MyDD :: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats

Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats

by Todd Beeton, Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:10:23 AM EST

After advising me on Tuesday to look for a pro-Clinton wave among Republicans in Texas and Ohio, my Republican father e-mailed me excitedly yesterday to let me know that he'd heard that 1 in 10 voters in the Democratic primary were Republicans. He was off by a little bit: of the four states that voted on Tuesday, only Texas and Ohio allowed Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary and according to exit polls the turn-out was slightly lower than that at 9% in both states. Now, as for whether the result was as he predicted -- i.e. a strong turn-out for Clinton -- yes, while she didn't win Republicans in either state, Hillary Clinton certainly outperformed her past showings among Reps indicating that perhaps the grassroots campaign to keep this nomination battle going by boosting Clinton may have worked. The problem is that if the Republican turn-out really was due to efforts Limbaugh et al, wouldn't their turn-out have been markedly higher than in previous open contests, especially since McCain had essentially locked up the nomination? As you can see, it was about on par with recent open primaries and Clinton closed the gap with Obama decidedly, even tying him in Ohio among Republicans. (H/t Open Left for the excellent composite of all pre-March 4th exit polls.)

Candidate	Pre-March 4 (3%)	Virginia (7%)	Wisconsin (9%)	Texas (9%)	Ohio (9%)
Obama	64	72	72	53	49
Clinton	29	23	28	46	49

What's interesting is that this bleeding of support from Obama to Clinton was not unique to Republicans. Remarkably, Clinton almost tied Obama among independents last night, a group that would not have been susceptible to any spoiler campaign and one that has traditionally served as one of Obama's strongest constituencies (even in California, the site of one of Clinton's biggest wins, Obama won independents by 14%.) And again, here, notice that independent turn-out was about on par with other recent open contests, in fact it was higher than the pre-March 4th average, but Clinton did far better among this group than she has traditionally.

Candidate	Pre-March 4 (19%)	Virginia (22%)	Wisconsin (28%)	Texas (25%)	Ohio (22%)
Obama	56	69	64	49	50
Clinton	36	30	33	48	48

Obama's strength among independents is one of the keys to the electability argument his supporters make for him, but it looks as though, in Ohio and Texas at least, independents may have soured on Obama a bit and proved that they see Hillary Clinton as just as appealing a Democrat as Barack Obama. Big question moving forward: will what happened in Texas and Ohio stay in Texas and Ohio?

Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic nomination, texas primary, ohio primary (all tags)

Permalink :: 56 Comments :: Post a Comment

Limbaugh instructed his listeners to vote for HRC (2.00 / 1)

That explains the R. defection.

by Teaser on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:17:10 AM EST

No it doesn't (2.00 / 2)

No it doesn't. If that were the case, then the Republican percentage in the Dem primary would have increased, which it did not. Otherwise, the argument would be this. Obama was winning the Republican vote in the Democratic Party and attracting people across party lines because he was such an attractive candidate he crossed party lines and would bring about a new, non-partisan day to Washington (which is what the Obama folks have been arguing). Now, one of the most blatantly partisan personalities in America says those people should vote for Clinton instead so that John McCain can win. These voters, who were all about Obama and non-partisanship, now turn into the ultimate partisans in order to help McCain. How exactly does that work? Where is the logic?

Even if the republicans that voted for Hillary did so because of Limbaugh and were not Obama's old republican voters, that would mean those Republicans who were voting for Obama in prior elections decided not to vote for him this time. So no matter how you cut it, Obama is losing his cross partisan support and that severely weakens his electability argument...which was his strongest suit because it backed up his change rhetoric.

by drpd02 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:16:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No it doesn't (none / 0)

Or it's possible that Texas and Ohio were the exception and Obama will regain his footing among these independents in the coming contests?

"Bleeding support" implies a steady erosion. There is no evidence of any such erosion. Hillary had a good night that's all your numbers show. One night does not make a trend.

