Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY, & MO

SurveyUSA is out with three polls today that shows the first signs of an Obama electoral defeat in November if he should become the Democratic nominee for the office of President of the United States.

First, Ohio:

If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?

Clinton - 50%

McCain - 44%

Undecided - 6%


What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?

McCain - 50%

Obama  - 43%

Undecided  - 7%
Next, Kentucky:
If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?

Clinton - 43%

McCain  - 53%

Undecided - 4%

What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?

McCain - 64%

Obama - 28%

Undecided - 8%
And finally, Missouri:
If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?

Clinton - 46%

McCain - 48%

Undecided - 6%

What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?

McCain - 53%

Obama - 39%

Undecided - 9%
Any thoughts?

Tags: Barack Obama, polls (all tags)

Comments

198 Comments

Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama

Yeah, you broke MyDD. On my Firefox at least.

by animated 2008-03-19 10:59AM | 0 recs
Bad news week for Obama

Expect some bad polls when the sample was taken during the Wright controversy.

by Sinbad Sinbad 2008-03-19 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad news week for Obama

Hint: It's not over. WOM

by owl06 2008-03-19 11:03AM | 0 recs
The Wright controversy is permanent

For whatever reason, Obama has decided not to break with Wright -- after you can't break with the people who raised you? (I don't get equating his pastor with his grandma who raised him) -- and to keep his family in the church. 'Black nationalism' (see the church's website) is NOT something white people generally 'get' and hopefully we'll never have the mainstream media pushing for acceptance of white nationalist churches.

by fairleft 2008-03-19 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: The Wright controversy is permanent

That is a wonderful sig, fairleft.

by mlr701 2008-03-19 02:42PM | 0 recs
Respectfully disagree

It's way too early to tell whether the Wright issue will continue at the 'controversy' level of the last week plus, or whether Obama's speech Tuesday will provide context that will help it recede to a lower level issue.

I've read TUCC's site - I see plenty of black and African pride but not 'black nationalism' (others may see it differently - see for yourself at http://tucc.org).

by Pacific NW Mark 2008-03-19 03:52PM | 0 recs
That's because
TUCC's taken down the obvious links to their "12 Point Values System".

Black nationalism is defined as such:

Black Nationalism (BN) advocates a racial definition (or redefinition) of black national identity, as opposed to multiculturalism. There are different black nationalist philosophies but the principles of all black nationalist ideologies are 1) black pride, and 2) black economic, political, social and/or cultural independence from white society. Marcus Garvey is considered to be the grandfather of black nationalism.


The 12 Point Value System of Trinity is this:

1. Commitment to God. "The God of our weary years" will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become Black Christian Activists, soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind.

2. Commitment to the Black Community. The highest level of achievement for any Black person must be a contribution of strength and continuity of the Black Community.

3. Commitment to the Black Family. The Black family circle must generate strength, stability and love, despite the uncertainty of externals, because these characteristics are required if the developing person is to withstand warping by our racist competitive society.

Those Blacks who are blessed with membership in a strong family unit must reach out and expand that blessing to the less fortunate.

4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education. We must forswear anti-intellectualism. Continued survival demands that each Black person be developed to the utmost of his/her mental potential despite the inadequacies of the formal education process. "Real education" fosters understanding of ourselves as well as every aspect of our environment. Also, it develops within us the ability to fashion concepts and tools for better utilization of our resources, and more effective solutions to our problems. Since the majority of Blacks have been denied such learning, Black Education must include elements that produce high school graduates with marketable skills, a trade or qualifications for apprenticeships, or proper preparation for college.

Basic education for all Blacks should include Mathematics, Science, Logic, General Semantics, Participative Politics, Economics and Finance, and the Care and Nurture of Black minds.

5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence. To the extent that we individually reach for, even strain for excellence, we increase, geometrically, the value and resourcefulness of the Black Community. We must recognize the relativity of one's best; this year's best can be bettered next year. Such is the language of growth and development. We must seek to excel in every endeavor.

6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic. "It is becoming harder to find qualified people to work in Chicago." Whether this is true or not, it represents one of the many reasons given by businesses and industries for deserting the Chicago area. We must realize that a location with good facilities, adequate transportation and a reputation for producing skilled workers will attract industry. We are in competition with other cities, states and nations for jobs. High productivity must be a goal of the Black workforce.

7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect. To accomplish anything worthwhile requires self-discipline. We must be a community of self-disciplined persons if we are to actualize and utilize our own human resources, instead of perpetually submitting to exploitation by others. Self-discipline, coupled with a respect for self, will enable each of us to be an instrument of Black Progress and a model for Black Youth.

8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness." Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the "talented tenth" of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor's control.

Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:

1. Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another. 2. Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons. 3. Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of "we" and "they" instead of "us." 4. So, while it is permissible to chase "middleclassness" with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method - the psychological entrapment of Black "middleclassness." If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our "voluntary" contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons.

9. Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the Black Community.

10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions.

11. Pledge Allegiance to All Black Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the Black Value System.

12. Personal Commitment to Embracement of the Black Value System. To measure the worth and validity of all activity in terms of positive contributions to the general welfare of the Black Community and the Advancement of Black People towards freedom.


The page is here:

http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.h tml

Unless they moved it recently (I got to it from an old post of mine on my journal). But the black nationalistic "values system" was the talk of Fox News in the fall, before the MSM even cared to look at Wright and the TUCC.

So...you wanna try denying the black nationalism in the TUCC again?
by BrandingIron17 2008-03-19 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad news week for Obama

the wright controversy won't go away obama would lose in a landslide, the bigest liberal no experience who would vote for a candidate whom we don't even know what he is

by awayer 2008-03-19 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad news week for Obama

Actually, lots of Americans will vote for someone they don't really know anything about..Obama's problem is that a lot of those people won't vote for someone when they find out he really is pretty left-wing. A lot of people on the far left find value in Wright's ministry even if they find his words distasteful and bombastic....but the "Republicans for Obama" are gonna have some serious second thoughts as they learn more about him.

by Alice in Florida 2008-03-19 01:47PM | 0 recs
These polls

are absolutely bad news for Obama.  The PPP polling in Ohio shows a similar break.

Hard to know if this is permanent, but I think it shows the Obama people were right to address the issue directly.  Whether they were successful or not is another question, though I think the speech was brilliant.

If these numbers don't revert back they will absolutely effect the SDs..

by fladem 2008-03-19 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad news week for Obama

Huh, Bad polls??? Being on the bottom end of 64-28 is not just one of those bad days at the polls......

by pollbuster 2008-03-19 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad news week for Obama

Good call.  It's THESE bad polls that we should follow.  And only CA, NY, NJ, OH, TX and PA count in the Democratic race.  I'm sold mostly because these polls will erase Obama's delegate lead, popular vote advantage and his winning nearly twice as many states.  It's 3 a.m. somewhere, right?

by niksder 2008-03-19 12:26PM | 0 recs
That's serious whistling past the graveyard

Of course it would be way overblown to say those polls show "Obama can't win" or anything ridiculous like that.

But these are three important states for any general election.  These numbers are not to be sneezed at.

by Trickster 2008-03-19 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: That's serious whistling past the graveyard

They would mean a hell of a lot if they weren't 3 out of over 100 polls saying something very different and hadn't been collected at the peak of the nastiest Republican race-based fear-mongering campaign they've waged to date. Kind of a skewed sample. Don't you think? Not saying they won't continue the same tactics should Obama be the candidate, but certainly they would do something similar to Hillary too. These numbers were collected when one candidate was on the receiving end of that and the other wasn't. If these numbers continue to stick 2 weeks from now, I'll admit it as a point. Until that, it's just cherry-picking.

Something to understand, Obama is 99.9% sure to be our candidate. I am genuinely sorry for people who are passionate about Clinton, but that's just reality. He has a nearly insurmountable lead in delegates and votes, he also has an insurmountable lead in states. I mention this because it'd be in this blog's interest to help beat back these disgusting attacks rather than be complicit in them.

by brimur 2008-03-19 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: That's serious whistling past the graveyard

If you think this is nasty for Republicans wait till next month. They've barely begun digging their claws into Obama.

Much as I am sure the Clintons and their supporters would love to defend Obama we really aren't in a position to do so. According to David Axelrod last week we are part of an underlying effort to emphasize race in an insidious pattern of offensive statements. I do wonder how Obama is supposed to win with just the 'non-racist' part of the Democratic party.

by souvarine 2008-03-19 03:50PM | 0 recs
Some responses

First, 99.9% is way way overblown.  I just bought some Hillary nomination shares this week at 25 on Intrader and I think I got a good deal.

I may be wrong, but the market gives her a 25% chance.  Last I checked that's 250X the 0.1% chance you give her.

I think you're right that Obama has "an insurmountable lead in states."  However, that's irrelevant.  As for delegates, he leads by about 125, there are still 689 delegates left to be selected and that DOES NOT count the 4-500 more who would be up for grabs if FL & MI get re-votes.  Also, there are over 700 superdelegates who can vote for whomever they please and change their minds whenever they want if the news cycles support such a decision.  Bear in mind that Clinton currently has the momentum, the news cycles have only started for the first time in the campaign to disfavor Obama, and we are only 50% of the way through the primary schedule in terms of time (we're 2.5 months from Iowa and 2.5 months from Puerto Rico).

My belief all along--and events have certainly done nothing but reinforce it--is that Obama would be more vulnerable to Republican attack because his past is virtually unknown and they will get the chance to define him for the American people, whereas Hillary is probably the 2nd-most investigated human in the history of the United States and hasn't taken a poop without legal advice in the decade since she underwent that incredible run of investigations of her entire life.

This is all off the subject of the 3 polls, which speak for themselves.  I'm just answering your post.

by Trickster 2008-03-19 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: That's serious whistling past the graveyard

He may be your candidate but he ain't mine and given his demonstrated stupidity about how to campaign for the GE he should not be yours either.

One more thing.

Obama's steepening slide into GE oblivion is exactly why SuperDelegates were invented. If, which it is not clear at this time, he is a certain loser in the GE as the convention approaches he will be 'invited' to step aside and if he is the great 'unifier' that he claims...

He will.

Otherwise his kaishakunin will help him atone for his crimes against his clan party.

by Pericles 2008-03-19 08:39PM | 0 recs
Hmm...

Upland South loses don't surprise me in the least for Obama.  I think his supporters are correct in saying that he'll do well in the Kerry states, but, as we all unfortunately know, you need more than that to win a general.

I'm really surprised to see Obama lose that badly in Missouri though, I must say.  I didn't think he'd win it, but I thought he'd perform about as well as Kerry did.

It's always worth noting though that these really are too far out to mean much, but I'm still surprised...

by ejintx 2008-03-19 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmm...

Remember - Obama only carried something like 5 out of 83 counties in the MO primary. That doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-19 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmm...

Not taking sides here, but he carried St. Louis City and County, which is more than a quarter of the votes.  I believe he also carried Jackson County (KC).  Obama defeated Clinton 51% to 49% in the Missouri primary.  Basing your view on carrying counties is deceptive.  St. Louis County is worth 30 or 40 counties.  

That said, those GE numbers for Missouri for Obama are bad, but it still is early.

by TomP 2008-03-19 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Hmm...
Exactly and he would lose the St. Louis City and County, which is more than a quarter of the votes
after the Rev Wright issue
by indus 2008-03-19 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: MO No Surprise

MO is a fairly conservative state except for a few Democratic strongholds. Many of our Democratic voters tend to be more on the conservative side when you get outside a few liberal areas. Don't think Rev. Wright,  even after Obama's speech, will play well here in MO.

During our primary, Obama only won the counties that Dems always win in.  Clinton won all the rest.

by MOBlue 2008-03-19 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: MO No Surprise

Oh, I know.  I used to live in Iowa and have been through Missouri many times.

I saw that Obama won those counties that Kerry did in 2004 and hence my original thought.  I know most of Missouri's democrats are more the conservative type, but I thought perhaps Obama would do better than he appears to be outside of St. Louis and Kansas City.  Do you think there will be an eventual backlash against MacCaskill over her endorsement?

by ejintx 2008-03-19 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: MO No Surprise

In the polls I saw a few months ago, she wasn't the most popular Senator in the country. She wasn't in what I would consider the red zone but her numbers weren't great even then.  I wouldn't doubt that her phones have been ringing off the hook since the videos hit the main stream news. I firmly believe if Obama is the nominee, the 527s will have a field day with this and that will only cause her more grief. A big loss by Obama in the GE and Claire IMO could become a one term Senator as she has billed herself among other things as a ideological ally of Senator Obama. This of course is just my opinion of how this may play out in my state. I've been wrong before and could be wrong again. While I wouldn't mind having a different Dem as my Senator, I would prefer the state move more blue and not become more red.

by MOBlue 2008-03-19 03:16PM | 0 recs
Useless...

Yea, here are my thoughts.  Relying on any poll this far out from November is useless.  If this was October, then they would have more weight.  The fact is, Hillary runs her entire campaign on her "experience".  If she runs against McCain her whole campaign argument falls apart.  What else does she have to run on?  I'm not trying to bash her, I'm just asking an honest question.

by facemn 2008-03-19 11:01AM | 0 recs
Her experience neutralizes McCain's experience

Then she can run on the issue the Democrats need to run on, the economy.

by fairleft 2008-03-19 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Her experience neutralizes McCain's experience

Yea I agree with this.  McCain himself has admitted that he doesn't know much about the economy.  I just worry that she wouldn't be able to get the independents or some Republicans you need to win a GE.  Sure, Republicans are voting for her now, but there is an argument to be made that they are only doing it to sabotage our primaries so that they can "defeat" her in the fall.  I'm still up in the air about whether or not she could beat McCain.

by facemn 2008-03-19 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Her experience neutralizes McCain's experience

Republicans care about their pocketbook.  In the privacy of their voting booth, they will vote for Clinton.  

by tiffany 2008-03-19 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Her experience neutralizes McCain's experience

"I just worry that she wouldn't be able to get the independents or some Republicans you need to win a GE"

Your post made me remember Hillary's biggest liability was supposed to be Bill's past.

All we've been doing is speaking of Obama's.

Having said that, Clinton has been distinguishing herself on the issues, and I  believe she has some very  talented people advising her, the best of the best, as opposed to second tier failures, looking for another chance.

The MSM, at least the news I watch, doesnt cover the policy talks, (too boring for them, I guess, not sexy) but I try to find out what's going on,  the war and economy being critical issues.

Maybe she is reaching voters, just on a more grassroots level.

Meaning, as of this moment, anyway, she might stand a good chance against McCain, if she were to win the nomination, on a sound platform.

Remember those A students in school who always came prepared, always knew what they were doing, the ones always regarded as the brain of the class?

That's Hillary, as opposed to the consultant, poll driven rope-a-dope policies we see from the others.

You know, all those vote pandering flip flops.

by Marsha1 2008-03-19 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Her experience neutralizes McCain's experience

I might be misunderstanding you, but the Clintons' are completely poll-driven.  Just look at Bill Clintons years in the White House and Hillary's campaign this year.  The reality is that there are virtually no differences between Hillary and Barack when it comes to policies - outside of mandated vs. un-mandated health care policies.  

This is why we are seeing both sides cherry pick lines from one another, taking them out of context, and spinning them to make it look like there are broader differences than there really are.  Will the average American see through this?  Probably not.  Only those of us that breathe and live this stuff daily - even tho it's not our job - see through the spin.

I'm not sure what my point is other than this: if Barack and Hillary keep going at each other like this, especially for the next few months, it won't be the Democratic party winning in November.  I think the national polls are already reflecting this - if you can trust the polls.

by facemn 2008-03-19 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Her experience neutralizes McCain's experience

They have significant differences on domestic and economic issues, beyond mandates. Obama prefers market driven solutions to health care and stagnant middle class wages. Clinton does not believe the market can solve these problems and believes the government needs to take more direct action to address these problems. You can see the differences when you compare their health care and mortgage crisis relief plans, but it is even more clear in two NY Times interviews:

Clinton

Obama

by souvarine 2008-03-19 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Her experience neutralizes McCain's experience

The previous post was about Hillary and what she seems to be about, and then you fire back about this entity called "the Clintons." Kind of harshed a nice but little discussion of an independent and talented human being called Hillary.

by fairleft 2008-03-19 05:32PM | 0 recs
The economy, health care, Iraq

Hillary's primary campaign has been about experience, because of who she's running against; in the general, she'll run on all the same issues that any Democrat would run on. It's the same with Obama; I wouldn't expect his GE campaign to spend so much time on Clinton library records.

by Shawn 2008-03-19 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: The economy, health care, Iraq

"I wouldn't expect his GE campaign to spend so much time on Clinton library records."

