MyDD :: A Race on Our Hands in Florida?

A Race on Our Hands in Florida?

by Jonathan Singer, Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:08:47 AM EST

Florida is not going to be awarded any delegates to the Democratic National Convention (at least at this point). But given that, unlike Michigan, both Barack Obama and John Edwards will join Hillary Clinton on the ballot (and there won't be a Democratic debate going on at the exact same moment as results come in, as was the case in Michigan), is it likely that the national media will gloss over the primary as it did in Michigan? And what role might the fact that the latest polling shows Clinton and Obama within the margin of error play?

Strategic Vision (R), 1/11-13/07, 1450 LVs (of both parties), MoE +/- 3 percentage points (for the whole sample; the margin of error for a subsample like the Democrats would be higher)

Who is your first choice for the Democratic nomination in 2008? (Democrats only)

Hillary Clinton 45 percent
Barack Obama 39 percent
John Edwards 11 percent
Dennis Kucinich 1 percent
Undecided 4 percent

With the poll's margin of error likely closer to 4 to 5 points for the Democratic subsample (I called Strategic Vision, but they would not release to me that exact number), the spread between Clinton and Obama in this poll from Florida is within the margin of error.

Though I'm still under the impression that Clinton has an edge in Florida, if Obama can muster together a win in South Carolina, and perhaps also a win in a couple days in Nevada, leading up to the contest in Florida, there's a real chance that he would be able to win the primary there (even if it does not immediately yield delegates). In such an instance, the nearly national primary a week later would presumably be that much more in play. However if polling overestimates Obama's support in Florida -- or at least underestimates Clinton's base of support in the state, as it seemed to do in New Hampshire -- and Obama fails to meet (perhaps) excessively high expectations in the state, momentum might be going in the wrong direction for him (even if only moderately so) heading into super duper Tuesday.

Update [2008-1-17 11:35:17 by Jonathan Singer]: Just to clarify, most polling has Clinton in the lead in Florida, with an average lead of close to 20 points -- though this is the second poll this week to show Obama within the margin of error in the state. So while, as I said before, I think Clinton has the edge in Florida, we just might be seeing a tightening up in the state, which could have some serious ramifications.

Tags: Florida Primary, Florida, 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 51 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (none / 0)

This is the first poll I've seen where Obama was anywhere close in Florida. Absent more info showing he actually has a chance, I suspect the campaign will opt not to compete their and try to keep the media from heavily covering a Clinton "victory." Not an ideal strategy, but unless he's already close coming out of SC that's probably the right move.

At this point, I really wish the DNC had handled Michigan and Florida better. It would have been better to have all of the candidates going all in both places.

by HSTruman on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:15:02 AM EST

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (2.00 / 1)

The DNC did the right thing. I wish the states would have handled it better. They disenfranchised their own voters.

NJ Hussein Independent

by NJIndependent on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:21:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (none / 0)

if the DNC punished FL and MI then they should have punished IA and NH

by world dictator on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:26:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Punished IA and NH? (none / 0)

By what twisted logic did you come to that conclusion?

by HatchInBrooklyn on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Punished IA and NH? (none / 0)

All 4 states violated the DNC rules. Michigan and Florida were punished; Iowa and NH were not.

"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin

by Denny Crane on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:35:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (2.00 / 1)

For what? That's what they wanted:

IA > NV > NH > SC > Super Tuesday

It's MI and FL themselves that tried to defy the party and screwed themselves.

NJ Hussein Independent

by NJIndependent on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:38:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (none / 0)

The DNC compromise established dates for all four early states. IA and NH violated those rules by moving up before the agreed-upon dates.

Iowa was not allowed to go before January 14. New Hampshire was not allowed to before January 22. Both states were allowed to violate those rules with impunity and without penalty.

Considering Michigan agreed to the DNC's schedule with the understanding that all the other states would be held to it as well, they have a legitimate grievance.

"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 Steve M on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:44:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

legitimate grievance? (none / 0)

The DNC had to do something to hold the 2/5 dam. The date shift by Iowa and New Hampshire was a misdemeanor. What Michigan and Florida did was a felony that they were forcefully and repeatedly warned against doing.

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:04:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: legitimate grievance? (none / 0)

Your claim that it was a misdemeanor is belied by the fact that they were assessed no penalty at all.

