Pennsylvania Tightening

Like clockwork, now that Barack Obama has put ads up on the air in PA and has been on the ground in the state, two new polls, which still have Clinton ahead, show a tightening race.

CandidateSurvey USA 3/29-31 (3/8-10)Rasmussen  3/31 (3/24)RCP 5-poll Ave.
Clinton53 (55)47 (49)52.0
Obama41 (36)42 (39)37.8

According to Survey USA, Obama's net 7 point gain comes from men and those in the urban centers.

The movement in support came almost entirely from men, according to the survey results. Clinton had led by five points but now trails by seven -- a 12-point swing to Obama. [...]

In southeast Pennsylvania, which includes Philadelphia and makes up 43 percent of likely Democratic voters, the candidates have traded places: Clinton had been up two points but is now down three. In southwest Pennsylvania, which includes Pittsburgh, Clinton had led by 31, but now is at 17, a 14-point swing to Obama.

In other words, the constituencies that have supported Obama throughout this primary season are coming home to him in PA as well. This is a trend, of course, that we've seen play out over and over but can Obama make it stick this time or will he once again raise his own expectations only to lose by double digits? That will largely be the determining factor in whether Obama can sew up this nomination before June or not: can he outperform expectations in a Clinton state?

Right now, there is some good news for Obama in that it appears the shift isn't entirely demographic in nature. According to Rasmussen, Obama's movement may be reflect some national trends trickling down to Pennsylvania. The Rasmussen poll shows that despite Clinton having a 5% lead overall, that voters in PA see Obama as slightly more electable against McCain than Clinton is by a 45-43 margin. Also, Clinton's erroneous Bosnia sniper fire claims still seem to be hurting her.

Forty-seven percent (47%) say they have followed news stories Very Closely about Clinton's Bosnia misstatements. Another 27% have followed those stories Somewhat Closely. Overall, 19% consider that issue to be Very Important in their voting decision. That figure includes 6% of Clinton supporters and 36% of Obama voters.

In the meantime as Obama tries to portray himself as an every man (his man on the street ads, feeding a calf at a fair, bowling...horribly...) Clinton has cast herself as the fighter who won't give up.

"Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people," Clinton said in excerpts of prepared remarks to be given Tuesday to a meeting of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO. [...]

"The Republicans aren't going to give up without a fight," Clinton said. "And no matter how beautiful your rhetoric, the Republicans aren't going to turn off their attack machine -- it doesn't have an off-switch."

"But one thing you know about me is that when I say I'll fight for you, I'll fight for you," the New York senator said. "I know what it's like to stumble. I know what it means to get knocked down. But I've never stayed down, and I never will."

Umm, didn't Rocky lose at the end of the first film, Senator?



Display:


Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

And he lost but remained standing at the end of the last film, to complete the analogy.


by rfahey22 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:29:19 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

You could take the analogy even farther.  Rocky came back and won the rematch in the next film.  2012 anyone?    


by Mose on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:32:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

CNN and MSNBC are Swiftboating Clinton 24/7 (2.00 / 1)

Network news is filled with soft and fuzzy love for Obama.

Propaganda hurt Al Gore against Bush, and they are doing the same thing to Clnton.

The media is giving us President McCain.


by earthoat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:44:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

quoting (none / 0)

Bill O'Reilly again?


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:48:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

Obama and his supporters are probably going to be lulled into a false sense of security in PA.


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 Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:30:40 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

I don't think I've heard anyone seriously suggesting he would win.


by Whash on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

Haha nice try Lori - I think he'd have to be ahead for that to happen. I'll admit the polls tightening is exciting but I remember the same thing happened in Ohio.


by animated on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:57:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

LOL lori, you gotta love the replies playing the expectations game, then they will shriek and curse if HRC supporters do similar. what hypocrites :)


by zerosumgame on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:19:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 0)

so she is saying she will go the distance, and then lose to the black guy?

wow that movie was ahead of its time


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:30:51 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

I hope this doesn't end up with Clinton & Obama being in the same shape as Rocky and Apollo at the end of Rocky II and then having to go fight Drago. On the other hand, I think we can rest assured that the Democratic nominee will be able to eat lightning and crap thunder.


by mhojo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

If you want to be technical, didn't Rocky get to fight Apollo because of his name ("The Italian Stallion")?