LOL; this is very funny and quite apropos.

by anya109 2008-03-19 11:57AM | 0 recs
Have you heard Hillary speak?

Lots of solutions on the economy - McCain's supposedly biggest weakness, foreign policy, environment, health care, etc.

More what I'm looking for in a presidential candidate than merely hope and soaring rhetoric.

by annefrank 2008-03-19 11:08AM | 0 recs
Also

I have no idea where I read this (some MSM source) but Hillary has enough "experience" to somewhat neutralize McCain's strength on this issue - I am speaking of voters' perceptions here.

by OtherLisa 2008-03-19 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Useless...

the issues

by Thaddeus 2008-03-19 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Loses
WOW!
but I don't know how these state polls were trending previously.
by annefrank 2008-03-19 11:01AM | 0 recs
My Thought?

In the middle of an absolutely terrible news cycle, Obama's numbers have decreased significantly in Ohio and somewhat in Missouri.  He's never been close in Kentucky.  Clinton loses the latter two as well.  

It's not good news for my candidate, certainly, but it hardly presages the kind of electoral disaster you're talking about.  The previous SurveyUSA 50-state poll showed Obama losing all of these states, if memory serves, but still getting more electoral votes than Senator Clinton.  Not sure how this really changes anything significantly.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-19 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

Missouri was the state Obama was going to turn blue according to his campaign and his supporters.

by americanincanada 2008-03-19 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

The problem with Obama supporters is they CANNOT seem to UNDERSTAND the difference between Primary voters & General election voters.

Obama getting 25%,30%, 35% of white liberal democrats in the primary EQUATES to 15%,20%,25% of ALL WHITE VOTERS in the GE!

What does that mean? A freekin November Landslide defeat across the country!

Again wait for the poll in NJ,MA - Don't be shocked !

by labanman 2008-03-19 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

Actually, this seems to be the problem with Clinton supporters.  You seem to equate primary wins in OH and (likely) PA with general election wins.

by leshrac55 2008-03-19 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

The difference is that the voters that Clinton gets are more in line with GE voters; Reagan Democrats, Catholics, lunch bucket voters.  

by anya109 2008-03-19 11:59AM | 0 recs
Did you even read the SUSA numbers ...

in this diary? The fact that she is likely to win in Ohio (where the economy is the no. 1 concern of the voters) against McCain. I'm sure the same is likely to hold true in PA. Obama has very little hope of winning either of these states.

by Inky 2008-03-19 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Did you even read the SUSA numbers ...

Except recent polling actually shows Obama better in the General election in PA than Clinton, despite losing by 20 points in the primary (as of today).

Sorry, there's just not much correlation there.

by leshrac55 2008-03-19 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you even read the SUSA numbers ...
Yeah, okay, show us that recent polling, then.
by BrandingIron17 2008-03-19 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you even read the SUSA numbers ...

Think there was another one too, but here you go:

General Election:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylva nia_2008_presidential_election

Democratic Primary:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylva nia_democratic_presidential_primary

And you're right... this one only has him down 13 in the primary, not 20 points.  My bad.

by leshrac55 2008-03-19 10:32PM | 0 recs
No

The last SUSA polls had him up ten in Ohio, and up in MO too, but by a slightly smaller margin than Clinton.

by Shawn 2008-03-19 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: No
That's correct. The decline for Obama in Ohio is absolutely catastrophic. You don't see that kind of decrease very often, and you also don't tend to recover either. That very very disturbing.
by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-19 11:19AM | 0 recs
That's what disturbed me too...

...A complete flip in Ohio.  With Sen. Clinton on the ballot, she wins by double-digits.  With Sen. Obama on the ballot, he loses by double-digits.

by Andre Walker 2008-03-19 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Very, very true

His fall in Ohio is a terrible sign. it means disaster for the GE. Clinton said it and we all know it. Without Ohio or Florida, and certainly without BOTH, we lose.

by americanincanada 2008-03-19 11:31AM | 0 recs
Correction

SUSA's last MO poll had McCain leading Obama and Clinton, but a poll earlier in February had the scenario I described above.

by Shawn 2008-03-19 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

MO is actually with MoE. Obama will lose G.E because of Wright, I don't even think its fair, but I bet it will happen.

by rigsoHC 2008-03-19 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

MOL is within MOE? How so? McCain is ahead by 14%!!

by americanincanada 2008-03-19 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

or did you mean Clinton is within MOE in MO?! Sorry...heh...oops...

by americanincanada 2008-03-19 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

that's what i meant

by rigsoHC 2008-03-19 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

<In the middle of an absolutely terrible news cycle, Obama's numbers have decreased significantly in Ohio and somewhat in Missouri.  He's never been close in Kentucky.  Clinton loses the latter two as well.>

But Clinton is in a statistical tie in Missouri, and somewhat competitive in Kentucky.

by pollbuster 2008-03-19 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

Yes she is, which is great for her and our party if she's nominated.  At the same time, as far as I know, she still performs much more poorly than Obama in states like Colorado, Virginia, Oregon, Washington state, Iowa, and Wisconsin.  They each have strengths and weaknesses right now.  

Look, this poll is better news for Senator Clinton than it is for Obama, who has had a rought week, and likely makes McCain's day more than either Democrat.  He's benefiting right now from our candidates attacking each other.  I am quite confident that McCain's numbers will suffer once he's no longer floating above the fray.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-19 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

<Yes she is, which is great for her and our party if she's nominated.  At the same time, as far as I know, she still performs much more poorly than Obama in states like Colorado, Virginia, Oregon, Washington state, Iowa, and Wisconsin.  They each have strengths and weaknesses right now>

Most of those states have had no recent polling, so we can't be sure of their present snapshots.

by pollbuster 2008-03-19 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

I'll grant you Colorado, because she's always been very weak there for some reason, but I'm not convinced she would underperform Obama vis-a-vis McCain in any of the other states you mentioned.  Hillary is doing great with Latinos, Asians, moderate women, Catholics, and blue-collar workers, all of whom might be considered swing votes that could be potentially lost to McCain.  She thus has a good chance to hold on to the crucial center we'll need to win the election.

Obama's especially strong among African-Americans and whites who have always been against the Iraq war.  These two groups, especially when taken together, constitute a big chunk of the Democratic electorate, but a much smaller percentage of the general electorate.  I'm not so sure he could pick up enough centrist voters to outperform Clinton in Virginia, Oregon, Washington state, Iowa, or Wisconsin -- especially given the huge hit on his favorability ratings which is already underway.

by markjay 2008-03-19 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

Don't forget the seniors. Clinton consistently outperforms Obama in this category in every state. This is a demographic that I think she will carry in the GE due to the fact that women outnumber the men and many of them would like to see a women president in their lifetime. Don't think that Obama has any real chance of capturing this demographic in the GE. They tend to prefer experience and are more into security than change. Clinton based on exit polls drastically outperforms Obama in the experience category among those who list it as a priority.

by MOBlue 2008-03-19 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

Not once Obama promises to remove all taxes for seniors making less than $50k.

by memoryadi 2008-03-19 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

Then he better start making those promises known far and wide NOW because he is losing big time now among seniors for numerous reasons.

by MOBlue 2008-03-19 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

I don't think McCain could be very happy about being down in Ohio with Hillary at 50.

by pollbuster 2008-03-19 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: My Thought?

After talking to people in Oregon this week, Obama is not doing so well. He will lose the east half of the state because he refuses to make a campaign stop there and people have been asking him to come. He is only doing the I-5 corridor...Portland the like.

by navyvet48 2008-03-19 07:14PM | 0 recs
Cut of nose to spite face

In other words, I hope the party is looking at the GE like you are and not just focusing only on the primary.

by soyousay 2008-03-19 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama

They are basically tied in the Ohio RCP average of all polls, so I don't know if this one poll matters so much.

by animated 2008-03-19 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Loses In

Wait for NJ & MA next week.

