Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy?

As Jonathan asked yesterday: "weren't Obama's comments supposed to hurt him?" While there is some evidence that they have at least for the moment in Pennsylvania, nationally there is absolutely no sign of any effect in Clinton's favor in the Democratic primary race. Quite the contrary. Following up on Obama's 10 point lead in yesterday's Gallup daily tracking poll, today's Rasmussen has Obama leaping to a 9 point lead 50-41, a 10-point flip toward Obama in 2 days. At first glance it would seem that Clinton's exploitation of Obama's comments were more harmful to her than the controversy itself was to him. Now, it should be noted that these are national numbers, so not necessarily reflective of the sentiment in the ten final upcoming contests where Hillary really is hoping to win over voters, but the national trends are instructive as to the general feeling among Democratic voters nationwide and it's clear she's simply been unable to rattle confidence in Obama.

And it's not just voters who appear unmoved by Clinton's attacks. As I wrote yesterday, Clinton has been appealing not only to voters in upcoming primary states but also to superdelegates with an electability argument against Obama. Chris Cilizza sums up one hope of the Clinton campaign:

For the last two months or so, there has been a story circulating just outside of the public view that there are a large number of superdelegates who are privately committed to Obama and waiting for the right moment to pledge their allegiance. Do Obama's comments freeze these superdelegates in their current undecided pose? Or, more problematic for his campaign, do some significant number of undecided superdelegates side with Clinton -- citing Obama's comments as their prime reason for choosing the New York senator?

The AP story yesterday that Clinton received the endorsement of Yellowstone County (Montana) Commissioner Bill Kennedy as a result of Obama's comments seemed to perhaps portend some momentum along those lines among superdelegates (Kennedy is not one) but today, via First Read, we learn that, at least among two undecided superdelegates, that's not the case.

The Washington Post checks in with two undecided superdelegates to get their reaction to Obama's comments. "Looking for any possible edge, the Clinton campaign has pressed uncommitted superdelegates to view Obama's remarks as a major debacle that could harm him in November. But as of yesterday evening, there was little evidence that the electability argument is resonating. "Rep. Mike Doyle (D), an undecided superdelegate who represents Pittsburgh and surrounding towns in the Monongahela Valley, said yesterday that he was not particularly troubled by Obama's comments. `I don't disagree with a lot of what he said. My dad was a mill worker. My grandfather was a steel mill worker, and when the steel industry collapsed, nobody's family was hurt more than mine,' Doyle said. `It's not inaccurate to say a lot of politicians have come through these towns, made a lot of promises and failed to deliver. I thought he was spot-on when he said how people feel.'"

And in fact, for one of them, much as we appear to be seeing in some of the national numbers, Clinton's exploitation of the controversy may have been worse than the controversy itself.

Rep. David E. Price, an uncommitted Democrat from North Carolina, which holds its primary May 6, said his frustrations are with Clinton, for the potential damage she has inflicted. `Senator Obama could have chosen better words, but it seems to me that he's stating the obvious,' Price said. `People are feeling a great deal of economic stress, anxiety, and there is a certain amount of anger out there... I think it's most unfortunate that opponents simply pounce, particularly opponents in his own party.'"

Time and again Barack Obama has shown a remarkable ability to weather these political storms and this one looks to be no exception. Which means that ultimately this controversy, contrary to Hillary Clinton's hopes, may end up increasing the confidence voters and superdelegates have in him as a potential nominee.



Display:


Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy? (2.00 / 0)

You can't paint a black guy as a elitist. No such thing exists.
My god, I haven't heard a more funny tag line in my life. Put Obama in a sport's jersey and he looks like a football player or coach. People have already seen him up close, they know the truth. This whole business is a storm in a teacup.
A former hillary supporter.
by Cristalgirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:24:42 PM EST

Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy? (none / 0)

We'll unless you look like Armstrong Williams, but that's going to be one of those exceptions to the rule.


by GobBluth on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:28:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy? (none / 0)

Or maybe Ken Blackwell...another "exception to the rule..."

heh.

Saying a black man cannot be an "elitist" is a little, er...ah....ummm....exclusionary, shall we say?

Wouldn't want to exclude anyone from the "elitist" club just because they're black now, would we?


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:08:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Queen Hillary Is Not Amused By Your Elitism (none / 0)

Seriously, accusations of "elitism" from someone trying to create an American political dynasty?

It would sound stupid if Kennedy said, and if you think about it really really hard, you'll see it sounds just as stupid coming from Hillary.

Actually if you think it through, it sounds just a wee bit loony.


by bernardpliers on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:19:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy? (none / 0)

..or Thomas Sowell, or Alan Keyes, or Ward Connerly.

Unfortunately, one finds the Vichy sort in all circles.

Fortunately, Obama is not one of them.


by rhetoricus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:40:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy? (none / 0)

The vulnerability comes from the intellectual tradition of the perceived "false consciousness" of the working class.  This view is common amongst liberals and is part of the reason politicians seek to distance themselves from the term "liberal."   The idea of the false consciousness of the working class is that they are too dumb to vote in their own best interest and instead vote on things like gun rights, religion, or gay marriage.  What Obama said fits this tradition perfectly, i.e. small town voters "cling" to religion, guns, antipathy towards people who are not like them, trade etc.  

Every indication is that Obama subscribes to this "false consciousness" view and his attempts to soften his statement only bolster this fact.  

