Poll Numbers

I usually stay away from the tracking polls, but Rasmussen's numbers are just shocking:

Day Polled      Clinton    Obama

4/27            41         49       
4/28            41         49       (Wright on Press Club Q & A)
4/29            43         47       (Obama throws Wright under Bus)
4/30            46         44       (Yesterday)
That's a 10 point swing which includes 2 days of polling after Obama having held a press conference and spoke about Wright without defending him again, but instead, joined the average American in being outraged.

In NH, McCain is up by 3% over Clinton in NH, 47-44, and McCain leads Obama outside the MOE, by a 51-41 margin in NH. We picked up two seats in NH in 2006, and have a possible pickup in the US Senate there as well. If the GOP finds that they can win by linking candidates to Obama, in the special elections going on right now in LA and MS, they'll extend the template across the nation.

In NC, Mason-Dixon has polled the primary. They find Obama leading Clinton by a 49-42 margin.

87 percent of African Americans plan to vote for Obama, while 62 percent of whites said they will vote for Clinton. There has been very little evidence suggesting either candidate can cut into those numbers before Tuesday.
That's very polarized. Just to give you an indication of how far Obama has fallen with white Democratic voters. Compare this to the Virginia results, which matches up fairly well with NC. In the VA primary, Obama pulled in 90% of the black vote, and it looks like he'll reach a similar amount in NC. Among white voters in VA, Obama won by a 52-47 margin.

The 62 percent of white voters that Clinton has now reached in NC is higher than SUSA's poll (61%) that put the race at 5 percent, and IA's poll (54%), that showed Clinton ahead by 2 percent.

Clinton's problem in NC is similar to a problem that Obama showed in Ohio and Pennsylvania-- her highest poll numbers have been at 44 percent. She'll have to win over the undecideds in order to make a surprise showing in NC.

In IN, Rasmussen has their first poll out, showing Clinton ahead 46-41 over Obama. In the three polls from Indiana taken since 4/25, over the last week. Clinton leads Obama 49.3 - 42, for a 7 percent margin. The previous weeks poll of polls numbers showed Obama slightly ahead of Clinton 45.3 - 45.

In North Carolina, the race is polarizing, but Clinton appears to have a ceiling of support and would need undecideds to break her way again, and in Indiana, Clinton appears to pulling away.



Display:


Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 6)

People don't get it. Democrats have two choices, nominate Clinton and maybe beat McCain and have the White House or nominate Obama and lose.

Its sad but Jeremiah Wright sunk him and will go down in history as the "Willie Horton" moment of this campaign


by rossinatl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:17:30 AM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 1)

I completely disagree. That's a very biased angle on this situation. Both Democrats will have a huge advantage on McCain when the nominee is chosen.

I'll say this every time a poll comes out showing a pro-Obama result or a pro-Clinton result. It means next to nothing. The polling is inherently flawed. It doesn't account for cell phone only users, which is a growing demographic. I don't want to use this space to spell out the dozen or so other problems that exist, but the accuracy of daily polling is the most questionable.

In fact, getting all worked up over a weekly poll is silly. If multiple polls show a trend over multiple weeks it may be that there's a trend. In this case, there may be a story or there may not be a story. Treating those numbers as any kind of accurate predictor of reality is a bit dangerous.


by mikeplugh on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:23:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Changes are informative (none / 0)

I agree with your points in general about the inherent biases in polls. However, the changes are unlikely to be biased becauase the biases should stay constant and cancel out when you compute the day-to-day change.

The fact Obama's poll numbers are dropping is telling us that the Wright controversy and his mis-handling of it are hurting.

Is this a temporary bump or a permanent effect?

That only time can tell.


by BigB on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:43:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Or the changes (none / 0)

Are due to margin of error. Rasmussen doesn't call the same 1600 people everyday, as far as I'm aware.


by Covin on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:08:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually Gallup specifies that they call cells too (none / 0)

"Results are based on telephone interviews with 6,117 registered voters, aged 18 and older, conducted April 21-27, 2008. For results based on the total sample of registered voters, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only)."

....and they have her up over Obama against McCain by as much as 17 points, 14 point lead among Democrats generally ... and even a little lead now among the young too.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106960/Clinto ns-vs-Obamas-Strengths-General-Election. aspx


by dotcommodity on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:34:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Honest questions:

When the Super Delegates decide to go with the elected delegates and nominate Barack Obama, what will Hillary have accomplished?

If the Super Delegates go against the elected delegates and nominate Hillary Clinton, what will Hillary have accomplished?


by not Brit on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:03:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 1)

The Superdelegates have nothing to do with the pledged delegates!

Their job is to look beyond silly caucus and open-to-anyone enrollment contests and wins in states that will have little to do with electing a Democratic Party President.

Their job is to SELECT THE BEST CANDIDATE TO RUN AGAINST McCAIN.

PLEASE get this thru your Obama head.


by dembluestates on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:26:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

I understand this. The Super Delegates can vote any way they please.

You didn't answer either question.


by not Brit on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:37:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

The most likely thing is that NC and IN split.  And then we keep going.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:08:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

If it were Clinton in the lead, it would be something else, but just as damaging.   Who knows what sort of dirt the GOP would dig up, maybe her earmarks or revive some old scandal.  If she were in the lead, I'd support her, but since she isn't...no reason to push her over Obama.


by clad on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:06:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cherry picking (2.00 / 1)


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:19:57 AM EST

Re: Cherry picking (none / 0)

Remember Kobi, Polls are REALLY important and a PERFECTLY ACCURATE prediction of EXACTLY what will happen in November. And please, IGNORE any poll that shows Obama with an advantage. Jerome is smart for NEVER posting polls on the front page when Obama has the momentum, but ALWAYS posting polls when they turn toward Clinton.

Clearly, this poll shows that the lead in delegates, the lead in votes, the lead in states won, the lead in actual numbers of doners and volunteers, and the lead in money raised are TOTALLY INACCURATE reflections of the democratic process.

It is only the opinion of an elite group of SUPER DELEGATES that matters.


by not Brit on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:49:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cherry picking (none / 0)

With tracking polls, you have days dropping out and new ones coming in.  The more positive ones for Obama have dropped out and yet Clinton has only a small lead in Gallup and Rasmussen. Meanwhile, Obama is ahead in several other national polls.

This whole things will take some time to shake out. It is possible that Obama won't convincingly bounce back and won't get back to an 8-10 point lead. But we will have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, superdelegates are casting their votes and Obama is now +5 for the day.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:10:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (1.50 / 2)

This is more evidence of what a divisive polarizing candidate Hillary Clinton is. Do we want another 4 years of this?


by ImpeachBushCheney on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:20:12 AM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 4)

Another interesting comment from a supporter of the only canidiate who is getting lock step support (90-10) in his own base, while alienating Latinos, working class whites (bitter whites, in his own words), and women.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:22:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Be careful of those kinds of comments. Calling support among African-Americans "lock step" is a borderline offensive comment that assumes that his support is only built on racial identity. I also think it's a complete distortion to say that he's alienating Latinos. The trend suggests that the diverse Latin community breaks down by age similar to other voting blocks. He also never said "bitter whites". Find that comment anywhere.


by mikeplugh on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:26:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 4)

I don't think it's racist to say that the outpouring of AA support to Obama has been in part due to his race, especially when the support is 9 out of 10. Of course, if the white support was 90-10 for Clinton, the cries of racism would be flying everywhere. (and probably justifiably so). Speaking the truth does not make one racist, and that is often the problem with the Obama campaign: the race card.

As for not alienating Latinos, while you can talk about "Age groups", in any state with a significant (re: election shifting) Latino population, Obama has gotten smoked by around 30-40 points most times. You can triangulate about "age groups" all you want, but there's a reason that he's poised to lose Latinos to the GOP: they don't like the guy.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:32:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

I never used the word racist. Never. I simply said be careful about suggesting it's a "lock step" support. That's a dangerous way to frame it. The race card is a figment of a collective imagination that was fueled by Bill Clinton.