I think it's time for many Clinton people to start putting things into perspective.

Also, don't underestimate the effect people like Rush Limbaugh had in getting Republicans to vote for Hillary percisely to affect the outcome in her favor. He did this to keep the election going thus giving his candidate, John McCain, more time to regroup and raise money, while simultaneously weakening our nominee who will certainly be Barack Obama.

by obamania on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:37:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No it doesn't (none / 0)

Yes. One week they told their Republican orcs to vote for Barack to finally get Clinton out. This week they told them to vote for Clinton, to keep the soap opera going.

Both scenarios are ridiculous, untrue, and a non-starter.

And I'd beg to differ about who our nominee will be. Much to the chagrin of Obama supporters...he'll either be on the same ticket as HRC or not at all.

by Mar154 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:18:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No it doesn't (none / 0)

Noone "told" them to vote Clinton out. But certainly a lot of them were doing it.
But a lot of them also liked Obama, so let's not pretend it was all strategy.
That smaller margin yesterday was part of why Obama did not pull those states off.
But to call it "hemorrhaging" is wishful thinking on the part of Hill. supporters.
And that is why she keeps losing. Because instead of focusing on the things she does well, it seems her supporters seem to want to keep up delusions that have nothing to do with reality.
They were good news for Hillary yesterday so why try to focus on BS data like what Todd just posted ?
You should know better than to argue that because in two states the difference was narrower that means Obama is abandoned by his base (Just the same way you cautioned after WI, that the fact her base deserted her there was not good news but we have to wait later states to see if it would hold).
Where has the rational fair analysis gone ?

by Benjaminomeara on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:22:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No it doesn't (none / 0)

I agree with you regarding the "bleeding" of the title of the post. Perhaps "has lost some trickle of his cross-over support"? That'd suit me better. Since that seems to be the case.

I'm all for rationality. And I don't think HRC has anything wrapped up. I also think in all the analysis of her not having the math...he doesn't either. Hence, this WILL go to a brokered convention. And I don't think taking VP when he's guaranteed President and experience in 8 yrs would be foolish. But then again, I don't find Obama's rhetoric appealing nor his campaign to be transcendent or post-partisan.

by Mar154 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:33:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No it doesn't (none / 0)

I completely agree Benjamin.

Clinton has been extremely poorly served by her advisors. For all this talk about her "being ready on day one," I think the conduct of her campaign undermines that argument.

They almost seem to be throwing darts at a board. Their analytical abilities are suspect. There seems to be no strategy at all.

by obamania on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:43:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No it doesn't (2.00 / 1)

The Clinton campaign seems more interested in spin than anything else.

How about this for a strategy: instead of trying to convince people you are winning, how about actually winning.

by obamania on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:45:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No it doesn't (none / 0)

My problem is when MyDD repeats those delusions.
They ARE welcome to base their support of Hillary on what is really going on.
Them parroting some absurd BS is not reflecting well on them

by Benjaminomeara on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:50:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No it doesn't (none / 0)

Mar154 please...

Take your delusions elsewhere. You really have to be smoking something funny to believe Hillary even has a chance at beating Obama.

Even with her "big" victory on Tuesday she only gained 7 to 11 delegates depending on which estimate you support. She is currently behind by 130+ pledged delegates. She's still 600,000+ votes behind in the popular vote, 300,000+ votes if you count Florida. Obama has a bunch of favorable states coming up. He'll take 10 out of the next 11. That will mean of the past 25 primaries/caucuses Obama will have won 21 of them. That's 84% buddy.

You tell yourself that you can still win, but you can't. You tell yourself that it's all up to Pennsylvania, but it's not. When all the dust settles Obama will still lead in: popular vote, pledged delegates and states won. No super-delegate in his/her right mind will vote against that.

Obama's lead is insurmountable.

So many delegates, so little time. That's what you don't seem to understand.