Regardless, this is not an issue of criminal law, but of contract law. In criminal law, we are all required to obey the laws regardless of whether other people get away with breaking them. In contract law, however, we agree to a deal subject to the understanding that all the other parties will honor their end of the deal as well. That is exactly what occurred here.

As Michigan wrote to the DNC in September 2007:

New Hampshire and Iowa have had a hugely disproportionate impact on our presidential nominating process, with more access to candidates and visits from candidates than probably all the other states combined during the primary and caucus season. Other states, including Michigan, have issues critically important to them. These states would like candidates seeking their support to understand and address these issues, and urged the DNC to make the process more democratic and thereby more reflective of our diversity.

The DNC approached this issue cautiously and with due diligence. A Commission representing diverse party constituents was appointed to make recommendations. The Commission then held a series of comprehensive public hearings. Ultimately, the Commission recommended a modest change in the traditional schedule, which New Hampshire opposed. It recommended that two caucuses be held, then two primaries, and then the "window" for the rest of the states would open.

On August 19, 2006, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) set the dates for the selection of delegates to the 2008 Democratic nominating convention as follows:

- at Iowa caucuses held no earlier than January 14, 2008;

at Nevada caucuses held no earlier than January 19;

at a New Hampshire primary held no earlier than January 22; and

at a South Carolina primary held no earlier than January 29.

The rest of the states could then hold their caucuses or primaries to select their delegates after the opening of the "window" on February 5, 2008.

Michigan Democrats, while disappointed our state was not selected as one of the four "pre-window" states, announced we would abide by the DNC calendar, unless New Hampshire or another state decided to ignore the rule establishing that sequence and that calendar.

As Michigan reminded the DNC, and as others apparently need to be reminded as well, one of the most important concessions made in the DNC's arrangement was that New Hampshire would now be third, and not second, in the sequence:

In the past, New Hampshire maintained its discriminatory privilege and dominating role because our party would not take them on and because of the gun that New Hampshire holds to candidates' heads, insisting that they pledge not to campaign in any state that encroaches on their primary.

Our national party began the process of taking that gun away from the heads of our candidates when we changed the sequence and put New Hampshire third instead of second in the period prior to the opening of the window. The battle that we fought was over the sequence of the primaries and caucuses. New Hampshire either pushing ahead of its assigned position or increasing the distance between its primary and the opening of the window for the rest of the states violates the purpose of the rule.

It was a hard won, albeit partial, victory, allowing our party to better reflect the diversity of America and to begin to inject some fairness in a process for states whose role had been diminished election after election by the dominance of two states.

Michigan Democrats are determined to fight to maintain that victory. We object to your continued silence in the face of New Hampshire's stated intent to violate the DNC rules. As Chairman of the Democratic Party, you had the obligation to state your intent to apply the rule to New Hampshire Democrats when its Secretary of State announced his intention to move the New Hampshire primary prior to January 19. Selective enforcement of our rules undermines the progress achieved -- to open the process potentially for all states.

Michigan and other states have been fighting for years to eliminate New Hampshire's stranglehold over the process. Finally, this year, a deal was struck whereby New Hampshire's control over the process would be diminished, and Michigan agreed to the deal subject to that understanding.

And then what did New Hampshire do? They ignored the deal and went right ahead doing just as they please, just as they've done in the past, jumping ahead of the schedule and jumping ahead of Nevada. And what was the consequence? Nothing! Clearly they'll do it again and again and again until someone sends them the message that they no longer control the entire party.

Those who don't believe Michigan has a legitimate point here haven't really looked at the issue in any depth, in my estimation.

"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 Steve M on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:31:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: legitimate grievance? (none / 0)

Regardless, if there is a legitimate contention here, it is that NH's delegates sholdn't count, NOT that MI's should.

NJ Hussein Independent

by NJIndependent on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:46:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: legitimate grievance? (none / 0)

Uh, no. Michigan didn't break the deal until after the DNC made clear that there would be no penalty for New Hampshire's own breaking of the deal.

Michigan is going to take its case to the convention in Denver and they may very well get their delegates seated. The principle at stake is whether NH gets to do whatever the hell it pleases, and most states will probably line up with Michigan on this one.

"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 Steve M on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:50:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: legitimate grievance? (none / 0)

Steve, it's a little more complicated than that. It is state law in New Hampshire that they must hold a primary at least a week prior to any other primary. While that does not necessitate it moving ahead of Nevada (since that is a caucus), New Hampshire waited to announce its date until all the leap frogging was determined to be "set in stone" so to speak. It may not be fair, but they were following their own state law.