Never mind that the Bicentennial Fight in Rocky was held on January 1st, 1976. Must be tough to pull off filming in Philadelphia in July.


by RBH on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:32:33 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

Whether Rocky won in teh first film (fight) is of no moment. The point is he defied the odds and kept going and eventually won. How many people really remember that Apollo Creed won by split decision?


by Mayor McCheese on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:33:42 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

any real fan who has seen the movie, it was pretty important and its what the sequel was based on.

Apollo couldn't believe someone went the distance and wanted a rematch.


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:35:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (1.00 / 1)

Does that mean Hillary will try to primary President Obama in 08?

I sure hope she makes me my sammich first.  /SNARK!


by beermeister on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:58:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

Would it really surprise anyone?


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:28:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

what a stupidly sexisit comment. go back to dkosfreeperville for that kind of hate.


by zerosumgame on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:21:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

In a dangerous world where the phone rings at 3 am, only Hilary Clinton can defeat Apollo Creed.


Voting for John McCain is not God bless America.
by SFValues on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:34:04 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

you have written the next Rocky movie.
!
by alex100 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

This just in:

It turns out Ivan Drago, Mr. T and Tommy Morrison were all Bosnian snipers!


Voting for John McCain is not God bless America.
by SFValues on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

and their weapon of choice? the camera flash!
!
by alex100 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:22:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

i don't see Obama improving much on these numbers at this point. this has been the pattern (for states that Clinton led big), initial big tightens and then holding steady after the first big shift in numbers. So while Obama might get this thing under 10 in SUSA's poll, we should end up somewhere around what this poll says. The Ras poll is a throw away only because SUSA has been so good. Clinton should win PA by around 12 points. Barring that a huge proportion of the new voters are indeed obama supporters.
!
by alex100 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:36:17 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

History in this campaign suggests otherwise.  We're still 3 weeks out.  In the 24 contests so far for which there's relevant data, Obama's gained ground in 23 of them over the last 3 weeks.  Clinton expanded her lead in Rhode Island only.

3 weeks is a LONG time.


by Rorgg on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:46:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Given the racial subtext of Rocky (2.00 / 1)

(Great White Hope and all that) couldn't Hillary have chosen another movie? I'm sure she didn't MEAN anything by it.


by AdrianLesher on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:36:53 PM EST

Re: Given the racial subtext of Rocky (2.00 / 1)

I honestly doubt whether she's ever even watched it.


by Whash on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:39:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the racial subtext of Rocky (none / 0)

I give her more credit than you.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

<quote>  Also, Clinton's erroneous Bosnia sniper fire claims still seem to be hurting her.</quote>

Come on, Todd...  Clinton's Bosnia story was not "erroneous".  It was a fabrication designed to make her seem more... I dunno... "battle-ready" - call it what it is.


by chamberlin on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:41:39 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 2)

It is ridiculous to suggest that this anecdote was deliberately misleading.  This sort of stuff is the easiest thing in the world to prove or disprove.  Why would she make up something so readily factcheckable?


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:47:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

Hubris.

It's hard to believe that someone could repeat the same falsehood so many times, and then chalk it up to being 'tired.'  Which is what she did.


by Cycloptichorn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:54:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Why"? (2.00 / 1)

That certainly is a good question.


You haven't seen impatient until you've seen a monkey waiting for a donut.
by bjones on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:56:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (1.50 / 2)

Personally I'd rather know that she'd simply lied about this.  The idea that she actually remembers this world in which the plane's passenger's were being told to sit on flak jackets for protection, and she was dodging sniper fire and running for cover on the tarmac... is pretty a pretty scary prospect.  


by Whash on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:03:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

on which trip? (none / 0)

oh wait, you just want to keep the meme going no matter how dishonest you have to be.


by zerosumgame on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:24:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

The Obama campaign has been running an all-out registration effort there, and Jay Newton Small reported recently that the highest registration appears to be in Obama's core. Registration also accelerated dramatically in the days leading up to the March 24 deadline.


McCain: The Past, Obama: The Future
by KathyM on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:44:32 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

what?? now he's registering new voters?? this man will stop at nothing.

he's beyond the pail, he's below the fray.

(snark).


by the mollusk on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:53:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

I will be very happy, anything below 8% gap. That would be victory.


McCain: The Past, Obama: The Future
by KathyM on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:45:18 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

Spinwise, you're probably right, but it depends what happens in polling between now and then.

From a mathematical standpoint, a Clinton 20-25 point win is about the baseline for her to maintain her narrative of how she wins the nomination without Florida and Michigan.  I think it's become obvious that that's very unlikely to happen, and that's why she's back to pushing FL/MI.


by Rorgg on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:48:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

Hmmm, this from the same folks who used to say, " A win is a win is a win"?  And no, I can't quote where you personally said it Kathy, I just find your statement somewhat ironic...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:49:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

what's ironic about it? you understand the possibility of losing the battle but winning the war right? Hillary can't claim that at all up until now. Obama supporters can. If Obama can keep PA tight, blow open NC (which should over perform the polls) then Hillary is perhaps further down moving into her most favorable schedule of the primary (since her nightmarish Super Tuesday).
!
by alex100 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:33:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

what's ironic about it?

you understand the possibility of losing the battle but winning the war right?

Hillary can't claim that at all up until now. Obama supporters can.

If Obama can keep PA tight, blow open NC (which should over perform the polls) then Hillary is perhaps further down moving into her most favorable schedule of the primary (since her nightmarish Super Tuesday).


!
by alex100 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:34:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

I'd actually offer that anything in single digits does the job and pretty much ends this thing. With a single digit victory, Clinton will be unable to realistically overcome the overall popular vote which remains her only barricade against the impossible odds argument.


by bookish on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:44:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

A shift in men?  Could it be an effect of the Casey endorsement?


by NewOaklandDem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:53:05 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

You may be on to it, there was a big shift in self-identified "conservatives" to Obama, which is Casey's base -- conservative, largely Catholic dems.


by Rorgg on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:54:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

"conservative, largely Catholic dems" from Pennsylvania.

Now that's the Pennsylvania I know.  If Obama keeps it close with this group, he wins.


by the mollusk on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:56:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disagree with your analysis (none / 0)

In other news Hillary won Texas and the latest developments in Zimbabwe are going to be great for Guilliani!


by beermeister on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:00:52 PM EST

Nothing surprising (1.50 / 2)

Whenever the Obama marketing machine arrives, polling is going to improve for him.  Nobody ever accused Obama/Axelrod of being bad at mindwashing, after all.

Hillary remains well positioned for a >10 point win.  Most people will make their final decision during the week following the April 15 debate, and among those people (undecided or open-minded) she usually brings in 60-90%.  The media will be working very hard during and immediately after that debate to invent a new controversey over which to damn her.  So she has to deliver a top-notch performance or she might win by less than 10.

Considering how hard the media and Obama political machine tried to force Hillary's withdrawal last week, she held up well.  I think her consistent focus on listening to people and outlining substantive solutions continues to work well.  I believe that, in the longrun, it will serve her better than the Obama tactics of duplicity, vague rhetoric, and character destruction.


by bobbank on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:11:15 PM EST

Mindwashing? (2.00 / 1)

Are you accusing the majority of Democratic voters of being Brainwashed for casting their vote for Obama. So anyone who doesn't vote the way you want deserves to be dismissed as lame brained. Pathetic. Try to remember we are all Democrats and when this thing is over we will all have to come together for a much bigger fish to fry! McSame the REPIGLICAN!


by eddieb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mindwashing? (2.00 / 1)

Well, statistically speaking, about a third of us will not be joining you if Obama is nominated.

And yes, I am stating for the record that I believe the majority of people supporting Obama know very little about him and have based their decision almost entirely on his marketing campaign.  You could have proven me wrong by demonstrating that you had specific and well-reasoned rationale for supporting him.  You could have explained why, upon researching this, you concluded that his experience best prepares him for the hardest job in the world.

Instead, you replied by calling me "pathetic."

So, didn't you just prove my point?  Thanks.


by bobbank on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:53:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have a simple question (none / 0)

Who died and made you king? I didn't realize you and the Clinton compaign were annointed to set Voter standards for choosing a candidate. Now where do you get the knowledge to know what the basis of my voting decisions are? You are rather simplistic and arrogant in your attitude towards anyone who doesn't agree with your support of Clinton. I think the word "pathetic" suits your attitude. You have earned it. By the way I don't owe you anything in the way of explaining my position. My refusal to play your game may piss you off but to bad. I'm off to get my throughly washed brain fluff dried.So long!


by eddieb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:35:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing surprising (none / 0)

Did anyone ever accuse Clinton/Penn of being bad at mindwashing?  If so, that would be unfair.  I want to go on record as saying Clinton/Penn are not bad at mindwashing either.

Agree that she has gotten more of the last minute deciders lately.
Disagree that the media works to find some reason to damn her -- she shot herself in the foot re the Kosovo fiction (she should have known better).
Agree that there was a push last week to get Hillary to withdraw.  Subsequently, there has been a push back with Obama and Howard Dean included saying she should stay in until all primaries are over.  I agree too.
As for Obama tactics?  Citing duplicity, vague rhetoric and character destruction is just name calling -- in fact it is duplicitous, vague and an attempt at character destruction.

Geez, I'm anxious for the remaining primaries to get here.  I want the fight against McSame to begin ASAP...now that will be a fun one to watch.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing surprising (2.00 / 1)

This is cute.  Are you honestly willing to debate me on the point that Obama's rhetoric has been vague?  The duplicity has been well documented.  And character destruction is exactly what his campaign has been engaged in since OH/TX.. nothing more.  Being able to see that doesn't mean I'm name-calling; it just means I have my eyes open.


by bobbank on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:03:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My problem is (none / 0)

Clintons positions have not been vague, and some of them repel me.

Yes, I will admit Obama is a risk, but for me a calculated risk.  There is much that is not known.

They way I see it in the GE for Obama, the downside is he loses and/or wins and turns out to be a mediocre president, however, the upside I believe is limitless.  I think he has a chance to be something special.  And based on what Ive seen its a chance I am more than willing to take, considering I dont see a downside different than Clitnons.

As for Clitnon in the GE, the downside is the same, but the upside has limited potential, she is the consummate 50+1 strategy and thats where things will stand.  She may get some good things done, but much more will be left undone due to hate on both sides.

So one candidate has unlimited positive potential and both have the same negative potential.  Which would you choose?

Obviously these are my assumptions and subject to my own biases.

But the 'knows' for Clinton to me are - AUMF, Kyl-Lieberman, bashing 50 state strategy, dissing states that dont traditionally vote D because she didnt win them, bashing the primary process when it doesnt suit her and praising the republican nominee over her dem rival.  And these 'knows' disturb me as a dem.

So I will not deny there is much we can not see for sure about Obama, but Ive seen enough of Hillary to know the best I can expect, so I am choosing potential over certainty.


by pattonbt on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:55:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing surprising (none / 0)

I think Hillary has held up very well against the hits should took last week.

The Tuzla story is played out, like the Wright story.  Only the Obama-bots are still pushing the story.  Obama lied about being in Wright's church during the heated rants and then, on The View, said he was going to leave the church if Wright didn't retire.

