MyDD :: Obama can't win Massachusetts

by patboyken on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:58:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The point that you are overlooking is if he has to spend time, money and efforts on what is considered to be a solid blue state it show his weakness in allowing it to be put in play in the first place.

The point you are overlooking (none / 0)

is my unambiguous sarcasm.

That's it, baby; let's go win this election!

by Beltway Dem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:56:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama can't win Massachusetts (2.00 / 0)

The fabled Massachusetts-DC strategy. It didn't work the first time, but who knows. Maybe the second time is the charm.

That's it, baby; let's go win this election!

by Beltway Dem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:02:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by observer11 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:18:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Once he's the nominee, he'll get much more support from Dems. WHich you know.

Jeez.

But the survey is done without having to ask the dem voters to make a choice between Hillary and Obama, there are plenty of voters who said them would vote for both (this is already likely the FULL democratic pool!). The only difference is that the two candidates were measured against McCain.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

OH, time to PANIC!!!

Bill Clinton was in THIRD, behind Bush and Perot, right before the 1992 presidential election. He pulled it out. And that was a heck of a lot closer to the November when we are now.

by politicsmatters on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:57:46 PM EST

by Toddwell on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:45:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The difference in 1992 was that Bill Clinton was pretty much an unknown. Hillary Clinton is known by everybody.

This is a trend. This is not the first poll showing this result. There have been quite a few polls out over the past few months showing Obama in a very tight race in Massachusetts.

by DaveOinSF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:58:43 PM EST

Re: Obama can't win Massachusetts (2.00 / 2)

Obama is no Bill Clinton.

by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:00:31 PM EST

by Cycloptichorn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thank god, lol, maybe he can, I don't know, get some progressive policies passed, and also manage to keep it in his pants at the same time.

That's a compliment to him you just gave...

Re: Obama can't win Massachusetts (2.00 / 2)

He'll have to do it from his Senate seat.

by Jason O on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:14:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama can't win Massachusetts (2.00 / 0)

Thank God.

This state has a 100% Democratic congressional delegation. Of course it will go Democratic, regardless.

by mady on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:51:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Spanky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:02:30 PM EST

This is a ridiculous post.

Why? Because you don't like the result? (none / 0)

by lombard on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:25:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If Obama loses Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania to McCain, as seems likely, and fails to convert Ohio, Missouri or Florida, he'd need to win the following:

Virginia
North Carolina
South Dakota
Iowa
Colorado
New Mexico
Nevada
Montana
Nebraska (+ all 3 CDs)

And that would only bring him to a 269-269 tie. Lose one of those 3 Nebraska CDs, and he'd lose.

by DaveOinSF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:06:13 PM EST

Re: Obama can't win Massachusetts (2.00 / 3)

Obama is not going to lose Mass.
Nor will he lose Pennsylvania
Nor will he lost New Jersey.

Get a grip people.

Oh, but he could win Iowa, Virginia, Nevada AND New Mexico...

ENOUGH!

by JDF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:08:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They must be mixing the koolaid stronger now (1.00 / 0)

by lombard on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:21:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

New Jersey saw a big shift in the last election. Kerry only won the state by 6 points, whereas Gore won it by 16 and Clinton by 18.

Pennsylvania was won by Kerry by barely 2 points, and by Gore by 3 points. Clinton won it by 10.

Massachusetts senator Kerry won Massachusetts by 25 points, but that was actually LESS than what Gore won it by (27 points). Cover your ears and close your eyes if you want, but MA, NJ and PA are in play with Obama as the nominee.

by DaveOinSF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:21:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama can't win Massachusetts (2.00 / 1)

I would be surprised if he lost Mass., but Pennsylvania is a real possibility. Unlike Mass., Penn. is barely blue, going for Kerry by something like 2% and could easily flip to a Republican who is perceived as more "moderate" like McCain, especially against a candidate perceived as a radical black nationalist, which is how Obama will be seen by the time November rolls around. Iowa's a toss up. Virginia is still fundamentally a red state in many ways; Webb only barely eked out a victory there, and Obama is no Jim Webb. Nevada and New Mexico are very favorable to McCain if he's matched up against Obama. McCain's regional ties with those states + his decent appeal to Hispanics (for a Republican) + Obama's weakness among Hispanics (likely to intensify after this Wright business) = bad news for Democrats there.

by Jason O on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:22:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by JDF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:00:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I believe Mass. and New Jersey would be won by Obama based on history and my understanding of those states.