The numbers will be scary !

These are Blue states going Red with Obama as nominee. ( NJ,MA,PA)

Two weeks ago, Obama would lose NJ by 6 pts.
Clinton would win NJ by 11 pts.

It should even be more now.

Its All about REAGAN DEMOCRATS!

MO,OH,KY,NJ,MA,PA - States with Millions of White Reagan Democrats.

Can you imagine when the actual GOP attacks start in September?

by labanman 2008-03-19 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Loses In

The many Italians in Nj, PA and Mass. will not vote for Obama after that Rev. Wrong's rant against them.  And New Yorkers did not like his comments on 9/11.  NY is in jeopardy, as well.  The DNC should do everything possible to urge him to resign for the good of the country.

by tiffany 2008-03-19 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Loses In

the 'ethnic' white vote in NJ was never warm to Obama anyway

by bigbay 2008-03-19 01:52PM | 0 recs
Obama too full of himself to do the right thing

The way Obama has ruthlessly taken down the Clintons indicates to me that this race is all about him, not about victory for the Dems.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-19 04:56PM | 0 recs
A Thought

I had a thought: I know Zogby's including Nader, should SUSA move that way too?  If it does, what's it looks like for all candidates?

by ejintx 2008-03-19 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: A Thought

Zogby polls using Nader are a farce. First of all, Nader will not be on the ballot in 50 states. He will be lucky to get on in even half that number. Secondly using only Nader is basically unfair to other 3rd party candidates, who are not being polled. Finally that 6% or so that Nader polls in the Zogby polls is totally useless and misleading. In 2004, he would get those kind of numbers when polled, but in the actual election his numbers were closer to 1%

by pollbuster 2008-03-19 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: A Thought

I'll agree that only using Nader is an insult to other third party candidates, but if we inserted "Third Party" into the question, it's still a relevant question.  Blame could be laid at the feet of each individual third party candidate in Florida in 2000.

by ejintx 2008-03-19 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: A Thought

Nader could be seen as taking votes from the democrats, while other 3rd parties, such as the libertarians would more readily be taking votes from the republicans. However if part of your point is that the Nader cost Gore Florida, I totally agree.

by pollbuster 2008-03-19 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: A Thought

Well, Nader did hurt, but it was Buchanan's surprising popularity with jewish retirees in Palm Beach County that pushed W over the top.

:-)   :-/  :-(

by itsthemedia 2008-03-19 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: A Thought

I totally Agree-:)

by pollbuster 2008-03-20 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: A Thought

I don't think that Nader necessarily did it in, but he certainly didn't help.

by ejintx 2008-03-19 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: A Thought

The 92,000 voted he recieved in Florida, most of which would have gone to Gore would have easily made Florida theft proof.......

by pollbuster 2008-03-20 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: GE defeat

if Obama is the nominee we can kiss the whitehouse goodbye.

This is exactly the kind of thing the SDs were created for.

by americanincanada 2008-03-19 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In

Obama supporters.

Stop Denying what your gut tells you.

It is virtually impossible for Obama to fix his PROBLEM with White working class reagan democrats.

It was a big problem before Wrightgate. It is now a serious problem.

You think millions of working class whites will have Tears in their eyes & a vision of Racial Reconciliation & just vote for Obama come November?

Obama cannot win in november!

by labanman 2008-03-19 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In

Agree with your post.  Except it is more than a serious problem, it is an unsurmountable problem - there will be a run away from Obama by these voters even more than when it was Mondale/Ferraro.

by anya109 2008-03-19 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In

Not insurmountable, IMHO. Clinton on the ticket as VP might help a lot, for one thing. She knows how to take the battle to the enemy, which is something Obama will need in a highly negative battle against McCain/GOP/media/swiftboaters.

by itsthemedia 2008-03-19 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In

Here's the fundamental self-serving falacy that the Hillary supporters now reveling in the Wright fallout fail to understand:

By the time of the general, this issue will be as buried as the hundred Clinton scandals out there.

So the question doesn't come down to a "clean" candidate vs. a candidate with the Wright stigma.

It is a choice between a candidate that can be made to look like a racist through questionable associations with a made-up pastor image, or one that can be made to look like a murdering, drug trafficking, terrorist pardoning, land dealing crook who let Al-Quaeda run away and was responsible for 9/11.

Nobody in the Obama campaign will mention it, because they have the class to understand that democrats aren't supposed to tear each other down.

But you'd better think about it for a bit before you decide on who would be the best candidate.

by memoryadi 2008-03-19 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In

Yes, Obama people are so much classier than Clinton people, as your post so aptly demonstrates. Please drop the smug superiority - it does discredit to your candidate, who professes a desire to get past that sort of thing.

by itsthemedia 2008-03-19 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In
"made-up" pastor image??? Are you HIGH?
by BrandingIron17 2008-03-19 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

As much as I don't like that this wright thing is hurting Obama, because I do think there is a general misunderstanding of black churches in white communities, its still reality, and he will lose because of it. He should have been smarter about this, that speech will not stop the attacks from 527's (McCain won't do it himself, just watch)

by rigsoHC 2008-03-19 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

I agree 100%.

I am not happy about Wright either.

But this is reality in 2008.

No amount of speeches will change 4,5,6 generations of racial bias.

That's reality !

Some BHO supporters do not understand that the white voters he is getting in the primary are a MINORITY of All white voters in the GE!

Kerry got about 45% of the white vote & still lost.

With Obama's 25%-35% white primary numbers, that TRANSLATES to 15%-25% of ALL White GE voters. Throw him another 10%-15% more white dem voters & he still losses in Dukakis proportions!

If Obama is the nominee, we will all see Big Red spots in the Northeast ! NJ,MA,PA,CT,RI,NH,ME would ALL be heavily Leaning red.

While former blue MI, OH,MO,CO would all go red!

BHO fans keep talking about CO. Wait until the GE CO numbers come. It won't even be close!

The white voters he get are a MINORITY of all white voters!

by labanman 2008-03-19 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

No it doesn't.  This assumes that every white Clinton supporter flocks to McCain for the general election, and that's not going to happen.

by leshrac55 2008-03-19 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Don't be surprised that the super majority or more don't.  Also, the Hispanics and Asians will be out the door too.

by anya109 2008-03-19 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

MO is not a blue state. Kerry lost MO in 04. At best, it is a purple state that could squeak out a Dem win in the GE with the right candidate. I doubt that the rural Dems will vote for Obama especially after the airing of Wright videos. AA, youth and "creative class(??) voters can not win without them.

Clinton IMO had a chance to win MO but after being tarnished by accusations of running a racist campaign, I'm not sure how the AA community would react if she were the nominee. No Dem candidate  can win without a strong turn out from our AA Dems.

The Dems may have screwed the pooch in MO.

by MOBlue 2008-03-19 02:48PM | 0 recs
the tarnishing of HRC

Good analysis. The Obama campaign had a big part in painting the Clinton's comments in So. Carolina as racist. Obama has now created a situation where both Dem candidates are tarnished.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-19 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: the tarnishing of HRC
However, there is the idea that the AA community who're offended by this Wright thing will be reevaluating what has been done to Clinton/scrutinize it more. The might look at Obama's unwillingness to "disown" someone who is "like" family and look at what they did to Bill and Hillary and come back to Hillary anyhow, after remembering what the Clintons stand fore re: race relations. The "second look" at why Toni Morrison called Bill "the first black president" might come back into play, and for Hillary that would be a good thing.
by BrandingIron17 2008-03-19 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,


On simple post-2004 trend, MO is a narrow 49/51-ish loss for Democrats.  Colorado is probably a little more likely, Virginia a bit less.

The winning electoral votes are in Ohio, Florida, and/or the Wisconsin-Iowa-New Mexico-Nevada quadruplet.  

by killjoy 2008-03-19 05:12PM | 0 recs
I can't deny it's a bad week...

...however this is polling done in the midst of a scandal.   I want to see if he recovers over the next few weeks or not.  One tracking poll is showing  that, one isn't, so I'm going to be nervous for a while.

by thezzyzx 2008-03-19 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't deny it's a bad week...