LIAR!  He wasn't going anywhere because he didn't have a problem with the racist, ranting of Wright because he agreed with him.

Even if Hillary delivers a top-notch performance during the debate, which she always does, the media will downplay it and get a pillow of Obama.

Today's polls will mean nothing in 3 weeks.


by stefystef on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:48:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing surprising (none / 0)

See, here's the entire problem with Hillary's campaign. It sees a campaign that is actually successfully engaging the public one person at a time... and sees it as brainwashing.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:55:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing surprising (none / 0)

Using yourself as an example, please describe the way in which the Obama campaign personally engaged you.  Please explain what you learned about his qualifications during the process.  Also, please tell us what you've learned during the course of Barack Obama's great conversation on race in America.

Thanks.


by bobbank on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:14:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing surprising (none / 0)

Oh, he didn't convince me of anything. He has convinced me he is an excellent candidate who is very much adaptable and will be difficult to beat one on one, but that's hardly convincing me to vote for him. I voted for him because I like his platform better than Hillary's and I like his campaign style better than Hillary's.

I can tell you that I was a huge supporter of John Edwards, and the reason I was inspired by him is because he is one of the only politicians whose rhetoric matches his background. He has an honesty and serious belief in change that neither Clinton nor Obama can ever touch.

But my point was that you gotta stop thinking of any candidate's supporters as sheep instead of individuals. Underestimating and condescending are two of the things that got Clinton's campaign where she is now in the first place. Instead of facing up to her own shortcomings, they project shortcomings onto others.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:45:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing surprising (2.00 / 1)

I voted for him because I like his platform better than Hillary's and I like his campaign style better than Hillary's.

Could you elaborate on what specific aspects of Barack Obama's platform you think will produce better results for our country, when compared with the platform of his opponent?

Could you also clarify which part of the Obama campaign's style appeals to you?  For example, is it the well-documented and irresponsible abuse of racial politics?  Is it the almost single-minded dedication to destroying the character of fellow Democrats?  Or do you mean that you enjoy the style of speech that Barack himself delivers, which is completely contrary to the way his campaign has been run?

I think it is fair to assume that the Obama supporters that come here and act like this is a World of Warcraft message board are indeed sheep.  During my travels in the blogosphere I have met exactly one Barack Obama supporter that could articulate a compelling and well-researched rationale for his choices.  So I'm sorry that the generalizing seems rude to you.

I agree with your comments on Edwards.  I think when you research Clinton's career you will see that she shares many of his deepest commitments.  Particularly, the Clintons lifted more people up out of poverty during their administration than during any other 8-year stretch in our country's histroy.  And, as you know, Barack Obama has worked hard to convince progressives that universal healthcare would be a bad thing.  I don't disagree that he had a certain moral authority that she does not.  But I think the core values that they represent, especially now that Hillary has re-emphasized her support of working class, are similar.


by bobbank on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:39:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing surprising (none / 0)

Well, their positions on the issues are extremely similar and definitely not DISsimilar to the extent that you seem to be saying.

I like Obama's stance on education, for one. NCLB is utter crap and Hillary talks like she'd fix it, but I don't think it even needs to be fixed, just replaced. I really don't like Hillary's statements on censorship when it comes to video games, movies, tv, etc. I am a big supporter of net neutrality. Obama is too, Clinton is not (although she would like us to think she is). I also think Clinton is a much bigger advocate of the neoconservative "American imperialism" than she'd like us to believe.

And I like his attempt to push the debate to the left, just as Edwards did. I also think he has a much better chance of getting his policies in place thanks to his charisma.

Overall, I just think that Hillary's stated positions are at odds with what we know about her. With Obama, if anything, his positions are to the left of what he says they are. They're in the middle right now, but what happens when they go back to where they were before?


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:15:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

CAN I JUST SAY ONE THING HERE? (1.00 / 1)

I love when clinton supporters try to label Obama supporters as blind sheep and "challenge" them to mention what it is that you like about him. Then when you give them specifics....they stop responding. It's comical.

What's even more comical is a lot of the times you ask them what they like about clinton and they say experience. They're still screaming this experience crap. The truth is there are just as many blind sheep on HRC's side as there are on BHO's side. But the ongoing narrative is Barack isn't being specific. He's being very specific about not wanting to promise the world without the country being an active participant.


by Sbekele on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:50:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You said your one thing (2.00 / 1)

Sbekele,

Just to let you know, some of us have to commute home from jobs.  And sometimes, to provide a thoughtful and well-researched response takes more than the few minutes needed for the typical "STFU" comebacks I often get from Obama supporters.

Well, I'm sorry that I kept you waiting for those 45 minutes.  This isn't what I do for a living.

However, when I have the opportunity to speak to an adult about an issue that matters, I have always given a candid and well-reasoned reply.

So, you've said your one thing.  You did the Obama cheerleader bit without adding anything substantive yourself.  Feel free to engage in the topic at hand if you feel able.


by bobbank on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:15:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing surprising (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for engaging me on this, and you provide a good example of some of the misinformation that Obama supporters have.

For example, your number one issue was Education.  You say:

NCLB is utter crap and Hillary talks like she'd fix it, but I don't think it even needs to be fixed, just replaced.

Here's what Barack Obama thinks about that:

The goal of the law was the right one, but unfulfilled funding promises, inadequate implementation by the Education Department and shortcomings in the design of the law itself have limited its effectiveness [...] Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law.

So, he disagrees with you.  He believes that the biggest problem with the law is that it is not properly funded.  Funding it means cutting spending in other areas or raising taxes.  He does not specify which.

Some of Sen. Clinton's thoughts on this can be found here.  One of the specific weaknesses she picks up on, that Sen. Obama seems to overlook, is the way in which this law has been used as a conduit to push public education dollars into the hands of private entities.

Now if you read through his Education talking points, you realize that Barack Obama's approach to improving our education system can be summed up in one sentence: spend more money.  This is a typically Left/liberal position.

However, experience does not support the assertion the spending more money will achieve better results.  Detroit is a salient example; one of the most expensive public school systems in our country is also one of our most miserable failures.  This is one of the reasons I actually do not think either Democratic candidate can achieve substantive reform of our public education system; they are both too tied to the current structure, because it is such a substantial portion of the Democratic powerbase.

I happen to work for a non-profit, private Foundation that is devoted to providing financial aid to high achieving, low income students.  Most of our staff (not me though) have spent large portions of their lives directly involved in education.  Our Executive VP has been called upon by Congress to provide testimony, specifically in regards to NCLB, but also more generally on the ways in which our public school systems are broken.  For what it's worth, I cannot find a single person that chooses Obama (although, just for the record, we cannot endorse any politician or it would violate our non-profit charter :D).  Clinton has a well-established track record on this subject, and has been instrumental in the passage of several key pieces of legislation.  Moreover, children's education has been a personal calling of hers since before she was ever a public figure.

I offer you this simply as additional perspective on your choice.  The reason you gave just doesn't seem to match up to the positions of the two candidates.  While their talking points are similar, you find that one has a much more specific, nuanced command of the subject matter.  And that is going to be a typical result if you take the time to compare them head to head on issues, like we've done here.

I agree with you that Obama is further Left than Hillary - I think she is the stronger candidate on core progressive issues, but I think she is a centrist candidate at the same time.  She seeks solutions to those progressive issues, like universal healthcare, in ways that are not typical of Left-thinking.  For example, one of the things I think is most brilliant about her healthcare plan is the way in which it subtly sets up a market-based competition between public and private care.  She never advocates single-payer, but by creating this market, she creates the opportunity for American people to make this choice on behalf of politicians, using a market-based approach.  Hence she deftly avoids any political opposition to "socialist medicine", without closing that door.  That's Clintonian centrism at it's best.


by bobbank on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:09:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing surprising (1.00 / 1)

Going on a board like this and saying "mindwashing?"  Come on pal...that dog don't hunt.
Further its her "say anything centralisms" that make me not want to support her.  Going into the general, they are the reason to be cautious with her especially with McSame as her opponent.  
 And I don't know where you are from but my hunch is Obama can win the GE.  I have no reason to believe she can.  She can't even win Minnesota for crying out loud!  I also think that with her on the ticket, our many congressional gains will be reversed.
So for that pragmatic reason and many others, Go Big O!

by gil on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:39:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing surprising (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for the detailed, substantive evaluation of the two candidates' positions on education.


by bobbank on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:41:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing surprising (none / 0)

Looking at Hillary's website, she advocates spending a lot of money as well.

In this issue, just like in all others, the two candidates are extremely similar. His policies are more substantial than just spending more money, he places more emphasis on assisting teachers as a primary way of helping students. Clinton supports merit pay for an entire school that improves test scores, Obama also supports merit pay for teachers that work to increase their knowledge, skills, etc. I think Obama's idea is better there, because I think it more directly addresses the problem. He has a lot of programs that focus on things from a more community-oriented perspective, and I like that. I happen to think that school boards tend to be some of the most corrupted and useless organizations in the country.

Again, though, it comes down to the nuances, and what they choose to include in the minutiae. I like that Obama focuses a lot on working to teach skills and multiple levels of learning. And that he has plans in place to try and recruit/reward teachers.

But they're so similar on the issues that for both of us, it comes down to a matter of who we trust. I trust Obama, you trust Clinton.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:31:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary is rising. (none / 0)

I think you are a little to optimistic. We will soon see though, won't we. Every day like soup dejour we get another poll and another Clinton spin of how it helps her and Juliani.


by eddieb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:16:57 PM EST

Re: Disagree with your analysis (none / 0)

"Hillary is rising, not falling!"

more Hillary Math®.

I'm not sure how, when her 19pt baseline lead gets trimmed to 12, it is considered "rising".
!
by alex100 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:27:53 PM EST

Nice diary (2.00 / 1)

Remarkably fair in tone compared to some of the tripe I've seen around here lately.


by bookish on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:38:31 PM EST

Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

Anything less than 65-35 is a defeat for Clinton.
She needs 65 to take out a 50 percent lead in the PA delegate count. If Obama comes in at 60-40 let's raise the roof. Senator Clinton should own PA. To spin it any other way is dissembling among the Clintonistas.

And -- does anyone know if she's fibbling about attending a Stones concert in 1965. If she did, she rocks!  If she didn't, five pinocchios!!


by NYWoman on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:02:44 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (1.50 / 2)

She did, and she waited for the tickets while under sniper fire!


by Drummond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:19:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

Now that's funny.


Voting for John McCain is not God bless America.
by SFValues on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (2.00 / 1)

Anything less than winning by 30% is actually defeat?  That's an amazing sense of spin you have there.  Please get real.


by bobbank on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:16:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

I meant 50 (not percent). Sorry!


by NYWoman on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:03:26 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

Must be the bowling.


by Drummond on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:19:05 PM EST

5% RCP Average???? (none / 0)

Nope. You need to check.

Ras shows 5. SurveyUSA shows 12%.

the RCP average is 14.


by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:19:56 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

Todd, you are falling into the same mindset that I see many other Clinton supporters fall into.

Obama didn't "raise his own expectations" and then lose big in TX and OH.  He was spot on in TX and not off terribly in OH.

His supporters may have raised expectations, but lumping his supporters actions into actions of his own on this account is nonsense.  He didn't encourage his supporters to get their hopes up in TX  and OH.

Lets keep the debate/discussion honest.


by sorrodos on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:27:21 PM EST

Re: Disagree with your analysis (none / 0)

Right on!
The same way that Obama's polls dropped after the Wright debacle, the polls for Hillary are not suprising.

By the end of next week, Hillary's numbers will be up, especially in North Carolina and Indiana.  She's leading 2-to-1 in WV and KY.

Rock on, Hillary!


by stefystef on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:51:56 PM EST

Re: Disagree with your analysis (none / 0)

WV and KY are the new firewalls?


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

Your problem is, you see Rocky as only a movie - in fact, it's a series.  Yes, she'll lose this time.  But she'll be back for a rematch in 2012 and WIN!

And then she'll lose again to a different black guy in 2016, and then Mark Penn will die following an altercation, and then in 2020, with Barack Obama as her new campaign manager, she'll win again!

And then the Russians will invade and kill Barack Obama, and turn America into a dictatorship (with Brigitte Nielsen as first lady), and then Hillary will come back one last time and WIN AGAIN, and turn America back into a democracy!!

And then she'll start training a younger protege, but by that time, people will have pretty much stopped caring.  And don't get me started on her SIXTH venture into the presidential race...


by jakester on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:54:40 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

I can't wait to hear Survivor's version of the Star Spangled Banner!


Voting for John McCain is not God bless America.
by SFValues on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

Where does Hulk Hogan fit into all of this?


by rfahey22 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:13:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

Well, we know Rudy Giuliani is partial to feather boas...


by jakester on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:38:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

Her Rocky analogy misses one major point. Rocky was the underdog. She's Apollo Creed and always has been. Obama is Rocky.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:57:52 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

Did anyone else notice the dismissive wave Hillary employed when referring to Obama and his supporters?

Not very smart.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:17:00 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

Um, yeah, Rocky lost the first fight but he won the next one, and the parallel may be that perfect.


by Thaddeus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:14:53 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

Obama closes gap.  Loses Pennsylvania, but only by 5 percent.  Outperforms expectations.

Wins North Carolina, Guam, Montana and South Dakota, running away.  10-20 point victories.

Clinton wins W. Va, Kentucky, Indiana and Puerto Rico, but only by 5-10 points each.

Obama net gain 10-20 more delegates.

And so we go to Denver...


Peace, S.
by Reluctantpopstar on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:00:31 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

You forgot Obama wins Oregon by 10-20 points.

That could mean another about 29-31 Delegates for Obama, and about 21-23 Delegates for Hillary.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:44:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary Balboa (none / 0)

actually your quote has been altered. HRC said:

I never quit. I never GET up.

Olbermann played it twice.

Make of that what you will.


Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:53:27 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

I'm so sick of Effing polls.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:31:25 PM EST

Nice, but (none / 0)

In the end I think Penn will be around the +10 range for Hillary.  While 'nice' for Obama, its still sucks.

Part of me hates loser talk like 'a +10 loss in Penn is still a victory for Obama'.  Its not the tone of a winner.  While it is true in some sense, I still dont like it.  

Im tired of moral vistories in 'Clinton' states.  I want Obama to win a Clinton state.  We Obama supporters should be upset we dont win Penn.  While he will certainly cut Clintons original margins significantly, the narrative in the end would still be a Clinton win and continue to give wind to the sail of the primary being competitive.

Id much prefer an Obama victory and start putting some certainty to this primary (even though Im an Obama mathematician and believe certainty is already there).

All that said, I dont think much is going to change big picture wise the rest of the way out.  I think there arent many +10 wins out there for either candidate and those that exist are offset by others.

We have two good candidates, and barring collapse (scandal collapse) when the electorate has time to look at two good candidates, reults are always close.

So I expect Obama will close in Penn to a respectable margin, same with HRC in NC.  Obama may get killed in KY and WV but he may offset them in the west.

So when all is said and done I dont see much change from now until June.

Im just hoping it stays above board between now and then.

Go dems 08!


by pattonbt on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:11:37 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Tightening (none / 0)

Polls are like the tide. With three weeks left to go in PA, being the frontrunner is a much more vulnerable place to be. With the right ads, this can work well to Clinton's advantage.


by Susie from Philly on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:41:19 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.