MyDD :: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It?

Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It?

by Jonathan Singer, Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:24:33 PM EST

The Pollster.com average of nationwide polling on the 2008 Democratic primaries shows that Hillary Clinton is maintaining 34.4 percent to 22.6 percent lead over Barack Obama, with both Al Gore and John Edwards in the teens. Polling just a three-way matchup in the race, the latest CBS News poll (.pdf) shows Clinton leading with a whopping 48 percent, Obama at 24 percent and Edwards at 11 percent. That's quite a lead, indeed.

But just how deep is that lead? And how much of that lead is indicative of soft, rather than hard levels of support? Numbers of donors are not necessarily great measures of a candidate's strength, but they are one measure. Obama had twice as many first quarter donors as did Clinton, and there has been little indication that she will match his 150,000+ new donors this quarter, even if she is able to match him or top him in dollars raised.

Another measure to look at is enthusiasm for particular candidates. The aforementioned CBS News survey, which gave Clinton a 24-point lead overall, found that her lead in enthusiastic Democratic primary supporters is just 6 points over Obama. Take a look:

Thinking about the candidates now running for President, is there any candidate that you feel enthusiastic about? IF YES: Who is that?

Candidate	Dem Primary Voters
Clinton	28 percent
Obama	22 percent
Edwards	2 percent
Kucinich	1 percent
Other	3 percent
(A GOPer)	2 percent
None of them	38 percent
DK/NA	4 percent

This might not be the best measure of a candidate's core strength within the national Democratic primary electorate (not that there exactly is one). Edwards support, in particular, seems to be lower in this category than I would imagine it should be.

That said, enthusiastic support is different than unenthusiastic support, which can be peeled away over the course of the campaign, whether as a result of outside occurrences or voter contacts or gaffes or whatever else. That isn't to say that unenthusiastic support cannot swing elections, nor that it won't have a huge role in determining the next Democratic presidential nominee, because it will. Even begrudging support can be and often is important. But enthusiastic supporters today are not only more likely to continue to be supporters throughout the course of a campaign than unenthusiastic ones, but they are also more likely to become donors or volunteers, increasing a campaign's capacity to reach those non-committed and even less-committed voters.

As noted above, Clinton does still have a lead in this category, at least as far as CBS News polling is concerned. But she doesn't swamp the competition here as she does among the wider population of Democratic primary voters. And as a result, her actual lead in the race for the Democratic nomination might not be as strong as might be indicated by topline, horserace polling.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008, Democratic Primaries (all tags)

Permalink :: 110 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

That is a very surprising number for Edwards.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:34:30 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

I don't believe it. I think his support is smaller but proportionally more committed. These results don't make sense.

I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives

by pioneer111 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:41:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (3.00 / 0)

I believe it, because I think the far-left is his only hard support and they are having doubt now, and moving toward Obama - I think a lot of people are wondering if Edwards can stay in this thing, rather justly or unjustly.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's support leaking to Hillary (none / 0)

The polling seems to suggest that Obama's support is going to Hillary.

IF 22 percent of the 24 percent are "enthusiastic" then Obama lost all of his "soft support" to Hillary.

If you adopt a "national polls matter" approach, the entire field has been crushed and Hillary is waltzing away with it.

Thin about it, suppose ALL of Edwards support goes to Obama, he still loses to Hillary by 13. And obviously that is not likely to happen. The reverse more likely.

If Edwards drops out, Clinton likely wins Iowa and the race is over.

If these polls matter, then we can say pretty much what our ticket is - Clinton-Obama.

So get ready.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:47:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's support leaking to Hillary (none / 0)

NO! I'm not jumping on the Murdoch and pole dancing bandwagons.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:52:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She's the clear favorite (none / 0)

She has to be beaten in Iowa otherwise it is over.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:58:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She's the clear favorite (none / 0)

That was always the case regardless of these numbers. Her nomination depends on inevitability. Once that ballon busts, so goes the likelihood of her winning. Obama was never going to be a threat early on- Edwards was. Hence the media coverage (and yes I do believe the Clinton machine had there hands of some of it even if I can't prove it).

by bruh21 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:35:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore can take IA and NH if he gets in (none / 0)

And the race will be over in that case as well. So, I think you should become a "Draft Gore" guy, BTD :)

In any case, long time no see. Hope you're doing well.

by NuevoLiberal on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:01:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's support leaking to Hillary (none / 0)

I hope that Clinton's camp believes these polls.

I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives

by pioneer111 on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 02:32:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's support leaking to Hillary (none / 0)

I do not think there is any chance of Obama being the second name on a HRC ticket. He doesn't deliver any states that she can not win otherwise and they are going to beat the tar out of each other over the next couple months. I honestly think there is a good chance that the VP nominee will be someone outside of the race- think Mark Warner, Ed Rendell, or someone along those lines.

This is especially true if Clinton is the nominee, as she will choose someone who can help deliver a potential swing state (such as Virginia, or PA.) Someone who could deliver Florida would be a great choice, but I don't think there is any such potential candidate.

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

by JDF on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 03:23:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

Agreed... I don't think he'd be higher than third but there is NO FUCKING WAY he only gets 2% on Enthusiastic supporters.

by yitbos96bb on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:50:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you are going to pay attention to polls (3.00 / 2)

then you can't then discount the results because you do not like them.

Either these mean something or they do not.

MYDD decided they meant something for the past few months. Now the results are not to MYDD's liking so words like "soft support" start to pop up.

Sorry, no sale. If you buy the significance of these polls then Clinton is the prohibitive favorite and that's all there is.

I think they are pretty meaningless and always thought so.

Let's talk when Iowa rolls around.

But there is something very disingenuous about this focus on "soft support."

48 to 24 either means something or it doesn't. you folks need to make up your mind.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:39:52 PM EST

Re: If you are going to pay attention to polls (none / 0)

Are you really arguing that soft support is as important as hard support at this point in the campaign?

Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.

by Jonathan Singer on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:47:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope (none / 0)

I am arguing that NEITHER matter now.

There is no such thing as meanignful HARD support now in a national poll.

It might mean something in Iowa and NH, and not much there, but in a NATIONAL poll, the distinction is meaningless and and both categories are meaningless.

Do you REALLY think Hillary has 28% HARD support? do you really think Obama has 22% HARD support?

I don't. I think that outside of Iowa and NH, the total percentage of HARD support in the electorate does not amount to 10% of the people who will be voting in the primaries.

So ANY poll that tells me more than 50% of the electorate is HARD SUPPORT is full of crap by definition.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:54:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nope (none / 0)

Either you're misunderstanding the diary, or I'm missing something.

The point here, I think, is that, for Clinton, 28% of the 48% is hard support.
For Obama, 22% of the 24% is hard support.

In other words, the 28% and 22% don't refer to the total amount of hard support
among all Democratic voters.

It's asking the question: How much of the support each candidate has is
hard support?

by horizonr on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:16:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are (none / 0)

It is a separate question to all polled.

It should then say that Hillary leads 13 to Obama's 5 among HARD SUPPORTERS.

In which case, the race just got started.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:29:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are (none / 0)

You're really going to have to explain your math -- it's not obvious at all.

by horizonr on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:36:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are (none / 0)

Never mind -- I see your calculation.

by horizonr on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:39:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are (none / 0)

But I'm not at all sure that your conclusion is correct.

by horizonr on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:44:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are (none / 0)

In fact, I know it's not.

If 28% of Clinton's support is hard support, 72% of Clinton's support could be up for
grabs. Based on the CBS poll, that would put almost 35 of Clinton's 48 points into
play.

The poll gives Obama 24 points. Were Obama to keep all of these points and were
all 35 of Clinton's "softer" points to swing Obama's way, he would have 59 points
to Clinton's 13.

Obviously, this is the most extreme case. And, of course, Obama has his own hard/soft support
ratio. If, as the CBS poll finds, 22% of Obama's support is hard support, 78% of Obama's support
could be up for grabs.

But this is where it gets interesting. A large "soft" percentage of a large number -- in Clinton's case,
72% of 48 points -- creates 35 points of potential swing. A large "soft" percentage of a smaller number --
in Obama's case, 78 percent of 24 points -- creates only 19 points of potential swing.

Which means that, if CBS has Clinton's and Obama's hard/soft ratios right, Obama stands to gain
a lot more from Clinton than vice-versa. (We would need to see more polls, with larger samples --
CBS talked to only 336 Democratic voters -- to firm up this picture.)

But the larger lesson of the diary is that this race could be much more volatile than many of
the polls suggest -- and than many Clinton supporters here would have us to believe.

by horizonr on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:40:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are (none / 0)

Do the math...

There is a movement out there and many HRC folks do not want to talk about it, but many Democrats do not think she can win. They don't. My mother loves HRC and has given to both, but she does not think she can win. And the AA is 50/50 about Barack and Hillary. But many of us do feel we had wonderful Clinton years and it is time to move on. I think this is what the break will be in the AA vote between the two.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:40:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are (none / 0)

that was part of my argument to George in another diary today. That the real issue for me is that the 90s were the 90s and 2008 is 2008- voting on HRC is for some about what was, not about what opportunities we have going forward. I really feel like 2008 is the democrats version of the GOP's 1980- its a chance at a seachange if we nominate the rate candidate. WHo that will be I am not sure- I support Edwards, but I could see potentially if he grows more in the next few months Obama being a strong candidate too. I don't see how HRC can be that candidate

by bruh21 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:38:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are (none / 0)

Those in glass houses...The fact is that those in the Clinton camp and the Obama camp are hoping to make history. There are many who say she can't win because of her high negatives and she is a woman, but there are many who say Obama can't win because he is Black. Obama I think is in a more tenuous situation than Edwards in that he is not leading in any of the polls. Realistically he has to pull 2nd in Iowa or NH in order for SC to matter. If he places 3rd in either Iowa or NH, then a win in SC is irrelevant and he may not win there, if he gets tagged with the can't win.

by Kingstongirl on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:24:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

two things (none / 0)

All of these pollsters are sampling more "likely voters" than will turn out in the primaries/caucuses. When you look at how many they surveyed, and how many passed their likely voter screen, the proportion of likely voters is often around 40 to 50 percent, which is more like what we'll see in November 2008.

Also, all of the polls are understating the number of undecided voters. They are pushing leaners too hard. Working my precinct and calling only those people who attended our caucus in January 2004, the overwhelming majority are telling me they are undecided.

One reason I think Hillary will do poorly in Iowa is that most of the undecided people are telling me that they have ruled out Hillary. This includes people who caucused for Kerry, Dean, and Edwards last time.

Another reason I think she will do poorly is that most of the Hillary leaners I have talked to (and these are not people in my precinct, but people in other parts of Des Moines) are concerned about the fact that she is polarizing. There are some hard-core Hillary backers, but many of the Hillary leaners are concerned about her baggage. I think at the end of the day, they will land somewhere else.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:52:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Likely voter screens (none / 0)

are such nonsense this far out.

There is no way to determine who they are with ANY precision this far out, ESPECIALLY for primaries.

Hell, in GE Presidential contest, pollsters do not even put in LV screens until a couple of months before the election.