I believe Pennsylvania would be won by Obama because I live here and work here and see the current trends in this state. It is going to be a good year for Democrats in Pennsylvania. They will make gains in the State House and Senate here and it is entirely possible that there will be a couple congressional pick-ups. This just isn't the year for a Republican Presidential Nominee in Pennsylvania regardless of who that nominee is.

ENOUGH!

Thanks. That puts it in perspective. (none / 0)

by lombard on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!

Obama's tied with McCain at this point in MA. This is likely Obama's weakest point in the entire race and McCain's strongest. Obama's recovering from a drop in the polls (we're already seeing a recovery) and McCain is making huge gaffes and going unchallenged.

Obama will carry MA. I doubt it'll be within 5 points.

Obama will carry NJ. It'll be close, but he will. 2-3 points. NJ has been in play for a while, but it's still a democratic lean.

Obama will carry PA. There's very little chance it'll go Republican.

I really think the worry about Democrats not voting for Obama is wrapped up in the primary. Once the primary is over and they realize it's either a vote for a right-wing supreme court, 100 year of war in Iraq where the President can't tell the factions apart, a candidate who himself says he's weak on the economy, who's comparatively weak on the environment, versus a candidate who's strong on every one of those issues, the decision is obvious. McCain would have to an awful lot of rebuilding to get any traction among Democrats.

Obama and Clinton are essentially the same vs. McCain in Ohio, and that's at Obama's weakest point in the polls. Clinton runs a bit better in Missouri and definitely better in Florida, but again that's at Obama's lowest points. Most polls have shown Obama winning Missouri pretty clearly.

All of the states you list above are likely for Obama to carry. In addition, Texas is in play for Obama (polling 1 point down to McCain, versus 10 or so for Clinton); it'll create a very costly diversion for McCain at the least, forcing him to defend a huge state and spend time and resources there.

I see Obama losing Florida, Arkansas, and possibly West Virginia compared to Clinton in the GE. I see him picking up large chunks of the West where she has no chance. This is post-Wright, mind you; the polls are already reflecting Wright as a transient issue rather than a deep election-changing event (and if you're going to rely on a post-Wright drop in the polls, I'm going to rely on the yet-more-recent polling showing a recovery).

by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:57:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

http://www.pollster.com/08-NJ-Pres-GE-Mv O.php

Numerous polls taken in February at the height of Obamamania show Obama in a tight race with McCain.

With the exception of a Rasmussen poll right after the Potomac Primary, all Pennsylvania polls show him in a tight race or trailing McCain.

http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Pres-GE-Mv O.php

None of these polls include Wright.

by DaveOinSF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:14:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My initial comment about numerous polls taken in February were concerning New Jersey specifically, which I failed to mention.

by DaveOinSF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!

Pennsylvania polls are influenced by the primary. There's a natural bias in polling that, even if the poll is of Democrats only, and even if it clearly says we're talking about the general election and not the primary, people who support either candidate are more likely to say they wouldn't vote for the other prior to the primary.

Remember all the polls prior to Ohio and Texas where people were saying they wouldn't one or the other candidate should the one they didn't like win? That's an attempt to get votes by scaring people into the idea that it's their candidate or die.

Look at the same states later on and you find that it's moderated out a lot; Obama and Clinton are in a near-tie in Ohio (both slightly behind McCain) despite Clinton's much stronger showing in the primary.