It's called math, learn it.

by obamania on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:35:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No delusions (none / 0)

here. I completely agree that the math (which I'm actually quite good at, but thank you for the insult when I've hurled none) is against her. My one and only point in the "math" argument is that it's also not FOR him. He's far from having the nomination wrapped up.

by Mar154 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:51:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No it doesn't (none / 0)

No. It does not necessarily entail for the overall amount of Republicans to swell compared to other states.
For one, we don't know how many Rep-ind would have voted had it not been for Rush. Why assume there would have been as many as in other states ?
Every state has a different electorate !

by Benjaminomeara on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:14:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Limbaugh instructed his listeners to vote for (2.00 / 1)

It wasn't just Limbaugh. Every rightwing talk radio host spent all last week telling R's in Texas & Ohio to go vote for Billary - they know she'll be much easier for McCain to beat.

This kind of shallow, slanted analysis is typical of what MYDD has become since the brains moved over to OpenLeft.

by katmandu on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:15:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Limbaugh instructed his listeners to vote for (none / 0)

Right. Shallow analysis indeed. And your argument is completely void of credibility when you call HRC Billary. You sound like the Republicans with that type of framing.

by Mar154 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:19:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Limbaugh instructed his listeners to vote for (none / 0)

I concur.
Just like any of the posters below that call Barack BHO are immediatly crossed into my "do not read" list

by Benjaminomeara on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:24:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Limbaugh instructed his listeners to vote for (none / 0)

You know that BHO carries a different message than HRC. And if you don't, then you are being disingenuous and that's sad.

And for the record this Obama-niac always talks about her as Hillary because that's respectful, that helps establish her own identity (vs Senator Clinton) and because that's the most favorable way to talk about her in terms of favorability.

by Benjaminomeara on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:56:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Limbaugh instructed his listeners to vote for (none / 0)

That's a load of crap. I listen to right wing local radio in San Antonio and Austin and they all told their listeners to vote for Obama.

by wasabi on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:59:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Limbaugh (none / 0)

Yup. And pretending that that didn't happen is a huge mistake. The GOP are free to mess with the rest of the primary elections. But for Hillary, a vote is a vote. But those same voters will be voting for McCain in the general.

by kitebro on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:32:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Limbaugh (none / 0)

Funny how when Republicans vote for Obama...it's simply because he appeals to them. When they vote for HRC, it's a nefarious conspiracy.

by Mar154 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:52:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

and the dream ad (none / 0)

( dream manipulation ) worked

by dearreader on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:51:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Or.... (none / 0)

Independents aren't the same everywhere?

by Brillobreaks on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:26:52 AM EST

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (none / 0)

I know 2 republicans who voted for Hillary in Texas. One because he thought she was the best candidate, the other because Rush told her to.

by cecile on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:45:28 AM EST

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (none / 0)

My wife caught a bunch of Republican-HRC-switchers-for-a-day here in Ohio, and the local right wing radio station had strings of callers bragging about their vote crossover. How strong was the movement? Who knows, but it was more than just a few troublemakers.

Now, it's possible that before last week, they might have voted Obama 'cos they wanted to get rid of Hillary. This week, the switch may be back on Obama to make sure she doesn't get the nomination. Who knows what goes on in those idiots' minds?

Personally, I don't mind open primaries, but there should be a caveat. If you register for a party that day, you're stuck with that party until after the next presidential election. No "party-switching-for-a-day". You've got to make a real commitment. That allows honest independents to vote and build up our party, while keeping out troublemakers.

PA will be a closed primary. That should prevent a lot of shenanigans.

by LordMike on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:01:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (2.00 / 1)

Limbaugh? He did heavily advocate anybody who "could stomach" it to vote as hard as they could Clinton. In order to stretch out the election as long as possible. Also, Crist in Florida wants a new election as late as possible.