This is all bullshit.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:56:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

THANK YOU.... (none / 0)

I have been stating this for weeks. These folks put these polls up and then guess what? You read the specs and most are suspect. Plus, how can you believe these polls when most undecideds are in the double digits, in most polls? And why add leaners in here, is beyond me. And ppl wonder why Obama is raising monies and growing in the grassroots level? People don't believe these polls, and they are rejecting HRC. They are.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:46:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: THANK YOU.... (3.00 / 1)

Unbelievable. People are "rejecting" Clinton? Based on what your mother has said? Wow.

Here is the problem with your theory.

Clinton is the most popular Democrat amongst DEMOCRATS.

She gets about 77%, 80% popularity. Edwards is pretty popular as well. About 70%, 73%. Then it drops down to Obama whose popularity is in the low to mid 60s. That is very low base popularity. He can't win with those numbers.

Then you have first and second choice statements that speak an even clearer tale:

Among Democrats Clinton gets about 65%, 68% of respondents' first AND second choice nods. Obama is at around 42%, 44%. Edwards at around 30%. That is the candidate's current "universe" of Democratic base support. If Edwards' first-choice support is at, say, 15%, then another 15% list him as their second choice (even though they currently have another first-choice, i.e. Clinton, Obama.) It is conceivable that Edwards could gain some of that second-choice support by making a strong enough case for some of those who named Edwards as their second-choice to change him to become their first choice. That number maxes out at 30%, and it is highly unlikely that those who DON'T list Edwards as either their first or second choice would consider Edwards at all at any point, because that would mean passing at least TWO top-choices, not at all likely. Obama's maximum universe here is 44% of both first-and-second choice support, which is not nearly enough to make the case you are attempting here. His first-choice support is somewhere in the mid-20s, he has another 20% who name him as their second-choice, so he can make a case to those to try to sway them, but at the same time he has to be watchful that none of his current first-choice support goes to someone else. Clinton's max. universe on this measure is at 65% or around there, which is a very good position to be in. She gets about 35% or somewhere close to that of Democrats right now, but an extra 30% lists her as their second choice (even though they currently support someone else for first-choice right now) which means they would be more than willing to vote for her in the end, as candidates file away.

I think BTD is correct, most of this talk of "soft support" is based on wishful thinking, not realistic analysis.

by georgep on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 08:40:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: two things (3.00 / 1)

especially if these people see the polls about 52% of americans saying they wont even CONSIDER voting for her.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:35:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: two things (none / 0)

I have heard the same thing. These undecideds are looking at other candidates and many like Richardson.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:41:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: two things (none / 0)

I was talking to a hard core Obama guy the other day- and he said the same thing. He just doesn't see the support for HRC being that strong when people start to think about the actual idea that she may get hte nom and that they wouldn't get the Presidency because of her baggage. Only politicos are eatting this polling shit up, not the general public.

by bruh21 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:41:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: two things (none / 0)

IMO right now the polls are interesting but I don't put much stock in them. As for "hard" or "soft" voters right now its gonna change for all the candidates but particularly for the top candidates. Now, as for Hillary Clinton goes, I
won't be supporting her for all the reasons the have been stated, with the exception of gender or race. I didn't make that an issue for me personally.
I guess I can be considered one of the "hard" supporters for Obama. What appeals to me about Obama is that he lives what he talks. His core values are reflected in his daily life,since his ealy 20's, the most important of those is and has been service to others. Those values are reflected in his voting record as a state and federal senator and in the issues we are facing today.

by sideliner07 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:09:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The only polls that matter are in Iowa (none / 0)

and to a lesser extent NH.

National Polling is little more than an exercise in mental mastubration. There is no National Primary.

The race will be completely re-made after Iowa and NH.

by fladem on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:38:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

I think this is more accurate of where the race will be in Dec. Although, undi's will break somewhare...

If you really want to determine Hillary's support we need to find a poll that is corsstabbed with voter interest... Last one I saw the bulk of her support was coming from "little" to "no" interest, while Obama was the oposite - If anybody can find this you should add it to the diary.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:40:09 PM EST

You'll find out (none / 0)

when Iowa roll around.

The idea that national polling, or any polling for that matter, NOW, is meaningful, is the essential problem at MYDD.

If you believe the national polls matter, then Hillary is running away with it.

That is the inescapable fact. You can't have it both ways.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:43:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'll find out (none / 0)

Agreed - it is just entertainment right now...I do think if we located the crosstabbed poll it would show Hillary's support as soft. Her campaign says the"women with needs" are their chief backers - and I don't find it hard to believe thay arn't really paying close attention to the race as of now.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:45:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'll find out (3.00 / 1)

You are not giving them enough credit.Hillary will win eventually.That's how i see it.This is because when people seat back they would realize she is the most qualified for that post.

by bebe on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:52:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'll find out (none / 0)

"Most qualified," what does this statement mean?

People don't vote for experience, if they did, Biden, Dodd, or Richardson would be leading the pack. Read Lakoff's book "Thinking Points." He makes a very convincing case that values, judgment, and authenticity are much more important to voters than experience. Dick Cheney is very qualified, does that make him fit to be POTUS?

by upper left on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:47:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'll find out (none / 0)

She is the most popular amongst Democrats. She also has other major pluses (i.e. experience, "closest on issues," is seen as able to deal best with foreign policy issues, etc.) Then there is the Bill Clinton factor, which in the end is a major plus for her.