Obama will never recover from this, because even if the scandal subsides, the repugs will bring it back to life in the fall. Don't kid yourself, it's over.

by RC01 2008-03-19 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: McCaskill?
Funny, I was watching her, too. She'll be the canary in the coal mine. The minute she says something that might suggest she really is more undecided that fully in the Obama camp, the landslide will begin. Watch for it.
by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-19 11:21AM | 0 recs
I think Wright will be Obama's campaign

killer, even if not during primaries, in G.E, he cant survive multiple ads in heavily white states with Wright ranting in them, and then a catch line ala "Is this the change we can expect?"  or "This is what you call unifying the country?"  You know, the GOP will win if we choose Barack as nominee because of Wright, its like 04 ALL over again, except this time, WE KNOW! So let's stop it from happening.

by rigsoHC 2008-03-19 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: McCaskill?

Yes, Senator McCaskill is in a bad spot. She probably was getting some grief from die-hard Clinton supporters in Missouri. After the Wright controversy she is probably thinking that she jumped the ship too soon politically.

But maybe she really does want Senator Obama as President.

by ann0nymous 2008-03-19 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: McCaskill?

My bet is that McCaskill is hearing big time from rural and more moderate and conservative Dems  since the videos appeared. Guaranteed they are not happy campers about her endorsement right now.

by MOBlue 2008-03-19 02:51PM | 0 recs
Too far out from November

When Obama fans were shouting Obama is more electable than Clinton, I was pointing out that at that point in the election 4 yrs back Kerry was on his way to White House. So that disclaimer still applies. All opinion polls begin with a misstatment-

``If election were held today ...''

by ann0nymous 2008-03-19 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

What this says to me, more than anything, is that the extended primary battle is benefiting McCain and hurting both Obama and Clinton, at least in the short term.

In the long term... hmm, not sure it means anything.  You could look at it as John McCain + 1 Democrat vs your preferred choice, with your preferred choice unable to really respond to McCain effectively because they're stuck responding to the Democrat.  Once we have an actual nominee, these numbers will start to mean a bit more.

by leshrac55 2008-03-19 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Thoughts? yes... this is fantastic!  Hillary is surging, and polls show she holds more of Obama's voters than he holds of hers.  This ain't over yet!

by BlueDoggyDogg 2008-03-19 11:31AM | 0 recs
Parse Speak

Now, let me get this straight -- are you saying "Big Obama" Losses or are you saying Big "Obama Losses" or are you really saying Big, Obama, Losses? There is a difference. ;)

by grlpatriot 2008-03-19 11:38AM | 0 recs
Well, the intent of my diary...

...Is to highlight the potential of a significant Obama electoral loss in the states of Ohio, Kentucky, and Missouri.

Next time, I think that maybe I should include the intent of my published diaries.

by Andre Walker 2008-03-19 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, the intent of my diary...

I was kidding.

by grlpatriot 2008-03-19 12:13PM | 0 recs
I know ;-)

by Andre Walker 2008-03-19 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

As an Obama supporter i must say this has been the roughest days of the campaign so far, even more so then post NH.  I still want him to win the nomination as i don't think Hillary can win, and i like Obama much more, but even i am very pessimistic about November now.  These are such huge turnarounds in such short time, i don't know if he can recover.

by Socks The Cat 2008-03-19 11:39AM | 0 recs
My thought is this:

nominate Hillary.

by Beltway Dem 2008-03-19 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: My thought is this:
I second that nomination!
by The Smoldering Crone 2008-03-19 11:56AM | 0 recs
Let's have a roll call vote then...

...Or should we do a voice vote?

by Andre Walker 2008-03-19 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a roll call vote then...

How about a primary? Oh yeah, that's what we're doing :)

by LandStander 2008-03-19 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

The difference between the polls in Missouri and Ohio is because if Obama is the nominee, 25-28% of Democrats say they would vote for McCain while 10-12% would vote for McCain if Clinton were the nominee.  I don't think 25% or 28% is at all realistic - most Democrats will come home after the heat of the primary has cooled.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-03-19 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

I don't think so.  I think many Democrats will vote for Nader, write in Clinton or Obama, or even vote for McCain.  I think this is a problem if either Clinton or Obama is nominated, but moreso for Obama.  Clinton will have an easier time getting the black and upper class white vote than Obama will have getting working-class Dems, women, and Latinos - as well as the independents and Republicans he is supposedly going to bring in.  The last group, independents and Republicans, is really not going to touch Obama with a 10ft pole after this Wright stuff.

by mikes101 2008-03-19 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Actually, the polling internals for MO and OH show Obama with equal or greater independent and crossover GOP support even when Obama is in the midst of bad news cycles.  Each candidate has their strengths for the general election, and those fundamentals will remain as the news cycles shift.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-03-19 11:59AM | 0 recs
Not at all realistic? Why?

Reagan was estimated to receive 25% of Democrats against Carter (I was one of those). McCain is one of the most palatable choices to non-GOP voters that the GOP could have picked.  

I don't think I can vote for Obama and there are many more Reagan Democrats remaining than the liberal wing of the Democratic party is willing to acknowledge (We didn't all become Republicans).  

I think the nomination of Obama sends a terrible message about our party.  There are no limits to the pandering of white liberal guilt.  Outside of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, voters believe in equality of treatment regardless of race.  No white candidate who refused to leave the church of a racist white minister publicized like this could be nominated for president - probably not even by the Republicans -but certainly not by the Democrats.  No rationalizing about cultural context would suffice.  

by lombard 2008-03-19 12:03PM | 0 recs
Wow...

So let me get this right... you'd vote for McCain instead of a candidate who would give you essentially the same policies as Hillary Clinton?

You think Barack Obama is about white guilt?  Do you really think that is the dominant issue in, say, Wyoming?

You think Barack Obama is a racist?

Please explain rationally how someone could support Hillary Clinton in the primary but then vote for McCain in the fall.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-03-19 03:58PM | 0 recs
Why Clinton voters might not vote for Obama

One of the reasons might be lack of experience, which is a glaring difference between McCain and Obama. Another might be that Obama would be perceived as a lightweight (i.e. he did not show up to vote on the Iran resolution or the Moveon.org condemnation vote). Another might be his plan on social security (raising the payroll tax without any buffer to protect people in the upper middle class who would be hit first). There is also the patriotism and Pastor Wright issue. Many others as well.

I really don't know, these are just my best guesses.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-19 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Clinton voters might not vote for Obama

The experience differential is the same between McCain and Clinton.  Obama has more legislative experience than Clinton and the same executive experience.  If you want to vote for the most experienced candidate, it's McCain.  If you want to vote for the better candidate, it's whoever the Democrats nominate.

"Patriotism" and "Pastor Wright" are not issues unless you are a Fox News viewer.  There is no legitimate reason to believe that Obama doesn't love his country - he has always talked about how his story is only possible in America.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-03-19 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Clinton voters might not vote for Obama

bluestatedude, I should amend my response to you since you personally are not indicating that you would vote for McCain.  I can see how for low information voters in March the reasons you cite could affect the polls.  I don't think after a general election campaign Clinton would end up with the particular advantage shown in today's SUSA polls.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-03-19 05:49PM | 0 recs
Answers

Question 1): Yes.  Because he is not prepared to be president and nominating him sends the signal that we are an unserious, Utopian party.  I would rather not be associated with that message and only a crushing defeat might motivate the dreaming fools in our party to grow up.

Question 2): Yes, that and dreamy Utopianism and 90% support from the African American voters and the votes of a majority of Republicans and Independents of dubious allegiance

Question 3): The small minority of voters who attended the Wyoming caucus are likely to be made up disproportionately of liberal dreamers.  The more Republican the state, the more extremist is the Democratic party activist base.

Question 4): Maybe.  His actions indicate that he might be regardless of his rhetoric.  That's another problem with his nomination.  It sends a message that our party is gullible enough to believe that romantic rhetoric is more important than deeds and concrete plans.

Explanation of how I could vote for McCain: See above.  The Clinton presidency and the Bush presidency were the best things that happened (obviously for different reasons) for our party in generations.  Now we are going to throw that away on a romantic adventure while the Republicans have decided to stifle their ideological foolishness in order to appear more serious, pragmatic, and centrist

by lombard 2008-03-19 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Answers

1, 2, and 3. lombard, maybe you ought to wander away from mydd and talk to some Obama supporters because you badly mischaracterize Obama's white support.  His opposition to the Iraq War, the different political styles of Obama and Clinton, and his charisma are the primary drivers of his support from white Democrats.  The notion that his support from whites is because he is black is ridiculous and insulting.

2. Notice how, now that the Republican nomination has been settled, more Republicans are voting for Clinton?  Apparently you don't wonder why...

4. What the hell?  Has Obama ever said anything racist?  Guilt by association is not reasonable, especially since the candidate has condemned the speech for which you condemn Obama.

Bill Clinton gave America 8 good years, but he also destroyed the Party.  I sure don't want to go back to a 10-state strategy when we can have a 50 state strategy with Obama.  The way you describe it, it sounds like your vote for McCain out of petulance for not getting your way in the primary.  Pending the final outcome of this year's contests, I have never gotten my way in the primaries but never hesitated to vote for the Democratic nominee.  I love my country way too much to give it four more years under McCain if Clinton were to be the nominee.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-03-19 05:42PM | 0 recs
Hmm

I seem to remember Bill Clinton winning more than 10 states when he ran for president. About 30 of them, in fact. Are you thinking of Dukakis?

by Shawn 2008-03-19 05:49PM | 0 recs
Unbelievable, you still think Obama can win!

He can't. He won't. Most white Americans outside of the liberal wing of the Democratic party won't enthusiastically vote for people who contemptuously manipulate them.

He chose to be a member of a racist church for 20 years, to bring his children up in that church, to have that minister as his spiritual advisor and dedicate one of his books to him, and to marry a woman with real issues against white America.  He has chosen to ignore his white relatives while celebrating black African relatives he barely knows.  You tell me?  Or maybe you think that a fifteen minute speech made under political pressure speaks louder than an entire adult lifetime.

Bill Clinton did not destroy the party.  Bill Clinton strengthened the party.  Prior to Clinton, we were blown out for an entire generation of presidential elections (save Jimmy Carter's post Watergate southern pride moment).  After Clinton, we have been very competitive.  If you don't recognize the difference pre and post Clinton in the Eastern United States and numerous metropolitan suburbs around the country, then you don't know much about voting history.  Bill Clinton won Arizona for Christ sakes.  Bill Clinton turned the image of the party from tax and spend pandering liberals into serious pragmatists that didn't gamble on dubious dreams.

by lombard 2008-03-19 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Unbelievable, you still think Obama can win!

You do realize that Obama's church is the Church of Christ, not the Church of Racism, right?  His Pastor is actually well-respected within the UCC, and the UCC is not an African-American denomination.  The things on YouTube are a small portion of his sermons, and the church was very active caring for the poor, the homeless, and those with HIV/AIDS.  

He hardly "abandoned" his white family: his mother and grandfather have passed away, leaving only his grandmother in Hawaii.

Yes, of course Barack Obama can win.  Most people are not as paranoid as you are.

I'm glad Bill Clinton was president, but his triangulation, consultant culture, his (no fault of Hillary's) personal stupidity, and atrophy of the Party infrastructure left the Party in bad shape when he left.  Republican incompetence, new Democratic leadership, and the netroots brought the Party back in 2006.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-03-19 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Answers
To #4: Yes.

"I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against his mother's race." --from Dreams from my Father

And oh HAY LOOK, a conservative site had popped the Wright cherry last year, drawing from Obama's own writings in that same book.

Even his celebrated acceptance of Christianity in his mid-20s turns out to be an affirmation of African-American emotional separatism. As I was reading Dreams, I assumed that his ending would be adapted from the favorite book of his youth, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, which climaxes with Malcolm's visit to Mecca and heartwarming conversion from the racism of the Black Muslims to the universalism of orthodox Islam. I expected that Obama would analogously forgive whites and ask forgiveness for his own racial antagonism as he accepts Jesus.

Instead, Obama falls under the spell of a leftist black nationalist preacher, Jeremiah A. Wright, who preaches African-American unity through antipathy toward whites. Reverend Wright remains a major influence on the presidential candidate. (The title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, is borrowed from one of Wright's sermons.) Ben Wallace-Wells notes in Rolling Stone: "This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr."

The happy ending to Dreams is that Obama's hard-drinking half-brother Roy--"Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage"--converts to teetotaling Islam.
Sweet to see that that article has been given credibility in light of the MSM's focus.
by BrandingIron17 2008-03-19 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow...

I won't vote for McCain but I will vote for Nader or write-in Hillary over voting for Obama.

by mikes101 2008-03-19 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow...

That's pretty sad, mikes101.  So should Clinton get the nomination because her supporters are more petulant than Obama's?

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-03-19 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Not at all realistic? Why?

> McCain is one of the most palatable choices to non-GOP voters that the GOP could have picked.  

Cat poop is one of the most palatable choices of poop (according to my dog). I am still not eating cat poop.  

by itsthemedia 2008-03-19 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Good numbers for Clinton, bad numbers for Obama, but it's FREAKING March.

by RJEvans 2008-03-19 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Heh.  2004 should have proven to us that "electability" is a fool's game, especially in freaking MARCH!

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-03-19 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

But, I bet both of you would be clamouring for Hillary to leave if this was reversed (and, with those numbers, I would have to give thought to that).

Generally, I agree with polls being too far away to be of much use.  However, in light of Wright and no way this is going away and more other new vetting "surpises", this trend is devastating news.  He cannot win.  Let's give Dems a chance and nominate the only one who can, Hillary Clinton.

by anya109 2008-03-19 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Of course the fact that Hillary is behind in Pledged Delegates and the Popular vote wouldn't have anything to do with that clamoring, would it?

by AllergicToBS 2008-03-19 12:41PM | 0 recs
popular vote

She is losing the popular vote by only 2%. Obama does not have the majority of the popular votes (49% to 47%). If Clinton can win some states like PA, she will narrow and may overturn the popular vote deficit.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-19 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Electability is a stupid argument in primaries, no matter who the candidates are.  We need to trust the collective judgment of our Party to nominate someone with broad appeal.  Senator Clinton is welcome to stay in the race as long as she likes as far as I am concerned, although I call on her to run a positive campaign (or at least save the negative part for McCain) since Obama is the prohibitive favorite to get the nomination.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-03-19 04:02PM | 0 recs
watch AC 360 tonight on CNN

I just saw a clip in which Obama calls HRC "disingenuous". Yes, that is the exact word he used. Obama has been trashing HRC since last summer. The other latest one is the Obama campaign saying that HRC will say anything to win. Obama has no problem with damaging HRC as much as possible so she would be hampered as a general election candidate. A lot of it is under the radar. HRC cannot stay positive with his attitude the way it is.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-19 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

True but I think a lot of Obama supporters have their heads in the sand over Rev. Wright. Obama is now being defined by him because Obama failed to define himself.

He won't recover from this.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-19 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: McCaskill?

McCaskill cannot say a peep without consulting her 18 year old daughter, don't you know that???

by tiffany 2008-03-19 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: McCaskill?

Yeah, McCaskill is a real slug........

by pollbuster 2008-03-19 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: McCaskill?

Boy do I regret donating funds to help McCaskill win in 2006. As a freshman senator she should be rolling up her sleeves and getting to know the Senate, not shilling for Obama in the Democratic knife fight. I agree, she is disappointing.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-19 04:50PM | 0 recs
Counting Votes In St. Louis

Re: poll, did they, unlike most news organizations, allow votes from St. Louis to be counted in the poll?

That is snark, but the truth is that as we saw on primary night, respected orgs like AP & NPR make projections in Missouri without bothering to count a single viote in St. Louis or St. Louis County, only about 35% of the state.  I wonder if St. Louis is included in the polling models.  Seriously.

by howardpark 2008-03-19 12:02PM | 0 recs
Of course it is, look at the crosstabs

I watched the news coverage of Super Tuesday and none of the networks I saw called Missouri for Clinton when she had a big early lead there. Similarly, they didn't call the state for Talent in 2006 when he had a big early lead there.  The habit of St. Louis city and county submitting  their votes later than most of the rest of the state is well known.

