in 2004.

[Hillary] Clinton did much better among them, winning over 60 percent of them in Ohio.


In some February 5 states, the overall percentage of white (or Latino) primary voters who voted for white candidates partly because of race was pretty high. It was 9.5 percent, for instance, in New Jersey.

In the general election, that percentage is likely to double; and some of these additional voters will be white working class or Latino voters that a Democratic candidate needs to win. In Wisconsin, the number was very low--only 6 percent. But in Ohio, a crucial swing state, it was 11.4 percent.

That's a real danger sign for Obama in a state where elections can be decided by one or two percentage points.


But Clinton bested Obama among moderate voters by 53 to 46 percent in Ohio, while Obama edged her among liberal voters by 50 to 49 percent. The same pattern occurred in Rhode Island, where Clinton won moderates by 55 to 44 percent and lost liberal voters to Obama by 51 to 48 percent. That's probably not a good sign for Obama, whose strength lay in his appeal to the political center. All in all, the exit polls show that in these elections--in contrast to those in Maryland, Virginia, or Wisconsin--Obama's weakness as a potential candidate in November may be beginning to surface. ank/archive/2008/03/04/exit-polls-reveal -obama-s-weaknesses.aspx


Obama down by 20 in new Pennsylvania poll; national lead holds steady

A survey of Pennsylvania Democrats that was done in part after the news broke about Sen. Barack Obama's controversial comment that some small-town folks are "bitter" and cling to religion and guns in difficult times, shows him now trailing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Keystone State by 20 percentage points.

American Research Group says this morning that its latest poll shows Clinton ahead 57%-37%. The survey of 600 "likely" Democratic primary voters was begun Friday and completed on Sunday. The news about Obama's "bitter" comments broke late Friday afternoon.

In ARG's previous Pennsylvania survey, done a week earlier, Clinton and Obama were tied at 45%. That tie, though, was an "outlier."

Most Pennsylvania polls have given Clinton at least a 5 percentage point lead.

ARG's new survey has a margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points.


by Tennessean 2008-04-15 10:44AM | 0 recs
AKA "Perot Voters."

It is to laugh. As if running as GOP-lite has served the party at all in the past decade. Clinton wouldn't have won at all if it hadn't been for Perot, who is actually the one who got the "Reagan Democrat" vote.

Newsflash: "Reagan Democrats"= "voted for W twice."

They really aren't our audience. Besides, W proved that you don't have to tack center to win. You just need to inspire a bunch of new voters. Which is exactly what Obama does.

By the way, no informed worker is going to vote for someone who supported NAFTA, MFS for China, the bankruptcy bill, and the war. The uninformed ones will vote McCain, because Hillary is indistinguishable from him on labor.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-15 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: It is to laugh, indeed!

You must be as "bewildered" as Barack!

Hillary Clinton beats Barack hands down with white, working class voters, a voting bloc that you are now derisively calling "Perot" voters, but which delivered to Democrats a majority in Congress in 2006.

John Judis and Ruy Texeiera calculate we need to win 45-48% of this voting bloc in 2008 to win the White House. Barack Obama may be "bewildered" by the reaction to his remarks, but most people "get it" because they know he insulted a huge potential swing vote, which could be disastrous for Democrats in November:

In 2006 Democrats were able to win with sufficient support from the white working class (52% of the electorate).

Democrats had gotten only 39 percent of this vote in the 2004 congressional elections; in 2006 Democrats got 44 percent of the vote, which was enough to give them a solid majority in Congress.

Democrats' success among these voters helped the party to pick up three house seats in Indiana (where the white working class makes up 66 percent of the voting electorate); two seats in Iowa (where it makes up 72 percent); a Senate seat in Montana (which is 68 percent white working-class); and a Senate seat, a House seat, and the governorship in Ohio (which is 62 percent white working-class).

By 2015 the white working class is expected to fall from 52 percent to 47 percent of the U.S. electorate, but it will remain a critically important group nationally and in many elections in the Midwest and South. rticle=back_to_the_future061807

by Tennessean 2008-04-15 12:09PM | 0 recs
Actually, you're really talking about..

the percentage of those working class voters who:

--wouldn't vote for McCain regardless

--are happy to forgive Hillary her roles in NAFTA, the bankruptcy bill, MFS for China, and union busting, which played huge roles in causing working class struggle, but

will absolutely refuse to vote for Obama despite  his pro-labor positions because he used the words "cling to guns and religion."

That percentage I'm quite confident will be more than made up for by the prodigious numbers of new youth and black voters that Obama brings in.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-15 02:38PM | 0 recs
Know what also turns off the working class?

Someone who thinks she is too "elite" to have to pay her bills to working-class caterers, and small business owners.

"Dead beat" really isn't flattering on your resume when you are vying to be at the helm of the economy.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-15 11:58AM | 0 recs
and you can't win the labor vote

by supporting NAFTA, the bankruptcy bill, MFN status for China, and busting unions. Unless, of course, the "false consciousness" theory actually rings true.

I know the right wing is banking on it.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-15 11:26AM | 0 recs
You can update with today's Gallup's

He no longer has a 10 point lead.  Nope, this scandal is killing him to the point where his lead shrunk all the way down to.... 11 points, his widest ever.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-15 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: You can update with today's Gallup's

Sorry, wrong link.  It should have been this.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-15 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: You can update with today's Gallup's

Curses!  You beat me.  :-)

by fwiffo3 2008-04-15 09:28AM | 0 recs
Today's Gallup

Today's Gallup just came out, it's up to +11 for Obama.

by fwiffo3 2008-04-15 09:27AM | 0 recs
More bitter news for HRC...

Obama's 51% is just 1% below his highest figure of the year; HRC's 40% matches her lowest (set yesterday).

by KTinOhio 2008-04-15 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: More bitter news for HRC...

Manufactured controversies clearly aren't quite what they used to be.