Also, I don't triangulate. I hate triangulation. Suggesting that there's one Latino voting block is also a dangerous and over-simplified premise. Latinos "don't like the guy?" I don't even know what to say to that.


by mikeplugh on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:36:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 2)

You said it was a "borderline offensive comment". In terms of the subject matter that we're discussing, I think you can safely say that you were trying to paint my words as "borderline racist". As for Bill Clinton "playing the race card", once you said that, you proved that you have indeed gulped down the kool-aid, so I won't even go there but to say that you're wrong and you know you are wrong.

As for your premise that Obama is winning the Latino youth vote, it is actually wrong. Let's go by the numbers, from states with large Hispanic populations, provided from CNN, with exit polls:

Texas:
Latino 18-29, Clinton 51%, Obama 48%

California:
Latino 18-29, Clinton 65%, Obama 35%

New Mexico:
Latino 18-44, Clinton 57%, Obama 41%

Arizona:
Latino 18-44, Clinton 54%, Obama 44%

So, even if your premise stands that the Latino population is segemented (which is triangulating, trying to say that somehow, Obama equals out the Latino vote with youngsters, which isn't true since the vast majority of the Latino voting bloc is 40+), Clinton seems to be doing just fine with Latino young voters, much better than Obama.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:54:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Your feigned sensitivity/outrage or whatever it is feels like 2008.


by reggie44pride on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

We never said that the outpouring of white women to Hillary is sexist, but there you have it.


by Spanky on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 1)

Touche'.  However, if Hillary were getting 90% of the female vote the way Obama is getting 90% of the AA vote this would be over.


by dMarx on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Acknowledging reality is not racist (2.00 / 3)

Saying that Obama gets 90% AA support because he is AA is not racist but just an acknowledgment of identity politics.

This Wright controversy is a self-inflicted wound for Obama and has nothing to do with the Clintons.

Obama could have taken care of this problem a long time ago.

That he chose not to do that calls into question his judgment which is the only thing he has to run on.


by BigB on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:47:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 2)

This kind of monolithic support in a primary is unusual for the AA community, but not in the GE, where blacks vote Democratic with near uniformity.  Try to not take offense when someone points out the obvious.


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:51:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 2)

What is 90% if not lock-step?


by Rooktoven on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:26:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

What other adjective or set of adjectives would define the 90% bloc-voting pattern? Perhaps, "lock step" sounds harsh...so, would the generic "identity politics" voting pattern be more acceptable usage here?  In any event, while bloc voting may reflect perceived longterm issue voting, isn't something else in the short term? By "something else," I only mean voting identity through the one most like oneself.  


by christinep on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:07:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama also alienates Gays and Lesbians (2.00 / 2)

Obama also alienates Gays and Lesbians. He threw the Gay Community under the bus early on by his utilizing McGlurkin and a bunch of Anti-Gay clergy to jump start his campaign in South Carolina.


by maxstar on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:30:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure he does (none / 0)

Obama alienates gays and lesbians by treating like he treats everyone else?

When was the last time Clinton spoke openly about gays to a non-GLBT audience?  Obama does it all the time.  Obama chastized the parishoners of Ebeneezer Church... Martin Luther King, Jr.'s people... for not being charitable enough to gays.  He talks about gay rights as if they were civil rights... which they are.

Obama will repeal DOMA and DADT, both of which got enacted during Bill's tenure.  Clinton would only repeal part of DOMA and still let the states discriminate.

The LGBT support of Clinton is entirely based on pandering.  There is no evidence that she's better than Obama, and some to suggest that she'll be worse.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:36:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sure he does (2.00 / 2)

The same Obama that would be "better", since he doesn't want to get his picture taken with Gavin Newsom because of his support for gay marriage?

The same Obama that hires people to go on his tours when they preach about "pray the gay away" and how homosexuals are "trying to kill our children", and then doesn't apologize?

The same Obama that has given a total of one interview to a gay publication in this entire election cycle?

Or is it the same Obama that dropped gays and lesbians from his stump speech in various socially conservative states, like Idaho?

Or maybe the same Obama who counts Rev. James Meeks, a member of "Focus on the Family", a close personal friend and advisor?

This in comparison with Hillary, who is out and vocal about her support of the GLBT community, HAS spoken openly about it a number of times including on national television, HAS marched in a gay pride parade multiple times, and has consistently been a friend to our community? DADT, by the way, was socially progressive for it's time, and you can ask anyone who was around back then and they will agree.

You may call it pandering, but to the gay community, who has spoken to the tune of an 65-35 exit poll split for Hillary, they call it a canidiate who they believe in. It's obvious what the voters prefer.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:42:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They might believe in Clinton (none / 0)

but that doesn't mean they believe in the right candidate for their issues.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:57:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They might believe in Clinton (2.00 / 2)

lol, sorry. The reason why I don't want to vote for Obama is because I prefer to vote for canidiates who aren't public homophobes. That's how I know who best matches my values.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:01:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Slander (none / 0)

Obama is no public homophobe, and you have no proof of that.  Doing a campaign event with an "ex-gay" is not sufficient justification.

If you read Obama's interview with The Advocate, you'll see why he hasn't done more, and what his true stands are.  He's a far better friend to the gays than Clinton is.  Clinton is the kind of friend who will say what you want to hear when she needs something from you, but will never admit to being friends with you when you're not together.

Oh, god, she's your frenemy!


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:10:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Slander (none / 0)

How many gay pride parades has BHO marched in? hint... one less than he's marched w/ anti-semitic homophobe Minister Farrakhan.


by BlueDoggyDogg on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:06:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gays and Reagan Democrats (none / 0)

Reagan convinced a lot of Democrats to vote against their interests, too.  Now that was some good pandering.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:07:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Talk, Talk--Speaches, Speaches (2.00 / 1)

I could care less what he says in a political speech. I want some pandering. We are a party of coalitions--and Gay population is an important part of the Democratic Coalition(just as big as the African-American vote). Hillary came out with plans to allow Gay Partners who are on expiring H1 Visa's apply for citizenship based on family status, use foreign policy for treating Gay Rights as Human Rights and came out with a program to decrease Gay Teen Suicide. Those are more important issues to me than the Iraq War.


by maxstar on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:46:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah, so you want pandering, eh? (none / 0)

Well, Hillary's certainly good at that.  The question is whether she'll come through on it.  Her record isn't all that great when it comes to actually following through for the gay community.

Obama will give gays, lesbians, and transgendereds the same rights that straights have in terms of domestic partnership. He's not going to make special laws for gays, because he considers gays to be normal people the same as everyone else.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:58:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah, so you want pandering, eh? (2.00 / 2)

Just like he threw us all under the bus for the conservative black vote too, right?

Hillary's record is much better than Barack's in "Coming through for the gay community", in light of The Messiah not having one.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:02:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tell me what she's done. (none / 0)

I honestly have never heard of Clinton doing anything for gays.

And I have no idea what you're on about with regards to the "conservative black vote."


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:13:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell me what she's done. (none / 0)

what has BHO done besides just yap about how much he would help us? well talk is cheap and Bill & Hillary got a lot of hell for DADT but still fought hard for it and now she is gonna take the next logical step and let us serve openly.  BHO may talk a good game but so did Bush w/ his "compassionate conservatism" and look how good that turned out!

I'll stick w/ the woman who has been fighting for our rights for 15 years then go w/ the guy that sends anti-gay preachers to advocate for him and ran from gay marriage trailblazer Gavin Newsom (who strongly supports Hillary) like he had the plague when was running for the Senate seat in IL.


by BlueDoggyDogg on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If this is indeed the case, it hasn't (none / 0)

affected John Aravosis and his friends at Americablog.  It used to be pro-Hillary there, but now it's adamantly for Obama.


by Radiowalla on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:49:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama also alienates Gays and Lesbians (none / 0)

Hillary threw gays under the bus when she accepted being called a pansy and laughing about it from her anti gay NC governor.


by Spanky on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:09:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama also alienates Gays and Lesbians (none / 0)

wow u have a thin skin, just like your candidate who whines we he can't finish his waffles.  We need a fighter in the White House, politics is a blood sport ya know.


by BlueDoggyDogg on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:59:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Unlike Clinton (none / 0)

Who supported DADT, who supported DOMA, and who counts as her closest adviser the person who signed both into law?  The candidate who felt that it was relevant that Obama dared speak in "San Francisco?"  The one whose surrogates talk about how other men are "pansies?"