Though, again, looking at the math... I don't see a path forward.

by Tatarize on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:47:05 AM EST

I don't buy the "Rush made them" excuse (2.00 / 2)

No one that is a Rush-Republican is going to vote for HRC no matter if God told them to. I too know several R's that voted for Hillary here in Texas and without exception none of them even listen to Rush. They voted for her for (1) national security reasons, (2) because they do not trust Barrak on Isreal and (3) because Obama's followers and his whole evangelical-tinged aura freak them out.

"Sometimes government should give a helping hand, and sometimes it needs to get out of the way." Annon

by Edward3615 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:03:49 AM EST

Where's Vermont? (none / 0)

Todd, you might want to also post CNN's Vermont exit poll results before jumping to conclusions. They look a lot different. And, heck, might as well post Rhode Island's, too.

Also, does CNN or any other exit poll provide the margin of error? That would be helpful to know. My semi-educated guess is that the MOEs are rather large on these single numbers, particularly for the Republicans.

by BBCWatcher on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:09:05 AM EST

Re: Where's Vermont? (none / 0)

Yes -- point of fact, Vermont has a completely open primary, where as long as you're registered, all you're asked is which party ballot you want. So at least 3 of the 4 were open, Todd (I'll trust you on RI).

Anecdotally, the hard-core conservative in line behind me on Tuesday was chuckling, declaring what fun it was to vote against Clinton. But he'll be voting McCain, I'm quite sure, come Nov.

Tim Wolfe

John McCain is not pro-choice!

by bruorton on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:20:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rush (none / 0)

Rush may have influenced what? At the most very few Republicans to voted for HRC based on what that blowhard had to say. She got Republicans that are for national security. You know who she's getting? She's getting back the Reagan Democrats that went Republican in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004. That's who she's getting back. She's a stronger candidate than even Bill ever was.

by Mar154 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:09:41 AM EST

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (2.00 / 1)

What's interesting is that the results pretty much mirrored the Obama campaign's spreadsheet predictions. Next week he's going on to win Wyoming and Mississippi and will add even more delegates. There is no way she can catch up to him in pledged delegates. At this point, she's nothing more than a more-popular Mike Huckabee.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:20:34 AM EST

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (2.00 / 2)

Yes. Mike Huckabee. By your standards then Obama also is Mike Huckabee. Last I checked he has not gotten enough delegates and WON'T get enough delegates to seal the nomination up. So please explain to me how exactly HRC who keeps winning large states, is like Mike Huckabee and how Obama is like McCain? His only chance to actually GET enough delegates is for HRC to drop out. And that's why he keeps pushing it. Well, and his surrogates and supporters as well. They know their only clear path to the nomination is if HRC drops out of the race for him. Yes, exactly like Mike Huckabee.

by Mar154 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:26:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (none / 0)

Clinton is hundreds of delegates behind Obama and that number is going to grow in the next week when he trounces her in Wyoming and Mississippi.

I'm all for her staying in the race, as long as she doesn't continue to provide ad footage for John McCain's Fall campaign.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:39:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (none / 0)

What, you think conservative hawks will vote Clinton over McCain sooner than religious folks will vote Obama? Can you explain your reasoning please?

Tim Wolfe

John McCain is not pro-choice!

by bruorton on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:23:44 AM EST

Brass are worried about Mccain (none / 0)

check this out

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0 3/06/commander_in_chief/

It is not difficult in Washington to find high-level military officials who have had close encounters with John McCain's temper, and who find it worrisome. Politicians sometimes scream for effect, but the concern is that McCain has, at times, come across as out of control. It is difficult to find current or former officers willing to describe those encounters in detail on the record. That's because, by and large, those officers admire McCain. But that doesn't mean they want his finger on the proverbial button, and they are supporting Clinton or Obama instead.

I want my UHC!

by votermom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:13:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's see what happens in the rest (none / 0)

of this primaries.

It may not be the case in the rest of the primaries.

by puma on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:25:45 AM EST

Why all the machinations? (none / 0)

Why all this digging to prove Obama is a candidate on the decline? We have polling out there right now that shows the candidates strangths against McCain, but we never see these polls here.