Hillary remains lost in her 1990's time warp, but the rest of the country has moved on.

by baghdadjoe 2008-04-15 11:44AM | 0 recs
her obvious glee is hurting her

she's been so over the top in her response to this whole "bitter" thing. I can hardly even watch her. She can hardly contain her excitement thinking she's found the "magic bullet" to kill the Obama campaign. I think she's going to be very disappointed.

by jadegirl 2008-04-15 12:16PM | 0 recs
Its an amateurish political mistake

Team Clinton was so desperate to jump up and down on Obama that they forgot that the moment they tried to amplify the so-called gaffe they changed the dynamic. They should have said nothing and let the media carry the water. As soon as Hillary went on the attack, then Obama came back at her and that was the new story - the dueling attacks. If Clinton just keep on message and didn't detour, than Obama would still be on defense.  

Obviously Team Clinton's advisers are not amateurs, but this is just another blunder. The way they played this reeks of desperation.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-04-15 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?
Well said!
by Hope Monger 2008 2008-04-15 09:29AM | 0 recs
Too early

His comments are hurting him but it is too soon to see the blood because of the timing of the news cycle. This thing basically broke over the weekend.

Now look at the latest poll results in PA.

Rasmussen, Clinton +9; Survey USA, Clinton +1; Quinnipac, Clinton +6

Mind you, this is in a state where Obama is outspending Mrs. Clinton 2 to 1. And he is the presumptive Democratic front runner with a supposed lock on the nomination.

How do you spell P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C?

by dMarx 2008-04-15 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

Calling Obama pathetic?

As for your news cycle comment - did it ever occur to you that the vast majority of voters outside of PA really don't care about Obama's overblown comment? I swear - it's like everyone is so eager to see some controversy drown the Obama campaign that they jump on every little thing. Yet, to no one's surprise, he keeps weathering these "controversies".

Seriously - if Wright didn't sink the campaign you think the word "bitter", uttered once, is going to have any significant impact? I would hope you would be overjoyed that we finally have a candidate that knows how to respond to attacks and emerge unscathed from these fabricated assaults.

by LandStander 2008-04-15 09:35AM | 0 recs
News Flash


It wasn't the word "bitter" that had nothing to do with it.

It was the "cling to guns or religion" part that will hurt him.  And in the same breath he put religion and guns on the same level as racism and xenophobia. Here is his exact quote.

"They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment."

And unlike the Wright controversy, this came from his own mouth.

Oh, and you better believe America cares.  This is 10x  worse than "I voted for it before I voted against it."

by dMarx 2008-04-15 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: News Flash

Everything is 10x worse when it comes to Obama, right? I can't count how many times people here swore that Wright would destroy Obama's campaign, career and life - when in the end - once everyone got to see the YouTube clips and hear the spin - people just really didn't give a damn.

All of this is beside the point because polls show this hasn't yet had an impact. Until they do show an impact, why should I buy your spin that this is the controversy of the century? And I bet those people who care the most are non-voters and Republicans.

by LandStander 2008-04-15 10:06AM | 0 recs
The national polls show the opposite

Obama's lead is growing. Clinton's attack withered.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-04-15 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: News Flash

I'm pretty damn tired of worrying what the mean old Republicans are going to do. Democrats have to stop cowering like beaten dogs and just stand up for themselves. Watching Evan Bayh from my home state of Indiana come out as a concern troll about what the nasty old GOP would do in the fall was maddening.

You know what would nip this thing in the bud? Superdelegates coming out and knee-capping the Clinton campaign before Bayh and Clinton can do any more internecine damage.

Let me be clear. Clinton is entitled to keep running her campaign. The superdelegates are under no obligation to do anything. But, given the current state of the race, Obama can win without major internal blood letting. I don't think Clinton can. She can still win the nomination, but I think she's going to have to cripple the party in '08 to do it.

If she wants to remain in the race, my preference would be for her to run the sort of collegial; non-attack oriented campaign you'd hope for in an intra-party rivalry. But, then, given the current state of the race, I don't think she could win that way.

by mhojo 2008-04-15 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: News Flash

Speaking of Superdelegates coming out:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rep. Barney Frank said the trailing Democratic presidential candidate should drop out of the race by no later than June 3 -- the date of the two last Democratic primaries -- even if it is the candidate he supports, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Barney Frank has endorsed Clinton, and his sister (Ann Lewis) is a high ranking official in the Clinton campaign

by tysonpublic 2008-04-15 11:03AM | 0 recs
Barney Came Out Years Ago (NT)

by bernardpliers 2008-04-15 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

"How do you spell P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C?"

F-A-V-O-R-A-B-L-E D-E-M-O-G-R-A-P-H-I-C-S.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-15 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

BTW, I made a typo. Clinton is up +14 in the latest Survey USA poll.

All the while the underdog who it is supposedly impossible for her to win and she is being outspent 2 to 1.

Not bad for Hillary.

by dMarx 2008-04-15 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

Um... Hillary Clinton has never been "the underdog" in PA.

She has fallen behind in national polls. And she still is.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-15 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

Why isn't Hillary the underdog in PA?

Don't the voters in PA know that Obama has already won? That he leads by 10 points? Why isn't the party coalescing behind the clear front runner? Why is he out spending Hillary 2 to 1 in PA and is still DOWN BY 14 POINTS in the SUSA poll?

by dMarx 2008-04-15 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

The Senator from New York, wife of a popular two-term President, with universal name recognition and 15 years on the national stage doesn't get to be the underdog. Especially when she was up by 20+ points a few weeks ago.

by LandStander 2008-04-15 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

She was up by as much as 28 in some polls.  Now, once again, just like TX and OH, she's poised for a come from WAY AHEAD victory.

by fogiv 2008-04-15 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

Not to mention having just about the entire political establishment in your pocket.

by Obama Independent 2008-04-15 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

Because she's been ahead in the polls for months.

And the primary race is over. She can't catch him in pledged delegates, and the supers aren't going to overturn the PDs for a candidate who's going to lose to McCain (remember that part? the point, for some of us, is to win the General Election).

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-15 10:09AM | 0 recs
Down from +18

in the last SUSA poll.

PA has stagnated - that's about all one can gather from the latest round of polls there. Slight movement for her on Rasmussen, away from her on SUSA, 4-6 point spread for her in the others. Unless something big breaks in the next 6 days (like, something bigger than honest analysis), she'll win by 10 or so. Not enough to give her the shot of nitro she desperately needs, and not enough to swing the national numbers her way for more than a day or two.