I personally believe it will be very hard for eiher Obama or Edwards to beat Clinton for the nomination. Gore would probably have a chance. That is assuming no major gaffe or health issue that can't currently be foreseen for any candidate.

by georgep on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 08:46:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'll find out (none / 0)

this election is about competence not charisma,thats why she is leading in almost all states.

by bebe on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:54:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'll find out (none / 0)

hmmm I know some really smart Republicans (Dick Cheney)
I like my elections to be about issues...and Hillary is wrong on a whole bunch of them.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:34:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'll find out (none / 0)

Well said gb1437. Hillary has an uphill climb when it comes to her "baggage". It certainly played a part in my support of Obama and quiote frankly I just want a change of the same thing year after election year...Bush, Clinton, Bush.
Enough already!

by sideliner07 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:13:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'll find out (none / 0)

You state "I like my..." That is highly personal. You can't transport that to the rest of the population, it is a purist's argument. Most people obviously disagree with you on your choice of candidate and what issues are more important than others. A plurality agrees with Clinton on most levels.

by georgep on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 08:49:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Voter Enthusiasm = Voter Turnout (none / 0)

Isn't this what we had been touting all during the 2006 Elections? We were galvanized in the democratic Party. We were determined to get that Democratic Majority if it was the last we we ever did. We had Lawyers at the polling station to make sure nothing funky went down. We were pro-active in spotting and exposing attempts at Voter Enfranchisement BEFORE the big day. We were excited. We were all over the various races. We taped our opposition ( Macaca Moment ). We were fierce , vicious, and some of us were malicious. We even launched a campaign to video tape events at the polling stations on Election Day and immediately post wrongdoing in the blogosphere. Remember that?

....and we WON!

"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama

by BlueDiamond on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:50:15 PM EST

Not stupid (none / 0)

But rather consistent with the theory, propagated at MYDD that national polling matters NOW.

It is utterly wrong but not stupid.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:00:16 PM EST

Re: Not stupid (none / 0)

I actually think polls do matter this early,but unless you want to start polling about hard/soft support,then I don't know how you determine that,it just sounds like a stretch

by bebe on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is contradictory (none / 0)

unless your argument it is all hard support, then the polls are meaningless precisely BECAUSE there is a lot that will happen before the people vote.

The main thing that will happen is Iowa.

NATIONAL polls now are meaningless.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:13:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 28% is not enough (none / 0)

Very interesting, good job in digging this out. This detail is saying that 42% (20% of 48%) of HRC's support is soft and only 8% (2% of 24%) of Obama's support is soft. The race for that 38% starts on Labor Day.

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:21:54 PM EST

Edwards supporters I'm going to be blunt (3.00 / 1)

but he has 1/3 rd the moey of Obama and Hillary and has 1/3 the poll numbers of Hillary and 1/3rd or less of the donors and volunteers of Obama, even an Iowa win will not be enough for him to realistically fight for the nomination against 2 non white-male superstars for a democratic pary who's demographics are overwhelmingly female and minirity based, thiers going to come a time in this race where it's going to be similar to the 2000 general and a vote for Edwards will be a vote for Hillary, if we think the most pro-war candidate who is despised by about the counrty is the best we can do as a nominee, fine but just like 2000 this is a huge turning point election, the supreme court is probably at stake for the next 30 years. I gamble for a living and i don't think it's a good bet to place our hopes on the fact that the half the counrty who says they will
never consider voting for Hillary isn't telling the truth.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:31:50 PM EST

Re: Edwards supporters I'm going to be blunt (3.00 / 1)

If Edwards gets out most of his contributors will go to Clinton. Trial lawyers will not support Obama because he is for tort reform. The only demographic group where Edwards does fairly well are older, white voters. Clinton would likely pick up a lot of that and Richardson might gain some as well. Polling has shown with Edwards out of the race Clinton's lead will increase.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:38:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards supporters I'm going to be blunt (none / 0)

i'm not talking about him getting out, i'm talking to netroots voters whom 95% regulary pick someone other than Hillary to be the nominee, I go these boards to try to convince people to vote for Obama not to tell them my candidate is inevitable so get over it.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:45:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards supporters I'm going to be blunt (none / 0)

I agree with you. Edwards base is mostly older Whites, but you forgot something. Not all of them are Lawyers. In fact, there's more concern that fear and race plays more of a role than Lawyers do. However:

Edwards supporters are also a majority of......

MEN!

They will not move to Hillary.

So, at the end of the day, gender will trump over race for these guys.

"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama

by BlueDiamond on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards supporters I'm going to be blunt (none / 0)

I think your anylasis rob is delusional....Edwards supporters tend to be all really anti-war and on the left of the party outside a few trial lawyers which mean more as doner block than voting numbers, Obama will outraise Hillary so money is irrelevant in this discussion.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:50:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards supporters I'm going to be blunt (none / 0)

Polls have shown what little base Edwards has is among older, white, moderate to conservative men. He has netroots support but the netroots is only a tiny fraction of the voters. Edwards had hoped that by going to the left it would cut into some of Obama's support but that has not happened.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:06:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards supporters I'm going to be blunt (none / 0)

Exactly what percentage of the democratic primary electorate are trial lawyers? This is a rhetorical question.

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:01:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama supporters, I'm going to be blunt (none / 0)

Obama has no chance of winning Iowa and after he finishes 3rd there his campaign, despite raising a ton of money, will be dead.

A vote for Obama is a vote for Hillary.

Seriously dude, this is the stupidest comment ever.

I am parodying you but you MUST know that your type of comment is the most offensive of all.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:42:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama supporters, I'm going to be blunt (3.00 / 2)

Whether you're trying to parody or not, this type of language in the comments section is not kosher.

Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.

by Jonathan Singer on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:45:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here it comes (none / 0)

Hey Jonathan, check your site more often.

