Oh for crying out loud...

Have you EVER seen a presidential campaign before?

What you've just asserted is essentially a basic FACT of how ANY Democratic candidate operates (the GOP candidate does the reverse).  Swing to the party's ideological wing for the primary, swing towards the center (rightward, for a Democrat) for the General Election.

When it happens, please don't fash yourself.  It's kind of like watching the sun rise in the east; oh, look, it's happening again!

The question will then be... as it is now... from where will they actually govern?

This election's an exception on the Right, because, due to the collapse of some candidates and the generally weak and anemic litter of candidates the GOP had to start with, they've selected McCain, who has a severe problem... his base (the right) doesn't trust him.  So he's having to run right, hard, to try to shore up the base... at the very time when a candidate ought to be able to start distancing him/herself from the ideological wing.

I think it is going to be hard to move to the right, especially against McCain who is running as a solid centrist on economic issues and on the right on social issues. As for the war, well that is his trademark and he is all in, as they say in Vegas.

Moreover, it is very easy to depict Senator Obama as a liberal (look at his 2007). I think Senator Obama needs to talk about the economy and the economy, and the economy, and oh again, the economy. He needs to talk about it ad nauseum. And oh yes, he needs to find a serious answer to the question that McCain and his surrogate have begun asking which is: what would you do if there is a war in the region after we withdraw our troops?

Sooner or later, reality will set in.  Right now, the betting's against her.  I'm not talking blogs.  I'm talking in-trade (slightly worse than 1 in 5 for her to be the nominee) and roughly the same at U of Iowa's trading site.

That's not a done deal.  But I know damned well which odds I'd prefer to have; 80% or 20%....

Bush fatigue is definitely in favor of whoever the Dem nominee is. However, in regards to Obama, the Repugs have yet to bring out the long knives.

If they can't make people love Bush III, they will paint Obama as an America hater, a crook, and a liberal.   Here is how that works, Rev. Wright, Rezko, and gay marriage.  Have fun.

You know, I used to think the press would start taking a closer look at Obama once the race narrowed. Never happened.

The Republicans had to give the green light to go after Obama before the press pulled a full Monica on him. I expect more of the same, McCain worshiped over, Obama excoriated, if they can get Hillary out.

50 states?

Is Obama going to allow Mi and Fl to re-vote?

Ha!  That's a great one.  I like that.  50 state plan.  Lose all 50!  What a concept!

Obama ensured the media's love would continue when he made his speech in Philadelphia.  Only the conservative media is still worried about Wright at all; everyone else is back to loving him.

On the other hand, Dan Abrams gave Clinton 4 strikes to Obama's 1, and Countdown spent the first 20 minutes wondering what the hell Clinton was doing lying on tape like four times in recent memory.  Everyone loves the sniper scandal because they have tape of Clinton being either sleep-deprived for months or blatantly lying.

Who cares what a majority of Democrats want?

I count now that I live in CA, and should just have... what, been a Repug while living in Utah?

Charming.  

California's voted Republican in my lifetime, and Texas has voted Democratic.  If you think that the status quo is anything like fixed, you're delusional.

Quite the guarantee you have made. I guess using the word guarantee automatically makes you right.

"Yet we should use these deep red states to determine who the Democratic nominee should be."

Last time I checked, we claimed to be a national party.  If you want to tell Democrats in Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, etc., that they shouldn't have a say in choosing the party's presidential nominee, go right ahead.

Guaranteed, Obama, should he be the nominee, will not step foot in most of the states that will have ultimately handed him the nomination.

You have no idea how the 50 state strategy works, do you?

Ah, I see.  And you're 2305 I think?

Was the point that we should now rally around the presumptive nominee, Obama?  I agree.

Do you have a point? I mean Obama's a bit wounded, okay but if Hillary is worse (as you yourself admit) then other than arguing that were going to lose in Novemeber regardless of whop wins the nomnation I don't really see you point (though the link was interesting-- Hillary trails McCain in WA, and Minnesota 2 Obama is up outside the margin of error-- man she'as a horrible canidate).

Just as bad, if not worse. That wasn't the point.

Then let's just concede the election to McCain and save everybody a lot of time and money.

How about Hillary gets out, endorses Obama and works like hell to get him elected -- allowing Obama and the Democrats to start targetting McCain with broadsides?

Sounds like a plan to me.

If Obama loses fair and square after Hillary works hard for him, I will be the first person to donate money to her 2012 campaign.

If not, I will be the first person to donate money to her primary challenger in 2012 -- or to Rudy Giuliani if he runs against her.

LOL! Yeah the point's that Obama can't win, not any actual facts about whether Hillary would ever do better.  

Have you told us whether you will support Obama in the general if he does get the nomination?

Your stated point was that Obama supporters need to learn to cope with reality--because this is a reality-based site. The words weren't complicated and Obama supporters understand English just as well as everyone else.

If you're sitting there wondering how all of us Obama fanatics could be so vapid as to not grasp your point--let me fill you in.

The reason that noone has directly acknowledged your stated point is because noone believed that the goal of your post was to lift the wool from our eyes. From where I sit, your beef is entirely manufactured. Obama supporters have a different point of view, but it's a severe stretch to call us all delusional. For example, we're not the ones sitting on a candidate who has, at best, a puncher's chance to win the nomination.

Obama supporters (including kos) have roundly acknowledged the setback caused by the Wright controversy. We've been following the polls just like everyone else, starting with the dive at the beginning of the controversy and the bounce after Obama tackled it head-on with his speeches on the subject. Maybe you've had a different experience--but I doubt it.

I think you're upset. You've been beat up to the point that you're tempted to take your ball and go home. That would be a shame, because I don't think we can win in November without Senator Clinton's core. And, I think we need to show that the netroots can have passionate internal disagreements, but still find a way to heal in time to do the right thing.

Jerome, you've gone from having a bias, to blatantly shilling for Hillary, to outright dishonest concern trolling, all while pretending to be just a bystander who is just out for the good of the party and the progressive movement.  And your reaction is to attack the people who call you on it.

Yes, the Wright thing hurt Obama, for a while, then he recovered.  Now people who weren't going to vote for him anyway have a new excuse to feel better about it, so what?

Hillary still has no viable route to the nomination that gives her any chance at winning the general.  Her only hope of ever being president is to kneecap Obama and make sure she can run again in 2012.  She's willing to accept all of the bad things that would result from a "third Bush term", including the stacking of the Supreme Court with 2-3 more right-wing justices (goodbye Roe v. Wade), and an almost certain widening of the war into Iraq, just so she gets another shot.

And you're too smart not to realize this, or to not remember that Hillary represents everything you used to think was wrong with the Democratic party.  So trying to figure out why you're pursuing this course is fair game.

Jerome, you have to know you're reaching the end of your credibility string.  Your only hope of retaining relevance at this point is tying all of your credibility to Hillary, then acting as the "fair arbiter" when the DLC moves to purge the DNC and hamstring the netroots.  I don't have to know what delusional power fantasy you've been sold to be able to tell you're no longer playing for our team.

So ban me, if you think that accomplishes something.  But here's the thing: The netroots is not the websites, it's the people.  And the astroturfing shills you've become the champion of are not the future of the netroots, but merely the next bit of roadkill as it rises to power.

I thought the whole principle of netroots was that these communities are self-monitoring. Trollers and abusers of the system get weeded out by the community. People who, as you say, argue just for the sake of it get tired. But people who argue? Isn't argument the point? How do issues get aired except in debate and argument

I come to this site because I like to hear different points of view. I've been coming on and off since 2004. With two powerful candidates and a protracted primary, it's no surprise things should get testy and sometimes personal. But a test of a true democrat is how to respond in times of crisis.

One of the best things about MyDD is that there is a clash between two different candidates and their supporters. If opposing voices are weeded out, on EITHER SIDE, you'd be creating a virtual intellectual ghetto, an echo chamber, all the things DailyKos is accused of being since Edwards dropped out.

It's been a long two months, it's only been two months. Keep the faith. Let the community regulate itself. Isn't that what you've always argued?

And let's put an end to the assertion that Obama should have disowned Rev. Wright as soon as the YouTube videos came to light.  Would you trust a man who would turn his back on a long-time friend and mentor as soon as the going got tough?

"Let's just saddle up and have an argument."

excellent. Clinton as Swearengen.

On the actual post, I think it is pretty limited to assume that say of us are making our judgments about abuse over support for Clinton or Obama based on this site alone.

Ditto. I will be very happy to see a community where we can start getting along. I think we're closer to making that happen. We have to stop seeing ourselves in terms of Obama or Clinton supporters and start seeing ourselves in terms of serious and not-so-serious.

"Why are they invalid now?"

Probably because taking polls in the week immediately after a controversy directed against one of the candidates isn't the most unbiased technique around?

>>>But what about the Obama folks using these head to head match ups for the past three months to show that Obama is more electible?

Why are they invalid now?<<<

Because onlt one side of the equation is hitting below the belt on a regular basis: Hillary. Obama's people here and there are jabbing and counterpunching, but nothing on the scale Hillary is doing it at.

And Obama's attacks on her are more about her tone and her negative campaigning and her honesty.

They are not red meat stuff that will kill her in a general election. Has Obama nailed Hillary on Wal*Mart?!? He could pummel her on that. That's Hillary's Jeremiah Wright with hardcore ethnic white union households.

He barely said anything about the whole Tuzla airport thing.

So, he's been taking a lot of incoming -- and she hasn't. Meanwhile, McCain is getting zero negative coverage.

It's more a function of McCain not being part of the mess, than anything.

I'm a refugee from Brand X and would like to support this site through a subscription or a donation, but I don't see a link for that.

I'm awfully glad to be here.

Sigh, probably for the best.  I know that neither side has any reason to fold up their tents before June 6th.  But, I look forward to when we can discuss election strategy and tactics again.  

Jerome, did you know that Olbermann identified MyDD as the Hillary supporting site a few nights ago.

My guess is that the Supers will be knocked into line shortly after June 6th.  Then someone drops out.  Until then don't expect much peace.

Yeah, but once Obama's group stops dragging Hillary's name through the mud and bows out when he loses the nomination, Hillary's positives will go back up.  Isn't that the normal thought process going on with this party?  The eventual winner's numbers will go back up when the loser drops out?  Anyone?

You don't understand oversampling.

Oversampled (and announced).  Hmmm.  Might be worth understanding before criticizing.

Given the sample size for the whole poll... the black subsample would have been relatively small and thus had a huge MOE.  Ok?  

So to be able to actually look at the opinions of the black population meaningfully, they oversampled.  That gave them a big sample to examine for that crosstab.  But had they poured the oversample into the overall poll, then it would have been a problem.  But they didn't.

They normalized it, scaling the weight of the oversample's opinions down to the right weighting for the whole poll sampling.

Educate yourself before pontificating.  It save your from looking like an idiot.

Wrong. See ogre's excellent explanation above of what oversampling actually means.

Is McCain Nixon? Let me see.

"Win with honor"? check

Cold Warrior? Check

Hot Temper? check

Hey, Bob's been cranking out some greatest hits lately.... don't overlook the greatness.

kudos to whoever retur