A lot of posters here also agree with the "false consciousness" view and it is also typically on display in all its glory at DailyKos on a regular basis.  Those who agree with it are blind to the damage it will cause Obama.

Amongst voters in the industrial midwest and the south, most the country really, the "false consciousness" view is seen as arrogant and condescending.  This is Hillary's point about electability.  You can't win in November if you are seen subscribing to the "false consciousness" view of the white working class.


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:41:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You also can't win (2.00 / 2)

without blacks, independents, and those elitists that she now hates. You also can't win when more than half the country hates you. It just doesn't happen.


by regina1983 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:46:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You also can't win (none / 0)

Hillary has shown that she can put together a coalition of voters that has carried the Democratic party in every winning Presidential elections since FDR.  Union workers, the poor, and women.


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:01:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What about Blacks and core democrats? (2.00 / 1)

Bill won because of Blacks. Period. She has put together only a third of the coalition.


by regina1983 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:08:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill won because of Perot (none / 0)

..actually. And it was for Perot the "Reagan Democrats" voted. It just happened to benefit Bill.


by rhetoricus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about Blacks and core democrats? (none / 0)

It's comments like this that make me want to remind everyone of the absurdity of the race-bait CW.  That Bill and Hillary cooked up a ongoing scheme to infuriate blacks and drive away their support.  


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:48:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You also can't win (none / 0)

It might be time for a new strategy. Gore almost got 50%, but aside from that the Democratic coalition has topped 50% once in the past 40 years. (Obviously there is no telling where Bill Clinton would've landed if Perot hadn't been in the race -- I like to think he would've won with a majority; but the Republicans will solemnly tell you Bush the Elder would've won. They usually kind of gloss over Dole.)


by mhojo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:41:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

False (none / 0)

You cannot claim a winning coalition when you are handly losing.


by nwgates on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You also can't win (none / 0)

HAhaha.. she'll lose.. and lose big without blacks..might even lose illinois


by CaptMorgan on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:05:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Weakness as Nominee Surfacing (none / 0)

Well, working class voters may not call it the "false consciousness" of Marxism.

But, they know they're being condescended to when they hear it, And, they heard it from Obama on Billionaire's Row in San Francisco, no less.

Hillary Clinton beats Obama hands down among white, working class voters making $50,000 or less; in Ohio, in Pennsylvania, in West Virginia, and Kentucky, these are substantial portions of the Democratic voters. In Indiana, white working class voters make up 66% of the electorate.

Woe is He--Barack Obama may end up the bitter one in November

http://www.tnr.com/environmentenergy/sto ry.html?id=bf08a566-7c44-446a-aa34-7889b 0f24b5a

Back to the Future: The Re-Emergence of the Democratic Majority

John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira | June 19, 2007

Right now, Democrats need to win between 44 percent and 48 percent of the white working-class vote to carry states like Missouri, Ohio, or Pennsylvania, a little higher for Iowa, and higher still for West Virginia or Kentucky.

[...]

While Democrats enjoyed significant gains among noncollege whites earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually, they made their most dramatic gains among white working-class voters making between $30,000 to $50,000. In the 2004 congressional elections, these voters had favored Republicans by 60 percent to 38 percent; in 2006 they divided their vote equally between Democrats and Republicans. That's a 22-point shift...."

http://www.prospect.org:80/cs/articles?a rticle=back_to_the_future061807

*

04.03.2008
Exit Polls Reveal Obama's Weaknesses

Barack Obama has rested his campaign partly on the claim that he is the more electable of the Democratic presidential candidates...

[...]

If you look at the exit polls for Ohio, and to some extent, Texas and Rhode Island...Hillary Clinton does better or much better than him among women [55-60% of the electorate overall], whites (particularly those who make less than $50,000 a year), Latinos, and older voters....

[...]

The question for the fall is whether there are Clinton voters who won't vote for Obama and Obama voters who won't vote for Clinton. The exit polls don't really answer this question. The closest they get is to ask respondents whether they would be "satisfied" or "dissatisfied" if Clinton or Obama were the eventual nominee. The results tonight do not look good for Obama.

In Wisconsin, for instance, only 17 percent of Democratic primary voters said they would be dissatisfied if Obama were the nominee.

In Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas, 30 percent or more of voters said they would be "dissatisfied" if he were the nominee.

That means that a sizable percentage of voters who backed Hillary Clinton may not back Obama in the fall....

[...]

Obama has to worry about the Reagan or Bush Democrats, white working class voters who used to be Democrats, but often back Republican presidential candidates. Bill Clinton won many of these voters back; but Al Gore lost them in 2000 and John Kerry lost them in 2004.

[Hillary] Clinton did much better among them, winning over 60 percent of them in Ohio.

[...]

In some February 5 states, the overall percentage of white (or Latino) primary voters who voted for white candidates partly because of race was pretty high. It was 9.5 percent, for instance, in New Jersey.

In the general election, that percentage is likely to double; and some of these additional voters will be white working class or Latino voters that a Democratic candidate needs to win. In Wisconsin, the number was very low--only 6 percent. But in Ohio, a crucial swing state, it was 11.4 percent.

That's a real danger sign for Obama in a state where elections can be decided by one or two percentage points.

[...]