Bottom line is that Obama has gone from 20% to 50% in 4 months, while in the same period Clinton has gone from 40% to....40%. We've heard a new meme every week that was supposed to just ruin Obama with some demographic or other (each one of course being critically important in November and coincidentally leaning to Hillary...), and none of it - he's inexperienced, he's the 'black candidate', "it's a cult", he's a closet racist, he's a lousy bowler, he likes orange juice instead of coffee, he's an elitist, blah blah blah --- none of it has done what the Clintonites were so certain it was gonna do to him.

At the same time, they've wasted their opportunities to make a real case as to why people should vote for HRC while working against the clock to make a case for voting against BHO.

That, my friends, is how we've lost elections - and I can only assume that the Democratic Party's poster child of "elitism" Hillary Clinton, plans to run that way in November. If it's not winning over her own party (stuck at 40% since we started the engines), how in God's name do any of you expect it to win over 51% of the voting public in a general contest?

by SuperTex 2008-04-15 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

so you have a crystal ball or called the Psychic Friends Network?? Wasn't it not too long ago that HRC was ahead by 20 points in Pennsylvania?

by feliks 2008-04-15 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

Even better.  I am an American from a small town who doesn't like to harbor political delusions. You won't find me starry eyed or foaming at the mouth for any politician.  I like reality thank you very much.

by dMarx 2008-04-15 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

Well then the reality is this, Clinton is going to lose.

by kasjogren 2008-04-15 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early


by feliks 2008-04-15 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

I'm not quite sure if you're saying that she leads by those numbers or that her lead has grown by those numbers (I think the former, but you're wrong on that one on SUSA).  Look, Sen. Clinton had a lead of 18-19 points in Pennsylvania after Texas/Ohio.  And, honestly, I don't buy the idea that ads move numbers much.  Anyway, here's the current race with former results.  

All polls of likely voters*:

Rasmussen 4/14. MoE 4.0% (4/7 results)
Clinton 50 (48)
Obama 41 (43)

SurveyUSA 4/12-14. MoE 3.9% (4/5-7 results)
Clinton 54 (56)
Obama 40 (38)

Quinnipiac 4/9-13. MoE 2.1% (4/3-6 results)
Clinton 50 (50)
Obama 44 (44)

In other words: Rasmussen: +4 movement to Clinton.  SUSA: +4 movement to Obama.  Quin: no movement.

Two polls showed big movement: ARG showed +20 to Clinton, Susquehanna: +11 to Obama.  I don't trust either poll.  ARG's been way off all primary season, ans Sus has got a small sample size.

I do think this will start to move numbers if Sens. McCain and Hillary keep going after Sen. Obama with it, in a way similar to what happened in NH when people felt that Sen. Clinton was being unfairly attacked.    

by bosdcla14 2008-04-15 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

No I don't mean her lead has grown by that much. I specifically said that it was too early to see the damage.

I think SUSA was an extreme outlier to begin with and that it is telling that it only corrected +4 to Obama.  Clinton is still up +14.

I agree, toss out ARG and Suhs. I also never pay attention to Gallup, which in my opinion is a "drama queen" poll.

I think Rasmussen is the best poll going, the most reliable, best weights, most current data, and the robo calls get honest answers. Rasmussen shows +4 to Clinton.

Obama stepped in it big time. This is 10X worse than "I voted for it before I voted against it." Especially in the hands of a John McCain.

by dMarx 2008-04-15 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

Is that "10X worse" arbitrary, or are you working off of an algorithm? I'd really love to see your math.

by bookish 2008-04-15 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

The admiral's son and admiral's grandson is going to call a kid who grew up on food stamps an elistist?  Bring it on.  

What's interesting is that I think Hillary's whole "oh, I'm totally into guns" thing has sort of closed the circle with her sniper fire misstep.  

McCain's comments would go something like:
"My friends, I think we can all agree that America needs a President who stands firm on issues involving weapons and the use of force.  Now, Sen. Clinton, like a lot of my colleagues on the left, becomes very uncomfortable at the thought of military action and weapons, and it ties her in knots.  So she votes for a war---and then says she was tricked by that evil genius George W. Bush.  She makes a peaceful visit to Bosnia, and claims it was a blur of sniper fire and danger.  And then, to top it all off, she's for gun control when she runs for Senate in New York---but then when she's running for President, she suddenly remembers that she apparently grew up with a six-shooter on her hip.  Give her some time, and I'm pretty certain she'll tell us that not only did she face sniper fire on that Tuzla tarmac, but she shot back as well.

My friends, in a dangerous world, we can't afford to have a President who can't give a straight answer any time an issue of weapons or military danger comes up.  I know a little something about incoming fire and danger, and I don't recall having a poem read to me by a little girl as part of warfare.  And I promise you that I will give you straight answers on these tough questions, not invent stories and make excuses."  

by bosdcla14 2008-04-15 12:01PM | 0 recs
Please be serious - McCain is an idiot

The guy is a gaffe machine. He isn't even on the campaign trail right now, yet he is still serving them up. Whether it is confusing the Shia and Sunni or not understanding Patreus' role, the guy is waiting to collapse. And we aren't talking about pseudo-gaffes like bittergate, we're talking about campaign body blows.

Plus - McCain can't raise any money. He is going to accept public matching funds. He is going to be crippled and will have difficulty getting out anything other than a muted message. Obama is going to crush him. Imagine McCain having to spend his precious, capped GE funds on defending in Virginia, North Carolina and Texas. That is what is going to happen.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-04-15 08:28PM | 0 recs
You and I have different meanings for pathetic

Yes he is outspending her 2:1. But it is a place where the Demographics favor her and where she has a bit of "hometown favorite" style appeal.

You also can't buy her type of name recognition. People everywhere have known who she is for more than 15 years. Obama has been in the public eye for less than 6 years and really only noticeable to the average voter for the last year and a half or so.

He had a lot of ground to make up and has done a remarkable job.

by JDF 2008-04-15 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: You and I have different meanings for pathetic

If the demographics hurt Obama in PA and Oho, I can think of another place the demographics might hurt him as well.

Let me see, what was it ...?

Oh ya, now I remember, it is called AMERICA.

by dMarx 2008-04-15 10:12AM | 0 recs
Because the rest of the nation

is exactly like PA and OH, as the other 39 elections to date have proven.

Incidentally, this is the same old silly argument that "if he loses to Clinton in a state's primary he will lose to McCain in that state in the general election."   The only reason the Clinton folks continue to make this blatantly silly argument is because they don't have any other argument left.

by snaktime 2008-04-15 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Because the rest of the nation

Ever heard of a bell weather state?  

Let me give you a clue, Texas, Illinois, New York and CA are not bell whether states.  OH, PA, and FL? You betcha.

How is Obama doing there?

by dMarx 2008-04-15 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Because the rest of the nation

Can't really tell until Hillary is out of the equation. Clinton's popularity among the Democratic voters of those states when compared to Obama doesn't tell us a thing about Obama's popularity among all of the voters of those staes when compared to McCain.

by mhojo 2008-04-15 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Because the rest of the nation

Correction...Florida WAS a bellweather.... IA, CO and VA are better bellweathers now.

by CaptMorgan 2008-04-15 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Because the rest of the nation

Wow. It is amazing to me how much people will create an alternate reality to fit their world view.

by dMarx 2008-04-15 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Because the rest of the nation

Um... florida has been trending red for awhile.. .while many more states have been trending blue (I could list 10+ easily)

Don't slam me because you don't pay attention to these things

by CaptMorgan 2008-04-15 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Because the rest of the nation

All he has left is to slam us. He knows he is not making good arguments but they are the only arguments he has left.

by JDF 2008-04-15 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Because the rest of the nation

The entire Mountain West/ Southwest is getting ready to turn blue for a generation. It is in the demographics. The entire area is now a battleground. If McCain wasn't from Arizona we'd even be talking about that State being a real battleground. As it stands now, there are two open Senate seats in the Southwest up for election in the Fall and the Democrats are going to win both of them convincingly.

Florida is not a bell weather State and neither is Pennsylvania. The dynamic in Pennsylvania changed because of Rendell. You win Statewide in PA by running up the score in Philly and the surrounding metro counties. Before Rendell, it used to be that the Democratic plurality in Philadelphia was wiped out by the GOP plurality in Bucks, Montgomery, Chester and Delaware counties. No more. When he was Mayor, Rendell was more popular in the surrounding counties than in the city itself. He is the one who really changed voting patterns in the Philadelphia suburbs. The suburbs were slowly trending due to the antipathy towards the theocratic fringe element of the national GOP - but Rendell really sped that process along. Soccer moms and dads in the Philly suburbs really like him. Democrats now carry Philly and its suburbs by at least half a million votes. It is insurmountable.

On the other hand, Florida has become more southern in the last 10 to 15 years. It has embraced some of the wacko theocrats and their preachings and has become more conservative. It isn't in play.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-04-15 08:49PM | 0 recs
Of course they are unmoved

The problem is that when you have a negative rating of over 50% people already are bitter towards you and anything you do they are just going to be angrier. The other 50% is giving you a chance but when you do crap like this, your numbers are only bound to go up.

Remind me why Hillary is staying in this race? Oh that's right, she wants to destroy Obama.

by regina1983 2008-04-15 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

If her goal is to destroy Obama she has shown a remarkable inability to do so. If this guy was as flawed as some people believe he is, one would think Hillary would have an easy time sinking his campaign. Yet, she is so far entirely ineffective.

by LandStander 2008-04-15 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

HIllary is handling Obama with kid gloves.

by dMarx 2008-04-15 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

If you believe that then I am sorry but you are politically tone deaf.

She has gone literally as far as she can against a member of her own party. If she took it any further she would lose all credibility as a Democrat.

by JDF 2008-04-15 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

Oh please.  Hillary is handling Obama with kid gloves. Wait until GOP 527's get a piece of him. Then you'll see what Hillary is warning you about.

The GOP has been pounding Hillary for 15 years and have been raising money against her since 2000. No joke. Since 2000 Republicans have been raising "stop Hillary" money.  That is why her negatives are so low.

But Hillary's negatives are already priced into her poll numbers.  Obama on the  other hand has yet to take a real punch.

by dMarx 2008-04-15 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

I love the idea that "anything Clinton does is okay because the republicans will be worse."  Sorry, I don't think adopting Republican lines like "McCain is ready to lead" and "Democrats are latte sipping elitists" is okay from a Democratic leader.  I choose our party before any candidate any day.

by snaktime 2008-04-15 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

Well, what can I say? We have to agree to disagree.

Time will tell. That is the fun of politics. That and the fact that there is always another election.

It is never over.

by dMarx 2008-04-15 11:23AM | 0 recs
See and I figured you were like Hillary

I figured you thought the fun part was needlessly smearing your opponent while your supporters call it "kid gloves."

by JDF 2008-04-15 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

Seriously, what the hell else would a GOP 527 say that hasn't been said already?

Scary black preacher man?

Elitist, out-of-touch liberal?

Secret Muslim?

Yeah, their ads might go a little lower, but Obama has weathered every one of these issues with no problem.  He has EXPANDED his lead this week nationally.  He's doing as well now as he ever has.

Your argument is an absolute joke.  You assume that GOP 527 groups will say something about Obama, and he'll just decide to let them do it, and that American voters will somehow just eat it up and turn their brains off, even though they've shown a remarkable appreciation for nuance throughout the whole primary process, and even though Obama has fought back swiftly and forcefully EVERY TIME.

Oh, and news flash?  The GOP has been vetting Clinton for years, but it still didn't stop her little Bosnia story from coming out, did it?  Do you think it will stop her from making further "gaffes"?

So many baseless assertions, so little time...

by The Great Gatsby 2008-04-15 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

Come on. Hillary's only concern is the well-being of the party. That's why she and supporters like Bayh and Lieberman are selflessly pointing out that this Islamic, Radical Black Christian, Marxist will be called an Marxist, Radical Black Christian, Muslim by the Republicans on account of his Radical Black Christian belief in Marxist Islam.

by mhojo 2008-04-15 10:53AM | 0 recs
Well delivered snark! n/t

by JDF 2008-04-15 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

GOP 527's will point out Obama's past associations with extremists that go beyond Rev. Wright and how Obama's "bitter" gaffes conflate perfectly with the intellectual traditions of those extremists.

GOP 527's will point out how  Obama attempted to procure millions in earmarks for Michelle Obama's employer after she was given a  $200,000 a year raise after Obama was elected to the Senate.

GOP 527's will point out Obama's connection to Iraqi arms dealer Auchi, who gave Rezko the money to help Obama purchase his $1.9 million home in Chicago and how Obama met with Auchi at Rezko's home after Obama denied ever meeting Auchi.

GOP 527's will throw Obama's themes of "judgment" and "just words" right back in his face with Bittergate, Wright, and Rezko.

And that is just getting started.

GOP 527's will point out that Obama voted to deny human status to aborted fetuses that are born alive. Every other Democrat in the U.S. Senate voted to allow fetuses born alive to be legally human under the law because they didn't want to be seen as extreme.

Obama is vulnerable to being painted as extreme on abortion.

by dMarx 2008-04-15 11:32AM | 0 recs
Point blank question:

Will you support Obama if he is the nominee?

by rhetoricus 2008-04-15 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

Well fuck, dMarx, we had better just give up now. No point in fighting the battle when the GOP is going to attack our candidate.

How about this as a new rule for the Democratic Party - we never contest an election when the other side might say something mean about us.

by LandStander 2008-04-15 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

Oh, boo-hoo.  Get over it.  Obama has strengths as well but I was asked what GOP 527's would do that Hillary hasn't and I gave you a preview.

Can we all just strop drinking the Kool-Aid? Just for a few minutes?

Obama is a strong candidate but has serious issues. Doesn't mean he is going to lose.  But what is the point of being in denial about his weaknesses and instead blaming everything on Hillary?

by dMarx 2008-04-15 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

You want a preview of what the GOP 527s are gonna bring against Hillary?

How about Tulza, Norman Hsu, Mark Rich, Sandy Berger, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinski and Vince Foster. And that's just for starters.

"But that's all bullshit." you might say.

My point exactly. The Republicans are gonna come with their bullshit attacks - stop being in denial that Hillary wouldn't get hit with them just the same.

The thing is, the Obama campaign hasn't been throwing those stories at Hillary Clinton. When the GOP attacks with these sorts of right-wing frames, people will mostly just shrug them off as "politics." When Hillary Clinton is repeating them, it gives them weight, Lieberman-style.

by fwiffo3 2008-04-15 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

This is exactly why we lose elections.  For some unknown reason, we believe that the big, bad Republican attack machine is going to come and get us.  Fuck that.

We have more enthusiasm, more money, more voters, and better candidates.  It won't be a cakewalk, but I am not about to cower in fear from ass boils like Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.  The only way we lose this election is with blatant pandering and divisiveness.  Otherwise, we should be able to win in a landslide.

by zadura 2008-04-15 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

Refusing to acknowledge the liabilities is not the answer either.  It is not all about blind RA-RA-RA  pass the Kool-Aid please!

Nothing wrong with a little realpolitik.

by dMarx 2008-04-15 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

Sure but your attitude seems to be that the 527's are coming to get us so we better cower in the corner and hope we can win regardless.

How about we fight fire with fire. How about we take their best punch and give them ares.

To paraphrase one of my favorite movies, The Untouchables: At the end of the fight you look at the guy who is still standing; thats how you know who the winner is.

If we go into this GE with that attitude, rather than letting them kick our asses from the low road while we feel good about having the high road, we will be fine regardless of who our candidate is.

by JDF 2008-04-15 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

Well here's your chance to display your impressive lucidity.

What are Hillary Clinton's liabilities? What would the 527s say about her and her husband? And how would she respond to those attacks?

Because surely you're not so believe as to buy into all the "she's been vetted" nonsense.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-15 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course they are unmoved

Or just dishonest.

by bookish 2008-04-15 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

Her demeaning remark about Gore being an elitist who lost the 2000 election is the last straw for many Dem establishment.  You don't attack someone that most Dems believe was robbed of the presidency.  She is an idiot!

by sbbonerad 2008-04-15 09:37AM | 0 recs
She didn't say that


by Trickster 2008-04-15 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: She didn't say that

uh huh. And she didn't say McCain would make a better CiC than Obama, and her husband didn't say McCain was a moderate.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-15 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: She didn't say that

Snark > accuracy, eh?

by Trickster 2008-04-15 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: She didn't say that

um... I don't know what you think you're saying, so I can't respond, but she said all those things, and he called McCain a moderate, so....

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-15 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: She didn't say that

You're right. She said that Gore was a perceived elitist who lost the 2000 Election.

It's still a truly repugnant thing to say about the former VP of your own husband, much less a highly respected member of your own party.

But you're right, she didn't say what he said she said. What she actually said was hardly any better, but it was at least different.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-15 03:30PM | 0 recs
Telling people how to feel is a problem

Obama wasn't telling people to be bitter.  He was noting it.  Inartfully.

Clinton seemed to be telling people that they should be offended by such comments... ironically.

We hate hypocrites more than people who blunder their lines in this country.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-15 09:38AM | 0 recs
What about Obama's hypocrisy on healthcare

Telling people they will get affordable healthcare when in actuality, the insurance might cost less, but it will INSURE LESS and more people will have their lives ruined by bills their plans wont cover.

(Obama is taking advantage of desperate and sick people who don't know enough about insurance mechanisms to realize that he's lying, or that 'his proxies' are)

If THAT is not hypocrisy, WHAT IS?

by architek 2008-04-15 10:12AM | 0 recs
No, it isn't

Because it's not true.

We don't know what final form either Obama or Clinton's health plans will take, so we can't pass judgement like that.  Clinton and Obama have the same basic plans, barring the mandates.

It's also not really the point of this diary.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-15 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: What about Obama's hypocrisy on healthcare

"Obama is taking advantage of desperate and sick people"

Wow, that is HILARIOUS coming from the supporter of someone who voted for the bankruptcy bill, which makes it virtually impossible for people to recover from devastating hospital bills.

Or should I say, Hillary-ous.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-15 11:53AM | 0 recs
Go back to redstate!

We don't need this crap here.

by JDF 2008-04-15 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

Hillary is going to win PA by 5-10.  Obama will win NC by 15-20.  Hillary will win Indiana by 5-15 (its very variable).  That said, the delegate totals are going to stay basically the same and the superdelegates aren't heading en  masse to Hillary, but rather, seem to still be trickling over to Obama.  In fact, it seems like a lot of them are getting pissed off at Hillary attacking the Democratic brand writ large.  

At the end of the day, the only question is what Hillary will do after these last few primaries and she is still behind in most (if not all) types of vote counts.

by quixote27 2008-04-15 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

This just isn't the kind of thing that is going to improve her numbers in the remaining states by 20+% and move 75% of the remaining superdelegates in her direction.

by Max Fletcher 2008-04-15 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?
Little Pink Houses....fer you an' me.
by jwolf 2008-04-15 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

Sure, Todd, you just keep telling yourself that.

by cc 2008-04-15 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

wow... what an intelligent and reasoned response.

Can we have more of your analysis please?

Can you tell me more, oh wise one?

by JDF 2008-04-15 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

Perhaps the Gallup results may be explained by the fact that liberals in San Francisco and other horrible enclaves of elitist snobbery don't particularly care for cheap insults from transparent phonies like Hillary Clinton.

by JJE 2008-04-15 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

Apparently union-worker latte liberals and small-town mayor liberals and county-commissioner liberals and other elite liberals all over Pennsylvania don't much like Hillary's spin on it either.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-15 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

The super delegates were just waiting to see who this guy would endorse

"the endorsement of Yellowstone County (Montana) Commissioner Bill Kennedy as a result of Obama's comments seemed to perhaps portend some momentum along those lines among superdelegates (Kennedy is not one)"

Now that the linchpin of the choice has been pulled...
10 Supers a day for Clinton as a result.

more proof via TPM 2900-a33392-t3.html

by nogo war 2008-04-15 11:10AM | 0 recs
Laugh all you want

but no democratic candidate has won the presidency EVER without the endorsement of a Yellowstone County, Montana commissioner.  Look it up!  Obama is DONE.

by snaktime 2008-04-15 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

One of the perks of being a Sub teacher in Denver grade the kids go to "specials" for 45 minutes...which means I can plug in and post...

A thought came to me..(yes Virginia there is a thought). There is a lot of blog talk about Dems being competitive and forcing the the RNC to spend more money than they anticipated. Well, 6 weeks ago I doubt the Sen. Clinton campaign anticipated having to fight so hard for PA. It looks like Obama has the money to spend not only in IN but make some noise in WV. The "boy" on the button remark in KY along with Obama opening more offices will cut here also.

Clinton simply does not have the money.
To think that all the ads Obama is placing in PA has not been a factor in making it close is dreaming.
Watch in IN. (how many times can you put two in's together and make it work?)

by nogo war 2008-04-15 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

It is true that a teflon coating is a key ingredient to a successful GE campaign (see Reagan, RW and Clinton, WJ) so I am pleased that Obama seems to be weathering this storm, as he has the many other storms of dubious provenance. Certainly the ability to take a punch is appreciated and the fact that his national numbers are staying strong has to be giving  the McCain folks fits. If Obama wins the general, I will thank Hillary Clinton and take back all the semi-snarky things I said about her as she will have inoculated Obama against all of this bullshit.

by wasder 2008-04-15 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

I think it's funny when Hillary supporters talk about Obama being a teflon candidate and allegedly getting favorable treatment from the media as if it would be a bad thing. Actually, I think it's one of the best reasons to vote for Obama in the primary - softball treatment from the media would help him in the fall. God knows John McCain has gotten miles out of his chummy relationship with the media.

Hillary's somewhat antagonistic relationship with the media, by contrast, sure won't be any help.

by fwiffo3 2008-04-15 12:05PM | 0 recs
Special Thanks To TEAM CLINTON For Bittergate

"Bittergate" is proving to be the catalyst that will take America's Campaign to the next level.

In a single brilliant stroke, Hillary showed us all that Barack Obama has a much better understanding of the problems faced by working-class Americans, and demonstrated that she stands ready to provide happy-talk whitewashing of these problems - not "solutions".

by baghdadjoe 2008-04-15 11:34AM | 0 recs
Superdelegates unmoved by Obama..

... is more like it.

Jay Costs's essay belies the theme of this diary. ceblog/2008/04/obama_small_town_whites_a nd_the_sup.html

by Molee 2008-04-15 11:50AM | 0 recs

From Jake Tapper:

Since Feb. 5, the Obama campaign has gained 69 superdelegates. Conversely, the Clinton campaign has had a net loss of five (she gained six but lost 11).

That trend clearly doesn't bode well for Sen. Clinton.

This is why even though Clinton could have a very strong next few weeks, with folks like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and even some Clinton supporters saying they don't think superdelegates should "override" what the pledged delegates decide, Clinton's fiercest opponent is the math.

And it all means that come June we could be essentially exactly where we are today, short of some serious movement by superdelegates or Democratic voters one way or another.

by bookish 2008-04-15 12:10PM | 0 recs
"where we are today" is basically a tie

... Obama CAN'T win even AFTER all the next states, tough to face despite how hard his negativity-based campaign has tried and failed to shutout HRC, and in doing so galvanized female voters to contribute, work and volunteer for Hillary

that's the math.  He is also at serious risk of being overtaken in the popular vote.

So, in early June we could be right where we are with ~40% of the superdelegates scratching their heads as to how on god's green earth Obama could ever put together a winning GE ticket after losing PA and OH to his own party and turning himself into a pretzel to deny the vote to FL and MI.

