MyDD :: The Barack Obama nerve

Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.

Him being whiney is an opinion, not a consensus. It was a horrible performance to be sure but he's done the best with it he could and folded it into his larger campaign narrative.

The essential Clinton argument is that partisan culture won't end so we need the most experienced, toughest fighter that can thrive in that environment. The Obama argument is that the partisan culture needs to end because the country can no longer afford it to continue. That campaign narrative also extends to the basic coalitions that each campaign has attracted.

I'd say the Clinton coalition is more cynical comprised of downscale voters and older voters. The Obama coalition is more idealistic, comprised of more affluent voters and younger voters. Each being a historic candidate they also attract a large share of those that self identify with the candidate, older white women for Clinton and african americans for Obama.

by Obama Independent on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:29:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sounds right to me (none / 0)

by izarradar on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:36:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by steveinohio on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:48:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And when Obama is elected and the "change Washington" thing doesn't work, where will we be?

Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.

Well he's fighting pretty hard right now so I'd say he has it in him. Also look at how many times Bush has pulled out his veto pen since 2006. Just having a democratic president that would sign those bills would make a huge difference. But I happen to be in the partisanship must end camp, while I consider myself fairly cynical I have just enough hope in me to try and put an end to it. Maybe we've gone too far and nothing will change, but even then I'll have a President who I believe in.

by Obama Independent on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:04:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's had her share (2.00 / 1)

Let me see if I have this right, it doesn't matter to you if anthing really changes, just as long as you have a president you can believe in. I guess maybe you should try to convince all the people who live without health insurance that, hey uou may not get medical care, but you have a president you can believe in. I think i've heard it all now from the Obama side.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:55:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.

I happen to be one of those people, and I like Senator Obama's health insurance plan just fine.

by Obama Independent on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:07:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

But you said it doesn't matter to you if nothing changes. Don't you find anything wrong with that way of thinking?

by pollbuster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:36:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.

No, what I said was in response to someone else who said what if nothing changes. If Barack Obama wins the election and fails to change the political culture in Washington we will still have a Democratic president instead of an obstructionist Republican one vetoing everything. And in Pennsylvania he is demonstrating that he is willing to fight when he has to so he's not the pushover that the Clinton supporters try to paint him as. And I still believe that we must end the combative partisan political culture. The country can't afford to let the gridlock continue so I will be voting for the guy trying to change it.

by Obama Independent on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:07:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's had her share (2.00 / 1)

I agree with some of your points, though I still haven't seen anyone give valid examples of other gotcha moments in the debates against her.

However, I do remember Hillary being awfully whiney in the debates simply because she had to go first. "Why don't we get him a pillow?"

by ProgressiveDL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:08:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

SNL opened the door for that (none / 0)

In the sketch where they showed the CNN commentators in the tank for Obama during one of the debates. One of the reporters (comedians) asks Obama: "Are you comfortable? Can I get you anything? Can I get you another pillow?" Hillary was using that line of dialogue to poke fun.

by izarradar on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure wish they asked Hill about flag pins (1.00 / 0)

that's a question she knows how to knock out of the park!

Thank your lucky stars they didn't ask Hillary the same question.

by catfish1 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

'Tis the math once again (2.00 / 1)

She was always supposed to win PA and a few weeks ago she was up by 30 points in the polls. She has to win every remaining state by between 20 and 30 points to catch up to his delegate lead, and if she doesn't do it in PA, then it will require like 40 points in every remaining state. This is how people get to the conclusion that if she wins by less than 20 it's a loss. Personally though, my prediction is Hillary by 20. No need to even think about it further.

John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.

by Travis Stark on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:14:32 PM EST

When did opinion polls (2.00 / 1)

factor into the 'maths'? Thats a new one.

by linc on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:19:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 'Tis the math once again (2.00 / 1)

They all have their hands over their ears going "lalalalala".

by Becky G on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:33:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.

Have you guys motorized the goalposts yet? It might save you some time.

All this talk of why can't Barack Obama seal the deal is really quite interesting except for the fact that he's running against a former President and First Lady. The kind of inbuilt advantage they have is staggering. The fact that he has come from nowhere and outperformed a machine built over 20 years is national politics is amazing in itself. Do you have any idea how rare it is for an insurgent candidate to beat the establishment candidate?

by Obama Independent on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:15:48 PM EST

Have you all (2.00 / 2)

found a math formula yet that will completely destroy the democratic process within the Democratic Party? Or are the maths just too hard for you to finger out?

by linc on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:20:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you all (2.00 / 0)

This doesn't even make sense.

by DrPolitics on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:26:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you all (none / 0)

Are you trying to prove his point for him? That's what it sounded like to me.

by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:51:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Barack Obama nerve (1.66 / 3)

Too rare.

by LandStander on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:22:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, now I get it - pollbuster simply TRed all of my comments.

by LandStander on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:02:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.

Mojo'd, not sure what was trollish about that comment.

by Obama Independent on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:36:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

In democratic primary races insurgent candidates have been beating establishment candidates forever: McGovern 68, Carter 76, Dukakis 88, Clinton 92. Doesn't seem that rare to me.

by pollbuster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:24:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Barack Obama nerve (1.00 / 1)

Way to prove your ignorance.

Clinton and Dukakis were the establishment candidates. The insurgents in their campaigns were Jerry Brown ('92) and Jesse Jackson ('88). And McGovern didn't run in '68. He ran in '72.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

by DrPolitics on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:28:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:35:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually he did run in 68 - he just didn't win anything.

by Alice in Florida on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:11:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He stood in for Bobby Kennedy at the convention, but I don't think you can really say he "ran"...

Hey (none / 0)

its pretty crap to run around troll rating people because you disagree with them, Doc.

by linc on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:17:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting, sir. What would you say to a candidate who loses primaries in May? Say Clinton loses Indiana and North Carolina, you'll certainly agree she needs to step aside? You're also saying Clinton and Obama started this content on even ground; that her name recognition headstart of 20 years on Obama is meaningless?

Just a few concerns of mine you can address to fill these holes in your diary.

by ragekage on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:19:49 PM EST

The name recognition thing is bs (2.00 / 1)

any Democrat participating in the Democratic primary has know exactly who Obama is from 2004 on.

by linc on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:21:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The name recognition thing is bs (2.00 / 0)

Which were very few, nationally, and even so I'd like to disagree with you here. His name recognition was a fraction of Senator Clinton's; surely you're not disagreeing with that.

by ragekage on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:28:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah (2.00 / 1)

but this is a Democratic Party primary, one that has been distinctly dominated by activists and activist organization. The vast majority of those that have participated in this Democratic Party primary have all know who Clinton and Obama are, were, etc...

by linc on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:37:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah (2.00 / 0)

Take a look at the turnout this year compared to 2004. It's 100, 200, 500% of normal. That's a lot of new people.

by ragekage on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:51:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think its representative (none / 0)

of engaged activists. Something that Kerry and Gore were unable to do- but Obama and Clinton were, AA's, creative class and Latinos, Women, and middleclass- respectively. There was no real contention in the 2004 primary after Kerry's comeback- it was pretty much said and done after NH...

by linc on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:02:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think its representative (none / 0)

I think the dynamic here was different. Nonetheless, the one thing I think we can agree on is that the winner is going to have a large, active, impassioned, and energetic infrastructure of supporters to carry the torch into November.

by ragekage on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:06:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Very large (none / 0)

they will share, no matter how much it pisses off their passionate bloggers ;)

by linc on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:08:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Very large (none / 0)

Heh. Precisely.

by ragekage on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:12:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The name recognition thing is bs (none / 0)

There's name recognition and name recognition. Clinton is a brand.

by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A brand indeed (2.00 / 1)

with both artificial negatives and a set following. One good thing about Obama's campaign is that he has been very successful, to this point at least, at capitalizing on the negative brand association:

More of the same... if you will.

by linc on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A brand indeed (none / 0)

I agree. And Clinton, correspondingly, has done a poor job of capitalizing on the positive part of her brand.

She really only hit her stride in the runup to Texas and Ohio; and she's turned herself into more of a modified John Edwards.

by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:39:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I would add (none / 0)

that she significantly miscalculated the activist base's ability to see her... "moderation" as tactic for the general election. She definitely miscalculated in assuming that the activist base would support her in the primary...

However, there is indication that she knew this was going to happen before several of Obama's big wins- her recalibration to 'big state' victories and working class voters- a group she knew she would need for the general election, but one that she wasn't necessarily think she would depend on for the general. Hence, I think, her return to more populist tones that characterized much of her earlier career- i.e. Edwards.

I can't wait for a true dissection of this race once the interparty fist fight is over with!

by linc on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:47:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oops (none / 0)

...depend on for the PRIMARY...

by linc on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:48:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oops (none / 0)

Me too.

by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:59:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The name recognition thing is bs (1.50 / 2)

Every poll ever says you are absolutely wrong about that. For example, see every poll ever.

by LandStander on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:35:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Umm (none / 0)

show me one poll of Democrats for the Democratic party that shows Democrats didn't know of Obama before the actual primary voting began? maybe you can find one pre-October 2007, but I would bet that even that shows a pretty high name rec for Obama among Democrats.

by linc on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:50:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The name recognition thing is bs (none / 0)

Let's assume this is true. There's no name recognition advantage.

Given that, explain to me two things by another means:

In every state, Clinton starts out polling significantly higher than Obama in early polling.
In every state, Obama's final results in the election are considerably better than those early polls; Clinton's are considerably worse.

My explanation is that Clinton starts out with strong name recognition, but campaigning dilutes that.

However, you could argue that Clinton's policies look great from a distance but as voters get familiar with them they look worse, and/or that the opposite is true for Obama.

Or you could argue that people like the idea of Clinton, but when presented with the reality they decide Obama is better, or perhaps that they don't like the idea of Obama at first, but when presented with him as a concrete reality they decide they like him better.

In any case, I'd like to see how you explain the persistent theme (which will continue to be persistent unless Clinton gets a 30 point or so win in PA, because that was the early polling difference).

No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!

by Texas Gray Wolf on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:18:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Barack Obama nerve (2.00 / 3)

If he is actually able to take control of this race, I would absolutely think it should stop. I'm saying it's unimportant at this point how they started this race. The plain fact is that the front runner should be able to blow away the opposition in late April, and that is what has been historically true in every democratic and republican race practically forever. Obama has not shown that he could do this and as such it is a very ominious sign for his campaign.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Barack Obama nerve (1.83 / 6)

So what do you suggest Obama do about this problem? As the front runner, it would be absurd for him to drop out. I don't see how he has any choice but to keep campaigning competitively, even if he only wins half of the remaining races.

by LandStander on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:37:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow - of all the troll-worthy comments I have posted on MyDD, the above is certainly not one of them. I've never asked for a TR explanation before, but this time I can't help myself.

by LandStander on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:57:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here is some mojo (none / 0)

it wasn't troll worthy, in any way, shape or form.

by linc on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:10:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here is some mojo (none / 0)

Thanks linc.
p.s. - I'm still looking for name recognition poll data from late 2007. It seems like they stopped measuring it at some point, but I'll respond to that comment if I find anything.

by LandStander on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kudos to you for actually addressing my concerns, sir, you'll get some mojo for that. You don't have to agree with me, but encouraging discourse is imperative.

Now, I think that this isn't ominous for his campaign in any way. Clinton is a master of politicking, and it's a testament to her that she's still in this game. But I think it's more people like you, sricki, etc, the other dedicated Clinton supporters here that she's managed to stay in this at all. We may disagree on candidates, sir, but it's people like you who make me know our party is righteous in this endeavor, and we will emerge from November victorious.

by ragekage on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:40:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Ddeele on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:59:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But somehow not for Clinton's?

by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:00:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why did you TR him?

by interestedbystander on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:00:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Pollbuster it is completely unacceptable to TR anyone that disagrees with you in your diary. Please stop it - unless you want all your comments TR'd as well.

by Aris Katsaris on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:23:27 PM EST

A winning candidate doesn't lose primaries?

Winning candidates like the ones you listed you mean -- Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern?

What a joke.

Re: The Barack Obama nerve (1.33 / 3)

The ones I listed all won the democratic nomination, and that's what we are talking about here. Let me guess, reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:33:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

Let me guess, politeness is not your strong suit.

by politicsmatters on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:35:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by DrPolitics on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:24:34 PM EST

Because HRC is losing the race for delegates and she cannot possibly catch up (unless the superdelegates swing her way). Even if she wins PA, she will still be losing the race because it is a race for delegates.

You know, the same could be said of HRC: "in late April when every front runner in recent memory and any other time in memory, at this point, has blown away the opposition: Kerry, Bill Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern and, likewise, every nominee on the other side as well." Is this supposed to be an argument in favor of HRC? Because, you know, it is late April and she is not even the front runner at the point. She is losing. I'm sorry, what was your logic?

This reads like a rant against the math in this race (the math that HRC has to somehow beat in order to win).

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

No, I'm sorry, but this speaks to momentum. The onus is on the front runner to win. As it is always the front runner that has the superior resources at this point. If he can't get the job done when all is in his favor now, how can he get it done when all is on the line in November.

by pollbuster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:37:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Barack Obama nerve (1.00 / 1)

If he can't get the job done when all is in his favor now, how can he get it done when all is on the line in November.

The same could be said of Hillary Clinton. This is the conundrum the Democratic Party now faces. So, let us face it.

by LandStander on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:39:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, I'm sorry, but this speaks to momentum. The onus is on the front runner to win. As it is always the front runner that has the superior resources at this point. If he can't get the job done when all is in his favor now, how can he get it done when all is on the line in November.

There's really no "onus" at all, other than to win the most delegates. You can't say that everyone who voted in February all of a sudden doesn't count because Hillary Clinton is going to win a state that borders her homestate, where she has the backing of the Governor, the mayors of both major cities, and the state Democratic Party, all working in concert to give her a victory. What price would you put on all of that establishment support? Her very own GOTV operations, ward leaders, event coordinators, etc. all at her disposal.

Of course she's going to win Pennsylvania. What chance would you give a candidate in the primaries if they were endorsed by the Party as a whole and every major superdelegate before a single vote was cast? That's the equivalent of what Obama is up against in Pennsylvania.

On the other hand, he can afford more television ads.

by ProgressiveDL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:14:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Hillary Clinton is going to win a state that borders her homestate"

No offense, but New York is MY homestate, and no one in upstate NY considers it her homestate, even if she is the Senator from there. She has been a surprisingly good Senator for New York, and I hope she continues to be after this all sorts itself out.

by RussTC3 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:28:38 PM EST

Listen, I want these contests to go to the end, but I think it's about time people come to grips that Hillary can no longer be the nominee.

If she were to win the remaining contests 60/40 (which will NOT happen), guess what the delegate total would be?

Obama - 1642
Clinton - 1592

Add in Florida at 60/40 and Michigan at 50/50 and Obama is STILL ahead:

Obama - 1780
Clinton - 1767

Again, I'm perfectly okay with the contest going through all the remaining contests, but it's over. Obama is the nominee.

Besides, I actually think the extended contest will actually help him in the end because more voters will get to know him and the Democratic party. That will make the party as a whole much stronger come November.

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

And your spending figures (4-1) are flat out wrong.

by politicsmatters on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:32:09 PM EST

by interestedbystander on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:03:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Correct - I see this quoted all the time (actually 5 -1 is more common. In fact, it is $7m to $2.9m.

by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:34:03 PM EST

You're right; generally after frontrunners take a lead they hold it and then proceed to blow out the competition from then on. The last frontrunner to lose a late, but important, primary was....

Bill Clinton. After losing Connecticut, he clearly should have stepped aside and give Jerry Brown his rightful place at the top of the ticket.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

Connecticut Democrats have a spotty record of picking winners. While they went for Al Gore (2000) and Michael Dukakis (1988), both of whom went on to become the Democrats' nominee, Connecticut voted for Jerry Brown over Bill Clinton (1992), Gary Hart over Walter Mondale (1984), and Ted Kennedy over Jimmy Carter (1980).

Moral of the story is be careful of Connecticut primary winners. Let's see, who won it this year in February. I guess that would be Barack Obama.

by pollbuster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:42:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ProgressiveDL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:16:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wait wait wait...are you really justifying your argument in the face of counter-evidence by saying that "Connecticut doesn't have a good track record of picking winners"? Really? That's not a great logical defense, to be honest.

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

All the good political analysts predicted a Clinton win of about +14 a long time ago. It's a state that likes to get to know candidates over the course of years and it is demographically very good for HRC.

by politicsmatters on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:34:04 PM EST

Re: The Barack Obama nerve (1.50 / 2)

Come on now, just a few days ago, a lot of those same analysts were predicting an Obama win.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Socraticsilence on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:01:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Prove it, show me some major analyts predicting a PA win for Obama.

by interestedbystander on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:06:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No they weren't - you can't just make stuff up.

This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!

Anything under 10 is good for Obama. Anything over 10 is good for Clinton. She probably won't net enough delegates to make a dent, so for her the larger the win the better. I don't know the specifics, but she probably won't net more than 10 delegates come Tuesday.

by venavena on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:35:36 PM EST

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

The congressional districts where Clinton is expected to do the best have the fewest delegates because their vote for Kerry was low. And Obama is expected to do well in districts with far more delegates, which they have because the vote for Kerry was the best in the state.

by politicsmatters on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:37:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

Ten contests left, including PA. Most people think Clinton wins 5 and Obama wins 5. PA is one of those wins. Let's see how it all works out.

by politicsmatters on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:35:58 PM EST

by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:04:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I like to look at it as 4 and 4, with the 9th (Indiana) up for grabs.

The tenth is Guam. Obama is going to win it, but... it's Guam.

by ProgressiveDL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:18:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

By that definition, we shouldn't be counting Puerto Rico, either. I actually think counting the popular votes from PR as part of the totals is utterly ridiculous since A) They don't vote in the general and B) They have repeatedly expressed their disinterest in doing so via referendum after referendum supporting the status quo.

by rfahey22 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:41:43 PM EST

And here I thought that this was some strange new medical discovery...

I sort of liken some of these states to the infamous "shock and awe" stratagy. In states like Pennsylvania, Obama has an infrastructure disadvantage because the machine pols favor Clinton. Therefore, he has to wage a battle over the airwaves. However, ads aren't as effective as feet on the ground, and while Obama's effort on that front has been impressive, it's not as entrenched as the establishment's machine. So, he can't close the deal, no matter how much he spends, and this shouldn't be surprising. In the general election, either candidate would have use of the machine system and so the hurdle should be easier to overcome.

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

He's not paying street money.

by politicsmatters on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:45:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Barack Obama nerve (1.00 / 2)

Sit down, I'm sure you must feel dizzy with that spin.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:46:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by rfahey22 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No moreso than the people who continue to argue, "He spent $X, therefore he must win." Seriously, have ads ever been shown to bring a candidate from 20 points down to victory? I find that ridiculous.

by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you deny his argument? Or do you always just post one-liners to questions about your diaries?

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

I deny his argument has any merit. I'm sorry, but it did get me dizzy just reading it.

by pollbuster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:00:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by rfahey22 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:08:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As opposed to your own authority-free spin? Where are those supposed authorities who said, in the last few days, that Obama would win PA?

by southernman on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:05:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what on Earth was wrong with the comment you rated as a 1 that I posted a while back?

That's an abuse of the ratings. I, in no way, disparaged you, or anyone else. Grow up.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

Sorry about that it was a mistake, I removed it.

by pollbuster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:03:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Barack Obama nerve (2.00 / 0)

Can you go back through your diary and remove all the other TRs you dished out by mistake to every post that disagreed with you.

by interestedbystander on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:10:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

No, there were no other mistakes, but I did notice a few on the part of your side, so in the interests of fairness and objectivity, maybe you should have them corrected. Are fairness and objectivity words that appear in your vocabulary? One sometimes wonders.

by pollbuster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:41:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:11:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's always been my take exactly. She's swept all states with strong, established democratic party machines, both big (California) and small (Rhode Island).

Outside of those states, they both have their own stomping grounds. Among these, Clinton wins aren't likely to translate over - she'll take West Virginia in the primary, she's got a good shot at taking it in the general, and Obama has none whatsoever - she's winning them on her own merits. Same is true for Obama - states like Virginia and Colorado where he won huge victories in the primary, has a decent shot at in the general, and Hillary Clinton doesn't.

The party machine states are much more easily transferred to whoever the nominee is.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

She also is competitive in Tenn. and Kentucky, and would almost certainly win Arkansas. She is also much more competitve in Florida and ohio, which are the 2 most pivotal states in a national election.

by pollbuster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:44:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bleeding the Beast (not Hillary) (none / 0)

Obama is bleeding the Clinton campain of CASH He does not expect to win in PA is his forcing her to spend beyond her means in the state.

As of 11:20pm she has still not posted her March totals, the deadline is midnight. The Clinton campaine is the only one not to upload there reports yet, see below.

Selected Presidential Reports For The 2008 April Monthly

BIDEN FOR PRESIDENT INC (C00431916)
BROWNBACK FOR PRESIDENT INC (C00430694)
CHRIS DODD FOR PRESIDENT INC (C00431379)
FRIENDS OF FRED THOMPSON INC (C00438507)
HUCKABEE FOR PRESIDENT, INC. (C00431809)
HUNTER FOR PRESIDENT INC. (C00431411)
JOHN EDWARDS FOR PRESIDENT (C00431205)
JOHN MCCAIN 2008 INC. (C00430470)
KUCINICH FOR PRESIDENT 2008 (C00430975)
OBAMA FOR AMERICA (C00431445)
RICHARDSON FOR PRESIDENT INC. (C00431577)
ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT INC. (C00431171)
RON PAUL 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (C00432914)
RUDY GIULIANI PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE INC (C00430512)
TANCREDO FOR A SECURE AMERICA (C00431619)

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M4/

He realizes that votes are not going to end this, only the Clinton willingness to take on personal debt for her cause.

In the next 37 minutes we will know if he has been effective.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:24:11 PM EST

Re: Bleeding the Beast (not Hillary) (none / 0)

Interesting - still not there. What happens if you miss the deadline?

by interestedbystander on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:12:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

I just want to say that in 2004 the presumpitive nominee lost the state of VT to a candidate who had dropped out of the race.

Yes Howard Dean won the VT primary after he had dropped out.

Interesting history lesson there.

by Student Guy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:30:22 PM EST

Doesn't this argument also apply the other way? (none / 0)

Neither candidate has been able to put away the other. That probably just means that both are pretty good candidates and that people are having to make a real choice this time.

I think that's just great.

by professor on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:47:14 PM EST

by Dumbo on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:54:02 PM EST

I predict Clinton by 15. That's the latest SUSA poll, plus I add 3/4 of the undecided going for Hillary. Fifteen point spread.

Does Hillary have to win by more than ten points? Yup. And she has to win all the remaining states by more than ten points.

The moment Obama hits the 50%+1 pledged delegate mark (1827 pledged delegates), it becomes even more difficult to make any argument for Hillary remaining in the race. And let's not forget a number of superdelegates have vowed to support the winner of the most pledged delegates. It's an important turning point.

Hillary may win Tuesday, but Obama will win enough delegates to put him closer to that majority marker.

Oops... 1627 is the magic number. (none / 0)

Not 1827.

by Dumbo on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:55:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My mom believed in Jesus, the Pope and FDR..... Just not necessarily in that order.

"As things stand now it looks like Hillary Clinton is on the verge of pulling off Comeback Gal III, and Tuesday night is shaping up to be one that will rock the foundations of this race."

What, she is going to win a state EVERYONE PROJECTED for months she would win?

She lead by 30 Points, she is going to win by between 10 and 14, and that is going to rock the very foundations of the race?

When two weeks later Obama is going to win NC by as much or more, then Indiana by 5?

Foundation rocking, my backside...

by WashStateBlue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:58:21 PM EST

"No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." -Hillary Clinton

As Mark Penn said, it's all about the delegates. Even a blowout win by Hillary in PA will not make significant inroads into Obama's lead.

by fugazi on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:04:30 AM EST

by ProgressiveDL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:05:04 AM EST

"Don't they realize that a winning candidate doesn't lose primaries in late April?"

So what will you say when she loses NC by 15+? What if she also loses IN? Will you have a justification?

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

She isn't the front runner who has supposedly galvanized the nation with his brand of so called new politics and his visions of hope and change, and as such more is expected of this candidate. In fact he is more than a candidate, he is closer to being godly. He is the one expected to win. I'm sorry, but losing like he is going to do on Tuesday is just not acceptable for him, and it will change the dynamics of this race.

by pollbuster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:37:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by rfahey22 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:42:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The only people who profess his sainthood are those in the opposite camp. You give the ex-First Lady of the United States and current Senator from New York too little credit.

Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.

The logical flaw in this argument is that it is the candidate who is behind that must be expected to win if they want to, you know, take the lead. All Obama has to do at this point is run the clock out. Not a very satisfying end to be sure but given the institutional advantages of the Clintons and the strength of Hillary's coalition it might be the only course available to him.

by Obama Independent on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:10:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My mom believed in Jesus, the Pope and FDR..... Just not necessarily in that order.

"but losing like he is going to do on Tuesday is just not acceptable for him, and it will change the dynamics of this race.."

Oh, for goodness sake, a stone-cold Hillary fanatic gins up some rules about acceptability for a front-runner?

She pissed off one of the largest incumbent leads in primary history, a come from in-front losing streak that would have washed out anyone except someone backed by the DLC, the Clinton machine and the ex president himself, but YOU guys keep saying what is acceptable performance for Obama?

The only fatal hubris larger then your candidate is that amongst yourselves, for assuming to portent what is acceptable for Obama as the front runner?

The dynamics of this race have been set since he ran off 11 in a row, gained an insurmountable lead, and Mark Penn and the collosal geniuses running Senator Clintons campaign pulled their collectives heads out of their asses and noticed they had lost....

by WashStateBlue on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:00:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by ProgressiveDL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:45:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She WAS the front-runner for months. She ISN'T the front-runner because her campaign was run poorly. How's that for unacceptable?

Pollbuster (none / 0)

you simply haven't a clue what you are talking about. A win in PA will not guarantee a win anywhere else...just like an IA win didn't guarantee Obama NH.

HRC won't win NC, she likely won't win OR or SD..and IN is certainly a tossup at best.

nice try...but a PA win is expected, therefore the momentum will not be that big.

by southernman on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:11:09 AM EST