But Clinton bested Obama among moderate voters by 53 to 46 percent in Ohio, while Obama edged her among liberal voters by 50 to 49 percent. The same pattern occurred in Rhode Island, where Clinton won moderates by 55 to 44 percent and lost liberal voters to Obama by 51 to 48 percent. That's probably not a good sign for Obama, whose strength lay in his appeal to the political center. All in all, the exit polls show that in these elections--in contrast to those in Maryland, Virginia, or Wisconsin--Obama's weakness as a potential candidate in November may be beginning to surface.

http://blogs.tnr.com:80/tnr/blogs/the_pl ank/archive/2008/03/04/exit-polls-reveal -obama-s-weaknesses.aspx

*

Obama down by 20 in new Pennsylvania poll; national lead holds steady

A survey of Pennsylvania Democrats that was done in part after the news broke about Sen. Barack Obama's controversial comment that some small-town folks are "bitter" and cling to religion and guns in difficult times, shows him now trailing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Keystone State by 20 percentage points.

American Research Group says this morning that its latest poll shows Clinton ahead 57%-37%. The survey of 600 "likely" Democratic primary voters was begun Friday and completed on Sunday. The news about Obama's "bitter" comments broke late Friday afternoon.

In ARG's previous Pennsylvania survey, done a week earlier, Clinton and Obama were tied at 45%. That tie, though, was an "outlier."

Most Pennsylvania polls have given Clinton at least a 5 percentage point lead.

ARG's new survey has a margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points.

**


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:44:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

AKA "Perot Voters." (2.00 / 2)

It is to laugh. As if running as GOP-lite has served the party at all in the past decade. Clinton wouldn't have won at all if it hadn't been for Perot, who is actually the one who got the "Reagan Democrat" vote.

Newsflash: "Reagan Democrats"= "voted for W twice."

They really aren't our audience. Besides, W proved that you don't have to tack center to win. You just need to inspire a bunch of new voters. Which is exactly what Obama does.

By the way, no informed worker is going to vote for someone who supported NAFTA, MFS for China, the bankruptcy bill, and the war. The uninformed ones will vote McCain, because Hillary is indistinguishable from him on labor.


by rhetoricus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is to laugh, indeed! (none / 0)

You must be as "bewildered" as Barack!

Hillary Clinton beats Barack hands down with white, working class voters, a voting bloc that you are now derisively calling "Perot" voters, but which delivered to Democrats a majority in Congress in 2006.

John Judis and Ruy Texeiera calculate we need to win 45-48% of this voting bloc in 2008 to win the White House. Barack Obama may be "bewildered" by the reaction to his remarks, but most people "get it" because they know he insulted a huge potential swing vote, which could be disastrous for Democrats in November:

In 2006 Democrats were able to win with sufficient support from the white working class (52% of the electorate).

Democrats had gotten only 39 percent of this vote in the 2004 congressional elections; in 2006 Democrats got 44 percent of the vote, which was enough to give them a solid majority in Congress.

Democrats' success among these voters helped the party to pick up three house seats in Indiana (where the white working class makes up 66 percent of the voting electorate); two seats in Iowa (where it makes up 72 percent); a Senate seat in Montana (which is 68 percent white working-class); and a Senate seat, a House seat, and the governorship in Ohio (which is 62 percent white working-class).

By 2015 the white working class is expected to fall from 52 percent to 47 percent of the U.S. electorate, but it will remain a critically important group nationally and in many elections in the Midwest and South.

http://www.prospect.org:80/cs/articles?a rticle=back_to_the_future061807


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:09:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, you're really talking about.. (none / 0)

the percentage of those working class voters who:

--wouldn't vote for McCain regardless

--are happy to forgive Hillary her roles in NAFTA, the bankruptcy bill, MFS for China, and union busting, which played huge roles in causing working class struggle, but

will absolutely refuse to vote for Obama despite  his pro-labor positions because he used the words "cling to guns and religion."

That percentage I'm quite confident will be more than made up for by the prodigious numbers of new youth and black voters that Obama brings in.


by rhetoricus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:38:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Know what also turns off the working class? (none / 0)

Someone who thinks she is too "elite" to have to pay her bills to working-class caterers, and small business owners.

"Dead beat" really isn't flattering on your resume when you are vying to be at the helm of the economy.


by rhetoricus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:58:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and you can't win the labor vote (none / 0)

by supporting NAFTA, the bankruptcy bill, MFN status for China, and busting unions. Unless, of course, the "false consciousness" theory actually rings true.

I know the right wing is banking on it.


by rhetoricus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:26:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You can update with today's Gallup's (2.00 / 3)

He no longer has a 10 point lead.  Nope, this scandal is killing him to the point where his lead shrunk all the way down to.... 11 points, his widest ever.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:26:39 PM EST

Re: You can update with today's Gallup's (none / 0)

Sorry, wrong link.  It should have been this.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:27:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can update with today's Gallup's (none / 0)

Curses!  You beat me.  :-)


Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
by fwiffo3 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:28:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Today's Gallup (2.00 / 2)

Today's Gallup just came out, it's up to +11 for Obama.


Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
by fwiffo3 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:27:43 PM EST

More bitter news for HRC... (2.00 / 1)

Obama's 51% is just 1% below his highest figure of the year; HRC's 40% matches her lowest (set yesterday).


by KTinOhio on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:31:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More bitter news for HRC... (none / 0)

Manufactured controversies clearly aren't quite what they used to be.

Hillary remains lost in her 1990's time warp, but the rest of the country has moved on.


by baghdadjoe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:44:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

her obvious glee is hurting her (none / 0)

she's been so over the top in her response to this whole "bitter" thing. I can hardly even watch her. She can hardly contain her excitement thinking she's found the "magic bullet" to kill the Obama campaign. I think she's going to be very disappointed.


by jadegirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its an amateurish political mistake (none / 0)

Team Clinton was so desperate to jump up and down on Obama that they forgot that the moment they tried to amplify the so-called gaffe they changed the dynamic. They should have said nothing and let the media carry the water. As soon as Hillary went on the attack, then Obama came back at her and that was the new story - the dueling attacks. If Clinton just keep on message and didn't detour, than Obama would still be on defense.  

Obviously Team Clinton's advisers are not amateurs, but this is just another blunder. The way they played this reeks of desperation.


by johnnyappleseed on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:11:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy? (none / 0)

Well said!
Thanks
by Hope Monger 2008 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:29:42 PM EST

Too early (1.00 / 1)

His comments are hurting him but it is too soon to see the blood because of the timing of the news cycle. This thing basically broke over the weekend.

Now look at the latest poll results in PA.

Rasmussen, Clinton +9; Survey USA, Clinton +1; Quinnipac, Clinton +6

Mind you, this is in a state where Obama is outspending Mrs. Clinton 2 to 1. And he is the presumptive Democratic front runner with a supposed lock on the nomination.

How do you spell P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C?


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:30:38 PM EST

Re: Too early (2.00 / 2)

Calling Obama pathetic?

As for your news cycle comment - did it ever occur to you that the vast majority of voters outside of PA really don't care about Obama's overblown comment? I swear - it's like everyone is so eager to see some controversy drown the Obama campaign that they jump on every little thing. Yet, to no one's surprise, he keeps weathering these "controversies".

Seriously - if Wright didn't sink the campaign you think the word "bitter", uttered once, is going to have any significant impact? I would hope you would be overjoyed that we finally have a candidate that knows how to respond to attacks and emerge unscathed from these fabricated assaults.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:35:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

News Flash (none / 0)

Wrong.

It wasn't the word "bitter" that had nothing to do with it.

It was the "cling to guns or religion" part that will hurt him.  And in the same breath he put religion and guns on the same level as racism and xenophobia. Here is his exact quote.

"They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment."

And unlike the Wright controversy, this came from his own mouth.

Oh, and you better believe America cares.  This is 10x  worse than "I voted for it before I voted against it."


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:47:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: News Flash (2.00 / 2)

Everything is 10x worse when it comes to Obama, right? I can't count how many times people here swore that Wright would destroy Obama's campaign, career and life - when in the end - once everyone got to see the YouTube clips and hear the spin - people just really didn't give a damn.

All of this is beside the point because polls show this hasn't yet had an impact. Until they do show an impact, why should I buy your spin that this is the controversy of the century? And I bet those people who care the most are non-voters and Republicans.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:06:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The national polls show the opposite (none / 0)

Obama's lead is growing. Clinton's attack withered.


by johnnyappleseed on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:14:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: News Flash (2.00 / 1)

I'm pretty damn tired of worrying what the mean old Republicans are going to do. Democrats have to stop cowering like beaten dogs and just stand up for themselves. Watching Evan Bayh from my home state of Indiana come out as a concern troll about what the nasty old GOP would do in the fall was maddening.

You know what would nip this thing in the bud? Superdelegates coming out and knee-capping the Clinton campaign before Bayh and Clinton can do any more internecine damage.

Let me be clear. Clinton is entitled to keep running her campaign. The superdelegates are under no obligation to do anything. But, given the current state of the race, Obama can win without major internal blood letting. I don't think Clinton can. She can still win the nomination, but I think she's going to have to cripple the party in '08 to do it.

If she wants to remain in the race, my preference would be for her to run the sort of collegial; non-attack oriented campaign you'd hope for in an intra-party rivalry. But, then, given the current state of the race, I don't think she could win that way.


by mhojo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:48:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: News Flash (2.00 / 2)

Speaking of Superdelegates coming out:


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rep. Barney Frank said the trailing Democratic presidential candidate should drop out of the race by no later than June 3 -- the date of the two last Democratic primaries -- even if it is the candidate he supports, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Barney Frank has endorsed Clinton, and his sister (Ann Lewis) is a high ranking official in the Clinton campaign


by tysonpublic on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:03:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Barney Came Out Years Ago (NT) (none / 0)


by bernardpliers on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:13:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too early (2.00 / 0)

"How do you spell P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C?"

F-A-V-O-R-A-B-L-E D-E-M-O-G-R-A-P-H-I-C-S.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:35:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too early (none / 0)

BTW, I made a typo. Clinton is up +14 in the latest Survey USA poll.

All the while the underdog who it is supposedly impossible for her to win and she is being outspent 2 to 1.

Not bad for Hillary.


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:49:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too early (none / 0)

Um... Hillary Clinton has never been "the underdog" in PA.

She has fallen behind in national polls. And she still is.


by BlueinColorado on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too early (none / 0)

Why isn't Hillary the underdog in PA?

Don't the voters in PA know that Obama has already won? That he leads by 10 points? Why isn't the party coalescing behind the clear front runner? Why is he out spending Hillary 2 to 1 in PA and is still DOWN BY 14 POINTS in the SUSA poll?


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:05:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too early (2.00 / 1)

The Senator from New York, wife of a popular two-term President, with universal name recognition and 15 years on the national stage doesn't get to be the underdog. Especially when she was up by 20+ points a few weeks ago.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:08:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too early (2.00 / 1)

She was up by as much as 28 in some polls.  Now, once again, just like TX and OH, she's poised for a come from WAY AHEAD victory.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too early (2.00 / 1)

Not to mention having just about the entire political establishment in your pocket.


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:02:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too early (none / 0)

Because she's been ahead in the polls for months.

And the primary race is over. She can't catch him in pledged delegates, and the supers aren't going to overturn the PDs for a candidate who's going to lose to McCain (remember that part? the point, for some of us, is to win the General Election).


by BlueinColorado on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:09:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Down from +18 (2.00 / 2)

in the last SUSA poll.

PA has stagnated - that's about all one can gather from the latest round of polls there. Slight movement for her on Rasmussen, away from her on SUSA, 4-6 point spread for her in the others. Unless something big breaks in the next 6 days (like, something bigger than honest analysis), she'll win by 10 or so. Not enough to give her the shot of nitro she desperately needs, and not enough to swing the national numbers her way for more than a day or two.

Bottom line is that Obama has gone from 20% to 50% in 4 months, while in the same period Clinton has gone from 40% to....40%. We've heard a new meme every week that was supposed to just ruin Obama with some demographic or other (each one of course being critically important in November and coincidentally leaning to Hillary...), and none of it - he's inexperienced, he's the 'black candidate', "it's a cult", he's a closet racist, he's a lousy bowler, he likes orange juice instead of coffee, he's an elitist, blah blah blah --- none of it has done what the Clintonites were so certain it was gonna do to him.

At the same time, they've wasted their opportunities to make a real case as to why people should vote for HRC while working against the clock to make a case for voting against BHO.

That, my friends, is how we've lost elections - and I can only assume that the Democratic Party's poster child of "elitism" Hillary Clinton, plans to run that way in November. If it's not winning over her own party (stuck at 40% since we started the engines), how in God's name do any of you expect it to win over 51% of the voting public in a general contest?


by SuperTex on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too early (none / 0)

so you have a crystal ball or called the Psychic Friends Network?? Wasn't it not too long ago that HRC was ahead by 20 points in Pennsylvania?


"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08
by feliks on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too early (none / 0)

Even better.  I am an American from a small town who doesn't like to harbor political delusions. You won't find me starry eyed or foaming at the mouth for any politician.  I like reality thank you very much.


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:51:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too early (2.00 / 1)

Well then the reality is this, Clinton is going to lose.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:08:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too early (2.00 / 1)

snap


"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08
by feliks on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:12:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too early (2.00 / 1)

I'm not quite sure if you're saying that she leads by those numbers or that her lead has grown by those numbers (I think the former, but you're wrong on that one on SUSA).  Look, Sen. Clinton had a lead of 18-19 points in Pennsylvania after Texas/Ohio.  And, honestly, I don't buy the idea that ads move numbers much.  Anyway, here's the current race with former results.  

All polls of likely voters*:

Rasmussen 4/14. MoE 4.0% (4/7 results)
Clinton 50 (48)
Obama 41 (43)

SurveyUSA 4/12-14. MoE 3.9% (4/5-7 results)
Clinton 54 (56)
Obama 40 (38)

Quinnipiac 4/9-13. MoE 2.1% (4/3-6 results)
Clinton 50 (50)
Obama 44 (44)

In other words: Rasmussen: +4 movement to Clinton.  SUSA: +4 movement to Obama.  Quin: no movement.

Two polls showed big movement: ARG showed +20 to Clinton, Susquehanna: +11 to Obama.  I don't trust either poll.  ARG's been way off all primary season, ans Sus has got a small sample size.

I do think this will start to move numbers if Sens. McCain and Hillary keep going after Sen. Obama with it, in a way similar to what happened in NH when people felt that Sen. Clinton was being unfairly attacked.    


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:47:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too early (none / 0)

No I don't mean her lead has grown by that much. I specifically said that it was too early to see the damage.

I think SUSA was an extreme outlier to begin with and that it is telling that it only corrected +4 to Obama.  Clinton is still up +14.

I agree, toss out ARG and Suhs. I also never pay attention to Gallup, which in my opinion is a "drama queen" poll.

I think Rasmussen is the best poll going, the most reliable, best weights, most current data, and the robo calls get honest answers. Rasmussen shows +4 to Clinton.

Obama stepped in it big time. This is 10X worse than "I voted for it before I voted against it." Especially in the hands of a John McCain.


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:57:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too early (none / 0)

Is that "10X worse" arbitrary, or are you working off of an algorithm? I'd really love to see your math.


by bookish on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too early (none / 0)

The admiral's son and admiral's grandson is going to call a kid who grew up on food stamps an elistist?  Bring it on.  

What's interesting is that I think Hillary's whole "oh, I'm totally into guns" thing has sort of closed the circle with her sniper fire misstep.  