Stop making false claims based on nothing but your own resentments.

by lombard 2008-03-19 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course it is, look at the crosstabs

AP and NPR called it for Clinton and the Clinton Campaign never acknowledged thier defeat.  And no, I simply don't trust polls when it comes to weighting of inner city and even inner suburb areas.

by howardpark 2008-03-19 02:31PM | 0 recs
Possilbe message

If this is true I think it does send a pretty clear message to any up and coming Black Pol, join the GOP, then when you join a white church it wont hurt and you can win.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-19 12:03PM | 0 recs
Well, a black pol joining an integrated church,

and choosing to send children there, would show that he or she is not interested in separatism, wouldn't it?  Is that not a good thing?  Or would that be too Uncle Tom for you?

As far as a black Republican poll being more likely to be nominated for president than a Democratic one, you might have something there. Candidates like Michael Steele and J.C. Watts have easily transcended race and won very large shares of white voters.

by lombard 2008-03-19 12:44PM | 0 recs
You're linked on the HuffPo!

by rigsoHC 2008-03-19 12:04PM | 0 recs
survey

I never lived in MO or KY but I spent my first 20 years of life in Ohio and my entire Democratic family lives there and Obama will NEVER win Ohio and no it won't be a close race either. The result will be similar to Hillary vs Obama in that state.

What about MO??? Where is Claire McCaskill??? She said Obama can win MO but Hillary cannot. Guess what Claire you backed the wrong horse

by rossinatl 2008-03-19 12:11PM | 0 recs
well..

I don't think that anyone should be celebrating this, considering that there is a 99%+ chance that Obama is going to be the nominee.

by Darknesse 2008-03-19 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: well..

The nomination isn't going to be decided by chance, and it isn't going to be decided right away, either (this may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it's clearly a fact). It will be decided by the superdelegates, who still have time to decide what the effect of the Wright revelations will be.

by Alice in Florida 2008-03-19 03:47PM | 0 recs
99% chance

That Obama will not get enough pledged delegates to win outright. The rules that everyone agreed on ahead of time is that the superdelegates are independent voices, not bound by the pledged delegate results. Of this I am 99% certain.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-19 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: 99% chance

Yes. But everyone knows that to overturn the pledged delegate and popular vote leader with superdelegates would destroy the party.

That way lies madness.

Besides, it seems that Obama has much bigger coattails, so in their own best interests, the remaining superdelegates are more likely to go to Obama anyways.

Hillary has pretty much called in all her favors, and barring some major stumble (and no, Wright is not one) there won't be too much movement in her direction going forward. She has gotten what, 3 or 4 supers since Super Tuesday compared to around 47 or so for Obama?

That's the way the winds are blowing boys and girls. Listen close... it says "Obama 08...."

by Darknesse 2008-03-19 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

MO and OH are troubling, KY not so much; a loss is a loss is a loss.

by Trond Jacobsen 2008-03-19 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses

How can you take polls seriously in the middle of one of the worse crisis for Obama.  I think I will wait a couple of weeks and see how the polls are then.  

by Spanky 2008-03-19 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Does SurveyUSA have Electoral College maps?

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

by Caro 2008-03-19 12:30PM | 0 recs
Let's wait a couple weeks on this

Let's wait a couple weeks on this. If polls in a couple weeks show similar numbers then Obama is in trouble. The Wright issue was a real shock to people. I thought Obama handled it masterfully but we'll have to see what low information voters think of it after Obama's speech gets played and replayed.  It'll take a week or so before the electorate completely processes it, including his magnificent speech.

When this poll was conducted, many people honestly thought Obama held the same paranoid views of his pastor. Now, no thinking person does. The question that remains is why did he stick with a pastor he disagrees with.  He dealt with that in the speech and we'll see if voters bought it. But 2 says ago the situation was much more precarious than it is now.

by elrod 2008-03-19 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's wait a couple weeks on this

I didn't buy it, and I am a thinking person.  I think in order for me to buy it, he would have had to break with his church, and admit his mistake, and apologize for having been associated with this church.  Sorry, Grandma = pastor is not a logical comparison for me.

by mikes101 2008-03-19 12:42PM | 0 recs
We've got a problem.

I think until the Dems finally have their nominee or until they both ban together to take on McCain, while still battling amongst each other, their poll numbers on going to drop.  McCain is basically getting a free pass, b/c most of the focus is on Clinton and Obama.  That keeps his likeability and the public perception of him relatively positive.  He gets to sit on the sidelines for the next five months and watch the Dems tear each other apart.  That is something that has to change.

by venavena 2008-03-19 12:41PM | 0 recs
Obama Losses In OH, KY, and MO....DUH!
Who would have thought it.........
A "BLACK MAN" losing ground in the Hillbilly States of America!
by BubbaGump 2008-03-19 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re

Ummm if Obama cannot win PA, OH, MO etc and you think those states are the "Hillbilly states" how do you get him to 270 electoral votes in November??? Just curious...

Oh wait he's going to sweep Utah, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming...

Right...

by rossinatl 2008-03-19 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Re

Come on - we all know Obama can open up more new states than Clinton. Not that this means Obama would have a better chance of winning, but he does have a better chance of winning new states.

by LandStander 2008-03-19 02:30PM | 0 recs
which states does Obama &quot;open up&quot;

If possible, please support your argument with link to a poll showing strength in those "pick-up" states vs. McCain.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-19 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: which states does Obama &quot;open up&quot;

I dont bother giving sources for something that virtuall every blog, political junkie, newspaper and tv network all agree is true.

by LandStander 2008-03-20 10:32AM | 0 recs
Obama is going to have to bother

Obama will need to work hard to get HRC supporters if he is the nominee and make his case. It is not obvious. You may not want to take the time to try and convince us, but he will, because, frankly, it is not obvious at all that he can win the general election.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-22 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Before y'all get super excited...

His poll numbers should be expected to take a major hit this week.  It will probably get worse, actually...

Now, if his poll numbers stay this low two weeks from now?  Then you can hoot and holler, 'cos we have a permanently damaged candidate that has an overwhelming lead in delegates... how we get out that mess without destroying the party is going to be something you guys are going to have to explain to me...

Regardless, there is no cause for celebration when a fellow democrat has been kneecapped.  It hurts the party as a whole...

by LordMike 2008-03-19 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

I agree with you.  I don't want to see this happen to a Democrat.  However, given the choice of this happening now, or in the General Election, I am glad that this is happening now.  Either Obama can:

1) Prove that he deserves to be the nominee by bouncing back strong from this

  1. Failing #1, he can argue that he still deserves to be the nominee because of "the math"
  2. Failing #1, he can graciously concede and encourage his supporters to rally to Clinton

I strongly hope for either #1 or #3 (I would prefer #3 actually ;).  I think #2 is basically assuring a Republican victory in the fall.

Also, remember that Obama at least partially, if not wholly, brought this on himself.  He did not have to belong to this church.  He could have voiced his concerns with the pastor and the theology somewhere along the 20 years of his membership - he did not do that.  So it is one thing to say he has been "kneecapped" but a lot of people do have legitimate doubts about Obama's judgement after this episode.  He is not an "innocent victim" in all this.  He at the very least was playing politics and joined this church because it was politically expedient for him to do so in Chicago, at worst because he agrees with some of their theology.

by mikes101 2008-03-19 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

That poll showing will come to pass. As for Kentucky, I NEVER imagined Obama will win there. As for Ohio, he'll win Ohio if he picks the Governor as Veep candidate!

http://OsiSpeaks.com

by KYJurisDoctor 2008-03-19 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Strickland has no interest in being on a losing ticket and Obama would still not win Ohio. It would be closer but it would be an embarrassment to Strickland

by rossinatl 2008-03-19 01:19PM | 0 recs
Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Neither Hillary nor Obama was going to carry Kentucky and I think that Missouri is a narrowish loss for either, albeit with different splits on demographics.

But sifting all the poll numbers, I believe very much that Hillary has a good chance of carrying Ohio and Obama has none.

Furthermore, it scares the crap out of me that Obama puts Pennsylvania and New Jersey into play with McCain as the nominee.

The idea that Obama as the Democratic candidate has the capability of leading to a "transformational" landslide election is sheer nonsense.  He may eke out a narrow victory in the EC or he may not; Ohio alone makes Hillary the surer bet.  In addition, I think she puts Florida in play and keeps Pennsylvania and New Jersey out of play.

by InigoMontoya 2008-03-19 01:34PM | 0 recs
This proves HRC argument, prob many

other surprises that will pop out like this in G.E.  