You think my comment is problematic? Then you need to go police it.

You can not be serious. Honestly, I am sorry that I find your post ridiculous, but you can not tell me that my comment is out of line here in light of what I have seen here.

Please, the pretext is weak.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:13:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just in this thread (none / 0)

Re: Edwards supporters I'm going to be blunt (none / 0)

I think your anylasis rob is delusional....Edwards supporters tend to be all really anti-war and on the left of the party outside a few trial lawyers which mean more as doner block than voting numbers, Obama will outraise Hillary so money is irrelevant in this discussion.

by nevadadem on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:50:16 PM EST

This is just one example. The ONE thing site civility police should not be, imo, is unfair and apply different standards.

This is but one example. Honestly, you really can not be a partime cop, IMO, and maintain pretence to fairness.

This is something you either choose to do consistently, or not at all it seems to me.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:25:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just in this thread (none / 0)

There's a difference between calling someone's analysis delusional and saying that someone's comment was "the stupidest... ever." And, for that matter, I have deleted comments on this thread in which people call each other stupid. You can disagree with people without using language that degrades the site. I'm sorry if that doesn't work for you, but that's how the site works.

Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.

by Jonathan Singer on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:27:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Okay (none / 0)

I got that now - delusional ok, stupidest comment ever, not ok.

That seems delusional to me, but whatever.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:31:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay (none / 0)

Funny.

Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.

by Jonathan Singer on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:34:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Funny (none / 0)

On rare occasions.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:44:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay (none / 0)

it does seem a bit odd- I've done worse and had others do worse to me. I mean I've been called a whiner and a loser etc- I've called people idiots. Is there some rule that says we shouldn't sayign this to each other?

by bruh21 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:44:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay (none / 0)

I don't read every comment on this site, though I try to read (and usually do) every comment on my posts. And when I see people calling eachother names, I try to stop it. Generally, don't call each other names, don't be a troll.

Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.

by Jonathan Singer on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:48:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay (none / 0)

my delusional comment was probably borderline I will try to find better words to express my disagreement.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:07:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay (none / 0)

Thanks.

Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.

by Jonathan Singer on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:12:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay (none / 0)

I will try to find better words to express my disagreement.

I like that. I think we should all repeat that a few times in our heads before we post here :)

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:04:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay (none / 0)

Okay, it's your site, and I will try to respect that, but sometimes it's not trollish to call a duck, a duck, or someone who is acting like an idiot, an idiot. I would have thought "troll" would be situational to the behavior to which I am responding and not simply the use of a particular word.

by bruh21 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay (none / 0)

I should have written don't call each other names or be trollish.

Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.

by Jonathan Singer on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:18:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay (none / 0)

either way I will try to be nicer

by bruh21 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:27:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just in this thread (none / 0)

Bravo.

We can all disagree with each other, and it can get heated at times, but name calling or "calling someone out by name" should not be acceptable. Politics is a highly emotional discussion topic. If you let it go overboard with cheesy insults or getting excessively personal, then it becomes a romper room.

by georgep on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 08:58:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama supporters, I'm going to be blunt (none / 0)

why on the betting markets is Edward givin such an extremely low chance of winning the nominatio, Al Gore is 3 times as likely and he isn't even running, Obama in most polls is almost tied in Iowa and if he ever wins the state the momentum would be unstoppable.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:52:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama supporters, I'm going to be blunt (none / 0)

Obama is not almost tied in Iowa. His RCP average is currently 19.5%. Clinton has led in 3 of the last 4 polls in Iowa and Edwards has led in 1.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama supporters, I'm going to be blunt (none / 0)

not counting ARG he is and becuase of the fact thier polling has been proved either incompetent or fraudulent I ignore them. (has McCain winnning everywhere, had Bush winning 2000 NH primary in thier state they supposedly know).

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:13:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama supporters, I'm going to be blunt (none / 0)

You are wrong. I have taken out ARG in a previous diary completely from the Iowa averages. Edwards' lead goes up to 2.5% over Clinton, Obama is still in third, still 3% behind Clinton and almost 6% behind Edwards.

by georgep on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:02:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama supporters, I'm going to be blunt (none / 0)

by the way Rob I didn't even read the Mason Dixon poll correctly when I diaried it the other day, it's worse for Hillary than I thought, it's not 52% wouldn't vote for Hillary it's 52% of americans WON'T EVEN CONSIDER voting for Hillary, even if those are a bit higher than they really are they shoudl scare the shit out of all democrats exept for ones that would rather prove a poitn than win an election.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:16:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama supporters, I'm going to be blunt (3.00 / 1)

And 44% of all Americans will not vote for Edwards and 40% will not vote for Obama. Their numbers will be as high as Clinton as well.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:19:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama supporters, I'm going to be blunt (none / 0)

all of which misses the 14 years of baggage. the only thing that I am certain of from all this polling is that HRC's negatives are hardcore negatives. The others have a shot. She b/c this is also 14 years in teh making- has very little unless there is a perfect storm 2006 type wave again.

by bruh21 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:46:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama supporters, I'm going to be blunt (none / 0)

If you argue that way then it follows that her enormous favorables with Democrats have ALSO been 14 years in the makings and are not prone to disappear as illogically argued by Democrats "starting to focus on the race." Her huge favorables amongst Democrats aren't going anywhere but further up (as she wins debates, comes across as warm and funny, etc.), so if Obama and Edwards can't overtake her in that area, they really don't have much chance because in addition to her favorables amongst Democrats Clinton also has a bunch of other advantages going for her (endorsements, money, Bill Clinton, experience, "being closest on issue," etc. etc. etc.)

by georgep on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 02:46:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama supporters, I'm going to be blunt (none / 0)

Fox poll shows 47& unfavorable for Clinton and 30% unfavorable for Obama AND 31% UN-FAVORABLE FOR eDWARDS,

Only one poll showed Obama's un-favorables at 40 percent and that was Rasmussen all others have shown it in the 30's that can not be said for Clinton.

by BDM on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:57:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama supporters, I'm going to be blunt (3.00 / 1)

The poll under discussion in this diary has Clinton's unvaforables amongst Registered voters at 40%. Other recent polls have shown the same thing: 42% in the NBC/WSJ, 41% in the Hotline/Dieago poll, 42% in the NYT poll, etc. You get hung up on a Mason-Dixon assessment, when MD always oversamples Republicans. It is called cherry-picking.

As a sidenote, I observe that with detractors all the time. Say THIS poll would have shown a completely different picture from the norm (instead of showing a massive Clinton lead.) Say this poll would have come out and showed a tightening race, maybe only a 3% Clinton lead. It would have been devoured here like fresh meat. The poll would have been instantly deemed as trustworthy and a "sign of things to come." We saw the commentary when Gallup had that one outlier poll which showed a 1-point Obama lead when every other poll showed Clinton leading in the low to mid-teens. That poll received a major correction from Gallup just 10 days later, but the comments while it was thought to being the "Gallup" word were exuberant and jubilant.

National polls are more meaningful than some here like to admit. But only if seen in an aggregate fashion, all polls taken together, including the polls one may not personally like, don't show good news for one's chosen candidate. So, if you are going to pounce on a MD-survey that shows one number you have to average it out with the other numbers we have seen (i.e. this particular polls relatively low number of 40% unfavorables for Clinton.) Otherwise you have Clinton supporters jump on just ONE poll as the end-all (i.e. I personally don't think Clinton's lead over Obama is 24% as this CBS poll contends) and Obama supporters go all gaga over another poll (i.e. that Gallup 1-percent poll.) Take the averages gained from ALL polls on ALL measures, and aggregate them. That is the true national picture.

by georgep on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:16:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama supporters, I'm going to be blunt (none / 0)

Agreed.

by BigBoyBlue on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 11:28:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tell me (none / 0)

what is the Obama contract trading at now?

Or better yet, what was the DEAN contract trading at in December 2003? What was the KERRY contract trading at?

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:26:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

This confirmed one suspicion of mine. That edwards is the anti- hillary/obama candidate rather than really having too many people who are pro edwards. Now the support is moving towards gore. Neither embody what those supporters want(someone like tester) Gore only gets support because he has some good polling.

by sterra on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:57:39 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (3.00 / 1)

Don't start with this movement crap again! Every movement stands for something. What does the so called "Obama Movement" stand for? I believe it stands for the election of Barack Obama and nothing more.

As for the actual support, Edwards does seem to be in real trouble. He is my second choice if Gore doesnt get in but he is major problems in the MSM. I could go on and on about why Barack Obama is inexperienced and untested but most rational people already know this and arent kneeling down to the Obama movement.

BTW, fred thompson will be the Rethig nominee, Jeanne shaheen will get into the NH Sen race.

by bsavage on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:21:09 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (3.00 / 2)

What does the so called "Obama Movement" stand for?

It's become obvious; it's a fundraising movement, where you own a piece of the campaign by becoming one of the movement's donors. For that focus, it's pretty damn good too, and probably fun to participate in for those well off enough to afford to chip in or attend the events; and if they don't mind that the lease comes due with Plouffe-Axlerod's 15% media commission in Jan-Feb '08.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:06:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

Jerome that is inside baseball stuff they are not interested in that stuff.. These are young people and they are showing up at rallies in huge number's and are giving. It remains to be seen if they will vote in such numbers,

by BDM on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:49:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (3.00 / 0)

This is quite possibly the most bitter and willful and patronizing and mean-spirited
comment I have ever seen from a front-pager about any campaign and its supporters.

Do you honestly believe that nearly 258,000 unique donors have contributed to
Barack Obama's campaign, just to watch a Web site ticker go higher and higher?!!
If so, I hope you will at least have the courage to say so on the front page itself.

I'm sorry, but you have a serious, serious, serious blind spot on Barack Obama.

by horizonr on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:59:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

you know darn well that counsulting fee is standard - people are buying into a "movement" Obama represents a political philosophy of a return to Neibuhrian principals - which a lot of people are looking for.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:32:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

Well, you doubted the Facebook phenomenon and now it has translated into donors, a genuine commitment to the campaign and the candidate. You doubted the organisational ability of the Obama campaign beyond a glossy, anarchic website and he has now demonstrated he can mobilise 10,000 properly inducted canvassers doing useful work just about anywhere in the country.

You posted a diary questioning his movement which roused the progressive theoreticians out of their dim Scriptoriums to denounce his legitimacy on this fine, semantic point. What could Obama do to demonstrate his legitimacy to you as a genuine progressive, grass roots candidate? Is there a 'progressive' rulebook he isn't playing by? Who wrote it? Not those theoreticians blinking at daylight I hope.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:34:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

I've been paying attention to MyDD for several months now and am a strong Obama supporter, this being the first time I've commented on anything here. But this ferocious amount of venom coming from Jerome has become laughable. He's not even trying to conceal his open hostility to Obama anymore, and the more complaints that you make that seems to contradict reality (as Shaun mentioned above) the more people pay less mind or seriousness to your opinions.

by DrSB on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:44:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (3.00 / 1)

Well he is atracting huge crowds, large numbers of donor's and large numbers of donations.

He must be doing something right, I don;t see any other candidate putting up such numners. He still only has about 75-80% name recognition

by BDM on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:53:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

Clinton's support is deep simply by virtue of having a committed low income base and especially by her overwhelming support amongst women, where she leads Obama 2-1. Barring major missteps from Clinton (which will not happen), defeating her for the nomination is a daunting prospect. Obama should have sat this one out and waited his turn. He will not be the VP pick on this ticket because a ticket combining the first woman and the first black man to ever be President and Vice President respectively would be too much of a risk for Clinton to wager on and too much for many voters to stomach. Edwards has already been the VP nominee once and was underwhelming in that capacity. This leaves only Dodd and Richardson as possible VP picks that are currently campaigning. Dodd won't be chosen because he is a standard issue Northeastern liberal and Richardson's perceived lack of discipline and the fact that he is Hispanic would make him an unlikely pick. I almost guarantee that Clinton will end up choosing Mark Warner, Jim Webb or Tom Vilsack as her VP, as each brings their own strengths to the ticket. Warner as a moderate pro-business Governor of a Republican state, Webb as a party swithing man's man "Fighting" Dem and Vilsack as a safe, white male with an inspiring life story.

by nothing117 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:24:45 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

are Clinton's low-income women going to show up in big numbers for a primary? it's a reasonable assumption Obama's people will they send money so I think they will vote and bring others in numbers that will far exceed the normal low-turnout primary.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:34:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

hopefully Warner is runnign for senate!

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:34:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

have "low-income women" begun to watch the race? If not, (which I doubt they have) the only place Hillary has to go it down.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:36:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

Warner will run for Senator of VA rather than take a chance on a losing ticket or at best a less than 50% chance of winning in the GE.

I am from VA and John Warner will probably not RUN and it will be announced early next year and Mark will get into that race. Once he commit's he will not want to screw the democratic party in VA AND HAVE them looking to find an alternative candidate in July which is when the vp SELECTION WILL PROBABLY BE MADE.

by BDM on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:45:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

I really am not buying that an woman/black ticket would be too much of a risk to take. At least I hope Clinton won't subscribe to that outdated approach. We are moving rapidly as a society beyond these notions (faster than I had hoped for, actually) and that ticket IMHO would be unbeatable. It has superstar appeal and both candidates have done a very good job of moving well beyond their particular "minority" status and making their gender and race virtually no factors in a negative sense. Clinton is seens as the candidate in command of the issues, as the experienced one and she wins debates because of her knowledge and experience. But the theme is not "Look how well she does, even though she is a woman." It is that she does well, period, irregardless of gender. Obama is in many ways not defined by his race, not to the average voter viewing these candidates. It is about him, yes, but not in a race-defined way as it would be with someone like Jesse Jackson. I don't get the impression that African-Americans would be a much favored constituency over other groups BECAUSE Obama is black, which is where he has moved well beyond race as a defining issue.

Clinton/Obama makes sense on many, many levels. They are VERY close in overall philosophy, voting record, etc. I hope that gender and race won't make a difference in the selection process, and, honestly, I doubt Clinton would view it that way.

by georgep on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:30:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (3.00 / 1)

and also Obama shouldn't have waited his turn! the fact that he's outraising Hillary and generally doing better against Republican opponents is proof that he should have gotten in the race.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:39:14 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

Seems like a bit of stretch to find a chink in the front runner's armor.

Not only does she maintain a consistent double-digit lead in the poles, but she also has tidy lead in enthusiastic supporter over this year's top enthusiasm-generating movement candidate.

Obama should be killing Clinton on this particular measure. He's not.

by hwc on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:06:56 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

She has a 6 pt lead in this category which is not very big. Look at the large group of 38% who don't know yet. Based on Clinton's name ID her lead in enthusiastic should be much larger and I doubt that this large group will swing to her if they have not already..

by BDM on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:38:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

I thought folk were pretty enthusiastic for Dean in 2004. Certainly more enthusiastic than for Kerry, whose own mother probably couldn't generate any enthusiasm for him. I didn't see much evidence of swinging Dean's way as the vote neared.

by hwc on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:50:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

What really hurt Dean was the capture in mid-dec of Sadamm Huessin and Dean's remark about it. for not acknowledging at the time of not congratulating the military for that effort or the defense dept.

This stopped his momentum of his campaign especially against the war. Bush got a boost in the poll's after the capture. I think then the other main democrats in the race then really went after him. They really ganged up on him.

by BDM on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:16:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (3.00 / 1)

I find it interesting that at least in my lurking around the "progressive blogosphere" (for far too many hours), there seems little comment on, acknowledgement of, the simple fact that Obama is, after all, a black American. I've missed the stats, but I wonder what the average age of commenters on this blog is. For anyone who came of age, of political awareness, before the end of the Jim Crow era and is not a racist--who felt the glory of the hopes of the civil rights marches, the shame of the murders, the tragedy of the 60s assassinations and riots--don't you fill at least a little tug at your heart, a wish to get beyond cynicism or realism or whatever it is, and just somehow hope that it really might happen that Obama could be worth your vote, could win your vote, and could actually be president? That we could actually "turn" that "page"?

by skeptica on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:51:22 PM EST

Re: skeptica but not cynica (none / 0)

To the credit of almost all of the people here (average age of about 45, I think), it doesn't matter - good or bad. Obama is just the inexperienced candidate, too centrist, the guy who was against the war from the start, the phenom, not Hillary or Edwards, the financially viable candidate who will keep Al Gore out of the race, etc.

But in the other world, to about 8 out 10 people that I talk to about Obama who are not paying close attention, Obama's race is the first thing they think of when you mention his name. Obama has not pushed the historic nature of his candidacy at all and barely acknowledges it (smart, and unlike HRC). We know but often we forget and maybe that is a sign of progress. Perspective is rare in the trenches of the blogosphere and in the middle of a horserace.

I really don't know how large a factor that this will be next year when people actually vote but I say it's about damn time that we found out.

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (none / 0)

Not deep at all is my estimate. What I wonder about is her electability. The McLatchy poll is worrisome. Yet it is contradicted by the Newsweek poll. I wonder if any of them have any credibility.

by cmpnwtr on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:04:29 AM EST

Re: Edwards is underestimated (none / 0)

Edwards will win. After reading all these comments and the superficial discussion about the polls, I now have looked into my crystal ball and I can see that Edwards wins.

No one is talking about what the candidates are really doing to capture the primary vote. Those of you who are unsure stay with Edwards. He is running the campaign that will win the nomination. Interestingly I do think it is about policy and his position on the war NOW and his health care plans, and all those things that are not being measured in the polls.

I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives

by pioneer111 on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 02:58:24 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Lead is Large, But How Deep is It? (3.00 / 1)

I support Hillary and I canvas for her, but I wasn't expecting her to be doing this well. I even agreed with some of the early theories put forth by the anti-Hillary crowd, ie: that she couldn't connect with people on the campaign trail; that she sounded too stiff and rehearsed when she gave a speech; that she didn't have enough "charisma" (she's not Bill), and all the rest of it. She has knocked down these barriers and proved everyone wrong, and she gets better all the time. She does connect; she is relaxed and confident onstage and in townhall settings and she is as charismatic as anyone else. And she kicks ass in the debates.

I believe both Hillary and John Edwards have mostly "hard" support. Unfortunately for Edwards, he has plateaued when it comes to numbers of supporters. This is evidenced by his polling numbers. He is a niche candidate.

My reasons for believing Hillary's support is hard (or loyal) are the demographic groups that she appeals to, ie: women (the big one); blue-collar workers; all of the minorities (taken together that's a lot of votes); the LGBT crowd; the loyal Clintonistas (who remember better times under Bill).

But it's more than this -- Hillary also has a record of accomplishing things for these groups of people. Obama didn't even begin his outreach to women until long after Hillary had most of the women's support. And he doesn't have a record of working on behalf of the gay/lesbian community; or the Indian American community; or the Asian American community; or the Latino community (which is large and growing and paying attention). And for each of the above groups, Hillary has laid a solid groundwork by bringing many ethnic; gay and female leaders into her campaign; by receiving the endorsements of major players in these various communities; and by continually conveying her message that under her Presidency these people will no longer be invisible. These are not people who live on her website, or who necessarily make monetary contributions, especially online. Not everyone can just whip out a credit card and donate to a candidate anyway. But they will get out and vote for her because they already know what she has done for them and they believe in her.

Note: Re the above, Obama has cut into the African-American support - which is now about evenly split with Hillary, but I expect that to remain at around 50/50.

Obama has extended a wider net with his message of "Let's all work together to effect change together, for the good of all." But in terms of hard support from any particular group, he doesn't have it. And I think this will reveal itself on election day.

Everyone feels good about Obama, but the position he is vying for is huge and fraught with difficulty. Hillary has to convince people that she is the candiate who is best qualified to tackle that enormous responsibility. Obama cannot do it by saying Hillary isn't experienced enough, although he tried that last week and will likely continue on that course. He has to tout his own record to be convincing and it can't compare with Hillary's. Bill Clinton is now directly involved and is headed to Iowa and then N.H. as Hillary's vocal "biographer". Hillary won't have to brag about her record because, just like all the other top tier candidates, she now has her spouse coming forward to help her with that. It has taken 6 months for Hillary's campaign to put Bill out there beside Hillary and it has been carefully planned and will be closely monitored and orchestrated for maximum press coverage.

I wouldn't want to be a candidate going up against Hillary and her campaign team.

by samueldem on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 03:11:57 AM EST

This discussion is silly (none / 0)

Of course Clinton's support is softer than any other candidate. She's the default candidate. She's the one with the highest name recognition. A voter has to make some kind of affirmative act of support to move off the default. And it's not surprising to see Obama with a high fraction of his supporters who say they are enthusiastic.

The only surprising thing here is Edwards' low number. It means, IMO, that he is seen as the other establishment candidate, picked for qualities like electability and low negatives rather than enthusiastic and committed. He's campaigning as if he shares that opinion, BTW.

It is worth noting that the last candidate with a profile of electability and low negatives got the nomination.

None of these observations change the dynamics of the race. Whoever it was (Jonathan?) who pointed out that Clinton benefits from blurring the differences among the candidates is supported by this data. It doesn't matter if her support is soft if the other candidates can't define differences clearly delineated enough to move them off the default candidate.

Again, that's what Edwards has been trying to do these last few weeks.

As for the arithmetic, here's the question:

q25 Thinking about the candidates now running for President, is there any candidate that you feel enthusiastic about?

IF YES: Who is that?

This question is unrelated to the who would you vote for summary question. Moreover, the fraction is not of those who were asked q25. The fraction is of those who said they were enthusiastically supporting a candidate. It is certainly NOT 28 points out of Clinton's 48. It is 28 percent of the people who expressed enthusiasm. OF the people who are stoked, 28 percent support Clinton, 22 percent support Obama. But that may be only a hundred people out of the 836 polled. It might only be 50, especially this early in the race. This doesn't tell you anything about softness of support. It tells you something about intensity of support among the most committed voters.

by jayackroyd on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:13:35 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.