McCain's comments would go something like:
"My friends, I think we can all agree that America needs a President who stands firm on issues involving weapons and the use of force.  Now, Sen. Clinton, like a lot of my colleagues on the left, becomes very uncomfortable at the thought of military action and weapons, and it ties her in knots.  So she votes for a war---and then says she was tricked by that evil genius George W. Bush.  She makes a peaceful visit to Bosnia, and claims it was a blur of sniper fire and danger.  And then, to top it all off, she's for gun control when she runs for Senate in New York---but then when she's running for President, she suddenly remembers that she apparently grew up with a six-shooter on her hip.  Give her some time, and I'm pretty certain she'll tell us that not only did she face sniper fire on that Tuzla tarmac, but she shot back as well.

My friends, in a dangerous world, we can't afford to have a President who can't give a straight answer any time an issue of weapons or military danger comes up.  I know a little something about incoming fire and danger, and I don't recall having a poem read to me by a little girl as part of warfare.  And I promise you that I will give you straight answers on these tough questions, not invent stories and make excuses."  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:01:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please be serious - McCain is an idiot (none / 0)

The guy is a gaffe machine. He isn't even on the campaign trail right now, yet he is still serving them up. Whether it is confusing the Shia and Sunni or not understanding Patreus' role, the guy is waiting to collapse. And we aren't talking about pseudo-gaffes like bittergate, we're talking about campaign body blows.

Plus - McCain can't raise any money. He is going to accept public matching funds. He is going to be crippled and will have difficulty getting out anything other than a muted message. Obama is going to crush him. Imagine McCain having to spend his precious, capped GE funds on defending in Virginia, North Carolina and Texas. That is what is going to happen.


by johnnyappleseed on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:28:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You and I have different meanings for pathetic (none / 0)

Yes he is outspending her 2:1. But it is a place where the Demographics favor her and where she has a bit of "hometown favorite" style appeal.

You also can't buy her type of name recognition. People everywhere have known who she is for more than 15 years. Obama has been in the public eye for less than 6 years and really only noticeable to the average voter for the last year and a half or so.

He had a lot of ground to make up and has done a remarkable job.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:01:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You and I have different meanings for pathetic (none / 0)

If the demographics hurt Obama in PA and Oho, I can think of another place the demographics might hurt him as well.

Let me see, what was it ...?

Oh ya, now I remember, it is called AMERICA.


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:12:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because the rest of the nation (none / 0)

is exactly like PA and OH, as the other 39 elections to date have proven.

Incidentally, this is the same old silly argument that "if he loses to Clinton in a state's primary he will lose to McCain in that state in the general election."   The only reason the Clinton folks continue to make this blatantly silly argument is because they don't have any other argument left.


by snaktime on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because the rest of the nation (none / 0)

Ever heard of a bell weather state?  

Let me give you a clue, Texas, Illinois, New York and CA are not bell whether states.  OH, PA, and FL? You betcha.

How is Obama doing there?


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:20:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because the rest of the nation (none / 0)

Can't really tell until Hillary is out of the equation. Clinton's popularity among the Democratic voters of those states when compared to Obama doesn't tell us a thing about Obama's popularity among all of the voters of those staes when compared to McCain.


by mhojo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because the rest of the nation (none / 0)

Correction...Florida WAS a bellweather.... IA, CO and VA are better bellweathers now.


by CaptMorgan on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:11:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because the rest of the nation (none / 0)

Wow. It is amazing to me how much people will create an alternate reality to fit their world view.


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:04:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because the rest of the nation (none / 0)

Um... florida has been trending red for awhile.. .while many more states have been trending blue (I could list 10+ easily)

Don't slam me because you don't pay attention to these things


by CaptMorgan on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:04:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because the rest of the nation (none / 0)

All he has left is to slam us. He knows he is not making good arguments but they are the only arguments he has left.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:20:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because the rest of the nation (none / 0)

The entire Mountain West/ Southwest is getting ready to turn blue for a generation. It is in the demographics. The entire area is now a battleground. If McCain wasn't from Arizona we'd even be talking about that State being a real battleground. As it stands now, there are two open Senate seats in the Southwest up for election in the Fall and the Democrats are going to win both of them convincingly.

Florida is not a bell weather State and neither is Pennsylvania. The dynamic in Pennsylvania changed because of Rendell. You win Statewide in PA by running up the score in Philly and the surrounding metro counties. Before Rendell, it used to be that the Democratic plurality in Philadelphia was wiped out by the GOP plurality in Bucks, Montgomery, Chester and Delaware counties. No more. When he was Mayor, Rendell was more popular in the surrounding counties than in the city itself. He is the one who really changed voting patterns in the Philadelphia suburbs. The suburbs were slowly trending due to the antipathy towards the theocratic fringe element of the national GOP - but Rendell really sped that process along. Soccer moms and dads in the Philly suburbs really like him. Democrats now carry Philly and its suburbs by at least half a million votes. It is insurmountable.

On the other hand, Florida has become more southern in the last 10 to 15 years. It has embraced some of the wacko theocrats and their preachings and has become more conservative. It isn't in play.


by johnnyappleseed on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:49:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course they are unmoved (2.00 / 1)

The problem is that when you have a negative rating of over 50% people already are bitter towards you and anything you do they are just going to be angrier. The other 50% is giving you a chance but when you do crap like this, your numbers are only bound to go up.

