home
The Problem With Obama | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well, he's the only thing that (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Geekesque on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:55:13 PM EST
could stop Hillary.

And he's not doing too shabby down there, certainly better than the nationwide #'s reflect.

That said, I'm not advocating on his behalf until the clown show gets fixed inside his campaign.

I think Doug Feith handled the Gospel concerts.

[ Parent ]

Two things (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 02:08:04 PM EST
Reading a poll properly. To understand an Iowa caucus poll it must be understood to tat te top line numbers are meaningless.

In the likeliest caucus goers segment, te one tat matters, Obama simply is not doing that well and as not real message to drive his voters. Indeed, he is going backwards with is latest moves.

And fighting illary is NOT the answer. Figting Republicans is. And seems incapable of doing that.

If only Obama had half the fight his supporters have.

[ Parent ]

One more thing about post-mortem (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by magster on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 02:21:22 PM EST
Hillary's vote for Kyl-Lieberman will be her downfall if Iran is attacked before the Christmas.

[ Parent ]
Very good point (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 02:26:56 PM EST
I think Iran will not be attacked at all personally.

But if it is, it will be disastrous for Hillary.

[ Parent ]

Yes (1.00 / 0) (#6)
by squeaky on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 02:25:05 PM EST
And fighting illary is NOT the answer. Figting Republicans is. And seems incapable of doing that.

Everyone, Democratic and Republican is fighting Hillary

digby:

I don't know if anyone's noticed, but George W. Bush is being disappeared from the presidential campaign and everyone's running against incumbent Hillary Clinton. Subtly, but relentlessly, the public psyche is being prepared to deny Junior ever existed. And it could work. For many different reasons, most Americans want nothing more than to forget George W. Bush was ever president. So, we see a very odd subliminal narrative taking shape in which the blame for the nation's failures of the last seven years is being shifted to Clinton (and the "do-nothing" Democratic congress) as if the Codpiece hasn't been running things since 2000.


[ Parent ]
The joys of being a frontrunner. (none / 0) (#9)
by Geekesque on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 02:30:57 PM EST
The inevitability campaign has its drawbacks.

[ Parent ]
Really? (1.00 / 0) (#11)
by squeaky on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 02:47:03 PM EST
You don't think it has anything to do with the fact that she is not a man?

Lower life forms often reveal unspoken fear of the elite:

If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

You don't think that this has to do with Hillary?

Bottom line: I don't think that it is just because she is a frontrunner.

[ Parent ]

I think it is part of it (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 02:55:27 PM EST
because part of the entire hillary personna for 15 years has been so wrapped up in the men who hate her.

but I tink Geek's point is also valid - it is part of being the frontrunner. The exact lines of attack are very much a form of sexism.

[ Parent ]

Four points in response: (none / 0) (#8)
by Geekesque on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 02:29:25 PM EST
  1.  Likely voter screens are notoriously unreliable for Iowa caucuses.  Even the best poll severely overestimates the incidence of actual caucus goers

  2.  Obama is doing very well in terms of second-choice preferences, which does matter a great deal

  3.  Look at the trend lines at pollster.com--Obama is gaining ground, not losing ground in Iowa.  On the other hand, John Edwards has steadily lost support since January.

  4.  The McClurkin thing was a fiasco, and his entire SC clown show belongs in the Dunce Hall of Fame.  But, it's not something that people in Iowa are paying attention to.  Unlike Clinton's Iran vote, which is drawing attention.


[ Parent ]
Advertising (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 02:46:29 PM EST
Richardson "gained ground" when he advertised as well.

That is a pretty easy thing to see.

Edwards as not advertised.

Let me put it this way. I think we can almost predict Edwards' result now - 26-32%.

The other results are the issue.

Obama has not evidenced a message that will give him a meaningful swing.

Does he have something new to bring to the table?

[ Parent ]

Edwards has very little money to spend (none / 0) (#13)
by Geekesque on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 03:15:39 PM EST
on television advertising in Iowa.

He's capped at just over a $1 Million.  That will get drowned out with what Clinton and Obama have.

The joy of public financing.

Obama's campaign themes actually play pretty well in Iowa--just a matter of closing the sale.

Clinton's #2 choice polling is not very good.  She is vulnerable.

But, all she has to do is beat Obama.  She steamrolls in 3/6 scenarios:

Clinton-Obama-Edwards
Clinton-Edwards-Obama
Edwards-Clinton-Obama

She emerges as a co-frontrunner in this scenario:

Edwards-Obama-Clinton

She's in a real fight for her life under this scenario:

Obama-Clinton-Edwards

She's in big trouble if:

Obama-Edwards-Clinton.

Keep in mind that Edwards is going to be attacking her from now until January.  As will his 527 group.

[ Parent ]

Contradictory points (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 03:33:22 PM EST
Edwards can't spend and yet he will use all his money on attacking Hillary?

Actually, I think Edwards is counting on Obama to do the dirty work. And he is probably rigt.

As you can see, I think Edwards is in the best position in Iowa.

[ Parent ]

You have it backwards. (none / 0) (#17)
by Geekesque on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 03:51:16 PM EST
Obama is counting on Edwards to do the dirty work.

Edwards thinks Obama is too wimpy to take Hillary head-on.

We shall see.

Edwards's themes are all about Hillary.  Which make sense.  Second place behind Hillary is a tiretread mark across your face.

Reality is that Edwards is losing support every month instead of gaining it.  Losing traction.

He's also not viable past Iowa.  Can't win New Hampshire.  No prayer in South Carolina (barely outpolling the margin of error amongst African-Americans there), not enough money to contend on Super Duper Tuesday.

And he'd be out of money between February and August while the Republicans would pound the hell out of him if he did get the nomination, which cuts against his electability.

[ Parent ]

Counting on Edwards (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:51:19 PM EST
Weren't we just promised Obama is going to "take on Hillary?"

[ Parent ]
Chart of trendlines in Iowa (none / 0) (#14)
by Geekesque on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 03:26:45 PM EST
http://www.pollster.com/AIATopDems600.png

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 03:35:52 PM EST
As you know, I do not think much of those trendlines without looking inside the numbers and considering the ad expenditures.

[ Parent ]
Sure, Edwards got outspent badly (none / 0) (#18)
by Geekesque on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 03:52:43 PM EST
in that time period.

And he'll get badly outspent from here on out.

Money matters.

[ Parent ]

Not as much as you think (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:47:55 PM EST


[ Parent ]

The Problem With Obama | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft