Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationally

The Democratic primary is on the verge of fundamentally changing. After his fantastic fundraising report, Barack Obama is now within inches of Clinton in national polls. From Gallup:
Leading presidential candidates in both parties lost ground in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. The most dramatic shift: newcomer Barack Obama has closed to within 5 points of Hillary Clinton.

The former first lady was the choice of 31% of Democrats and Democratic leaners in the national poll, taken Friday through Sunday. That's down from 38% at the beginning of April. Obama, meanwhile, jumped from 19% early in the month to 26% in the new poll.
The six national polls that were taken after Obama's initial fundraising announcement now show an extremely close race:

Obama vs. Clinton, six poll mean, 4/5-4/15, three polls with Gore
Clinton: 33.5%
Obama: 25.8%

I will produce the mean without Gore, as well as the numbers for Edwards, as soon as Gallup makes those numbers available.

Now, a gap of 7.7% might not seem like "an extremely close race" on the surface, especially when it is averaged across six polls. However, the 7.7% advantage is, I still firmly believe, inflated (see here, here and here). Further, this is closer than the campaign has ever been, and the post-fundraising trend clearly favors Obama. Right now, Clinton's national lead is quite narrow, if it even still exists.

Obama's post-fundraising announcement bump could easily self-generate into further bumps. The best explanation I have seen for Obama's post-fundraising announcement polling rise has been that by raising more money than Clinton, a substantially increased number of rank and file Democrats believe Obama has a legitimate chance to win the nomination. Many people don't like supporting candidates who don't seem like they have a good chance to win, but Obama's huge fundraising ability makes it seem like he has a good chance to win and that Clinton is no longer inevitable. This problem is compounded for Clinton when Obama rises in the polls, because having more money and being close in the polls will rightly cause even more people to believe that Obama has a good chance to win. Further, this second bump might even cause more Clinton supporters to defect, as she no longer has the same winning aura she once had. Thus, a vicious cycle can start to form for the Clinton campaign, with the end result potentially being Obama stealing the frontrunner mantle. And that could happen in just a matter of two or three weeks.

The important thing for Obama supporters to keep in mind during all of this is that the campaign could just as quickly shoot back in the other direction. We saw numerous shifts in the final six months of the 2004 nomination campaign, and we have already seen several major shifts so far in the 2008 nomination campaign. Just because Obama takes the lead does not means he becomes inevitable. In reality, all it guarantees is that he becomes more of a target, ala Howard Dean. While Obama is viewed more favorably than any other candidate right now, that could change in a hurry once the right wing noise machine changes its target priorities.

Still, I am sensing a major shift in the fundamental nature of this campaign. With only two or three more points in national polls, Obama becomes the man to beat. It may not happen, and we might instead just come right up to the edge of a major change before reverting back to something approaching normalcy. We will have to see.



Display:


Re: Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationa (3.00 / 1)

Thank goodness.

Now, if I could just fastforward to an Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama ticket, I'd be one happy voter.


by Oregonian on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 05:56:37 PM EST

Sweet! (3.00 / 1)

As Obama catches Clinton/Edwards in name ID it seems inevitable that he will continue to rise.

I am glad to see that the more people see Senator Obama, the more they like him.


by faithfull on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:01:24 PM EST

Re: Obama On The Verge (3.00 / 1)

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that Barack may be no better than Hillary.  So I'm not sure if I care.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:06:00 PM EST

Re: Obama On The Verge (3.00 / 1)

Thats a big accusation


by faithfull on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:36:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge (none / 0)

It's a subjective opinion, and I accused neither he nor Hillary of anything.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:37:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge (none / 0)

glad you didn't accuse him of anything


by faithfull on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:30:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge (none / 0)

Depends how you think about her.

I thought he was giving Obama a big compliment at first...


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:49:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge (none / 0)

Well, apart from being more progressive on the issues he would not lose us 100+ house seats, kill our brand and whip the GOP base into a frenzy.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:29:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge (3.00 / 1)

  1.  Anyone, once nominated, will be demonized by the Right Wing Media, so their base will be frenzified, if I can say that.
  2.  While I don't think he'd hurt the brand, I'm not sure what he would do to build it, which I think is one of Edwards' pros.
  3.  I'm not talking about coattails here, but I think Edwards, then Obama, would have the strongest.  I expect more politicians who represent largely rural or red areas to support John, as Congresswoman Herseth is.  I think he'd do best by them.  I think Congresswoman Boyda would be lucky to have John at the top of the ticket.  And I'd expect Hillary to have the smallest (or negative) coattails of the top contenders.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:58:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge (3.00 / 1)

As far branding, there really isn't a lot of evidence that one of our candidates would ACTUALLY be effective at growing the brand.  In other words, Edwards is exactly what you and a lot of the netroots want and THINK will build the brand.  However, until we are in a General with him or with Obama (Hillary representing the traditional DLC style we saw with Gore 1.0 and Kerry) we won't know if one style is more effective to build the brand nationally.  Obama's style may be what eventually gets more people into the party and supporting progressive ideals... then again Edwards style may be the best.  It really is subjective at this point, since we were denied the chance to see a different style in action with the smearing of Dean in the final weeks.

Obama and Edwards share a lot of the same values... but their styles are very different... and both are fundamentally different from Hillary.  You prefer Edwards, and that's cool, but it distresses me to hear you say you don't think he will be different than Clinton... Looking at his past and present, to me it is very easy to see his Presidency would be different than Hillary's and would be different than Edwards as well...

Looking at their pasts and presents, Obama and Edwards are both fighters... But their styles are different.  I like to compare them to characters in my favorite book, The Godfather.  

Edwards in 2008 is Sonny Corleone... He is a brash fighter and if you come after him, he will fight you and try and take you down.  

Obama is more like Don Corleone... He is more subtle in his fights... he will take your insults without getting mad, and then if the need arises, subtly slit your throat.  With his Fox media black out earlier, he didn't come out and say what was going on, but left it to others... embarassing Fox and making his point.  

I'm not saying one is the perfect style over the other.  Both have their pros and cons.  It comes down to which style you prefer.  We obviously prefer different ones.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:56:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge (none / 0)

I'm not sure they share the same values anymore.  I think that I was wrong about Barack.  I think he's a liberal, like Hillary, where John seems more like a social democrat.  The more I see, the more I'm convinced of this.  Although he seems like a better liberal than Hillary.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:26:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge (none / 0)

His issue stances pretty much disagree with you...


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:45:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge (none / 0)

Whose?


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Devil's Advocate (none / 0)

I agree.  This is bad news for Clinton.  Clinton is so well known that it is difficult to imagine why people would return to the fold.

On the other hand, the Clintons have run campaigns from behind before or am I misremembering?


by Hellmut on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:06:34 PM EST

Re: Devil's Advocate (none / 0)

Hillary hasn't to my knowledge, but Bill has.  In fact, if you asked most people in Jan of 1995, he was headed for a large defeat in Nov of 1996.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:58:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Devil's Advocate (none / 0)

Hillary hasn't to my knowledge, but Bill has.  In fact, if you asked most people in Jan of 1995, he was headed for a large defeat in Nov of 1996.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:58:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Devil's Advocate (none / 0)

HRC first race started on even footing and she was able to build from there. Her second race never was competive. So she's not that experienced as a candidate.

But Bill has a lot that sort of races.

Bill's congressional race was in a difficult district where he failed to overcome a big partisan disadvantage although he had a better showing then most people would have thought.

I'm not sure about his first Governor race nor his comeback race but I thought his starting points were from behind there as well.

His primary and first presidental race speak for themselves. He's not named the comeback kid for nothing.

Overall I'd say her team probably  has enough experience in these sort of matters to keep their heads cool.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:00:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationa (none / 0)

I am thrilled that Obama is peaking now. As for a Obama/Edwards ticket or vice versa, it wil never happen. For the last time, it doesn't make any sense for two candidates who are called inexperienced to pick the other one simply based on their personality. If Obama or Edwards does get the nomination, the VP will be Jim Webb or Bill Richardson.
As for the polls, they aren't inflated, they just sample different voters. If the primaries were held right now, Edwards would probably win.

by bsavage on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:10:23 PM EST

Re: Obama On The Verge Of (none / 0)

Clinton/Gore showed that you don't need balance.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge Of (none / 0)

Not geographically balanced, but they were a governor and a senator, with different areas of expertise. I'd call them balanced.


by joyful alternative on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:47:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge Of (none / 0)

Both were Southern (obviously white male) DLCers.  Perhaps in their experiences they were balanced, but in no other way.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:06:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge Of (none / 0)

Balance is something different then being the complete opposite of the candidate. I doubt that it show that balance isn't needed more then it shows that Balance works best if it is used to offset certain electoral weaknesses in a candidate.

It's quite likely that being a southern white male Democrat is just not something that needs to be balanced on the ticket.

Clinton weaknesses were his lack of knowledge of DC and the rumours concerning women. Gore offset those problems nicely. As he was a long time Congress inhabitant and as clean as could be.

Obama's electoral weakness seems to be focussed more on his relative inexperience and lack of executive knowledge then geography or skin color. So his VP would only need to be successful governor to be "Balanced"


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:30:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationa (none / 0)

Peaking? You ae thrilled that he is peaking? Who said anything about peaking? Evidence, please.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:18:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationa (none / 0)

Jim Webb will not be the VP.  No chance, no way.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:58:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bad for Obama (none / 0)

There was a diary on this quite recently, but this is bad for Obama.  If he becomes the front runner raising as much money doesn't make him appear more viable.  He becomes everyones favorite target, rather than second favorite.


by Obama08 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:11:51 PM EST

Re: Bad for Obama (2.00 / 0)

It's glad to see you can see the big picture. It's really disgusting to see Obama supporters comparwe him to some sort of messiah. Yes, he is likeable and has a great personality, but what else?


by bsavage on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:19:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What else? (3.00 / 2)

He has brains. I think he is the most intelligent and most well educated candidate for president since Adlai Stevenson.


by herodotus on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:52:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What else? (none / 0)

??? Obama has a JD from Harvard. Clinton had a JD from Yale and a Fulbright scholarship at Oxford.
by gsteff on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:11:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh.. (3.00 / 1)

Not just a JD...graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law is pretty damn good...


by rashomon on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What else? (3.00 / 1)

Obama also graduated Magna Cum Laude from Columbia in International Affairs.  I think this academic base of foreign affairs knowledge helps him overcome his relative lack of national experience.


by upper left on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:11:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What else? (3.00 / 1)

I think the last part of the statement is somewhat exagerating... but I agree he is very smart.  Unless you are a rich Texan faux Cowboy, you usually have to be pretty smart to be a serious Presedential contender.  Obama, Clinton, Edwards... all very intelligent.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad for Obama (none / 0)

People vote for the "likeable candidate". Take a guess what that could mean for Hillary?


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad for Obama (none / 0)

I don't think any Obama supporter has called him a Messiah,  In fact, the only time I see that word is when another candidate's supporter accuses an Obama supporter of saying it.  

We like him, we like his policy stances, and we think he'd be the best choice.  You think Hillary will be.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:01:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad for Obama (none / 0)

Where did anybody compare him to the messiah?


by faithfull on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:33:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad for Obama (none / 0)

It was an exaggeration, but some Obama supporters push him as the candidate who can solve all the corruption in Washington and fix everything that Bush has done. I've been to Obama's website, seen his speeches, but I don't have Obama fever. At best he is like George McGovern in 1972. The way I see it Clinton, Edwards and Richardson are much more qualified to be president than Obama. I would be happy with any of those three winning the primary.


by bsavage on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:58:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad for Obama (3.00 / 1)

"like McGovern in '72."

Either you weren't there, or you were high.  McGovern didn't have any of Obama's presence and charisma.  McGovern got painted as a left-wing, peacenik, uber-liberal.  Obama has gone out of his way to avoid being labeled as the candidate of the left wing of the Dem party.  This is the kind of broad-based assertion with no analysis that I find common among HRC supporters.  Please explain your reasoning or spare us the baseless assertion.


by upper left on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:18:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad for Obama (none / 0)

Relax. I am entitled to my opinion as you are to yours. BTW, I'm 19, so no I'm not a McGovern history buff. Basically I would prefer any candidate who is experienced and a has a real shot to win. This includes Clinton, Edwards, Richardson.


by bsavage on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 05:10:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad for Obama (none / 0)

I don't know about that Obama is not Howard Dean I'm not worried about him imploding also if he's seen as frontrunner he's going to lock up african-american support which is 25% of the party right there, (some are leery cause they thought all along Hillary would win).


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:30:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad for Obama (none / 0)

There is a lot more risk in Obama imploding than there was with Dean.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:13:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad for Obama (3.00 / 1)

Dean had a tendency to say things that got him into trouble. Sometimes they were right on target (the Saddam Hussein stuff), sometimes they were poorly-worded, whatever. But to say that there was significantly less risk in Dean imploding than Obama, is to ignore history and the facts.


Further Reading
by Dave Sund on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:08:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad for Obama (none / 0)

Depends, Dean was too forceful in his statements sometimes.

Obama might be too careful.

Kerry won Iowa over Dean because in the end they believed experience and military service was more important in a presidential candidate then Energy and issue correctness.

Deans frontrunner status didn't help either as it made him everybody's target.

Same might very well be likely for Obama. His commitment to unity and correct stance on the war from the beginning may be less important then experience or hard stances in the end.

A sharp and sudden rise in the polls usually means that most of the support isn't that hard and prone to shifting.

Obama is the frontrunner now, but he's very vulnerable.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:45:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad for Obama (none / 0)

Go to Pollster.com.  Obama's support has been groing steadily since January.  Look at the trend lines.

Experience is highly over-rated.  Study after study indicates that voters are far more concerned with character, judgement, and values.  This is why the Rovian character assasination of Gore and then Kerry was so successful.

IMHO, Obama has done a brilliant job of positioning himself.  He has been careful not to get painted as the candidate of the left the way Dean did.  Many netroot progressives have been giving Obama a hard time about specifics because they do not seem to understand that Obama is positioning himself so that he will not end up like Dean.


by upper left on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:28:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad for Obama (none / 0)

I did. And I think they support my comment. Most of his growth seems to come out either out the undecided group or from soft support of other candidates. And coincides with his growth in media prominence. That is not a traditionally strong base of support.

Dean did not lose because he was perceived as too left. Dean lost he was out organized and because he was the frontrunner who got all the flak. And simply not that good on the stump. The Iowa caucus is quite left, they wouldn't hold that against him.

Also  I don't think Obama is positioning himself brilliantly. In order to be safe from reframing by your opponents, your opinions should be widely known and perceived to be set in stone. The positions themselves might be centrist or liberal, that doesn't matter, But they must be forcefully advocated. Interest enough most of those studies you mention also state that people who that are perceived to be more trustworthy over their less strong worded opponents even if the opinions themselves are the same.

Right now most people like Obama personally. But they have little to no clue what his actual platform is. that makes him very open too what happened to Gore and Kerry. The vagueness of their message was what let to the internet-meme and the flip-flop allegations.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 07:13:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad for Obama (none / 0)

What's your basis for that statement?


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:07:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad for Obama (none / 0)

Based on what?  Please back-up your assertion.


by upper left on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:20:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad for Obama (3.00 / 1)

Frontrunner is a good thing. We want to see how he handles being the target. Our nominee will be a target inevitably. Obama's "experience" will be, moreso than other candidates', measured by how he handles the campaign itself.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:22:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad for Obama (3.00 / 1)

I have to agree... I'd rather see him as the underdog... but getting thrown into the deep end might be good for the campaign.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:10:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationa (3.00 / 1)

Even though I currently lean towards the Edwards camp, it'll be very refreshing and maybe a little bit relieving to see someone other than Hillary at the top.


by b1oody8romance7 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:12:50 PM EST

The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationally (3.00 / 1)

If Obama is the nominee, his VP is Tom Daschle.

Keep that in mind.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:22:53 PM EST

Re: The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationally (none / 0)

what's so bad about him?  i think it will be Richardson myself or Webb if Republicans nominate McCain.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationally (none / 0)

Obama is the big head and Daschle is the man behind the curtain.

Daschle is the master of compromise and vacillation.  If he is Obama's mentor, along with Axelrod as his top political advisor, then expect Obama to have a very moderate, typical administration.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:41:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationally (3.00 / 1)


  If Obama compromises and vacillates and triangulates, he's not going to get elected to begin with.
by Master Jack on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:50:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes... (3.00 / 1)

the fact that he has the most liberal Senate record of any of the Dems means nada...he's just Daschle and Axelrod's puppet.

Jeez...


by rashomon on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:31:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationally (3.00 / 1)

He supports Obama... that doesn't make him his mentor.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:12:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationally (none / 0)

Cheap shot, Vox Populi.  Nothing in Obama's history indicates that he will be dominated by anyone.  Obama is a person of superior intellect and deep convictions.  He is cautious, but that is a reflection of his smarts, not an indication that he will be someones puppet.


by upper left on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:33:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationally (none / 0)

Link?


by faithfull on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:37:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationally (none / 0)

It's a gut feeling, where would you like me to "link" to?

Daschle is obvious to me.  Obama has nearly all Daschles political staff, Daschle only rents out his donor list (80,000 strong) to Obama, Daschle has the government experience Obama lacks... how can it not seem obvious?


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationally (3.00 / 2)

Gee, because there are all sorts of other considerations which come into choosing a VP, like . . . who would make a good and electable VP?


by Adam B on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 08:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationally (3.00 / 1)

Exactly Adam B.  And who would bring more to your ticket than a former Senate leader who couldn't get re-elected?  People need a political reality check.

Most candidates pick someone who fills a weakness.  Clinton picked Gore in part b/c he was seen as a DC heavyweight with foreign policy background and had a spotless personal record.  Kerry picked Edwards for regional balance.

If Obama gets the nomination, I'd bet either goes for a VP candidate who has serious foreign policy experience (maybe Bill Richardson, Wes Clark) or someone with state government/management experince (maybe Brian Schweitzer, Mark Warner).  

Tom Daschle brings little to the table politically even if he could carry South Dakota which he has shown he can't.  It would be a non-sensical pick and Obama has shown himself to be very, very astitute.


by John Mills on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:29:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Richardson, Clark, or Webb (3.00 / 2)

are much more likely choices for Obama's VP.


by rashomon on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson, Clark, or Webb (none / 0)

Webb will not be a VP candidate... He barely won his race in Virginia and is going to serve out his term.  Richardson or Clark are much more likely.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson, Clark, or Webb (none / 0)

Richardson or Warner I'd say. Experience and excecutive knowledge and both from swing states if I recall correctly.

I doubt Clark because his presidental campaign showed he is inexperienced and untested on the stump making him more of a wild card.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:50:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationally (none / 0)

Daschle might be on the long list  of potential VPs.

But Obama is much more astute than to pick a losing Democratic Senator from a state with 3 electoral votes that would never switch.

Maybe if you put Brian Schweitzer on there. Wes Clark. Bill Richardson. Mark Warner. John Edwards.

There are ltos of powerful people who support Barack Obama, and Tom Daschle is just one of them. You're logic says that Edwards would DEFINITELY pick Stephanie Herseth. And while there are reasons to believe she'd be considered, you can't just say...well...I got a feeling. I mean...you CAN say that. but it doesn't have any merit.


by faithfull on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:03:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationally (none / 0)

Aby evidence for that extreme claim? Yes, Daschle is a major supporter. But do you have any evidence for the leap to the conclusion that Daschle would be the VP?


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:23:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationally (3.00 / 1)

Yeah I read where he came out and sai... oh wait.  No way will Daschle be the VP.  A Cabinet member, probably, but not VP.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:11:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's hard tom maintain frontrunner status (3.00 / 2)

when polls say 48% of voters will definately not vote for you for president, it's an untenable position for a "democratic frontrunner" when the party is generally so much popular than the Republicans right now. Unless Hillary starts to connect with the general electorate and it shows in the polls, democratic primary voters will not nominate her in 2008 and watch for some early Hillary donors to abandon ship pretty soon.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:24:30 PM EST

Watch the black vote (none / 0)

    I read that Clinton is still leading among black voters. If that changes, her lead will evaporate. Obama is definately in a good spot right now. If Obama and Clinton split the early primaries and there is no clear early winner, Edwards could  benefit  by having a longer drawn-out process. Clinton was counting on a quick knockout but that doesn't look likely.  


by MarvToler on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:26:43 PM EST

Re: Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton (none / 0)

he woun't be leading people like rudy and McCain if the people weren't ready, Ford got 48% in Tennesee so it's not a hinderance to a non-polorizing black candidate anymore.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:33:24 PM EST

Re: Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton (none / 0)

Nevada, do you honestly believe that?


by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:41:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton (3.00 / 1)

yes well liked brings in lots of younger voters, Independants and (gasp) some Republicans like Obama because of non-partison tone, (in reality he's just as "liberal as the others maybe more so) and yeah will racist voters support him, no but they would never vote for any national dem anyway. I don't see of know anyone who is a democrat that won't vote for Obama but I know plents of people who can't stand Hillary, plus Obama would probably win voters under 30 by such a big margin that he wouldn't have to run much better than Kerry among the rest of the public to win.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:19:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its not just about racism per se (none / 0)

its about attitudes as well. I was refering to this statement:

"so it's not a hinderance to a non-polorizing black candidate anymore"

that just seems like an incredibly large amount of naivety. Have you ever lived for a long period of time in the south?


by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:02:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its not just about racism per se (3.00 / 1)

Yes, I have.  As a kid and after high school.  In fact, all my family is still in the South and I am down there frequently on business and pleasure.  And I think Obama has a good shot to win down there, Unless the GOP candidate is southern.  If the GOP candidate is Southern, then the SOuth will be completely Red regardless of our candidate (Edwards will not win North Carolina if the GOPer is Southern and not named Bush).  If they aren't or there is low voter turnout, there is a good chance of picking up several of the more moderate southern states.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:21:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge Of (3.00 / 1)

yes well liked brings in lots of younger voters, Independants and (gasp) some Republicans like Obama because of non-partison tone, (in reality he's just as "liberal as the others maybe more so) and yeah will racist voters support him, no but they would never vote for any national dem anyway. I don't see of know anyone who is a democrat that won't vote for Obama but I know plents of people who can't stand Hillary, plus Obama would probably win voters under 30 by such a big margin that he wouldn't have to run much better than Kerry among the rest of the public to win.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:19:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton (none / 0)

I completely disagree.  He would be a formidable candidate, possibly taking all the competitive states in the SW, in addition to Ohio, Iowa, and Arkansas.  He has incredible appeal.  I'm just not sure that he's what I would want in a Democrat.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:45:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton (none / 0)

I think it would be almost impossible for him to win in any of those 3 states you mentioned or in the southwest.


by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:01:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Americans are fairly liberal (none / 0)

and get tricked into voting conservative by a combination of wedge issues, partisan divisiveness, and religion. Obama is exactly the candidate to defuse those tricks and get the basic support for universal health care, fair taxation, ending the war, legal abortions, etc.


by curtadams on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:55:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton (none / 0)

No, Ford's a Democrat -- a relatively conservative one, but with a lot of moxie.


by Adam B on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 08:43:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton (none / 0)

"He will have a hard time in the west and the south."

Don't confuse the two.  Obama may have trouble in the south, I think any Dem will.  But Obama will be a shoe-in on the west coast. He fits the West coast vibe.  I think he has potential in the mountain west, which will be critical.


by upper left on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:42:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is ALL so Familiar... (none / 0)

Obama is this election cycle's Howard Dean.  At least Dean actually had executive/management experience...


by MaryGallan on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:33:50 PM EST

Re: This is ALL so Familiar... (3.00 / 2)

howard Dean came across as angry and unstable to many Iowans and after Iowa to many americans, dems included (not me) Dean was selling a message but Kerry's send a president not a message was a devastating critique of Dean, Obama's appeal is not what he's saying it's him.
Unless he blows up with some major gaffe it's hard to see anyone abandoning the guy because he's going to let his persona be the story and adopt standard Democratic positions on the issues. His strenght is selling general dem principles better than anyone ever has, not in reforming our party based on policy, i'm pretty satisfied with mainstream democratic positions but want someone to get something done, that's why Obama is clicking.
Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:44:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is ALL so Familiar... (none / 0)

His hard core supporters are pretty locked in.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is ALL so Familiar... (none / 0)

 And Obama has Dean's campaign to study and determine what he did right and what he did wrong, and apply the lessons accordingly.

 I'm not an Obama booster, but I wouldn't underestimate him. He's got something Dean didn't -- a high-profile primary opponent deeply distrusted by a LARGE number of Democrats. They'll be shopping...


by Master Jack on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:47:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is ALL so Familiar... (3.00 / 1)

Two high profile opponents... helps keep him on his toes.  Whoever emerges with our nom will be stronger afterward.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:27:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is ALL so Familiar... (none / 0)

Hillary has extremely low negatives under self indentified democrats. Lower then any other candidate.

The people who dislike her do tend to be in the more active netroots and grassroots so they do count double but I still don't think the numbers support your point.

And you'd have too discount Edwards as a possible haven for those people as well.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:11:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is ALL so Familiar... (none / 0)

I agree with you completely!!!


by bsavage on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:54:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is ALL so Familiar... (none / 0)

The Obama campaign is starting to look eerily similar to Dean. They both attracted the same demographic groups and much of the netroots. The big difference is Dean had much more experience than Obama with his 17 years as Lt. Governor and Governor of Vermont and a term as Chairman of the National Governor's Association. The 2 years of national experience of Obama will seriously undermine his campaign at some point.  


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:22:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is ALL so Familiar... (none / 0)

when just about half of voters will never vote for  Hillary I don't think the lack of "experience" thing is going to be that big a deal it's 4 years of senate time, every other part of the "experience" meme is up for debate, Obama's backround could lead some to think ha has the right "experience" especially his work in Illinios, Hillary's health care debacle and Iraq war vote  can be thought of as a negative in terms of experience and judgement.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:44:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is ALL so Familiar... (none / 0)

I think experience will be a major issue in the general election. Most of the Democratic field has 20 to 30+ years of experience at the national and/or executive level. The GOP will nominate someone with 20 to 30 years of experience. That will be a large obstacle for Obama and we will start to see that during the primaries especially if his debate performances are the same as they have been in the debates so far.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 08:09:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You know... (none / 0)

there's only been ONE psuedo-debate.  Can we wait for some others before we make a judgement?

Besides, if Obama really doesn't do well in the debates, he isn't going to win the nomination.  It's not like there aren't other candidates...


by rashomon on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:37:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You know... (none / 0)

Obama did poorly in various venues as was reported on the front page at MyDD.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is ALL so Familiar... (3.00 / 1)

I agree with you Obama's experience and it is the major reason I haven't signed up to support him yet.  However, I think he is a far more charasmatic politician than Dean and is really capturing people's imagination.  It will be interesting to see if Obama does implode.  So far he has been very, very disciplined.


by John Mills on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:41:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Moving a bit fast here (3.00 / 1)

Hmmm, if you look at the graph at real polling Obama is trending up a bit, but hardly by leaps and bounds. He's actually moving back to his old position he had in March.

Hillary is certianly trending down and Edwards up a bit but all about equadistance from each other.


by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:40:43 PM EST

Do wonder though (none / 0)

what those numbers would look like without Gore.


by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:44:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do wonder though (none / 0)

Most of it would likely go to Edwards, and some to Obama? That's what happened when time removed Gore, a week or two ago. The Gore people are "anyone but Clinton" people.

Why would Gore voters go to Edwards? Populist message? Climate/environment? White souhtern man-vote? Speaking style?


by PoliticGeek Pro on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:52:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do wonder though (none / 0)

Not sure, thought I did some polls where a lot went to hillary though.

Edwards has adopted a very strong environmental platform including some of Gore's ideas (and giving credit to Gore) so that might be part of it. Maybe the populist thing as well.

Even being from Tennessee never really sensed that Gore had that much support in the south, I suspect Edwards will play better in the south than Gore would.


by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:58:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do wonder though (none / 0)

Actually, most polls that show the differences show a good part of Gore going to Hillary.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:29:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do wonder though (none / 0)

You forget that a lot of people still indentify Gore with the Clinton Whitehouse.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:15:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not this again (3.00 / 1)

 Let's all expunge the word "electability" from our lexicons. Look what happened when we applied the concept in 2004.

 Vote for the candidate YOU LIKE BEST. Don't try to read others' minds and vote for a "safe" alternative -- that's what got us the likes of Michael Dukakis and John Kerry.


by Master Jack on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:43:16 PM EST

Re: Not this again (3.00 / 1)

So you really think Hillary can win the general in places like Iowa and Ohio and Florida and do well for the downticket also?


by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:53:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not this again (none / 0)

 Hillary ranks dead last in my preferences for the Democratic nomination, but it has nothing to do with her "electability", and everything to do with her pro-war, anti-labor, DLC-nexus platform.

  Mind you, any Democratic candidate who hits the general election with such a platform isn't going to  be winning anything anyway...  


by Master Jack on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not this again (none / 0)

Just have to point out, if the votes had been counted correctly in 2004 -- as in 2000 -- we'd have  had Democratic presidents both times.


by Oregonian on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:53:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not this again (none / 0)

The evidence really isn't there to totally support the claim Ohio was stolen...Kerry lost by a lot more than Gore did.  I would say voter suppression was more of a cause of Kerry losing... all the crap Blackwell did in Ohio with voter registration.  Gore got screwed period.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:24:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not this again (3.00 / 1)

don't agree, the fact that Hillary has 48% of general election voters saying they definately can't supporter is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. It would be enough for me to not vote for her even if I thought she would make far and away the best president. Lets say I like Kucinich the best, should I vote for him too? come on, The supreme court, the speakership the senate our country is in serious peril unless these shmucks in the whitehouse are defeated big time and my point is we can't risk that with someone that has the polling numbers that Hillary does.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:08:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not this again (none / 0)

Jon Kerry got 49% of the vote. I'd call that electable. He performed better then a lot of other Democratic candidates in that cycle.

I doubt any other candidate would have gotten much more then a few extra percentage points.

Enought to win perhaps, but not for certian. A lot would've gotten less for sure.

Dean was definitely more my favorite choice but I sincerly doubt he would've done better then Kerry.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:02:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationa (none / 0)

First, there are variuos reasons why I believe you are right about Clinton's numbers being inflated, because the pollster poll too many voters as "likely primary voters / caucus goers". We do know some small core groups, like small donors and active blog readers are pro-Obama and pro-Edwards.

The dynamics of the race is now playing out exactly according to the Edwards plan: Obama taking out Clinton (and himself), including splitting the black vote.

As someone said upthread: In the end people will go with the candidate they think will win the general, and I guess many will feel they "dated Obama/Clinton, married Edwards", as the safest bet in November.


by PoliticGeek Pro on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:46:20 PM EST

Re: Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationa (none / 0)

Edwards has a chance but hoping dem primary voters won't choose Obama because he's black isn't what I'd bank my hopes on, his best chance is blow every one away in Iowa and hope he catches fire.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:47:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where'd that come from? (none / 0)

I didn't see that in his post at all.

"hoping dem primary voters won't choose Obama because he's black isn't what I'd bank my hopes on"

man dont even know how to respond to that.


by okamichan13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:56:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HOLD OFF HERE... (3.00 / 2)

I am African-American and I can tell you that many of my family and friends are extremely LEARY of Hillary Clinton.  Now they LOVED Bill, but Hillary is another issue.  And also let me tell you, that many African-American families are conservative in principle.  When that Monica Lewinsky stuff blew up, yes they stood with Bill, but hated what he did MORALLY.  And right now, many do not want to go back down memory lane with the bj jokes, impeachment, Monica, etc.  

I do give Hillary "A" for effort to try to transcend above Bill Clinton, but so far it is not working.  And yes, many of my friends had the notion, "Barack Obama, can't win", but they have come around after finding out about him.

So, this notion that Hillary will split the African American vote, or even the Hispanic vote is putting the cart before the horse.  There is major pressure going on as to who these Black politicians are going to embrace, and a lot of known Black Business men and women, already left the fold and gave money to Barack.  Just read his donor list, that tells another story on its own.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationa (none / 0)

I think that one thing to keep in mind is that elections don't tend to follow the last election.  Rather they seem to be much more cyclical.  So personally I would compare this stuff to barry goldwater(Dean) and regan.  

I wasn't alive back when that stuff happened, but it would be interesting to see someone's comparisons on it.


by sterra on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:54:40 PM EST

Re: Obama On The Verge Of Catching Clinton Nationa (none / 0)

The important thing for Obama supporters to keep in mind during all of this is that the campaign could just as quickly shoot back in the other direction.

I for one don't mind this at all. So Obama doesn't have an inevitability train. I'm fine with that. I don't think Obama needs an inevitability train to win. I just want to make sure Clinton doesn't have an inevitability train.

Let's say no one has an inevitability train and no one is assured of victory. This just means, at least more likely so than it would be otherwise, that instead the winner will be chosen on merits. I think this means, although it means he'll have to work hard and not take things for granted, in the long run Obama will benefit. And if instead it turns out this means Edwards, Richardson, etc benefit, well, hey, I like them too.


by Silent sound on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:07:05 PM EST