Whatever.


by Drew on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:08:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unlike Clinton (none / 0)

don't forget BHO's buddy McGlurkin and his cowardly running from Gavin Newsom because he didn't want to even be PHOTOGRAPHED w/ a pro-gay marriage mayor.


by BlueDoggyDogg on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:03:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 2)

Stop this nonsense! You must be drunk on kool-aide because there is no other explaination for your blatant lie here.

This is NOT evidence of how polarizing Hillary is, it is evidence of how polorizing REVEREND WRIGHT is.

DO YOU WANT TO WIN IN NOVEMBER, OR NOT?


by Misty Mountain Maggie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:23:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I want to win (none / 0)

But I'd rather take a shot at winning by doing the right thing than cave in to fear and old-school politicking and try to win the way we've always tried to win.

Clinton's 50%+1 Strategy has failed us so many times before; it's just not a robust method of winning elections; it's lazy.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:40:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I want to win (none / 0)

Apparently the 40%+1 strategy that Obama is attempting to use isn't going to work too well either. (Might want to take a look at the polls)


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:43:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I want to win (none / 0)

It is May.  The race hasn't even started yet.  Once Clinton finally bows out of this thing then we can start talking about GE polls.  Until then they don't mean much.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:51:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I want to win (none / 0)

Gennifer Flowers is out there again.  She is going to be interviewed by the AP press.  The repugs will be dragging out Monica Lewinsky, and all the other dirt they have been holding back to go against Hillary.  


by Spanky on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:11:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I want to win (2.00 / 3)

Good job, Obama supporter. Here we go with the sexual slurs.  Been waiting for it...

"His [Obama's]campaign staffers, too, have become frustrated by the focus of the media's attention, specifically that the press has not covered Clinton in the way they expected it would. During an interview this summer, Obama's friend Valerie Jarrett said to me, unbidden, "He is a man who is devoted to his wife. There aren't going to be any skeletons in his closet in terms of his personal life at all. Period." And at a campaign event in Iowa, one of Obama's aides plopped down next to me and spoke even more bluntly. He wanted to know when reporters would begin to look into Bill Clinton's postpresidential sex life."

Whole article 12-15-07:  http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arch ives/2007/12/obama_on_negative_campaigni ng.php

(Sorry, not sure how to make it a live link.)


by ahw on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:24:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 1)

I thought we were talking about Obama. Your right its polarizing and devisive, but it's he who is the recipient of that claim.


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:31:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 1)

Obama gets 90% of the black vote and that's non polarization?  


by ottovbvs on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:04:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Hillary get most of the women vote and that is not polarizing???


by Spanky on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not polarization if it's their common interest (none / 0)

On top of sharing a common background, Obama's policies are very good for those interested in civil rights and poverty issues; blacks have a lot of unity when it comes to voting for these things.  Unity is not polarization.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

I wonder what things would look like today if Clinton had suspended her campaign after her horrible February and had been actively supporting Obama for the last two months.

When this ends the way it was obvious it would back in February but with an incredibly polarized and fractured party....I know who I'll be blaming.  Pretty sad.


by ChrisKaty on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:21:32 AM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 2)

gee, we could just flip that around and state what would have happened if Obama suspended his campaign and had been actively supporting Clinton for the last 2 months.

I know who I will be blaming and it isn't Hillary


by colebiancardi on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:22:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, but that would be stupid (none / 0)

Obama never lost 11 in a row and has never been behind in the delegate count.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:41:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How about if he suspended his campaign (none / 0)

after Hillary won Super Tuesday ? Its ridiculous to demand that your opponent give up.


by dotcommodity on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:46:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 4)

Gotta love it--blame Hillary for Wright. Blame Hillary for bittergate. Blame Hillary for Ayers. And now, if he's nominated, you'll blame her for the loss?

Oh, puh-lease. If Obama was the messiah you all tout him as, then none of this would have affected him. This buyers remorse would have set in either way, and I've got some bad news for you: the maginfiying glass would be even sharper. No Bosnia to distract, no Hillary "going negative" memes from the press, no Hillary to vilify, and just like in 2004, the entire press would have turned on Obama months ago.

Are you sure you want to make that statement?


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:25:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

I'm not blaming Clinton for any of that.  She's been very reserved about criticizing Obama about all those issues, overall.

I just think Hillary supporting Obama would have the Democrats in a much stronger, more unified position than they are right now.  Obviously that's speculation on my part, but I think having Clinton on Obama's side would be doing wonders with his working-class support.

It's just frustrating for those of us who saw how unlikely a Clinton nomination was months ago.


by ChrisKaty on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:31:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 1)

I think Obama supporting Hillary two months ago would have solved all of the problems we face right now.

I'm just frustrated because I saw how unlikely an Obama win in the general was months ago.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:33:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, but how would that happen? (none / 0)

The front runner never drops out to support the second place runner.

Can't you see how bizarre that would have been?


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:42:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, but how would that happen? (2.00 / 1)

Hillary was the front runner for most of the time. 2 days prior to Iowa caucus he was shown as having a smaller chance (around 20%) than she is now (and the longer time period he had left is factored into that. No one was calling for him to drop out and no doubt this negative meme he started about here character (would say anything etc) has hurt her and the Dems chances.


by zebedee on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:57:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Welcome back, Silly Season (none / 0)

Prior to Iowa the game hadn't even started; you can't possibly suggest that Obama should have dropped out before a single delegate was allocated.

Comparing then to the point where it became mathmatically near impossible for Clinton to win is absurd.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:39:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Welcome back, Silly Season (none / 0)

Mathematically impossible? Intrade says around 25%. If you don't believe this you can get a 33% return on your money in a few weeks. And I didn't expect him to drop out, nor should anyone expect Hillary to while she has a fair chance, better than his way prior to Iowa.


by zebedee on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:10:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mathmatically impossible... (none / 0)

There would have to be a ridiculously huge scandal for him to not be the nominee; bigger than anything that's hit so far this season.  Or an assassination.

I am not a gambling man, but 25% is an exceedingly generous estimate.  At most, we're talking 5%.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Get over yourself and your predictions.  You're a walking Self fulfilling prophecy.  Our nominee (whoever that may be) WILL WIN.  But if folks like you don't stop disparaging the other candidate for the Dems, the damage will be tough to overcome.  BUT IT IS POSSIBLE.  Our candidate is much better than McSame.  Keep  that in mind.  Even if the candidate isn't my choice (Hillary), I'm going to support him.  Come on now, be a good DEM and start accepting either one as a far better choice than McSame!


by citizensane on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:27:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

It depends on what you think Obama's problem with the working class is. I argue that his approach to domestic policy is what hurts him, so unless he changed that approach no surrogate would have much luck winning working class swing voters for him. Endorsements have not had much impact this cycle, or for the last few cycles, Hillary Clinton's support would not improve his prospects much.

Now, if he were to concede that market based fixes won't solve critical economic problems like health care coverage and the income gap Clinton might be able to give him some credibility. But he is clearly unwilling to do so, and in fact makes criticism of government intervention the basis of his negative issue attacks.


by souvarine on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:50:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

The power of the angry feelings in this fair battle of Democrats is truly, truly puzzling to me. I just can't fathom why people come into a forum like this (on either side) and spew their frustration out with comments that border on the extreme.

Hillary isn't to blame for anything. Some may say that she started the negative campaigning, but I won't. It doesn't even matter at this point. Both have engaged the negative tone. She's made mistakes. He's made mistakes. They're both flawed candidates.

Obama supporters don't see him as a messiah. It's not a cult. It's not a bunch of lemmings. Hillary supporters, likewise, aren't any of those things. It's counterproductive to suggest that people in our Party are excited about their own candidate. It destroys us.

The choice is about leadership style. It's a legitimate and intellectual choice as much as it's an emotional one. Pick your side, but keep the emotions in check.


by mikeplugh on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:32:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 1)

From the Clinton side it is pretty simple, people don't like to be accused of racism. Even in a coded "careful of those kinds of comments" way.


by souvarine on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:56:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You want a coronation not a contest (2.00 / 3)

I see, so Hillary should just drop out and let Obama take the nomination.

Why couldn't Obama defeat Hillary in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania with all his media, money and establishemnt advantage?

His delegate lead is padded by his caucus wins in red states.

If he is as strong a candidate as you think he is how come he keeps losing big-state primaries?


by BigB on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:52:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You want a coronation not a contest (none / 0)

Maybe because he has approximately 2 years of National spotlight (and in reality a lot less,) while she has been in the national spotlight for going on 16 years. Just a thought...


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:59:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You want a coronation not a contest (none / 0)

Um, nice try, but Hillary had all the establishment support in Pennsylvania.


by Angry White Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:02:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 1)

Oh give me a break. It seems you wanted to have it the easy way. If you want anyone to blame, blame the media and their absolute Grade-A driving of this entire election season. Sen. Clinton has done nothing but drive on with her own campaign, same as Obama has done. Equal numbers of voters now say they won't support the other in the fall, so I'd say the blame goes both ways if that's the metric you're looking at.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:52:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Obama is still leading nationally, and he is doing better against McCain in Florida and Ohio than he has from the last poll done by Q.  Also, Obama is now winning PA.  Yoo Hoo!.  I also predict that Obama will win Indiana, and NC.  Yoo Hoo again!


by Spanky on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:21:44 AM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

You wish.

See you Wednesday Spanky.


by Misty Mountain Maggie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:24:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Your in fantasy land. Leading Nationally and going to win in Indiana and NC...LOL-ROF. I suppose your one of those run of the mill supporters, who goes with the polls as long as they show your candidate winning, but when they go against the grain of your thinking, then you rant and rave like a lost child.


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:34:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

People don't get it. Democrats have two choices, and most of them already made theirs. In fact, so many have that, it's just about mathematically impossible for Clinton to be "chosen" by those remaining.

But keep on dreaming. And Jerome, you've looked at Tracking Polls many many times on this site -- just only when it reenforces your view.

Given the media attention of the last few days, there is nothing shocking that Obama would be faltering. It's happened before. He's always bounced back.

Let's wait a day or two and see how that really comes together. Hillary's polls were pretty sucky during the Bosnia thing too.

That said, Hillary winning NC would be a massive upset. But don't look at any of these primaries too hard in a General Election context. NBC's latest polling shows clearly that McCain's relationship with Bush trumps anything on the Democrats, and that's barely begun to register with voters who are all focused on the Democrats.

Either candidate will best McCain easily, so long as the both candidates don't scorch the earth with each others' blood.

This site doesn't always help with that goal.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:23:58 AM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 1)

And Kos does? Apparently any site that isn't a echo chamber for the Wright Choice is "Divisive".


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:26:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Who said anything about what Kos does with polls? Who called this blog "divisive"? Why don't you stick to the issue at hand?


by Hocabsurdumst on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:34:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Oh, I don't know, did you try reading the post above mine?


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:36:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Yes, I did read it. I just read it again and I still don't see the terms "divisive" or "Kos" in it anywhere. Maybe you're reading comprehension is better than mine... could you please quote what section of that post your response was engaging?

By the way, you're missing a subordinate clause in your signature line.


by Hocabsurdumst on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:42:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Hey -- you're using Obama grammar. Clinton grammar don't need no stinkin' clauses.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:22:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

You mean my post, right?

You know, now when I write any diary, I have to include that "yes, I know, Kos hired the dingoes that ate your baby" or somesuch to alleviate the inevitable "why don't you go to cause and tell him to stop keying your car, if you're so mad that Clinton supporters are keying your car" and so on and so forth.

I did say both camps. Obviously, I think Hillary is the main salter of the earth so that no Democrats will grow again, but I respect others see the opposite. We all see what we want sometimes, and we all are able to dismiss what we don't like.

Although its usually best to actually see something when only seeing what you want. Made-up stuff, like what you apparently "saw" in my post are a different matter.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:25:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Your math is like those who drank the "cool-aid". It's dead  or dying as we speak.


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:36:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

It's not my math. It's math. Not even hard math. Just addition, subtraction and the teeny bit of algebra you need to figure out the percentages Hillary would have to win in the remaining states to surpass Obama in the delegate count -- which, like math, isn't subjective. It's counting.

Maybe there should be other things spinners try and turn subjective. Should the Clinton campaign have their own, more favorable alphabet? Maybe supporters can argue her electability using special new street maps that only contain Clinton-supporting roads.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

All the momentum for Clinton in NC is from undecided white women finally consolidating behind Clinton, and white men freaked out by Wright abandoning Obama. There's no reason at this point to not expect the remaining undecided whites to follow the pattern of falling in behind Clinton.

A few points increase, though, in turnout among african-americans, and Obama will be able to endure the bleeding and still win.


by blueflorida on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:25:49 AM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Its hard to tell what's happening with the AA vote on the ground, I looked through a lot of black-focused blogs and saw some grumbling about Obama and the way he dealt with Wright, but also some pragmatic realists.


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:30:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Jerome, you've always been of the belief here that Wright is a nearly fatal wound on Obama. I see it as a harmful distraction, but I do wonder if the folks who find Obama to be synonymous with "Wright" to be those unlikely to ever be fully comfortable with an Obama presidency.

This isn't to call them racist, or whatever. But really, (and there's a more interesting diary in this someday. I tried last night, but an insomniatic pre-schooler and some passed-prime wine killed my prose...) I think the "Wright/Obama" effect isn't people who now question Obama's judgement... but people who see two charismatic blacks standing before adoring audiences... and while one is inspiring, soothing and mainstream, the other scares the crap out of people. As much as I hate Matthews, his comment the other night about them being two sides of the same coin, was illustrative. I think people really see Obama, and fear inside he's Wright. Would Jon Stewart's joke to that effect been so funny without the element of truth?

Anyway, if you're making that leap, if you can't see the two men and separate them as pastor and perishoner, if you can't see this is a standard we've never held for Presidential Candidates before (have we had one so aligned with a church before? If W is a born-again, why do we know so little about his pastors? (Other than known anti-Semite Billy Graham) well, something was bound to bring that fear up anyway.

D'ja think?


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:34:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

And, talking about "enduring" the primary divide based upon the number of AA voters in North Carolina, where does that get us in November?  Math is not limited to "pledged" delegates.  As this moves on, we will be looking at all kinds of permutations and combinations and statistical probability.  That will be especially so if Hillary realizes a nice win in the once-named "tiebreaker" state of Indiana and if she closes to single digits in North Carolina.  That is when the mathematical look at general election demographics will increase.


by christinep on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:16:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

VA vs NC (none / 0)

According to census data, Virginia outpaces NC in educated whites by quite a bit... NC has the research triangle (southern educated whites), but it's really a stretch to compare that to Northern Virginia (not southerners at all)


by Democratic Unity on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:26:45 AM EST

Re: VA vs NC (2.00 / 1)

I don't think its a stretch, over all. The comparison is made quite frequently, but NoVA does have different characteristics, I agree.


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:31:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VA vs NC (none / 0)

No - I agree with you on the comparison between NC and VA. Basically...Virginia = NC minus AAs plus educated whites. So it balances out.

The state of NC is a bit more southern, however - and that is reflected in the racial attitudes of the educated whites in NC. The educated whites in the research triangle are similar to the educated white Democrats in Richmond/Roanoke but NOVA is more like Oregon, frankly. That's the biggest difference. The NOVA turnout machine is pretty well refined, as well, thanks to several really close contested elections where both the primary electorate and GE electorate was activated (2005/2006). Also - NOVA voters are fully federalized because of their proximity to DC. They view campaigns through a much more national lens.

Obama won Virginia by 29 points. I see North Carolina at about 16 points thanks to these differences + some momentum for HRC + Obama losing support amongst Republican crossovers that he enjoyed in January and February.

Unless Rev. Wright pops out again, we'll see that wave crest and recede, and then NC will probably return to it's natural demographic equilibrium.


by Democratic Unity on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:45:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VA vs NC (none / 0)

I know quite a few educated women in NC voting for Hillary. Some of 'em have been closet Hillary supporters (didn't want to be uncool with the cheese 'n wino set), but have been "coming out" as they get riled about the sexism embedded in all the Hillary bashing.

And, come to think of it, I'm pretty edumacated, myself...


by ahw on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:57:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't get it (none / 0)

The Obama campaign has engaged in no sexism.  Why are people voting for Clinton based on sexist attacks?  If they do exist, they're coming from the worst parts of the media (Matthews, Fox) or Republicans.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:42:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Intellectually bankrupt (none / 0)

Come on, "Obama throws Wright under bus?"

Really?  The most hackneyed and currently most over-used cliche on the internet today?  Some creativity, please!

Try something new:

Obama ejects Wright from airlock.
Obama sends Wright hunting with Dick Cheney.
Obama shanks Wright on the prison yard.
Obama steals Wright's clothes while he's skinny dipping.
Obama pays the gay prostitute to say that about Wright.
Obama pyrodefenestrates Wright.
Obama says something about Wright's momma.

As for the polls, Rasmussen seems to generally have a +5% Republican bias, which can sometimes translate to a +5% bias for Clinton in Democratic primary contests.

Anyway, polls were all over the place for PA as well.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:31:41 AM EST

Re: Obama-The Master of Deception! (none / 0)

FAMOUS FIRST WORDS BY OBAMA: "I CAN NO MORE REJECT MY PASTOR AS I COULD MY OWN FAMILY." His Philadelphia Speech in March, 2008.

FAMOUS LAST WORDS BY OBAMA: "GET THE HELL OUT OF MY FACE REV. WRIGHT, I CONDEMN YOU" Tuesday, April 29, 2008.

If that is not politcal pandering, then tell me what is. Obama dropping like a lead balloon in the polls, so better get out and throw this guy under the bus now rather than later.


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:44:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Er, first of all... (none / 0)

He didn't say that second comment.

Secondly, to suggest that nothing had changed from the Philidelphia speech to Tuesday of this week is hiding your head in the sand something fierce.

Wright demonstrated, irrefutably, that he was slapping Obama's gesture of friendship away and working to destroy him.  Anyone would be right to sever all ties.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:50:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Er, first of all... (none / 0)

I get your point that Wright came forth in a newly public aggressive manner.  But, what he said over the years in his church to his parishioners did not appear to change this week.


by christinep on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He was silent for long enough... (none / 0)

Those who would like to think well of him hoped that he had been holding back out of deference to his friend, or had learned the error of his ways.

It's Christian to give second chances; if you give someone a second chance and they punch you in the face, they're fair game.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:30:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

JEROME, i gave paddick my first pref vote. so you can tell him that one vote at least was largely down to you. Ken got second. Things dont look good though, if i had to predict even though the polls where closing up until today, i would say boris by 6.

for everyone else, these number combined with quinnipiacs just released number of florida pa and ohio should worry obamafans.


by zane on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:31:53 AM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

If the crosstabs hold, (Obama 87% blacks, 38% whites) that will be a minimum of a 14 pt win.  And that is assuming blacks only turnout in proportion to their number in registered dems (38%).

Did you know that Hillary supporter Mike Easley never got more than 44% of the white vote in NC?  A true sign of weakness for Obama in NC will be if Hillary takes 70% of whites, or 20% of blacks.


by jimotto on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:35:14 AM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Is that why she leads by 31% among Whites in NC and White working-class voters are flocking to her in droves? Gov. Easley must be doing some real good for her as polls are showing now.


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:47:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Unfortunatley for the Obama campaign, with the most recent polls; this poll in NC qualifies as one thing: an OUTLIER. Clinton was within 7 in the "poll of polls"; a lead double that would be an outlier.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:37:39 AM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

What's going on in here today? The conversation is so irrational. I just don't get the immature tone of this conversation. So many hard feelings.


by mikeplugh on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:38:46 AM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Hard feelings happen late in a tough campaign.  It is good to take a deep breath sometimes.  And, that applies to myself as well.


by christinep on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:28:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 1)

It seems to me the question is now turnout, more than preference.  Obama has been counting on (and getting) record turnout from African-American and young voters.  Historically, these cohorts are most likely not to vote, even when they hold a preference.  Obama has been doing a tremendous GOTV in these areas.  If the campaign is not "fired up" and "ready to roll", these numbers will sink.  

My prediction - Hillary 52- Obama 48.


by Ephus on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:39:06 AM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

I had heard that the young vote for Obama is faltering some, especially in Indiana.


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:48:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Tell that to the 13,000 at Assembly Hall last night in Bloomington.  Versus Clinton's 3,000 on Friday night past.  (Plus finals are over and students are leaving, while Clinton's rally was during dead week).


Hoosiers for Hill -- Barack Obama
by BWasikIUgrad on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:43:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

In NC? No freaking way. Hillary, like Obama in Penn, has a ceiling of about 41-45 percent, depending on the poll. She's looking at about a 10-12 point loss, given the early voting. It is true that Obama needs to get his people out, and if he doesn't (as in Philly) he could underperform.

In Indiana, I think C-53 O-47 is a likely outcome, with the delegates split almost equally.

Her problem will be this: After Tuesday, Obama will be 200 delegates away from securing the nomination. By June 3, he'll be less than 100 away, and that's assuming the supers stay stagnant. Most likely, they won't, and he'll be about 50 away by June, while HRC will be about 150 away. That's tough for her.

To have any chance, she needs to win NC, and win Indiana plus 10. Otherwise, the math is the math, and there is no game changer here.


by jbill on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:51:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Hillary just might get that 10 point victory in Indiana - http://www.theindychannel.com/politics/1 6106143/detail.html?rss=ind&psp=news

If she wins NC (at all) and Indiana (handily), then Obama would have to win Oregon to have a shot, notwithstanding his lead in pledged delegates.


by Ephus on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:11:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

I love how you selectively choose certain polls. LOL

I'll join in on the "Let's show how my candidate is better than yours who will LOSE if he/she is nominated!"

Current GE polls, which are pointless at this time anyways, but whatever, show that Clinton would lose Michigan and Wisconsin.  How is that acceptable?


by RussTC3 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:39:47 AM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Is that why she won Michigan by convincing numbers in the primary. Lose? Doubt it!  Obama took his name off the ballot, stupid decision by him.


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:50:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Oh yes, beating the Kucinich and Gravel "machine" in the Michigan primary is an obvious testament to her electoral strength.  Also, taking from your post obviously Kucinich and Gravel are the smart politicians while Biden and Richardson obviously can't hold there salt because they listened to the rules.


by GobBluth on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:57:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As long as Obama wins North Carolina (none / 0)

I still say that the nomination is his.  I do not think that the superdelegates are going to risk losing the African-American vote for a generation by overthrowing the pledged delegate vote and give the nomination to Hillary.

The loss of the black vote if the superdelegates were to overturn the pledged votes would NOT only impact the general election for the presidency but it too could affect all down tickets for congress and the senate.


by puma on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:40:30 AM EST

Re: As long as Obama wins North Carolina (none / 0)

Yea, let's just throw the gay vote, the Latino vote (supports Hillary but will go McCain if Obama is the nominee per recent polls), and the working class white vote under the bus because the blacks are unhappy.

I guess we're just not as important as some other groups in this party...


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:45:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Easy does it (none / 0)

There's no evidence that the gay or latino votes would definitely be "thrown under the bus."  

Obama is very willing to reach out to these groups, and will.  He's already better on policy for gays than Clinton, and better for many latinos on foreign relations as well.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:47:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Easy does it (none / 0)

First of all, the GLBT vote would never turn to the other side of the aisle, while the AA vote conceivably could (due, in large part to the number number of AA's who are socially conservative.)

I will admit I don't know much about the latino vote other than that it doesn't seem to be in lock step with either party.

Also, I hate to be crass, but what percentage of our base does the GLBT community represent?


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:10:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Up to about 5%, as far as I can tell (none / 0)

1 out of 20 is still a lot of people.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:43:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As long as Obama wins North Carolina (none / 0)

Latinos are going for Obama now, since the Richardson endorsement, and latinos know that the Clintons threw Richardson under the bus, and they don't like it.  The Clintons also threw gays under the bus also.


by Spanky on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:18:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As long as Obama wins North Carolina (none / 0)

"I still say that the nomination is his."

You and every unbiased bean counter.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:45:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As long as Obama wins North Carolina (none / 0)

Oh but it is ok to risk losing the White, Blue-Collar, Hispanic and Womens vote in the Fall. How does that equate into a winner? The majority of Blacks already said they would vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, but almost 50% of Clinton supporters will not. How does that equate into a winner? Bottom line: America is not ready for a Black President


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:53:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If America is (none / 0)

"not ready for a black president," than this country is beyond help.

Am I the only person, who after 8 years of a chimpanzee in the White House wonders whether this great experiment has just about reached the end of the line?


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:11:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As long as Obama wins North Carolina (none / 0)

"Bottom line: America America is not ready for a Black President"

If the bottomline is America's racism, then it's time to decide if you're fighting on the side of that racism or against it.

If you truly believe that's the bottomline, then voting for Obama becomes the only ethical choice.

(PS to make myself clear: this doesn't apply to those people who feel the bottomline is different -- the ethical imperative applies only to those who feel that it's racism that is the paramount bottomline that is hurting Obama's candidacy)


by Aris Katsaris on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:28:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As long as Obama wins North Carolina (none / 0)

If America isn't ready for a black president then how does it help anyone by running a black for president? I don't see the logic from Obama supporters on this. It seems that they magically think that forcing a black candidate on the electorate will change attitudes.

Personally I think a black candidate can win but not Obama. He isn't qualified and has given the electorate too many reasons not to vote for him.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:09:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As long as Obama wins North Carolina (none / 0)

"If America isn't ready for a black president then how does it help anyone by running a black for president? "

Because "America" doesn't exist separately and apart from American citizens.

The following two scenarios:
a)Voting against a black candidate because you are a racist.
b)Voting against a black candidate because other people are racists and you want to go along with them.

are morally equivalent.

Either way it'd be the wishes of racism that would be motivating you, and it'd be the political positions of racism that you'd be strengthening with your vote. A racist because of societal pressure is still a racist.

If America's "not ready for a black president" then the people who are to blame are the people who would not vote for a black president because of his race -- and that'd include all of those who justify it because "America is not ready".

Make America ready.


by Aris Katsaris on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:49:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As long as Obama wins North Carolina (none / 0)

There you guys go again. Reinforcing my belief that the only defense Obama has against anything is to scream racism! racism! It's getting tiresome.

Obama has huge problems but you guys ignore them with screams or racism. Is that the excuse that you're going to use if Obama is the nominee and loses in Nov.? I know the answer already. But you can scream it and attack the voters all you want but it won't change the fact that Obama won't be in the oval office.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:29:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As long as Obama wins North Carolina (none / 0)

Bullshit. Someone else already argued that the main problem for Obama's nomination was white racism.

I responded that IF such is the case, then it becomes a moral imperative to support Obama. I even clarified with PS notes and the like, just so people like you wouldn't go out of their way to misunderstand it. As you indeed did do.

That's all I said, and if you can't read properly, that's not my problem at all, it's yours.


by Aris Katsaris on Fri May 02, 2008 at 06:58:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As long as Obama wins North Carolina (none / 0)

I do not think that the superdelegates are going to risk losing the African-American vote for a generation by overthrowing the pledged delegate vote and give the nomination to Hillary.

I wish people would stop acting like the AA vote is the only one they risk losing by overturning the PD lead.  If that happens, it will alienate a large portion of the Democratic party (myself included), not just the AAs.
by ChrisKaty on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:57:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As long as Obama wins North Carolina (none / 0)

How do you think they female about losing the women's vote? Because if they hand him the nomination by ignoring Florida and Michigan, I guarantee you they will lose female support in huge numbers.


by cc on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:06:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ramussen (1.85 / 7)

is a poll even Chris Matthews won't use.

No doubt Obama has lost some support...... but it is nothing that he can't win back.

Clinton can not win unless she does a coup of the democratic party.

Her goal in staying in the race has been to serve herself, not the party in hopes that she could paint Obama as a radical black extremists.

The two people who have the most in common here as far as narcissistic self serving egos go, are Hillary Clinton and Jeremiah Wright, who both seem to be willing to do anything and say anything to satiate their own sense of power and entitlement.

Both are willing to undercut the people they pretend to serve.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:40:39 AM EST

Re: Ramussen (2.00 / 1)

Egh, I guess that outlier showing her down 15 in NC doesn't matter at all then, right?

PS-you earned a troll rec for the bottom half of your post. Comparing Hillary to a frothing from the mouth bigot doesn't sit well with me or many others.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:45:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ramussen (none / 0)

"PS-you earned a troll rec for the bottom half of your post. Comparing Hillary to a frothing from the mouth bigot doesn't sit well with me or many others."

MyDD guideline: #  * Do not troll rate (rating as 0) another user's comment unless it is a comment that is an attack on another user. Abusing this privilege will result in all your ratings being erased and/or getting a warning, or being banned.

Should I troll rate you for this?

Nah. But hopefully Jerome will when he reads it.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:49:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ramussen (1.00 / 1)

Troll rate is a "1". a Hide Rate is a "0", there sport, and the guidelines that he typed out, I believe, were in error in regards to that. I rated the comment a "1". But nice try. Really.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:59:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ramussen (2.00 / 1)

I uprated them because while I don't agree with the comment it is not worthy of a troll rating. It has been discussed, at length, on this site that you aren't supposed to troll rate people simply because you don't like what they had to say.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ramussen (none / 0)

No nominee can win when they are seen as the most dishonest.  McCain would crush Hillary in a GE.


by Spanky on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:19:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ramussen (2.00 / 1)

have you seen the ohio and penn results in the dem primary?

people trust obama more, and he lost.

everyone knows politicians lie.


by yellowdem1129 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:24:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

I wonder what the one day polling numbers were? It would be interesting to see how much of an effect Wright has had day to day.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:47:38 AM EST

More relevant news (none / 0)

Obama not only has a Wright problem, but other associational problems as well.  Father Pfleger will  be a headache -- it's now clear he's very close to Obama.  See http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/obama.je remiah.wright.2.711811.html

He's counseling Wright and Obama -- but he loves Farrakhan.  That will not play well in October.

And now Quinnipiac has Hill running better than Obama in three swing states:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2008/05/quinnipiac_hillary_runs_ strong.php

   Florida
    Clinton (D) 49%, McCain (R) 41%
    McCain (R) 44%, Obama (D) 43%

   Sample: 1,411 Florida voters. Margin of error: ±2.6%.

   Ohio
    Clinton (D) 48%, McCain (R) 38%
    McCain (R) 43%, Obama (D) 42%

   Sample: 1,127 Ohio voters. Margin of error: ±2.9%.

   Pennsylvania
    Clinton (D) 51%, McCain (R) 37%
    Obama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 38%

   Sample: 1,494 Florida voters. Margin of error: ±2.5%.


by katmandu1 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:49:58 AM EST

Wow, more narrow-minded distractions! (none / 0)

Father Pfleger is a good man and has done a lot of good for his community.  He doesn't deserve to be character assassinated as Wright was.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:52:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why is PA a problem? (none / 0)

It looks like he is kicking McCain's ass in that poll.  

Actually, why are Ohio & FL problems?  It looks like a tie to me.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:55:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More relevant news (none / 0)

This totally undercuts the electability argument. Obama is statistically tied in 2, and up in the other considerably. He's yet to campaign in Florida.  He'll win Ohio once the nomination is settled. He'll also win Michigan and Wisconsin, two states HRC struggles in GE matchups.

Plus, the "electability" cabal is missing one big point: McCain has a ceiling of about 45, even in a time in which the two Dems are swinging at each other and he's coasting along and watching the bloodletting. Once the party coalesces behind the nominee (Obama, I'm almost certain), McCain will have a ton of problems getting his numbers up.


by jbill on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:56:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More relevant news (none / 0)

I love how these polls are considered poor.

Florida
Obama  - 43 (39)
McCain - 44 (41)
McCain +2 improves to McCain +1

Pennsylvania
Obama  - 47 (43)
McCain - 38 (39)
Obama +4 improves to Obama +9

The PA poll is obviously the biggest improvement.  Nice to see confirmation that the faux-outrage over the "Bitter" comments had a positive effect on Obama's numbers.

Ohio is the only one that shows no positive movement, but it's a very minimal movement towards McCain.  I've said many, many times that I don't think Ohio and PA are issues at all.

Ohio
Obama  - 42 (43)
McCain - 43 (42)
Obama +1 declines to McCain +1


by RussTC3 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

I feel like all of this agonizing now will dissipate when Obama is declared the nominee in the first week of June. He needs to survive this most recent storm, win NC, finish in shouting distance in IN and then win OR and there will be nothing she can do to catch him in the delegate race. At that point he will have two months to heal the party rift, figure out a long term strategy for managing the Wright fiasco and head into the fall to whitewash McCain. I know things feel bleak now for Obama supporters, but the fact remains that this race was essentially decided in February and nothing short of a complete meltdown in his superdelegate support will change that. Cherry pick polls, rightly note that Clinton has momentum, and bitch and moan about Obama's "electability", but face the fact that Obama is our nominee.


by wasder on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:51:53 AM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

I don't believe things feel bleak for Obama supporters.  I think we are just tired of this useless race that is, for all intents and purposes, over.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:57:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

"I think we are just tired of this useless race that is, for all intents and purposes, over."

That's for sure. I personally feel bleak because the race has turned so unpleasant and is hinging on such trivialities and non-substantive issues. It is tiring and boring all at the same time. I do know however that he needs merely to ride this month out and then march on to the fall. There is nothing to suggest that the supers are going to do anything but they have been doing even this week--moving steadily towards Obama.


by wasder on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

This is more than a "storm" that Obama needs to survive.  Checking political history, it might be called the self-inflicted wound that keeps ulcerating.  Again, the Republicans will not be as constrained as Democrats when pushing the "know them by the friends they keep" theme this fall. Of course, add Rezko & Ayers to Wright for painting the portrait of a man and his judgment.  Take a look at the Denver Post editorial today.


by christinep on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:37:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

All this movement away from Obama, doesn't do a whit of good unless he stops getting SD endorsements.

The New Hampshire poll really throws doubt about Obama's ability to win white voters even in New England.

Can the Democrats stop choosing bad candidates?


by mikelow1885 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:59:10 AM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 1)

There's something everyone needs to face:
Obama is a sure general election loser.

The second thing we need to face is that:
The party may not care and is really not wanting to win in the fall.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:09:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

anybody who says that they know that either of these candidates are a sure GE loser is talking out of their nether regions.


by wasder on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Look at the polls. Look at how Obama's numbers have collapsed with Wright alone with just Democratic voters. And all that's before the GOP gets done with the rest of his creepy associations from Chicago.

He's being defined by the GOP. He doesn't fight back. All these are loser qualities in a candidate. Whining wins you no points with the general electorate.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

I agree that whining wins nothing but I think that trying to project what will happen in November based on what is going on in the Dem nomination battle is foolhardy. The dynamic between Obama and McCain will be totally different than the Clinton/Obama dynamic and Obama will have a united party behind him.


by wasder on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:24:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Why do you think Obama will have a united party behind him? This is the absolutely most arrogant statement that Obama supporters put forth constantly. 1/3 of the voters say that they will leave if Obama is the nominee. He is doing nothing to change that. He isn't trying to get Hillary voters on board. He is completely racially polarizing the party. Lots of voters over 45 simply won't vote for him because he isn't qualified. Some people think that voting on whose best for the country is more important than voting party. There's no proof of democrats falling in line behind Obama.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:59:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

I'll bet you a million bucks the dynamics between Obama and McCain would be 100% different and you'd see the poll numbers in Oct showing McCain winning handily with his unified party behind him. UNLESS....McCain picks Cheney for his VP.


by Justwords on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:23:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, he's not. (none / 0)

Quit talking out of your ass.  You cannot presume to know the preferences of 120 million American voters six months from now.

We can argue which factors will matter most and what can happen between now and then, but no one is a "sure" loser at this point.


by corph on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, he's not. (none / 0)

You can use history as a judge. Obama has all the qualities of previous democratic electoral losers:

1. eltism

  1. whiny
  2. doesn't respond to attacks
  3. effette
  4. Plus he has no visible qualifications

I see him as another Dukakis and it's 1988 again. People were tired of the Reagan administration and wanted change. Obama has not secured a winning coalition for a general election.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:15:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

I'm starting to think the same.


by christinep on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

New Hampshire (none / 0)

is always strange when it comes to how they vote and is not really a good barometer for how the rest of NE will vote.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:15:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Translation (none / 0)

What the post says:

I usually stay away from the tracking polls, but Rasmussen's numbers are just shocking

What this really means:

I usually stay away from the tracking polls, but Rasmussen's numbers favor Hillary Clinton.


by TL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:59:24 AM EST

Poll Numbers (none / 0)

If I understand correctly how a 4-day tracking poll works, this 6% swing since yesterday means yesterday's actual polling was 24% better for HRC than the day that drops out (4/27). Seems implausibly high but no doubt something significant is happening


by zebedee on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:00:11 PM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

No, you don't understand how it works. You don't just add data but also subtract data each day.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:12:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

I did. If you take out 4/27 and add yesterday's you end up with 6% different average, hence the fifference between the two individual days must be 24%.

Am I doing anything wrong?


by zebedee on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you forgot.... (none / 0)

..to note the day that Wright threw Obama under the bus.


d
by d on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:02:50 PM EST

To those who say Hillary can win in November (none / 0)

None of you Hillary supporters ever factor in the fact that the only way she will win the nomination at this point is by superdelegates overturning the pledged delegate vote total.

That is not her fault, it is a dumb system.  And she definitely has a chance to win by this method.  But it's her only chance, and it necessarily involves a much more bitter party battle than if they simply appear to be ratifying the primary results.  

Any comparison of which candidate is better for the Dems this fall must take into account that in order to have Hillary as the nominee, we are first required to go through the vicious, bitter battle that ends with insiders picking her over the top vote getter.


by snaktime on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:09:16 PM EST

Re: To those who say Hillary can win in November (none / 0)

Not really because whoever is loser is going to have to suck it up because if they nixed the chance of winning the presidency they'd be persona non grata evermore.  


by ottovbvs on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:19:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To those who say Hillary can win in November (none / 0)

This just sounds like more whining from Obama supporters who think he can't win the general election- looking to put blame on someone else before he even loses.

Whomever becomes the nominee is totally responsible for reaching out to the other side and uniting the party for the general election and reaching out to Independents and moderate Republicans. Whomever the nominee is, if they lose the general is NOT the fault of the losing nominee. This is true if it is Obama or Clinton and they would both be out campaigning for the winner in the general election campaign along with all the other democrats.  


by Justwords on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:24:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To those who say Hillary can win in November (none / 0)

That's not how the system is meant to work, rightly or wrongly. If they just ratified the pledged delegate count, there would be no point in having the superdels. In fact, I think specifically they should pay less attention to the pledged delegate count compared to other factors (popular vote, electability etc) otherwise the process would be double-counting the effect of pledged delegates.


by zebedee on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:04:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To those who say Hillary can win in November (none / 0)

NEITHER candidate will have enough pledged delegates.

Clinton will win the popular vote. The SDs will decide.

If they try to steal it from her by disenfranchising Florida and Michigan, expect a bloody fight at the convention. AND don't expect support from Clinton voters in November. If you win by cheating the voters out of their votes, it's war, baby.


by cc on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:11:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The problem is S.D, we are doing well in polls (none / 0)

and could do well even in NC, but the SD arent coming to our side?!!!! what is it going to take?

Hopefully a strong finish will convince them, and maybe even get some to switch back over... but if we don't start to make progress on this front we have no hope!


DEMOCRATIC 08!
by rigsoHC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:13:36 PM EST

Re: The problem is S.D, we are doing well in polls (none / 0)

this is exactly right. the supers have not been trending to Clinton despite all of this. As an Obama supporter I pray that they continue to trend towards him but that is the only way Clinton wins. And what a win it would be---it would completely destroy the fabric of the party.


by wasder on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:18:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hard to believe (2.00 / 2)

looking at this primary as whole. Forget the caucus states and republican states that are out of play like:
okl, tenn., south carolina, utah, kans, etc.

but looking at the critical states:

it's hard to believe that Hillary would run behind obama in any critical state.

yet it's clear that obama could very well run behind clinton in:
penn, mich., florida, nj., ohio,

Now there is an argument about adding new critical states like:
col, virginia, and n.c.,

but that would truly by a roll of the dice.

obama people act like what I just listed above doesn't exist, and we should just end the primary and take what happens


by yellowdem1129 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:23:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The problem is S.D, we are doing well in polls (none / 0)

Today is a big superdelegate day for Obama. The page reports that is currently +5.

Clinton will be gaining some soon with the NY add-ons, but other add-ons will favor Obama.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:23:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Next week really is going to be make or break for both of them. This has been said so many times one hesitates to say it again. However, as these polls attest there seems, seems!!, to be something happening out there. If she wins Indiana comfortably and he only squeaks in in NC on a 90% black vote it is essentially going to confirm a lot of the speculation that he's losing the core white democratic vote. Now some of it will come back, it's hard to describe how in the tank the Republicans are, but it's going to leave no doubt whatever about the vulnerability of that soft Democratic vote to McCain's message. As it happens there are a few more "core dem" electorate contests coming up and if she does well next week she's going to do well in these and it provide further guidance to the mind of the electorate. I'm a Hillary supporter but as of now I think he's going to be the nominee, there is a large body of evidence to suggest he's going to lose in November if McCain runs a good campaign, I don't think she's a shoo in btw but she simply has fewer state demographic vulnerabilities. I'm going to pulling for this guy if he get the nod but he clearly has a huge potential problem. The good news is that the Republicans are so in  the tank the Democrats are going to see a big increase in house and senate majorities.

It's also worth reflecting what such an outcome would mean for Clinton and Obama. If he loses his political career is essentially over and he's a young man. She would be effective leader of the party in a congress under the actual or effective control of the democrats. McCain is essentially a trimmer and will want to see some big achievements. Regardless of what he says now in this scenarios he'd be cutting deals all over the place.        


by ottovbvs on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:17:32 PM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

One message the superdelegates are sending is that they think Clinton still has plenty of weaknesses that will be exploited by the Republicans.

As a recent article in Politico points out, Obama is not talking about many of the issues that Republicans would bring up.  And these are many.  It's worth reading the whole article, but here's a taste:

A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found nearly 60 percent of voters think Clinton is dishonest. Think about that: Only four in 10 voters do not think she lies when she needs to. A majority hold an unfavorable view of her.

Will those numbers improve if she wins the nomination and Republicans resurrect the scandals, the Bill Clinton sexual affairs and her Bosnia fib with the same intensity they brought to the Wright uproar? Unthinkable.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/050 8/10010.html


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:22:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

these have been brought up over and over (none / 0)

the effects of these issues are done and gone, Obama has been bringing them up this entire primary season. There's nothing new here. I think it is a stretch to say that these issues are something Obama and Republicans are holding back.  These tired old ruses don't amount to much to stop her path to victory in the electoral college.


by Molee on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:39:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

some in obama camp would rather lose (2.00 / 2)

wih him than win with Clinton.

I'm not saying that clinton would win in nov. and obama would lose,  is the reality today.

I'm saying, even if all the facts showed it to be true today, they'd still fight for obama to be the dem nominee.

-----


by yellowdem1129 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:19:52 PM EST

Re: some in obama camp would rather lose (none / 0)

Obama is going to be our nominee.  Read Politico on the magic numbers that aren't real that Hillary keeps touting.  Hillary is done, and her supporters should face that fact soon, and get behind our nominee.  The Rev Wright story will be gone tomorrow, or today.  When Bush is more unpopular than the Rev Wright no democrat will lose.


by Spanky on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:25:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: some in obama camp would rather lose (2.00 / 2)

OMIFGOD not another Obamabot with a fistfull of spreadsheets showing how they have "teh Numbers!! teh Numbers!!"

And Hillary should just get out.

This is SOOOO early February 2008!!

Wake up, Bamabot, your world is crumbling in front of you, along with your Precious' poll numbers and unfavorable ratings.


by dembluestates on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:36:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It IS February 2008 (none / 0)

in fact, it's even worse for Clinton, because there's much less room to catch up.

You probably think those big "wins" in TX, OH and PA made her catch up, but they didn't.  Margins matter.

If Hillary runs in another contested primary 4 or 8 years hence, make sure her campaign knows not to write off caucus or unfavorable states.  Obama got more delegates out of IL than Clinton got out of NY, despite NY's being 50% bigger.


by corph on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: some in obama camp would rather lose (none / 0)

Let's say that e.g. I see Obama as a huge improvement over McCain and that I see Clinton as a small improvement over McCain.

Let's also say that I believe Obama to have a 48% chance of defeating McCain and Clinton to have a 52% chance of defeating him.

In that case, yes, I'd definitely go for the 48% chance at the big improvement rather than the 52% chance at the small one.

(Personally, mind you, this doesn't apply to me, since I feel Obama has a better chance than Clinton against McCain anyway. Just saying that even if it was otherwise I'd take my slightly worse chances for a significantly better president, rather than slightly better chances with a significantly worse one)


by Aris Katsaris on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:36:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Poll Numbers (none / 0)

This would not be surprising to me, but I would like to see a few others and average them together.    


This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!
by venavena on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:21:50 PM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Jerome-
"Throwing Rev. Wright under the bus."

Could we try and be a little more deliberate in the way the we both borrow and contribute to the msm's master narrative?  I find that characterization offensively reductive.

In addition, in your earlier reminder regarding mydd's guidelines, you referred to the ousting of several commentators.  Is it possible to either quote them or make their usernames available so that we can evaluate your decision to ban them?  That is, I feel like the dialogic nature of blogs necessitates a watchdog role for the participants.
Just a thought.
 


by chrispy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:58:24 PM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (2.00 / 1)

Hillary is up 49-45 in Gallup tracking poll.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:13:51 PM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Don't you think it was Wright who threw Obama under the bus? Clinton and her supporters were in fits that Obama didn't disown Wright immediately, and when he does you accuse him of throwing him under the bus? You really need to get a grip. Obama is the likely nominee.


by grasshopper on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:23:27 PM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

I agree it was Wright who threw Obama under the bus- then Obama got mad because he was thrown under the bus and finally said what he already knew Wright had said previously was outrageous.
THAT is the outrage he should have had the first time over the same words - not waited until it was a political necessity. The only reason it took him two months to be outraged was because Wright threw him under the bus.  So will the real Obama please stand up. Exactly what are his true feelings- the first speech or the second speech?
by Justwords on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:42:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

First, this is republican style swift-boating and it makes me sick that this discussion is going on among democrats. How many nefarious connections do the Clintons have after their many years in politics? We are not dragging them through the slime or reminding everyone again and again of the ease with which they tell us lies. Nonetheless, I'll answer your question. Obama, in his remarkable speech, treated the Reverend with a degree of respect that one would expect, given his history of doing tremendous good in his community. When Wright appeared on Bill Moyers, he seemed to give some context to his words, which was helpful to promote understanding. Then in the following days, when everyone expected this controversy to end, Wright exasperated it. He became harmful to the healing process that this country so desperately needs to embark upon. That's why Obama was, which heavy heart, forced to further distance himself from his pastor.


by grasshopper on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:03:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

THOU SHALL NOT DISPARAGE A FELLOW DEM CANDIDATE!  We're getting to the end folks.  One of these VERY strong candidates is gonna be the nominee.  The supporters and fans of the other will have to get over themselves, become a good sport and start supporting the Dem Nominee.  (That is, if you want to defeat McSame).  You all look stupid and you are hurting the cause when you bad mouth the other Dem candidate.  It is time to start healing the cause--say nice things about your choice, but keep your mouth shut when it comes to bad mouthing the other candidate.  It's okay to point out policy differences, but this "my poll shows my candidate winning the General over your candidate" is STUPID.  GET OVER YOURSELVES, either candidate is by far better than McSame.


by citizensane on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:37:21 PM EST

Re: Poll Numbers (none / 0)

Why even hold a primary?  Let's just run campaign ads and pick our nominee based on polls!


by clad on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:10:23 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.