Then all bets are off - I predict and HRC nomination.

by Molee 2008-04-15 03:09PM | 0 recs
There's no such thing as basically a tie

That's the way you see it. The way most people see it, when the game ends, and one person is ahead, that person wins. After the ninth inning, the hometown fans don't get to come in an post a couple of extra runs on the scoreboard just because they think that their team should have won when they lost. Personally, I'm pretty sure that the hometown fans understand that as well.

by bookish 2008-04-15 03:41PM | 0 recs
"basically a tie" is basically a lie

And Michigan will surely hold it against him... oh wait, Obama's polling 11 points better than Clinton vs. McCain in Michigan. I guess Michiganders know that Clinton is the real reason they didn't get a re-vote.

The only way you get to a tie now is to ignore the delegates and factor in blatantly undemocratic elections in Michigan and Florida that would violate international standards if they were held anywhere else. Is that really your argument -- that we should allow elections that wouldn't be acceptable in third-world banana republics to influence our selection of a President?

And you answer your own silly argument with "to his own party". Clinton has lost 36 states "to her own party". McCain has lost Michigan to his own party, so I guess he has no chance there, nor Alabama or Georgia, Nevada, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and on and on?

You do realize that Obama consistently does much better in GE polling, both nationally and state-by-state, than Clinton does, right? If Obama's going to have a hard time putting together a GE strategy, when he's doing better across the board, what in the world makes you think Clinton even has a chance?

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-15 03:57PM | 0 recs
The LA times poll

Rumor has it, the LA times poll isn't going to be good news for the floggers of bittergate...

by fwiffo3 2008-04-15 12:06PM | 0 recs
Just more noise

The SDs will be moved by one thing: voting results.  If they see that Clinton has won 8 of 10 biggest states, often by large margins (these states are almost half of the population) and that Obama cannot win more than 40% of the white vote in a democratic primary with any sort of regularity, they will take a serious look at Hillary Clinton.   Her chances of closing the deal and dethroning Obama would be augmented substantially by winning the popular vote, inclusive of caucuses, FL and MI with unaffiliated votes going to Obama.  She is in great position to do that.  To do it, she will have to show strength and momentum down the stretch, winning the following states and territories: PA (big), IN, WV (big), KY (big), and PR (big).    It would help her to win at least a few of the following: GU, SD, MT.   She will struggle in NC and OR.   So she has the potential to win up to 8 of the last 10 contests, though probably 6 or 7 is more realistic, and to take the popular vote lead away from Barack Obama.  Do that, narrowing the PD to under 100 in the process, and she will have her shot.  

by activatedbybush 2008-04-15 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Just more noise

The Supers have seen these things you speak of. They are well aware of the situation, I assure you. Yet they continue to gravitate towards Obama. Maybe they see something you don't?

by LandStander 2008-04-15 12:12PM | 0 recs

40% of them remain uncommitted.  Why not the rush to Obama, who most surely will have the most pledged delegates?   It is because they have their doubts, and many are looking for a reason to go with Clinton instead.  The most compelling reason would be for Clinton to win the popular vote including caucuses, FL and MI with undeclared votes allocated to Obama.

by activatedbybush 2008-04-15 12:41PM | 0 recs
Your logic is sort of ridiculous

Obama is getting the majority of white males in most states. What makes you think that when he wins the nomination that he won't pick up white female Democrats?

Your reasoning is somewhat akin to suggesting that Obama cannot win Dem strongholds like California, New York and New Jersey in the GE, which, though silly, is something I've seen proposed on this site.

by bookish 2008-04-15 12:16PM | 0 recs
No way he doesn't win in NY

But he would struggle in NJ and CA.   I think that he would be able to win them both, but Clinton would cruise while he would have a battle.  

Your logic is ridiculous.  You are equating white democratic voters with the overall white population.  He struggles to win the white vote even in a primary.  He will face challenges to win it in the fall.  Now he doesn't need to win the white vote to win the election, but he needs to have a decent showing.  Results thus far suggest that he will get destroyed in the very areas of the country that he needs to be competitive in (if not win) to become President.

by activatedbybush 2008-04-15 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: No way he doesn't win in NY

Could I get some level of proof that shows Obama would not have a chance in CA?

by SFValues 2008-04-15 01:00PM | 0 recs
It seems that you are asking me?

I just said that I thought that he would struggle, but that I believed he would win.  Why would he struggle?  Because McCain can connect with Latinos and Obama has struggled to do so.  Because outside of the big cities there are a fair number of "Reagan Democrats" -- the ones who helped Reagan win the governorship in CA and then the Presidency.  Obama is getting smoked by Clinton in this demographic.   Asians -- Obama has failed to connect with this group, and it is a meaningfully large voting group in CA.  

All this said, I think that Obama would carry the state if we nominate him.  But Clinton would carry it without any effort.  Obama will need to work for it!

by activatedbybush 2008-04-15 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: It seems that you are asking me?

By that same argument, Clinton would have trouble wooing young voters and black voters she'd need to win the General.

The general and the primary aren't the same thing. Just because Hispanics vote for Clinton now doesn't mean they wouldn't vote for a different Democratic nominee in the fall.

Obama won't have to spend resources in CA or NJ. No Democrat would.

by fwiffo3 2008-04-15 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: It seems that you are asking me?

That's my point, exactly. This equating of primary trends where two Dems are facing off with the GE where it's mano-à-mano with the GOP is...well...stoopid.

by bookish 2008-04-15 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: It seems that you are asking me?

I guess what I'm not seeing is how one thing leads to another.

Yes, Clinton has done better with all those groups, but just because they like Clinton more than Obama how does it lead to the idea that McCain has more strength than Obama in those groups?

Even if McCain is in the middle on the immigration issue and attracts some Latino support it will be negated by the conservative vote he loses. And the Regan Democrat hates Bush, and at the end of the day McCain is attached to the Bush era.

So while I concede that it looks like these voters prefer Clinton in the Democratic primary, in the end they're more likely to side with the Democrat over the Republican regardless.

by SFValues 2008-04-15 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: No way he doesn't win in NY

You do know that Obama polls significantly better than Clinton vs. McCain in California, right?

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-15 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: No way he doesn't win in NY

"But he would struggle in NJ and CA....."