Remind me why Hillary is staying in this race? Oh that's right, she wants to destroy Obama.


by regina1983 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:33:34 PM EST

Re: Of course they are unmoved (2.00 / 0)

If her goal is to destroy Obama she has shown a remarkable inability to do so. If this guy was as flawed as some people believe he is, one would think Hillary would have an easy time sinking his campaign. Yet, she is so far entirely ineffective.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:37:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course they are unmoved (1.00 / 0)

HIllary is handling Obama with kid gloves.


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:58:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course they are unmoved (2.00 / 1)

If you believe that then I am sorry but you are politically tone deaf.

She has gone literally as far as she can against a member of her own party. If she took it any further she would lose all credibility as a Democrat.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:02:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course they are unmoved (none / 0)

Oh please.  Hillary is handling Obama with kid gloves. Wait until GOP 527's get a piece of him. Then you'll see what Hillary is warning you about.

The GOP has been pounding Hillary for 15 years and have been raising money against her since 2000. No joke. Since 2000 Republicans have been raising "stop Hillary" money.  That is why her negatives are so low.

But Hillary's negatives are already priced into her poll numbers.  Obama on the  other hand has yet to take a real punch.


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:09:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course they are unmoved (2.00 / 3)

I love the idea that "anything Clinton does is okay because the republicans will be worse."  Sorry, I don't think adopting Republican lines like "McCain is ready to lead" and "Democrats are latte sipping elitists" is okay from a Democratic leader.  I choose our party before any candidate any day.


by snaktime on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:27:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course they are unmoved (none / 0)

Well, what can I say? We have to agree to disagree.

Time will tell. That is the fun of politics. That and the fact that there is always another election.

It is never over.


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:23:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See and I figured you were like Hillary (none / 0)

I figured you thought the fun part was needlessly smearing your opponent while your supporters call it "kid gloves."


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:12:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course they are unmoved (2.00 / 2)

Seriously, what the hell else would a GOP 527 say that hasn't been said already?

Scary black preacher man?

Elitist, out-of-touch liberal?

Secret Muslim?

Yeah, their ads might go a little lower, but Obama has weathered every one of these issues with no problem.  He has EXPANDED his lead this week nationally.  He's doing as well now as he ever has.

Your argument is an absolute joke.  You assume that GOP 527 groups will say something about Obama, and he'll just decide to let them do it, and that American voters will somehow just eat it up and turn their brains off, even though they've shown a remarkable appreciation for nuance throughout the whole primary process, and even though Obama has fought back swiftly and forcefully EVERY TIME.

Oh, and news flash?  The GOP has been vetting Clinton for years, but it still didn't stop her little Bosnia story from coming out, did it?  Do you think it will stop her from making further "gaffes"?

So many baseless assertions, so little time...


UNITY!
by The Great Gatsby on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:40:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course they are unmoved (2.00 / 2)

Come on. Hillary's only concern is the well-being of the party. That's why she and supporters like Bayh and Lieberman are selflessly pointing out that this Islamic, Radical Black Christian, Marxist will be called an Marxist, Radical Black Christian, Muslim by the Republicans on account of his Radical Black Christian belief in Marxist Islam.


by mhojo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well delivered snark! n/t (none / 0)


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:13:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course they are unmoved (none / 0)

GOP 527's will point out Obama's past associations with extremists that go beyond Rev. Wright and how Obama's "bitter" gaffes conflate perfectly with the intellectual traditions of those extremists.

GOP 527's will point out how  Obama attempted to procure millions in earmarks for Michelle Obama's employer after she was given a  $200,000 a year raise after Obama was elected to the Senate.

GOP 527's will point out Obama's connection to Iraqi arms dealer Auchi, who gave Rezko the money to help Obama purchase his $1.9 million home in Chicago and how Obama met with Auchi at Rezko's home after Obama denied ever meeting Auchi.

GOP 527's will throw Obama's themes of "judgment" and "just words" right back in his face with Bittergate, Wright, and Rezko.

And that is just getting started.

GOP 527's will point out that Obama voted to deny human status to aborted fetuses that are born alive. Every other Democrat in the U.S. Senate voted to allow fetuses born alive to be legally human under the law because they didn't want to be seen as extreme.

Obama is vulnerable to being painted as extreme on abortion.


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:32:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Point blank question: (none / 0)

Will you support Obama if he is the nominee?


by rhetoricus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:47:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course they are unmoved (2.00 / 2)

Well fuck, dMarx, we had better just give up now. No point in fighting the battle when the GOP is going to attack our candidate.

How about this as a new rule for the Democratic Party - we never contest an election when the other side might say something mean about us.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:09:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course they are unmoved (none / 0)

Oh, boo-hoo.  Get over it.  Obama has strengths as well but I was asked what GOP 527's would do that Hillary hasn't and I gave you a preview.

Can we all just strop drinking the Kool-Aid? Just for a few minutes?

Obama is a strong candidate but has serious issues. Doesn't mean he is going to lose.  But what is the point of being in denial about his weaknesses and instead blaming everything on Hillary?


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:08:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course they are unmoved (2.00 / 1)

You want a preview of what the GOP 527s are gonna bring against Hillary?

How about Tulza, Norman Hsu, Mark Rich, Sandy Berger, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinski and Vince Foster. And that's just for starters.

"But that's all bullshit." you might say.

My point exactly. The Republicans are gonna come with their bullshit attacks - stop being in denial that Hillary wouldn't get hit with them just the same.

The thing is, the Obama campaign hasn't been throwing those stories at Hillary Clinton. When the GOP attacks with these sorts of right-wing frames, people will mostly just shrug them off as "politics." When Hillary Clinton is repeating them, it gives them weight, Lieberman-style.


Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
by fwiffo3 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:28:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course they are unmoved (none / 0)

This is exactly why we lose elections.  For some unknown reason, we believe that the big, bad Republican attack machine is going to come and get us.  Fuck that.

We have more enthusiasm, more money, more voters, and better candidates.  It won't be a cakewalk, but I am not about to cower in fear from ass boils like Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.  The only way we lose this election is with blatant pandering and divisiveness.  Otherwise, we should be able to win in a landslide.


by zadura on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:26:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course they are unmoved (none / 0)

Refusing to acknowledge the liabilities is not the answer either.  It is not all about blind RA-RA-RA  pass the Kool-Aid please!

Nothing wrong with a little realpolitik.


by dMarx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:11:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course they are unmoved (none / 0)

Sure but your attitude seems to be that the 527's are coming to get us so we better cower in the corner and hope we can win regardless.

How about we fight fire with fire. How about we take their best punch and give them ares.

To paraphrase one of my favorite movies, The Untouchables: At the end of the fight you look at the guy who is still standing; thats how you know who the winner is.

If we go into this GE with that attitude, rather than letting them kick our asses from the low road while we feel good about having the high road, we will be fine regardless of who our candidate is.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:19:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course they are unmoved (none / 0)

Well here's your chance to display your impressive lucidity.

What are Hillary Clinton's liabilities? What would the 527s say about her and her husband? And how would she respond to those attacks?

Because surely you're not so believe as to buy into all the "she's been vetted" nonsense.


by BlueinColorado on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:41:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course they are unmoved (none / 0)

Or just dishonest.


by bookish on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:34:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy? (2.00 / 3)

Her demeaning remark about Gore being an elitist who lost the 2000 election is the last straw for many Dem establishment.  You don't attack someone that most Dems believe was robbed of the presidency.  She is an idiot!


by sbbonerad on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:37:58 PM EST

She didn't say that (none / 0)

n/t


by Trickster on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She didn't say that (2.00 / 1)

uh huh. And she didn't say McCain would make a better CiC than Obama, and her husband didn't say McCain was a moderate.


by BlueinColorado on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:00:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She didn't say that (none / 0)

Snark > accuracy, eh?


by Trickster on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:34:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She didn't say that (none / 0)

um... I don't know what you think you're saying, so I can't respond, but she said all those things, and he called McCain a moderate, so....


by BlueinColorado on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:28:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She didn't say that (none / 0)

You're right. She said that Gore was a perceived elitist who lost the 2000 Election.

It's still a truly repugnant thing to say about the former VP of your own husband, much less a highly respected member of your own party.

But you're right, she didn't say what he said she said. What she actually said was hardly any better, but it was at least different.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:30:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Telling people how to feel is a problem (2.00 / 3)

Obama wasn't telling people to be bitter.  He was noting it.  Inartfully.

Clinton seemed to be telling people that they should be offended by such comments... ironically.

We hate hypocrites more than people who blunder their lines in this country.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:38:31 PM EST

What about Obama's hypocrisy on healthcare (none / 0)

Telling people they will get affordable healthcare when in actuality, the insurance might cost less, but it will INSURE LESS and more people will have their lives ruined by bills their plans wont cover.

(Obama is taking advantage of desperate and sick people who don't know enough about insurance mechanisms to realize that he's lying, or that 'his proxies' are)

If THAT is not hypocrisy, WHAT IS?


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:12:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, it isn't (2.00 / 2)

Because it's not true.

We don't know what final form either Obama or Clinton's health plans will take, so we can't pass judgement like that.  Clinton and Obama have the same basic plans, barring the mandates.

It's also not really the point of this diary.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:33:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about Obama's hypocrisy on healthcare (none / 0)

"Obama is taking advantage of desperate and sick people"

Wow, that is HILARIOUS coming from the supporter of someone who voted for the bankruptcy bill, which makes it virtually impossible for people to recover from devastating hospital bills.

Or should I say, Hillary-ous.


by rhetoricus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:53:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Go back to redstate! (none / 0)

We don't need this crap here.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:20:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy? (2.00 / 2)

Hillary is going to win PA by 5-10.  Obama will win NC by 15-20.  Hillary will win Indiana by 5-15 (its very variable).  That said, the delegate totals are going to stay basically the same and the superdelegates aren't heading en  masse to Hillary, but rather, seem to still be trickling over to Obama.  In fact, it seems like a lot of them are getting pissed off at Hillary attacking the Democratic brand writ large.  

At the end of the day, the only question is what Hillary will do after these last few primaries and she is still behind in most (if not all) types of vote counts.


by quixote27 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:39:38 PM EST

Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy? (2.00 / 0)

This just isn't the kind of thing that is going to improve her numbers in the remaining states by 20+% and move 75% of the remaining superdelegates in her direction.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:40:47 PM EST

Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy? (none / 0)

Little Pink Houses....fer you an' me.
by jwolf on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:50:55 PM EST

Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy? (1.00 / 1)

Sure, Todd, you just keep telling yourself that.


by cc on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:51:39 PM EST

Re: Superdelegates Unmoved By Controversy? (2.00 / 2)

wow... what an intelligent and reasoned response.

Can we have more of your analysis please?</