Really, this started with Florida moving up to January 29th which caused South Carolina, which originally was going to be the 29th to move up to the 19th because they wanted to be the first southern primary. So even without Michigan moving up, once South Carolina's primary moved to the 19th, New Hampshire had to move to no later than January 12th. Of course, Nevada could have moved up as Iowa did, but they chose not to.

I would argue that Florida is most at fault here since they started the ball rolling by moving up first.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt

by minvis on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: legitimate grievance? (none / 0)

You are right that the sequence of events is quite complicated. My only point is that Michigan has a legitimate fairness argument, and that they have at least a reasonable shot of having that argument upheld at the convention when it's time to decide whether their delegates get seated.

Some are under the impression that Michigan agreed to a deal, and then for no reason whatsoever decided to renege on the deal and jump to the front of the line. I'd like them to understand that's not what happened.

"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 Steve M on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:54:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: legitimate grievance? (none / 0)

I would note that you imply that New Hampshire moved ahead before Michigan did and that's not the case.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx? headline=It's+a+date%3A+Jan.+8&artic leId=ffc3a8a4-5893-480b-85a7-9311ceab275 e

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt

by minvis on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:22:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: legitimate grievance? (none / 0)

I spelled it out quite clear above. NH announced its intent to move up and the DNC stood by silently - as contrasted with the penalties it immediately threatened when Florida did the same thing.

"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 Steve M on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:46:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (none / 0)

The DNC set up a new schedule of early primaries and caucuses for 2008.

Start with the two traditional first-in-the-nation contests. Add a small, cheap-media, Western state with a large union and Hispanic presence. Then add one cheap-media, Southern state with about 50% of the voters in the Dem primary expected to be black. Four small states go first.

But then two big selfish I-want-it-my-way-and-f-you states bullied their way into the line-up. FL and MI don't care about any other state. They don't care that the DNC, including their delegates, had approved the schedule long, long ago. They want it their way, they will break the rules to get it their way, and devil take the hindmost.

They don't care that the first primaries and caucuses were designed to allow at least the possibility that retail politics and a low-cost campaign would let a non-celebrity candidate break through. FL and MI are huge states with HUGE media costs, but they don't care about the consequences of slamming the door on the possibility that an outsider like Jimmy Carter -- or Sen Dodd or Sen Biden or Gov Richardson -- might get their message heard.

Actually, the treatment of South Carolina by Michigan and Florida amounts to racism. After the DNC carefully considered how to give black voters a real voice in choosing their party's nominee and awarded an early primary to SC, FL and MI rush in screaming ME! ME! ME! They have no interest in letting a small heavily-black state have a say in things.

But at least Iowa and NH nimbly jumped out of the way of the bullies from MI and FL, simply to maintain their relative place in line.

FL and MI broke the rules like political delinquents and now you don't want any punishment? Quit your sniveling and whining, grow up, and learn to behave.

by Woody on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:56:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (2.00 / 1)

Your rhetoric is great. Your understanding of the DNC's rules is not. New Hampshire violated the schedule, jumped out of its place in line behind Nevada, and received no punishment for it whatsoever. We're never going to have reform of the primary process as long as New Hampshire continues to do whatever the heck it wants, in flagrant violation of the rules of the DNC, and this year was a giant step backwards in that regard.

There was a carefully brokered deal, which New Hampshire was allowed to violate with no penalty whatsoever. You do no one any favors when you completely ignore this fact and act as though MI and FL are the only rule-breakers here. And the accusation of racism - as if MI and FL don't each have more black voters than South Carolina - is just preposterous.

"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 Steve M on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:36:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Race (none / 0)

Black Population 2000

U.S. 12.9%

Florida 15.5%

Michigan 14.8%

South Carolina 29.9%

SC has about twice the share of
blacks in its population as FL.
But as they say in Florida,
"Fuck 'em."

by Woody on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (none / 0)

The Republicans cut half the delegates from Florida and Michigan, including all the PLEO delegates (a.k.a. superdelegates). The DNC should have done the same; punish the party leaders who don't follow the rules, not the voters.

Our failure to match RNC strategy in this case may cost us some general election votes in two essential swing states. That is an inexcusable failure of imagination from us.

Read Brian's Utah Weblog

by Brian Watkins on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 01:22:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (none / 0)

This poll is highly suspect. They don't really tell you much about their model and they are very, very far off from every other poll. I think I will need several polls that show results like this one before I can even entertain the idea that Obama is anywhere close to Clinton in Florida. I am from Florida and am voting this week absentee, from what I am hearing from family and friends, it's Clinton Country.

by americanincanada on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:19:28 AM EST

Typo (none / 0)

Don't you mean Florida is not going to be awarded any delegates...?

by Oly on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:21:21 AM EST

Re: Typo (none / 0)

That's Freudian slip if ever there was one!

by dmc2 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:22:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Another senate endy (none / 0)

more endorsements this morning for Obama...
VT Sen Pat Leahy...

by zonk on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:23:18 AM EST

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (none / 0)

Me smells an outlier from a Republican polling outfit.

SurveyUSA 01/11 - 01/13 601 LV 56 23 14 Clinton +33.0
Strategic Vision (R) 01/11 - 01/13 577 LV 45 39 11 Clinton +6.0
Quinnipiac 01/09 - 01/13 421 LV 52 31 9 Clinton +21.0
Rasmussen 01/09 - 01/12 682 LV 48 24 14 Clinton +24.0
InsiderAdvantage 01/07 - 01/07 303 LV 40 32 9 Clinton +8.0

by StrongDem08 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:23:46 AM EST

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (none / 0)

Thank you. I'm not saying its off because its a Republican firm but it seems kind of irresponsible for someone to write a front page diary about Obama catching up in FL when every other poll we have seen has him back by a mile. Outlier guys?

by world dictator on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:25:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (none / 0)

I agree this is likely an outlier but if Obama wins NV and SC it probably tightens to something more like this.

by conspiracy on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:37:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (none / 0)

Hmmm. The only other Florida poll that's close to the same result is one done on one day between Iowa and New Hampshire. My guess is this is an outlier, or perhapse even just a bad poll.

by Christopher Lib on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:40:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (none / 0)

FL is a win-win for Obama, as long as he continues to ignore the state. If it goes as expected and Clinton wins big, no big deal, that was expected, the delegates don't count, and he didn't campaign there anyway. However, if by doing nothing, if he closes what was a 20+ point lead, that is a big story heading into 2/5 regardless of whether the delegates count or not.

One GOP hack poll isn't going to change any expectations.

NJ Hussein Independent

by NJIndependent on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:25:37 AM EST

Stop putting the Michigan delegates in the totals! (none / 0)

Can I say here how appalling it is to see MyDD seat the Michigan Non-delegates?

I realize it isn't official, but it suggests it will happen and creates an "inevitable" -ness about it, much like Clinton was. It is unfair, it is narrative, it is triangulation (if you want to stop HRC, better go with Obama) it is not MYDD!

Please stop.

Please stop!!

by inexile on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:36:59 AM EST

Re: Stop putting the Michigan delegates in the tot (none / 0)

If you don't seat them then you have to reduce the delegate maximum and the win threshold because the MI+FL delegates represent more than 10% of those needed for a win.

by kristoph on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:16:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop putting the Michigan delegates in the tot (none / 0)

"You will not be seated." It isnt rocket science.
I don't see any reason to argue what the Florida and Michigan delegations are going to say. But scamming ones way to the white house is what progressives are committed to stopping.

The Party will not allow it.

by inexile on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:22:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop putting the Michigan delegates in the tot (none / 0)

Including the MI and FL delegates in the counter makes it clear that the purpose of the counter is not to inform the public or organize the community.

The MYDD counter is an endorsement of the Clinton machine, D.C. insider politics, and disenfranchisement of black (SC) and latino (NV) voters in small states. It is propaganda disguised as news. It should be called the MYDD-FOX News delegate counter.

Read Brian's Utah Weblog

by Brian Watkins on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 01:34:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop putting the Michigan delegates in the tot (none / 0)

While I wamt the counter to reflect rules and fairness - I do not endorse this attack on the integrity, fairness or leanings of the mydd site, or the people running it. Please leave your over the top attacks to Ron Paul's sites.

by inexile on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:19:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know about this (none / 0)

poll, but what we are seeing in seemingly every poll in the last two weeks of states is a steady up-tick for Obama. Florida, by on real clear politics has closed up in 7 of the last 8 polls. SC, we all know what is going on there. Cal is still a large lead for Clinton, but is shrinking down to single digits territory. NJ and NC have also closed up.

I get the feeling this is more a race against time for Obama than anything else. The Longer the campaign last, the better he does. The more voters see him, the more they break toward him.

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:52:04 AM EST

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (none / 0)

SurveyUSA, which has a very good track record polling Florida, was in the field the same time as Strategic Vision (Republican) but shows Clinton with a 33pt lead. Go figure.

I won't trust a Republican pollster polling democrats in this case.

SurveyUSA shows their track record for Florida against other pollsters on their web site. Check it out yourself - SurveyUSA.com

by meliou2 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:55:00 AM EST

Republicans like Obama, that is for sure. (none / 0)

by dpANDREWS on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:58:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

National media giving this race to Obama (none / 0)

Clinton may very well lose. She is being forced to fight this campaign with one hand tied behind her back. She can't attack Obama, or even question him or draw distinctions with him.

This hurts in states like FL, where there is not one issue that trumps others and the media will play a big role.

The national media is so in the tank for Obama that it is disgusting (the local reporting I have seen out of Iowa, NH, and NV as been very good). Obama is not being called on any of this campaign tactics. Clintons are being attacked daily for everything they do, right or wrong.

Obama good. Clinton bad.

Obama a saint. Clinton racist.

Matthews was bemoaning last night how Clinton would waltz through Feb 5 unless something happens.

That something will happen. Obama will play dirty (See the Culinary bullying or Rev Lowery's comments as a for instance) and the national media will look the other way. The media on the other hand will continue to elevate Obama and pound Clinton. That hurts in states like Florida where national media is important.

by dpANDREWS on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:56:07 AM EST

Re: National media giving this race to Obama (none / 0)

Hillary has Bill Clinton to play the heavy.

She also is a known quantity which helps her and hurts her.

by aiko on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:18:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: National media giving this race to Obama (none / 0)

I think most in the media agree with Matthews at this point but obviously no one (but he) will say it so blatantly.

Even if Obama wins NV and FL if you look at the polling in many major states Clinton has a double digit lead which will not be erased (although could be mitigated somewhat).

I understand the Obama camp is hopeful they can get about 40% of the delegates on 02/05 with an expectation that Edwards takes perhaps 5% which would still give them a chance to rebuild Mo by winning the latter states through more retail politics, which favor Obama.

by kristoph on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:39:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

dp: You're way too pessimistic. (none / 0)

So far there have been two primaries which were remotely normal but allowed crossover voting. NH and MI. She won both. The tendency here amongst pro and anti Clinton forces to over react to every poll however quirky and every bit of news is absurd. The public knows the media has anti Clinton bias. How do I know that because the press themselves were talking about it after the spectacular NH upset. It doesn't seem to have chastened them at all and probably accounts for the deeply anti media attitude that's out there amongst Democrats at the moment. Matthews is right she is going to sail through Feb 5 because if he wins SC it is going to be perceived as a race based vote and believe me that's the last thing Obama needs. Basically, I don't think NV and SC are now that important. What's important is Florida and what happens on Feb 5. It is amusing to see all the Anti Clinton folks telling us one minute that Florida is not important and the next slavering over a poll showing the gap narrowing although it massively contradicts every other one out there. If she loses Florida I agree she's in some difficulty and this race could go on beyond Feb 5. If she wins FL and all the evidence tells me she will then Feb 5 is going to be a blowout. One other small thought I suspect the economic and stock market collapses are assisting her considerably because of her perceived competence and experience and gold tinged memories of Bill's economic management in the 90's.

by ottovbvs on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 01:01:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They talked about it for two days ... (none / 0)

The went right back to doing what they were doing.

People Eugene Robinson and A.B Stoddard were practically in tears this week ... how can the Clinnton's be such meanies. Just because Barry Obama isn't good with paperwork and has to be handed papers 3 seconds before he goes on stage or else he will lose them, it isn't fair to say Obama may not be good at running an administration.

by dpANDREWS on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 01:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: National media giving this race to Obama (none / 0)

Here is a question, I Obama gets the nomination. Will it be called racist every time the Republicans contrast (attack) their position to his?

Will the Republican party care? I think the Obama campaign needs to fight back and not use racist at all. Notice I said O campaign not Obama. I know it 'isn't his' crying racist.

by del on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:29:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have made that point before (none / 0)

Many in the media will put on a totally different hat then, especially of it is McCain who is very well liked by the media, because he is so good at shooting the bull with them on the plane, bus, etc.

Furthermore, the Republicans who only get 10% of the African American vote will gleefully race bait him and try to get under his skin at every turn. They will throw his Church's connection to Farrakhan at him, his drug use, his atheist mother, you name it. When he and some in the media like Eugene Robinson get mad they will laugh and lob more sick attacks. They are after all Republicans and they have won elections that way for years.

Most of the media will treat it the way they treated the Harold Ford ad, or the Swift Boat ad:

Cable pundit: "Chuck I want to talk about this 'call me' ad, lets take a look at it first," as the ad is played.

10 minutes later in the show:

Cable Pundit: Gloria glad to have you on. I want your opinion on this sick attack on Harold Ford," as the ad is played again.

15 minutes later in the show:

Cable Pundit: Isn't this attack on Harold Ford just aweful, lets have a look at the ad one more time for those that haven't seen it," as the ad plays.

We saw that crap on every cable show for 10 days.

by dpANDREWS on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:46:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Florida Demographics (none / 0)

The Democratic nomination has now been defined along racial and gender lines. The black candidate will get the majority of black votes. The white candidate will get the majority of white and Latino/a votes. The male candidate will get the majority of male votes. The female candidate will get the majority of female votes.

Therefore, demographics in each state will determine the outcome. Here are the demographic splits in Florida, based on the 2004 primary exit polling:

Women: 55%
Men: 45%

White, Latino/a, & other: 79%
Black voters: 21%

The other consistent dynamic is a split in the voting by party ID in the Democratic Primary. The black male candidate is winning the Republican and Independent votes. The white female candidate is winning the Democratic votes. Here's Florida's split:

Democrats: 81%
Republicans & Independents: 19%

by hwc on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:39:44 PM EST

Re: Florida Demographics (none / 0)

The nomination is also splitting along age lines with the black candidate winning the under-44 vote and the white candidate winning the over-45 vote. Here are the splits in Florida:

over 45: 77%
under 45: 14%

by hwc on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:45:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Florida Demographics (none / 0)

The problem with this is the fact that FL is a closed primary is it not?

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:56:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Florida Demographics (none / 0)

The numbers I posted are from the 2004 exit polls in the 2004 Florida Democratic Primary.

by hwc on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 01:05:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (none / 0)

If we had a national primary in 2003, Dean would have won the nomination and then the election. And Dean would have been one of our Greatest Presidents. Iowa and New Hampshire continue to pick weak candidates who can make people feel comfortable in a small setting speaking for hours, but can not translate onto the national stage.

I like Edwards a lot this year, last time around the News would cut him off after 15 seconds, and he sounded stupid. You don't sit around with America in a town hall meeting in the General Election.

Florida is a critical state. If a state had to go first, it should be Florida and then Ohio.

by maxstar on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:49:44 PM EST

are yiu making up your own set of facts? (none / 0)

this polls is not with in the margin of error. It is Hillary by six points and seems to be an out lier.

I would expect that if Obama wins in sc and nv he might also win fl. That would be too bad, he's a disaster waiting to happen.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 01:22:05 PM EST

Re: are yiu making up your own set of facts? (none / 0)

The margin of error for the poll applies to each candidate's level of support, not to the spread between the two candidates. So Clinton's lead in this poll is in fact within the poll's margin of error.

Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.

by Jonathan Singer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Race on Our Hands in Florida? (none / 0)

With Leahy,Kerry, McCaskill,Conrad,Nelson,Durbin ect all coming out of the Senate and endorsing Obama, it is becoming clear that those who work closest with both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama and know them better than anyone else are turning the page on the past and supporting the Obama look to the future.

These guys are not political babes in the woods..they sense the direction the country wants to go and that direction is forward, not backward.

This is their business and they know they would pay a big price for opposing the establishment candidate if Senator Clinton is the nominee but they have the courage to do the right thing but also the intelligence to do the smart thing. That is supporting the candidate that can usher in a new era of progressive dominance with a coalition of the youth, minority, and liberal voters of America... Thank you Pat Leahy!!

by hawkjt on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 01:40:06 PM 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.