Rasmussen site:

Friday, March 14, 2008
Democratic divisiveness may be hurting the party's general election prospects in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, but not in California. That latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the nation's most populous state shows Barack Obama leading John McCain 53% to 38%. Hillary Clinton leads McCain 46% to 39%.

Come on, CA? Obama is going to struggle in CA?

And Hillary would cruise instead?

According to this poll, he's beating McCain by 15 points, she is at 7?

Heck, after Hillary's feigned outrage and finding her childhood in the duck-blind, THAT is going to help her in CA?

She looks dumber by the day, I guess THIS weeks version of finding her voice is as "Duck Hunter shooting back Crown Royals with a beer chaser?"

They are going to drum her out of the Wellsley Alumini if she goes anymore red-neck on us?

Why do Hillary supporters have to try to amplify EVER argument with points that show they are just living in some kind of fantasy world?

by WashStateBlue 2008-04-15 03:59PM | 0 recs
Or Massachusetts, OH NOES!

My favorite comment by a pro-Clinton supporter (SoCalHillMan):  "If Obama is at the top of the ticket, CA, NY and MA then become total crapshoots."

Haha, riiight.  As I told him, I lived in upstate NY for 18 years and suburban MA for 10, and there is no chance either state goes for McCain.  I also gave him the statistics that show both NY and MA as Democratic blowouts since 1988.  

The point is, Hillary wins the true-blue Democratic states by more than Obama.  Fine.  She'd win NY by a bigger margin and easier.  Maybe even the same for MA.  But he'll win both comfortably (10%+).  And the only states Hillary brings to the table that Obama can't win are Arkansas (maybe?) and Ohio (maybe?).  Obama brings tons of potential wins from the mountain west and possibly even states like Virginia and the Carolinas.  Hillary can't win any state below the Mason Dixon line other than (possibly) Arkansas.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-15 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Just more noise

your statement'Obama cannot win more than 40% of the white vote in a democratic primary with any sort of regularity,"....belies a hint of racism.....Why aren't you asking hillary why she can't win more than 20% of the African American vote with any regularity???

by feliks 2008-04-16 02:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

Senator Clinton is not making headway with her attacks on the "bitter" issue for two reasons. First, she is not a natural politician. She has attacked this issues, like most others in this campaign, with a sledge hammer. The old saying that when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail applies here. Her various attempts on this issue ("My daddy taught me to shoot, so ignore the facts that I was in a prosperous, suburban Republican household."  "You'll love having a beer with me too. In fact, I'm ever friendlier than Obama, so let's do some shots.")just don't hit the mark.

Imagine what a really gifted politician would have done with this. I'm thinking JFK, Reagan, Bill Clinton. Instead of pounding away clumsily, a natural would have gained points by subtle means. "Well, it sounds like Senator Obama put his foot in his mouth again. Hey, it can happen to anybody. But his description of small town America--does that sound right to you? I see such hope and faith and grit when I come to a town like this. Maybe Senator Obama has been looking at some other place than Pennsylvania. What do you think?" (Always let your audience draw the final conclusion for themselves. Just lead them right up to the edge.)

I just don't think that Senator Clinton, for all of her intellect, experience and drive, is capable of winning on a point like this that Bill or Jack or Ronnie would win without breaking a sweat.

The second reason for the lack of traction is that the elitist accusation just doesn't fit. If people know much of anything about Senator Obama, they probably know that he was a community organizer. It doesn't quite fit the elitist mold. More importantly, Obama has talked about the imperiled middle class, the disappearance of good jobs, the housing crisis and all of the other symptoms that most of America is suffering many, many times. (He has a great line about the "ownership" society.) People may not like the way he phrased this one comment, but he is not dismissive or superior when he talks about the problems of average Americans. He just isn't. That is way dmarx's rantings about "false consciousness" fall so far short.

As there other old saying goes, "Even a dog can tell the difference between a trip and a kick."

by anoregonreader 2008-04-15 12:12PM | 0 recs

"The old saying that when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail applies here."

In this case, I think a slight revision workes better.  "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like your thumb."

I knew this campaign was run by incompetents way back at KinderGate.  Remember the explanation for that one?  "Ohh, we were just joking, ha ha."

I had never before heard a Presidential camapign describe their tactics as "a joke".  Most politicians try to avoid uttering statements containing the following words: 'our campaign', 'is', 'a joke'.

I had never before heard a Presidential campaign flatly state their official press releases were apt to contain known untruths. That these known untruths were deliberately inserted strictly for purposes of amusement.

Who whould have thought the days of KinderGate would represent the Clinton Campaign's high-water mark?

Hey, there's that thumb again.  WHAM!

by Quicklund 2008-04-15 01:12PM | 0 recs

...spells b-l-o-w-b-a-c-k.

It is all over but the counting.

by Quicklund 2008-04-15 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?
tap yer toes... Lo
by nogo war 2008-04-15 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

a Tuesday afternoon prop to the Clinton folks.. CA&feature=PlayList&p=90B1A747A8 20E4BA&index=18

by nogo war 2008-04-15 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

I love all these attempts to judge the fallout before any votes are taken. When PA and IND vote, the full total horror of the Obama implosion will be seen. Wait till then and make your comments.

by doyenne49 2008-04-15 04:42PM | 0 recs
Lots of Democrats agree w/Obama

The thoughts he expressed have been Dem conventional wisdom for years, which is why we have been losing.

It is in the GE that he will get hurt.  SDs will decide to go down with his ship.

by ocli 2008-04-16 12:42AM | 0 recs
Stuff like this only hurts on the first date.

When we (voters) don't know too much about the candidates, picking a soundbite out of context can have a negative effect.  Swiftboating works when voters are barely acquainted with the candidate.

This kind of attack line doesn't work on Obama because we know him, we know the content of his character.  It's no longer the first date, we are engaged.  When the opposition tries to attack, we hold the argument up against what we know of the man and if it doesn't jive we recognize it for the BS that it is.

The long primary season and the immense amount of media coverage has helped voters weed out truth from pure spin.  As for the republicans, the majority of Americans do not think highly of their honesty and ethics.

by GFORD 2008-04-16 06:33AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads