This is rather interesting. Today Rasmussen Reports released polling out of South Carolina, a state that George W. Bush carried with 58 percent of the vote in 2004, a state that the Republicans have carried in the last seven presidential elections and nine of the last presidential elections. Evidently, despite the deep red hue of the Palmetto state, John McCain can't manage to hit the 50 percent mark in head-to-head polling against Barack Obama.

Victories by both Barack Obama and John McCain in South Carolina's Presidential Primaries set the stage and put them both on the path to their party's Presidential Nominations. Now, Obama and McCain will compete directly for the Palmetto State's Eight Electoral College votes.

The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of that race finds McCain leading Obama 48% to 39%. Six percent (6%) say they'd vote for a third party candidate while 7% remain undecided. The survey was conducted two nights after Obama clinched the Democratic Presidential Nomination. National polling shows Obama enjoying a bounce in the afterglow of that historic night.

McCain is supported by 78% of South Carolina Republicans and leads 44% to 24% among unaffiliated voters. Obama earns the vote from 73% of Democrats.

[...]

McCain is viewed favorably by 60% of South Carolina's likely voters. Obama earns positive reviews from 49%.

At present, these numbers don't inspire a whole lot of optimism about the Democrats' ability to carry South Carolina's eight electoral votes this fall. Yet that doesn't mean this poll brings good tidings for the McCain campaign and the GOP. Even though the "other" category receiving 6 percent of the vote in this poll likely eats away at some of the support McCain would otherwise receive without third party choices on the ballot, McCain is still performing significantly worse than did President Bush here -- 10 points worse, in fact -- while Obama is running just two points behind the 41 percent received in the state by John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000. As a result, it appears that although South Carolina is a state that the Republicans will very likely carry in 2008, it is one in which the McCain campaign and the Republican Party apparatus are going to need to expend at least some time, money and attention going forward. And with the McCain campaign almost undoubtedly at a comparative disadvantage with the Obama campaign in terms of financing going forward, every cent spent in a state like South Carolina really is a cent that can't be spent in states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado -- let alone states that Kerry and Gore won like Michigan, Wisconsin and Oregon.

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

Requiring proof-of-citizenship in order to register to vote is the latest addition to voter suppression arsenal. Spurred by Arizona's 2004 implementation of proof of citizenship requirements and the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold Indiana's strict voter ID law, proof of citizenship bills - often coupled with voter ID - are gaining traction across the country. With more than 13 million Americans lacking ready access to citizenship documentation and scant evidence of voter registration fraud by non-citizens (or any voter for that matter) leading to illegal votes, proof of citizenship requirements could have a significant impact on the electorate. Wasting no time after the high court's decision, the neighboring states of Kansas and Missouri have swiftly moved forward with efforts to pass such legislation that could take effect in the November election.

tomorrow.  Some may be suprised to see my name associated with a diary so entitled.  But I figured it would be good to get this out of the way early b/c I know it's coming and use it as a means to ask a question.

An excellent website, DemConWatch (which I cannot endorse enough; the reporting is beyond any other news source, including the AP) has developed a chart to track the selection of add-on superdelegates.  Some may not of heard of this term, b/c the media has constantly refered to the superdelegates, but rarely says how they are selected.  Add-on superdelegates are selected at state, county and district conventions or by the Executive Committee of the state party.  

As you will see if you check out the website, tomorrow the State Democratic Executive Committee will meet to decide on the identity of the 4 add-on delegates that New York is assigned.  Given that New York is her home state, I have no doubt that every one of those add-on superdelegates will immediately announce their support for Hillary.  On this blog and possibly in the media this will be a big story, b/c it will the largest one day total of superdelegates for Senator Clinton this year, even if she does not get any other superdelegates.  I would also point out though that if you notice the state immediately preceding New York and those immediately after New York were all won exceedingly handily by Senator Obama and will equal the number of add-on superdelegates from New York.  And those are only the add-ons to be chosen this weekend.  Prior to Illinois' selection of its 3 add-on superdelegates on Monday.

Thus it appears that in the add-on superdelegates (which total 64 unpledged) they will split down the middle or there will be a slight advantage given to Obama due to the fact that he has won more states.  After the add-ons are divied up, there are 227 superdelegates left.  Of the 227, Senators and Governors make up around 30, U.S. House Representatives are around 65 and the 139 left are elected or appointed party officials and former chairs of the party and former Speakers, Majority leaders and Presidents and VPs.  Today, Obama won 3 House members and Clinton won 2 party official superdelegates.  Moreover, we learned today that Sen. McCaskill (an Obama supporter) is "feeling good" about the U.S. House.  

Given the fact that Sen. Clinton needs at best estimates 69% of the superdelegates (both add-on and already identified) left to win the election, how does she do it?  For months now, we as a community have been arguing vehemently points large and small: Should Clinton drop out, should Obama drop out, racism, sexism, gas taxes, Wright, flip offs, and so on.  Yet in that time, I have yet to hear logical path that Clinton has to nomination.  We all agreed long ago that Obama's going to win among elected delegates.  So since then, we have been arguing whether it was right or wrong for the superdelegates to choose the presidential candidate and what methods they should use to choose.  Yet in that time Obama has gained a net of over a hundred superdelegates and Clinton has gained almost no superdelegates.  

So on the day before Sen. Clinton's biggest superdelegate total this year, let me ask: HOW DOES SHE WIN?  Don't tell me whether she should win or what her qualities are that will make her a better president, but please tell me how.  B/c if she cannot win and given the superdelegate ratio over the past several months I don't understand how she can, then what is the point of continuing the campaign?  Why should we continue this primary race which is damaging the ability of the party to unite behind either one of these presidential candidates if the outcome is already determined?  

Just a question.

Hey all,

Until midnight tonight, every dollar you contribute to Hillary's campaign will be MATCHED!  As we all know, the critically important contests in the great states of Indiana and South Carolina are fast approaching (May 6).  Hillary needs us all to do whatever we can to help her win in these crucial states.

The issue of biggest concern to me in this election is healthcare.  I, like many people out there, have a pre-existing medical condition.  I pay 25% of my after tax income so I can have health insurance.  Luckily, I make enough that I can just afford my rent and living expenses after that.  There are many people who cannot afford it--and they DIE because they do not have enough money.  This shouldn't happen in the United States of America.  It is a moral imperative that we right this grievous wrong and provide healthcare for every person in this country.  No one should die in the richest country in the history of the world for lack of basic medical care.  To my mind, the fact that they do, every day, is our greatest failing.  Hillary has the ONLY plan that will cover ALL Americans.  Senator Obama's plan, by various estimates/analyses, leaves 15,000,000 of our fellow Americans without healthcare.  We CAN do better than this.  We SHOULD do better than this.  We MUST.  By helping Hillary win in Indiana and South Carolina we get closer to this goal.

So please give what you can.  Make phone calls.  Travel if you are able.  We're all in this together.  Let's get it right this time.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/contribute /NID6

Love and Peace to all.  (Please Rec this diary (I hate to ask but this is too important)).  Thanks!!!!!

Yesterday, Bill Clinton blamed Obama for playing the race card in South Carolina:

"I think that they played the race card on me. We now know, from memos from the campaign that they planned to do it along." - President Bill Clinton.

And that's how President Clinton begins his answer to WHYY's Susan Phillips who, during a phone interview earlier this evening, asked the President how he feels about one Philadelphia official who says she switched her support after interpreting Clinton's remarks in South Carolina as an attempt to marginalize Obama as "the black candidate."  http://supertuesdayblog.wordpress.com

The problem is, it WAS the Clinton's who started the whole discussion. Obama had nothing to gain by raising the issue of race.  Hillary did.  Even Hillary's campaign staff admitted that they were trying to paint Obama as the black candidate.

It's time to stop pretending that Obama did not use the race card. He did, in South Carolina. When someone yesterday said that Obama did use the race card, one of his supporters denied it, saying it was "untruth." Well it is time to reveal the truth, and the truth is: He did it. The magnitude and gravity in using this card is that, it can very well ruin his political career. Noble African Americans across the country are angry and reasonably concerned about whether the Clinton's used the race card. The way that the media (and to an extent the Obama Campaign) painted it, it looked like "the Clintons" were ceding the black vote to him and trying to paint him as the black candidate. But, I have thought about it and have failed to see how the "strategy" ever made sense, or if ever such a strategy was used. To me, it felt like the media was playing mind games (don't we already know that Obama is half-black?, Wasn't he already getting large portions of the black vote?)It's time to reveal that it was in fact, not the Clintons playing the card, but the Obama Campaign.

Why is Obama not giving a speech on winning Wyoming?

He should not allow the Clinton campaign to dictate which state is important and which is not.  He should give those American who enjoy his speeches a victory speech soak in patriotism to celebrate his victory in Wyoming and another one in Mississippi.  That's how he won our hearts and how he can retain it.

What do you think?