And all of this is while the primary race is still hot and emotions are high. Once it ends, one way or the other, the balloons drop, gracious speeches are made, and the flag is waved, I expect it'll narrow a lot more.

Yes, there are Obama supporters who will never, ever vote for Clinton now, over real or imaginary things from the campaign. And yes, there are Clinton supporters who will never, ever vote for Obama now, over real or imaginary things from the campaign. It happens.

There were also a lot of Edwards supporters who would never, ever vote for Clinton or Obama. Most of them have already changed their minds. Some never will.

There's a lot more upside in Democratic numbers than in Republican numbers for either candidate, simply because we're before the period of reconciliation.

by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:49:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

post-Wright drop in the polls (none / 0)

The impact of the Wright controversy isn't going to be some huge, immediate drop in Obama's poll numbers. It's how it fundamentally transforms the race, and the candidate.

Until very recently, it was an uncontroversial truth that the key to Obama's appeal and success was that he was perceived as "post-racial," a figure like Colin Powell, who was black but who didn't seem to embody the things about the black community that stir up white resentment (twisted as that is). He was sunny, not angry; moderate, not radical; healing, not hateful. All of that is now gone, and the GOP can run against Obama as the candidate of black nationalism and radicalism and anti-Americanism. Without Wright, these attacks would be seen as mere partisan smears. With Wright, the GOP doesn't even have to make these attacks; they make themselves. All they need is that video of Wright screaming "God Damn America" with his entire congregation - the congregation that Obama is a member of - cheering him on.

by Jason O on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:16:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by BlueDoggyDogg on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:03:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"likely Obama's weakest point"? Yeah, because the right-wing 527's have already had their way w/ him, oh wait......

by poserM on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:17:47 PM EST

Do people really think that a republican can take Massachusetts? really . . . . ?

Reagan did - twice! (none / 0)

And, until this governor, they had four Republican governors in a row. Run the right Democrat for President and plenty of MA resident will vote Republican. Sure, they'll still keep voting Democrat for congressional candidates.

by lombard on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:20:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan did - twice! (none / 0)

Tell ya what - if Obama is the nominee, and looses Mass to McCain, I will buy you a Coke. You don't need to give me anything if Obama wins the state, though. Deal?

by NewOaklandDem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by truthteller2007 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you aware of a man named Mitt Romney?

by DailyKingFish on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:28:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Y'all are mis-informed. The GOP Governors that won Massachusetts ran as pro-choice GOPers. McCain will NOT be running as pro-choice. That's why the GOP won the governorships in Massachusetts. They ran pro-choice Governors.

Reagan won Massachusetts twice because folks were sick of Carter, and it didn't help that Kennedy, their Senator, ran against Carter for the nomination in 1980. In 1984, we had the train-wreck of Mondale.

McCain WILL NOT be winning Massachusetts.

Hey, truthteller2007, if that happens, I'll buy you dinner the next time that you come to Louisiana. Just let me know when you're in the state. I'll even meet you wherever you show up to buy you dinner.

GeauxBama!

This poll is not a surprise to me (none / 0)

A Survey USA poll issued about 2 months ago showed him losing MA by a slim amount. Notice the consistent result - he loses far more Democrats than she does. The results show them similar among independents although she gets more of them in this poll.

One comment about the perennial Obama supporter claim that Clinton will unite the Republicans while Obama can get Republican votes. They are correct. A full 6% more of Republican voters vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee. He's able to pull in an astonishing 11% of the Republican vote!

by lombard on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:18:35 PM EST

Re: This poll is not a surprise to me (2.00 / 2)

Deval Patrick is killing him in Ma.

If another election were held today in MA , Deval patrick wouldn't be the governor.

Obama reminds folks in MA too much of Deval Patrick , they are basically running on the same template and he has been a lousy governor that is why they threw Obama out of the door by 15 points even with all those endorsements.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:22:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This poll is not a surprise to me (none / 0)

Except Deval Patrick is not an overwhelmingly unpopular governor. SUSA had his approval/disapproval at 47%-45%.

So we're saying thanks to Patrick, Obama can't win Massachusetts?

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:59:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This poll is not a surprise to me (none / 0)

That is what my friends in Boston told me.

by observer11 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

229 Days to the Election (none / 0)

That's a long time. In fact, 229 days ago was August 5th 2007. On that date, Quinnipiac showed HRC had a 36 to 21 lead on Obama and ABC News/WaPostsaid that Iraq was the nation's #1 concern while the economy was 3rd (11%).

A lot can and will change. My bet is that when faced with more war in Iraq, more of the Bush economy as we enter the summer of recession, and a fall to lay out the contrast between the parties, that MA stays Blue no matter if it is BHO or HRC as our candidate.

by chatters71 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:30:40 PM EST

Re: 229 Days to the Election (none / 0)

One thing that won't change: "God Damn Amerikkka" video....

by BlueDoggyDogg on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:05:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by liberalj on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:06:06 PM EST

I was inspired by Obama's speech the other day, and even though he looks like he might be becoming damaged goods i feel closer to supporting him than ever before.

But Obama fans should now realise that what they were saying about Hillary isn't true. Some were living in a dream world where Obama would be very competitive across the red states whilst Hillary would be reduced to competing only in the blue states and hoping for a Kerry + Ohio type win.

Well now where are those Obama fans? Are they looking at these new polls and deciding that actually Hillary is the better choice because she does better in the red states?

by Toddwell on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:09:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary is not going to carry red states either outside of Arkansas and Ohio. The difference is that Hillary Clinton cares very little about Congressional races and Barack cares a lot. He campaigned all over the country for Democrats in 2006.

by liberalj on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:13:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So you're saying that Hillary didn't campaign for Democrats in 2006?

Hillary has a better chance of carrying Florida as well. She cares about congressional races, what evidence have you got that she doesn't?

by Toddwell on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:21:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary is not going to carry Florida. Democrats need to win in a landslide nationally to carry that state. All of the growth is in heavily Republican areas. Hillary did nothing to campaign for Democrats in 2006. She cares little about Congressional races, only about herself getting elected. Just look at the awful Congressional results we had with Bill on the ballot in 1992 and 1996.

by liberalj on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:31:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK, then i've obviously been dreaming everytime i've seen or heard about Hillary campaigning/fundraising for Democrats.

If Bill gets blamed for 1992 and 1996, does he get credit for 1998?

"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"

Hillary Campaigned in 2006. She also campaigned in 2004. She even campaigned for Obama in Illinois. So stop the hate filled lies.

by RedstateLib on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:44:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama can't win Massachusetts (none / 0)

And Obama won't even take Arkansas and Ohio. He'll also lose Florida, which Hillary could easily win, and possibly Pennsylvania, which Clinton would also probably win. Go to this site: http://www.270towin.com/ and see how difficult it is for him to win without those states.

by Jason O on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:22:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its almost like Mass is hillary territory (none / 0)

and angry hillary supporters are voting far differntly then they actually would in the election

by wil5013 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:09:24 PM EST

Re: Its almost like Mass is hillary territory (none / 0)

not this Hillary supporter

by BlueDoggyDogg on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:07:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by truthteller2007 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:35:15 PM EST

May I write the words IMPENDING ELECTORAL DISASTER? And this is not the first poll that demonstrates how Obama will struggle in MA.

what's amazing though is ... (none / 0)

that even during the worst polling period for Obama in this election cycle (this set of SUSA polls was conducted March 14-16 -- immediately after the explosion of the Wright episode) Obama STILL performs better than Hillary (when facing McCain) in Iowa, Kansas, Oregon, Virginia, Washington & Wisconsin (and ties Hillary in New Mexico).

by silver spring on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:31:00 PM EST