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) leads McCain, who captured the delegates needed to claim the Republican nomination Tuesday night, by 12 percentage points among all adults in the poll; Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) holds a six-point lead over the GOP nominee. Both Democrats are buoyed by moderates and independents when going head to head with McCain and benefit from sustained negative public assessments of President Bush and the war in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/story/2008/03/05/ST2008030502748.ht ml

by FlashStash on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:32:48 AM EST

So both Hillary and BO beat McCain!!! (none / 0)

...therefore that BO argument is now out the window. He is no longer the ONLY candidate who can beat McCain.

"Sometimes government should give a helping hand, and sometimes it needs to get out of the way." Annon

by Edward3615 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:40:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So both Hillary and BO beat McCain!!! (none / 0)

Hahaha, you're great. "So you're saying there's a chance..."

Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."

by brimur on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:49:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why all the machinations? (2.00 / 1)

So you're proving the point that with the two of the on the same ticket they'd be unstoppable. Just last week Obama supporters biggest line was that he beat McCain and she did not. What is it now? Your point is well taken. Yes, BOTH Democrats are polling better than McCain.

by Mar154 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:41:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (none / 0)

The argument they keep putting up there is that HRC doesn't have the "math" I don't know why they haven't yet figured out that he doesn't either.

Hillary is the one getting those "Reagan Dems" that Obama thought were so clearly in his corner.

He did come close. And unless he accepts second billing for November (which I highly doubt he'd take) he will not be President.

And if the SD's and the Democratic establishment nominates him in spite of all the evidence, they will be sorely mistaken come November.

by Mar154 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:05:12 AM EST

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (none / 0)

The argument for the math thing is that she would have to win more than 60% of the remaining delegates to overtake him in pledged delegate count or get close.
Considering she won nice victories yesterday in huge states and could not get more than a 10 delegate dent in his lea, and that several of the remaining states will likely offer Obama victories, it seems unlikely she could make up the remaining 100 or 150 (depending on whom you talk) difference.
I don't think either that it is a rationale for making her drop out just yet but bottom line is the likelihood of her being the nominee is very very small.
No issue with you guys still hoping she will make it. But don't lose sight of the "math" which is not favorable to her.

by Benjaminomeara on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:18:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (none / 0)

You're right. However, he also has to win BIG in the remaining states also to lock up the nomination, does he not? Will he win PA? No. It'll be a repeat of OH there. Will he win PR? No. It will be a repeat of NY or CA there. He'll definitely win WY (who went I believe 60% for Bush in 2004) and MI. But kindly explain to me--- How is he getting this nomination without the benefit of HRC dropping out? He's not. It's a simple as that.
This will be a brokered conventions. And he'll either take the #2 spot or go back to the Senate.

by Mar154 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:21:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (none / 0)

And at the brokered convention, what's your reason for thinking that Hillary is gonna be given the #1 position?

Hopefully Obama won't be a fool enough to accept a VP position, or a fool enough to offer one to Hillary.

by Aris Katsaris on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:26:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (none / 0)

I concur there is a chance it would be a brokered convention but there is no way the one with the most delegates would be forced onto the number 2 spot.
That's what you guys seem to hang your hopes on and that's silly.
Even with a brokered convention, there is still no way he would be forced out of the ticket.
And I disagree with your assessment of PA. Things are never similar. Two more months of campaigning can and should help him counter the last minute attacks that made him lose OH.
Remember the demographics favor her in both states but he was about to overtake her before that bad weekend he had.
He probably won't be that easy for her for two months. Will he be able to fight back ? we will see. But PA is NOT in the bag for either of them
And neither is PR I am afraid. The governor endorsed Obama. So obviously he has some degree of support there. PR is very much a machine state. No reason to believe it would be a blowout for her either.
Nobody should be cocky. But the likelihood of her winning those states big without an Obama collapse is very tiny.
Don't give up yet if you like her. But don't delude yourself either

by Benjaminomeara on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:28:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (2.00 / 1)

I guess that's what Rovian type ads and BS Clinton lies get you.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:22:36 AM EST

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (none / 0)

The 3 AM ad now is Rovian? LOL. I thought it was simply a case for her candidacy. She never even mentioned Obama. Simply made the case for herself. But frame it however you'd like to.

by Mar154 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:30:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (none / 0)

She didn't make any case. No argument was put forward in that ad. She simply summoned up some old good-fashioned Dread about terrorists wanting to hurt your babies.

by Aris Katsaris on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:32:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (none / 0)

And for some reason we gave national security to the Republicans long ago. HRC is taking it back. Rightly so since the Dems are the only ones that govern properly.

by Mar154 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Truth in Texas (none / 0)

I'm a cardiac surgeon in Dallas and the only liberal in my 8-member group. The other 7 are typical 50 year-old conservative white men. On Wednesday, 3 of them voted for McCain and the other 4 voted for Hillary. ALl four said that they voted for HRC because she'd be easier to beat than Obama come November. I know that's a small sample but that's my immediate experience.

Here's how Republicans (80% of whom would rather have HRC be then nominee) look at the election since most of my colleagues & neighbors are Republicans. With HRC they think they can run another 2004 campaign against her and squeak out a win. They see her as McCain-Lite so given that choice why not go with the real thing i.e. Mccain. With Obama, they are afraid that his optimism and change themes change things fundamentally. He offers something different.

The attacks are going to be severe no matter who our nominee is. Look, I'm an Obama supporter but not a Hillary hater. I'll support whoever our nominee is since the alternative is so much worse. On March 3rd I believed strongly that Obama would be our strongest GE nominee; I want to see what I'll think on June 3rd ?

If she continues to run a tough campaign against him and he falters looking weaker each day and has a 50 delegate lead in June then I don't think it's unreasonable for the supers to say HRC is the strongest candidate.

If he counters back over the next two months aggressively and has that February 19th aura to him again while maintaining his delegate lead then he deserves the nomination.

The problem with the unity ticket is that is she's on top and spends the next three months questioning him on the national security/CiC question, then how can she plausible put him on the ticket as VP.

by chatters71 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:40:59 AM EST

Re: The Truth in Texas (none / 0)

Because she and Bill will be there to tutor him.

by wasabi on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:19:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (none / 0)

Where I am concerned, which candidate goes "negative" or not is far less significant than which deities they decide to summon. Obama's been calling on the trio of goddesses Hope, Change and Unity -- but Hillary only made her relatively small successes after she summoned The Nameless Gods of Dread via her ad.

They worked their charms for her in the last few days before the Tuesday primaries.

Now, the Americans people may of course be willing to put her in office on behalf of that Terror, same as they were willing to reelect Bush for the same reason, same as they went along with the Iraq war in the name of the gods of Terror.

And thusly nothing changes. You can sell your souls and reasons to the Gods of Dread and Terror and vote Hillary, same as last elections people sold their souls and reason to the Gods of Dread and Terror and voted Bush.

Different high-priests, same gods.

by Aris Katsaris on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:42:44 AM EST

Is the data set big enough (none / 0)

to say he's "bleeding" non-Democrats?

Fight the Counter-Revolution Build a movement.

by chicagolife on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:42:53 AM EST

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (none / 0)

This will be a case of buyer's remorse for Ohio - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/s tory/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStor y/National/home seems it was Clinton that offered assurances on NAFTA to the Canadians. Hypocrisy knows no limits in the Clinton camp, and the MSM should be all fired for not picking up the guy's ORIGINAL comments

by MChav06 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:48:57 AM EST

Re: Obama Bleeding Non-Democrats (none / 0)

So when will charges that Republicans and independents "stole the primary" for Clinton begin around here? Somehow I'm not holding my breath.

by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:51:50 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.