ALSO, Obama has 1 bad week of press and he plummets, Hillary has endured MONTHS of bad press, and her numbers stay pretty good. It's because people dont know Obama, he will lose because of surprises like this...

by rigsoHC 2008-03-19 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: This proves HRC argument, prob many

Hillary had months and months of fawning press (remember the "inevitable candidate"?) until late 2007. She had a couple months of slightly unfavorable press. The last month, she's had adoring press coverage and Obama's been slammed repeatedly.

Obama's been under heavy MSM attack since about the Texas debate. His numbers have slipped a tiny amount over the Wright flap, but are already rebounding.

Care to rethink your argument just a little?

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-19 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Obama is fighting a two front war just so that she can chase her pipe dream. In my calmer moments, I say that they can't decide the race until it clear beyond a doubt that she cannot win....that this is the only way that the Hillary supporters stay on board. But as it becomes clear that her strategy is to tear him down and leave the party in disarray, I find myself imploring them to do the deed now before it's too late.

by ListenNOW 2008-03-19 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll:

So much for that electability. Look until there is a certain nominee I think both Democrats will be somewhat hampered in these general election polls due to the uncertainty, but this is not a good sign for Obama. A month ago Obama was doing quite a bit better than Hillary in these polls, so it's quite a turn around to be doing that much worse in Ohio and Missour which are big battleground states.

by Christopher Lib 2008-03-19 02:12PM | 0 recs
You should ask President Dukakis

about his 17% lead roughly around this time in the '88 campaign.

by jaywillie 2008-03-19 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: You should ask President Dukakis

The 17% lead for Dukakis was much later, right after the Atlanta Convention.  Of course, your point about polling at this stage is well taken.

by howardpark 2008-03-19 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses

So let me get this straight:

Obama is one point down on Hillary in one state (clearly the most important of the three, and a one-point difference is way within MOE), badly in a second (probably his second-least-favorable state), and middling in a third. All of them states McCain's winning anyway, as of right now.

Diary title should be: Survey USA Poll: Big Democrat losses

Seems to me what you've said is that both candidates are going down in flames. Of course, it is March, and Obama's numbers are very likely at a situational low from which we're already seeing a rebound... but don't let reality intrude on you.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-19 02:15PM | 0 recs
You're reading the numbers wrong

In Ohio (presumably the state you refer to as the most important), Hillary is ahead of McCain by 6 and Obama is down 7; in Missouri, Hillary is down two and Obama is down 14. So Hillary is leading or within MOE in two of the three, not losing all three.

by Shawn 2008-03-19 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses

Seems like you didn't read the numbers correctly.  

The way the numbers was laid out was less than intuitive, which may explain why you didn't get it.

(See Ohio above)

by koam 2008-03-19 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Look at the Demographics in Ohio

Clinton leads among Men, Women, All Age Groups, Blacks, ties Whites.

Obama trails among Men, Women, All Age Groups except 18-34 (48/47), trails by 19 points among Whites (37/56).  leads among Blacks.

McCain gets 25% of Dems vs. McCain.  When vs. Clinton McCain wins just 10% of Dems.

by koam 2008-03-19 02:41PM | 0 recs
Fallacy

Here's the fundamental self-serving falacy that the Hillary supporters now reveling in the Wright fallout fail to understand:

By the time of the general, this issue will be as buried as the hundred Clinton scandals out there.

So the question doesn't come down to a "clean" candidate vs. a candidate with the Wright stigma.

It is a choice between a candidate that can be made to look like a racist through questionable associations with a made-up pastor image, or one that can be made to look like a murdering, drug trafficking, terrorist pardoning, land dealing crook who let Al-Quaeda run away and was responsible for 9/11.

Nobody in the Obama campaign will mention it, because they have the class to understand that democrats aren't supposed to tear each other down.

But you'd better think about it for a bit before you decide on who would be the best candidate.

by memoryadi 2008-03-19 02:42PM | 0 recs
Obviously

Missouri, Ohio and Kentucky voters have already "factored in" that Hillary killed Vince Foster and blew up the World Trade Center.

(Is a snark tag necessary here? I hope not.)

by Shawn 2008-03-19 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obviously

No they haven't, no ads or negative publicity has been done on Hillary... yet.  

The tax documents and white house papers will bring the flood back up, let's see how things hold up.

Hillary should have taken the high road on this campaign and stood by her democratic running mate.

by memoryadi 2008-03-19 03:00PM | 0 recs
Newsflash to Hillary: Rush And Fox Not Your BFFL

As soon as she gets the upper upper hand, Hillary is  going to discover that Barack was the appetizer, but she is the main course.

by bernardpliers 2008-03-19 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

riiiight, this will all go away and we'll never ever hear about this awful Wright stuff again!  

by atomic garden 2008-03-19 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Can you believe that the poor, young Obamabots actually think this will go away by November?!

By October the Wright clips will be in permanent rotation on every network, every radio station and everywhere else.

McCain won't have to say a word.

by americanincanada 2008-03-19 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

not good news for Obama - it probably moves his numbers to only slightly better in the electoral college than Clinton rather than much better.

If the trend continues for more than 2 states in one survey (Kentucky is not likely to go blue regardless), she will become more electable than he will.  Which is kind of depressing for dems, given how few states she is solidly ahead of Mccain in.

by edparrot 2008-03-19 02:58PM | 0 recs
Not that there was much doubt

But I think we can tell who will win the Kentucky primary by looking at these results:

             Democrat
McCain 34%        McCain 48%
Clinton 60%       Obama 41%
Undecided 6%      Undecided 11%

by Shawn 2008-03-19 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Assuming there is nothing incriminating in the Clintons' tax returns for the last 7 years, Hillary is in great shape! Which is to say she's got a slim chance.

by bernardpliers 2008-03-19 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Obama is the candidate. So we have a thread full of people cheering for the defeat of our Democratic nominee. Get your head in the game guys. The enemy is the Republican party.

by brimur 2008-03-19 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,
All folks posting here...
you certainly had a chance to show up to a simple rally or vigil in your place to mark this horrid anniversary......
If YOU are not willing to take a visible stand of resistance...why ask your candidate to do more?
by nogo war 2008-03-19 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,

Who could guess what Obama's game plan is to win in Nov.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-19 03:59PM | 0 recs
Probably to get more votes than the other guy

It's working so far

by bernardpliers 2008-03-19 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey

He obviously doesn't have one. He thinks he's still running for a senate seat in the south side of Chicago where winning the Dem primary equals winning the election. He obviously hasn't a clue as to how to handle the GOP.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-19 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY,
-That no Democrat will win KY
-That I would be very interested to see the current state of places like VA, CO, IA, NV where Obama has run better
-That we have plenty of time to determine how Reagan Democrats react, let's revisit in three weeks
-That Clinton holds the base better but Obama attracts more crossover voters; any intelligent discussion should present both those facts
-That if Obama doesn't recover Clinton will win PA BIG as well as OR and IN; then the supers would have a genuine dilemma
-That any decision should account for MN, WI, PA, NJ, etc.
-That I wonder whether Clinton takes Obama as VP in such a scenario
-That no matter what I'll remember McCain's recent comments and show up to vote against a third term for Bush.
by Nissl 2008-03-19 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA Poll:

These are bad news for Obama. There's something that people need to face: Obama will not recover from this. And Wright is just the appetizer for the GOP. They haven't even started on all the other stuff.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-19 04:50PM | 0 recs
Let's not forget Arkansas

This will be a "pick-up" state for the Dems with HRC and a retained state for the GOP vs. Obama.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-19 04:59PM | 0 recs
Two-On-One Polls Are Meaningless

Hillary fans won't consider voting for Obama and vice versa. It doesn't matter who it shows on top, the polls are meaningless until one of them drops out.

by bernardpliers 2008-03-19 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: McCaskill?

She was quoted in an article in the Kansas City Star today I think.

by navyvet48 2008-03-19 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: McCaskill?
No, she said something all right. The dumbest thing possible. http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/1055 1 "He, for the first time, I think, as a black leader in America, has come to the American people not as a victim, but rather as a leader." Wow, what a kick in the teeth to Jesse Jackson, MLK, Malcom X....
by BrandingIron17 2008-03-19 09:23PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads