home

Electability Strategies

By Big Tent Democrat

Setting an example to us all, Markos and Jerome Armstrong, good friends and writing partners, prove that you can vociferously disagree without having the world come to an end.

I think both have good points and I have to delve into their arguments in more depth to see who I agree with, on what and why. But a big hurrah to both of them for proving that progressive blogs do not have to agree about everything and that disagreement is not the end of the blogs as we know them.

< Matthew Dowd: Obama Will Win the Nomination | The Need For Unity >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Why I Don't Give Up on Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:13:18 PM EST
    Every time I think, this is it, Obama will be the nominee.  He has the media, the money, and now the D.C. establishment behind him.  This is a done deal no matter how the delegates come out.

    Then I ask myself if the Dems are going to nominate someone who lost New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Michigan, Florida, and California.  I cannot see it.  Add Ohio and Pennsylvania to that list and it becomes even harder to believe (Texas, too, although except for its size, it's the same as Utah in terms of Dems winning it).

    I know I should see Obama as tied with Clinton, if not ahead.  I do get the arguments his team makes about pledged delegates and the like, but I honestly don't see how he wins the nomination and loses every big democratic state except Illinois.  

    I can't tell if I'm in denial since I'm a Clinton supporter or if everyone else is crazy.  Dems don't win without big states, so how can the nominee win without them?   And yet I recognize Obama is at least as likely to be the nominee as Clinton.

    Weirdest primary season ever.


    Edge (none / 0) (#27)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:05:29 PM EST
    I think Obama's edge is one of the things you mentioned. He has the D. C. establishment behind him. I think it's the first time in my memory when the Party intervened and embraced one Democrat and blackballed the other. It's totally weird.

    Unfortunately, I think the party establishment can pull a lot of strings to get the candidate of their choice. I just wonder how that will go down with Hillary's people.

    Parent

    In the general (none / 0) (#29)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:07:38 PM EST
    The big Dem states will stay the big Dem states regardless of whether its Obama or Clinton IMO.

    An Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket and a clear Dem nominee would help.


    Parent

    Big states (none / 0) (#67)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:28:17 PM EST
    Not  necessarily.  

    Just like  Texas,  many of  those  big  states  don't  believe   Obama  has  enough experience  militarily  or  Armed  Services  to  be  Commander in Chief  yet.    

    It's  risky  to   pick  a  nominee  who is  counting  on   Blacks, youth, yuppies,   and  crossover  Republicans.  

    Parent

    The assumption that b/c Obama lost (none / 0) (#62)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:52:50 PM EST
    those big states in the primary and therefore will lose them in November is just wrong. A blue state is a blue state. He lost them to Hillary, a blue candidate. Against the red team, they'll be there for him.

    Parent
    That's not my assumption at all (none / 0) (#63)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:19:27 PM EST
    That's not what I think.  But I honestly cannot imagine those big blue states letting democrats in Idaho decide the nominee.  Not because of November, but because the power in the Dem party lies in those states.  And they are also symbolically important, IMO.

    Parent
    Well, then Dean should not have called for a 50 (none / 0) (#66)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:13:17 PM EST
    state primary. He should have only scheduled big blue states. Then your point would be valid. But he didn't, so I don't think it is.

    I think it would be ironic if Obama won w/o those places, but not in any way unsettling or unseemly.

    Parent

    MyDD (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:45:49 PM EST
    looks at the rules that took delegates away from FL and MI, and argues that IA and SC should be stripped based on the reading the diarist had.

    "...in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent."

    Would be nice to have an interpretation by the legal minds here.

    I've also read Jerome's interesting post about (none / 0) (#14)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:49:07 PM EST
    why Iowa and New Hampshire weren't punished for breaking the rules which clearly state that no primary can be held before the first Tuesday in February. Strange isn't it?

    Parent
    Strange, indeed (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:52:00 PM EST
    I just don't understand why this hasn't been brought out more.  I suppose it's the media's fault, but why has no one questioned this?  And why haven't they implemented the 50% rule, at least in Florida?

    I am baffled.

    (PS: I believe NH is exempt as it is written in their state constitution; however, I think Florida, with it's republican controlled legislature, can make a good argument that they did all they could do to adhere to the rules.)

    Still baffled.

    Parent

    Florida did not do all it can. (none / 0) (#21)
    by auboy2007 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:00:02 PM EST
    I mean, the Dems in the legislature went for this move, and the state party was offered a chance to hold a different contest to avoid the sanctions (at their own expense), but chose not to.

    I thought that IA, NH, SC, and NV were given special exceptions.

    Parent

    And the DNC didn't do all it could (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:12:35 PM EST
    like only stripping some delegates.

    Parent
    That is true. (none / 0) (#41)
    by auboy2007 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:15:40 PM EST
    But I don't buy the sympathy for Florida argument due to its GOP government.

    I think the whole thing is f*ed up between FL/MI and the Superdelegates and whatnot.

    Parent

    Oh, I do (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:18:07 PM EST
    Seems to me that the FL race ought to be treated as legitimate. I mean, the caucus alternative would have always been unfair to the voters--caucuses are terrible.

    Parent
    There were rules and they violated them. (none / 0) (#51)
    by auboy2007 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:22:28 PM EST
    And honestly, losing only half the delegates would not be a deterrent to future states.

    Parent
    The problem is (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:42:01 PM EST
    that by removing the delegates you're aren't just punishing the state party, you're punishing the voters.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#68)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:31:26 PM EST
    And  the  reality is,   that if  the  Democratic  Party  disenfranchises   Florida, after  2000,   they may  well   LOSE  the  ge.  

    Everything   has  consequences.

    Parent

    We are headed for a loss if something doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:56:27 PM EST
    bring us all together. That AP poll shows that one third of Obama's supporters would vote for McCain if HC wins. Nearly 30% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain. So much for Obama's argument that he'll get all of her votes.

    Wow (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:58:39 PM EST
    That is horrible.

    HAve a link?

    Parent

    Here you go... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:02:00 PM EST
    What (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:08:49 PM EST
    is so icky to me is that the Old Guard in D. C. was willing to risk another Republican administration rather than get a strong president who might diminish their power. These people need to be replaced. Makes a good argument for term limitations.

    Parent
    Two Most Interesting Paragraphs (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:15:52 PM EST
    While Obama has done better than Clinton among independents in their fight for the Democratic nomination, that advantage does not show up when each is pitted against McCain. Each Democrat gets four in 10 independent votes to McCain's one-third with those voters, who will be a major target of both parties' campaigns this fall.

    In a finding that underscores both McCain's cross-party appeal and the bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination, about one-third of Obama's supporters picked McCain when asked their preference in a Clinton-McCain general election matchup. Nearly three in 10 Clinton backers said they would vote for McCain over Obama.

    I'm not surprised that Obama holds onto fewer Clinton voters.  Two previous polls, LA Times and NPR, have shown that Clinton holds the democratic base together better than Obama does.  This would be consistent with that.

    The one reason I worry about Obama's electability is because of the polls showing more Dems splitting from him than Clinton.  Independents can be a fickle bunch, but a nominee who goes in needing to solidify his democratic base - and at a time when he's also going to have to stay near the center to appeal to independents - is a potential problem.  It's not insurmountable, but it's an issue.  

    Parent

    Here Is Another Interest Tidbit From AP Poll (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:24:43 PM EST
    While Obama has done better than Clinton among independents in their fight for the Democratic nomination, that advantage does not show up when each is pitted against McCain. Each Democrat gets four in 10 independent votes to McCain's one-third with those voters, who will be a major target of both parties' campaigns this fall.

    That poll shows that Obama as no advantage over Clinton with independent voters in a GE match up with McCain.


    Parent

    Wow, although this is not new info (none / 0) (#50)
    by g8grl on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:21:55 PM EST
    I guess its must be the same as the poll last week that said 70% of Obama's supporters would be happy with Hillary and about the same Clinton supporters would be happy with Obama (one third and 30% not being that different.

    Parent
    It's not quite true (none / 0) (#30)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:08:11 PM EST

    BUT WHAT IF THE OTHER ONE WINS?
    Just 49 percent of Democrats who voted for Clinton said they would be satisfied if Obama won, while just 52 percent of Obama voters said they would be satisfied if Clinton won.

    link


    Nearly two-thirds -- 72 percent -- of Democratic voters said they'd be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee, and 71 percent said they'd be happy with Obama.

    link

    These are from Super Tuesday states, which is probably about the best "national" data we can hope for. It looks like there is a tiny lead (that is obviously statistically insignificant) of Clinton supporters that wouldn't back Obama than vice-versa.

    Takehome: The dramatics on the blogs (by both sides) aren't representative of the real world.

    Parent

    Did you read Teresa's link? (none / 0) (#33)
    by auboy2007 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:09:55 PM EST
    From the AP article:

    In a finding that underscores both McCain's cross-party appeal and the bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination, about one-third of Obama's supporters picked McCain when asked their preference in a Clinton-McCain general election matchup. Nearly three in 10 Clinton backers said they would vote for McCain over Obama.


    Parent
    Uh (none / 0) (#35)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:12:30 PM EST
    1/3 = 33%
    30% = 30%

    That's not much of a statistical difference; that's probably even within the margin of error and consistent with what I posted.

    Parent

    Third Poll (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:18:25 PM EST
    This is the third poll that indicates he has issues holding the base together.  In the NPR poll, I think he lost 18% of Democrats to McCain while Clinton lost only 9%.  That's a potential problem.  If he hasn't won these Dem voters over by now, how is he going to in a GE?  And that starts to become a lot of votes to make up with independents and Republicans in the middle of a GOP smear campaign.

    I'm not saying Obama is unelectable, I think he is electable.  But I do think it's easier with a solidified base.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#53)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:26:00 PM EST
    that's certainly a reasonable opinion. I guess I'm more heartened that 70% of democrats are okay with either candidate, given how divisive this campaign has been.

    As far as electability polls go, well, what were the polls looking like on both sides last year at this time? There's a lot to happen between now and then; personally, I think the base will come around once they realize how awful McCain is regardless of who the candidate is, and independents will be the key battleground.

    Parent

    Obama loses Independents (none / 0) (#69)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:36:05 PM EST
    It  tracks  with  what  I'm  finding  down here in  Texas.  

    McCain/Obama  matchup?    Clearly,  McCain.

    My   Repub and Independent   friends  say  he's  not yet  qualified  to handle  Commander in  Chief.     They say  maybe  8  years  from now,  but not  this  year.  

    Independents  in this matchup will go  McCain.

    Parent

    Nothing (none / 0) (#34)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:10:02 PM EST
    like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Parent
    Emotions are high now... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:02:25 PM EST
    But things will settle down.

    Just mho, but I for one would be surprised if Dems don't band together behind which ever of the two candidates wins the nomination.

    If we don't, then frankly we deserve to lose, because both are A+ candidates.  

    Parent

    I agree with you but there is so much (none / 0) (#32)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:09:44 PM EST
    bitterness out there. We would have been better off if one of them had just won it early. I have never seen such bitterness. It's almost like when Gore got the race stolen but this time we hate each other. And however this gets decided if one of them isn't a clear winner without Florida and superdelegates (which is pretty impossible now), the anger will be even worse than now.

    Parent
    Really (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:13:42 PM EST
    I think this has gone to the point that there are going to be millions of very unhappy Democrats no matter who is the candidate. I used to feel bad because the country was divided that way and half the country had to settle for someone they found unacceptable. Now it's the Democrats.

    I have a little bit different interpretation of all this. I do not think the Democratic constituents are to blame for this mess. I attribute this directly to the party leadership who should have managed the whole situation differently. That's their job.

    Parent

    Ironic (none / 0) (#40)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:14:51 PM EST
    That unity is dividing us.

    Parent
    I attribute a lot of it to the media. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:19:51 PM EST
    I'm having to beg three relatives to vote for Obama if he wins and he was nearly a hero to them before this race started.

    Parent
    Teresa (none / 0) (#70)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:37:33 PM EST
    And  the pro-Obama  blogs.   They  have  literally    battered  anyone  who  wasn't  rabidly  FOR  Obama.  

    TPM, DKos,  Huffington  Post, etc.  

    Parent

    Teresa (none / 0) (#71)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:37:39 PM EST
    And  the pro-Obama  blogs.   They  have  literally    battered  anyone  who  wasn't  rabidly  FOR  Obama.  

    TPM, DKos,  Huffington  Post, etc.  

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#49)
    by lisadawn82 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:21:51 PM EST
    It's nice to see states that normally wouldn't matter getting excited about the race because their vote matters this year.  This race is really rallying the base through the US.  It also keeps the spotlight on Dem issues.  While not perfect this contested race seems to be an overall plus.

    Parent
    Alas, true! (none / 0) (#47)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:20:22 PM EST
    There is bitterness in excess.  If one had locked the nomination early?--Honestly, we'll never know.  

    At first I was depressed about heading into the convention, but now... the more I talk to rational supporters in both camps, and the more I look at the numbers, I truly don't think it will come to the worst case scenario.  I think that FL and MI delegates will be accommodated in some fashion, and I think one candidate is going to pull ahead in the coming months; consequently, when time for the convention arrives we will know already, because there will be >100 delegates to separate the winner from the loser.

    Parent

    But if we've accommodated MI and FL by (none / 0) (#54)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:27:43 PM EST
    then, it will probably be Clinton with a more than 100 lead so I think it will be a huge mess. I can't see Obama having a lead like that if we are counting Florida.

    Parent
    It all boils down to the rules. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:42:00 PM EST
    It might very well be Clinton.  And so be it.  Though I am leaning Obama, if she were to win the nomination I would support her without reservation.  And a pox on individuals in both houses who say otherwise depending on if their own precious candidate actually LOSES.

    However, to answer your question, which is a good one, I urge you to read this post on how "the rules", despite how messed up they have proven to be this season, will probably provide a clear winner.

    Just my two optimistic cents...

    Parent

    Time (none / 0) (#61)
    by koshembos on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:51:46 PM EST
    It's about time that the campaign followers stop and take a breather. 30% is now in the middle of it all. There will be enough time for every true Democrats to calm down, take a summer vacation, kiss the kids (if there are any; all sexual orientations welcome), smell the basil grow in late spring, have some fresh cilantro as well, etc.

    When they'll be back it might look less ominous. It's also important for non committed well known Democrats to chime in on the importance of accepting the party's decision. That is after all the meaning of Democracy.

    I am an Edwards supporter, but Obama scares me, I believe that he poses a risk to all, still, I will vote for him if he wins. I am not a prophet and may be totally wrong about him.

    Parent

    Okay, I'll Play (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:01:21 PM EST
    Let's assume that both Clinton and Obama would keep all of the Kerry states, which given that the Republicans are even weaker now seems about right to me.

    I think they both pick up Virginia and Ohio, which have been trending blue in recent elections.  Clinton is probably stronger in Ohio and Obama in Virginia, but I think they both win those two states.  Right there is an electoral victory for the Democrats.  

    I think both Obama and Clinton have the same chance of carrying Missouri, but I'm less sure it will go democratic.

    But to go further, I think Obama has a better chance of adding Colorado and Iowa to the count than Clinton does.  Those are his demos.  That's a 301-237 win.

    I think Clinton, because of her strength with hispanic voters has a better chance of adding New Mexico, Nevada, Arkansas and, yes, Florida.   If she got all of these states, that' a 328-210 win.

    Now, Obama would have a chance with the states I've set out for Clinton.  And Clinton would have a chance in the states I've set out for Obama.  

    My main reason for thinking that Clinton is stronger in a GE is her strength with hispanic voters, who are a growing segment of the electorate and are big in a number of swing states (NM, Nevada, Florida).  The African American vote is likely to be carried by Clinton and Obama in a GE and, in any event, tends to be strongest in deep southern states that neither would carry or democratic strongholds and so while the enthusiasm for Obama in that community might up his popular vote, I don't see it having a big effect on the electoral college numbers.

    The amazing thing here is how many Republican states are in play in this election and how few Dem states should be.

    sorry off topic again (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:20:45 PM EST
    but mydd also reports that it's not on Politico--as they said it would--what gives?  Well, at least it's not just me...

    Funny line Stellaaa & go Rutgers! (sorry Teresa)

    Electablility strategy. . . (none / 0) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:09:21 PM EST
    win more electoral votes than the Republican.  A daikon radish has a fair chance of doing so in November, FDR himself might lose on an outside chance.

    It really looks like an election hard for Dems (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:15:25 PM EST
    to lose. That said, Donna BRazile and Howard Dean are doing all in their power to make it possible it seems to me.

    Parent
    We never miss an opportunity. . . (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:20:39 PM EST
    to miss an opportunity.

    Parent
    Those two piss me off more than (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:24:05 PM EST
    anyone else in this whole thing.

    Half of the deleagtes you doofuses. Easy as that!

    Parent

    It's difficult for me to express (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:29:46 PM EST
    how much I despise Donna Brazile.

    Parent
    Absolutely. (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:31:33 PM EST
    I think Democrats are the absolute worst at predicting electability.  We should stop trying.  

    For every person saying, "of course Obama is the most electable now, he's not polarizing, he's fresh", they will be back in December if he loses saying "why on earth did we run a relatively inexperienced black guy who had never had a tough election battle with a Republican, who did not unite the democratic base, and who defined himself through mushy rhetoric that was easy for the GOP to project bad things onto?"

    For every Clinton person saying "she's battle-tested and has the smarts and experience that will shine against McCain", they will be back in December if she loses saying "why on earth did we run a woman who unites the Republican party and who is hated by the media?"

    Now, I tend to think Obama has a better chance to crash and burn because I do think his rhetoric leaves him open to being redefined in terrible ways by the GOP, polls indicate he doesn't unite the Democratic base, and I think his "judgement, not experience" argument is less likely to work in a general election against a male war hero like John McCain than it is in a Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton.  Can't downgrade McCain's experience by suggesting he just served tea.

    But as I said, electability is a fool's game.  It's basically the media trying to get folks to listen to who they like at the moment.  Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain are all electable.  The question is who will be elected.


    Parent

    I'm afraid "low information" voters (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:03:09 PM EST
    will say, hey if Rush is against McCain, McCain gets my vote.

    Parent
    Basically it comes down to substance (none / 0) (#5)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:22:46 PM EST
    Marcos said before he choose Obama's flag, that he liked what Obama said but afterwards was left wondering if he had really said anything. Or something to that effect. He said what Obama said did not have any substance. He also said he could not vote for Edwards because Edwards was going to take Federal funds. At the time I was thinking that this just did not make sense especially in as much as I felt the same thing about the substance. I would listen to Obama speak and although everything sounded nice and rosy, I would think afterwards, "What the hell did he just say?" Not memorable at all. So between that and the lousy health care plan, I made the choice to not vote for him. So no mob rule for me.

    There will Be Backlash! (none / 0) (#19)
    by Chimster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:58:36 PM EST
    I have noticed that if more posters blog about the same political stories, the more chances the MSM will pick up the story. (Look what happened to the Chelsea Pimp story) The Obama "cult" story-line seems to be getting a lot of play recently, but its not grounded in fact enough to become a bigger story in MSM. If it were, it could be the needle that pops the Obamaphilia balloon. I'm not sure when that bubble will burst. Before the Denver convention?--when he becomes the nominee?--or after he takes office? But it'll burst. I hope he'll be able to govern as well as he preaches.

    Parent
    It was almost civil! :-p (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:28:59 PM EST


    another Mydd (none / 0) (#10)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:32:18 PM EST
    diary on the numbers, and how they still add up for Clinton.

    I think I agree with both of them, but Alaska?? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:38:39 PM EST
    Plus, If McCain did pick Huckabee, Obama won't win Arkansas either.

    Arkansas (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:44:37 PM EST
    Is only sure to flip if Clinton is the nominee.  Otherwise, it's a swing state at best.

    If Alaska flips it will be because of the on-going corruption scandal in the GOP there, nothing to do with who the nominee is or isn't, IMO.  It's a very conservative state, would have to be driven out of the GOP fold, not wooed into the Democratic fold.

    Parent

    I'm encouraged (none / 0) (#16)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:53:57 PM EST
    (by what I read somewhere today) that a poll showed that the Obama Clinton wars do not appear to extend beyond the blogs, and that each are considered likeable to the other's supporters.

    McCain is beatable.  Will someone just please win outright by 3/4/08?

    The McCain parody video is a brilliant McCain indictment and a harbinger of how beatable he is.

    McCain video (none / 0) (#22)
    by Chimster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:01:00 PM EST
    Why can't anyone come up with a video for Hillary as cool as Obama's? Are there no MTV directors supporting her?

    Parent
    It's Clinton supporter made and (none / 0) (#79)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:16:53 PM EST
    the user states that Alicia Keys did not sanction it on the YouTube page it is on, but this one is pretty cool

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0hvB3lN7ZU

    Parent

    If The Republican Party Remains Fractured (none / 0) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:56:50 PM EST
    because of a McCain nomination, then IMO either Clinton or Obama can win. If they come together, then I think he has a better chance against Obama than Clinton.

    He will lose voters who want experience.
    He loses the "don't touch my gun crowd" which will hurt him in Western states.
    His comments about the Social Security CRISIS worries seniors.
    Will not be as strong with women or Latinos as Clinton
    Potential losses in FL if their voters don't count.
     

    Politico "interviews" tonight (none / 0) (#28)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:06:07 PM EST
    I'm at work, so I can't watch tv, but it was supposed to be available through politico.com starting at 7pm.  Is anyone else having the same problem viewing it online?  

    Is it possible to have a thread to discuss what HRC and BO say?  Many thanks in advance!

    Dang, I forgot about that. I have to watch my (none / 0) (#38)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:13:55 PM EST
    #1 Lady Vols play Rutgers.

    Parent
    Best comment I heard (none / 0) (#39)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:14:05 PM EST
    Hillary has allies, Obama has fans. On the Superdelegate race, you need allies.

    Disagreement (none / 0) (#46)
    by marirebel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:19:52 PM EST
    Yes, Armstrong and Marcos disagree, AND, their dialogue is civil, respectful and factually oriented.  However, their dialogue is not representative of the political discourse across the blogosphere which has been insanely vitriolic and biased to an extreme fault.  From what I have seen, this extraordinary nastiness has largely come from Obama supporters.  Arianna Huffington, for one, cannot feed her hate for all things Clinton fast enough.  Now we learn from Arianna that not only does Hillary pimp her purportedly mindless daughter, she pimps her mindless campaign manager as well!  For me, this primary season has lifted the blogosphere veil, revealing in the so-called progressive quarters, intense sexism, irrational analysis, unwarratned bias and a hatefulness and disrespect that will, I think, have long-standing consequences.          

    STELLAAAAAAAA!!! (none / 0) (#55)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:34:05 PM EST
    Rezko.

    an FBI "mole" asserts that U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Rezko) made "frequent visits to Rezko"

    Rezko (none / 0) (#73)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:35:03 PM EST
    Oh  WOW, Kathy.  

    An FBI mole in the  Rezko  operation  for  2004 and  2005  logged  FREQUENT   visits  to  Rezko  from   Gov.  Blagojevich   and  US  SEN. BARAK  OBAMA.  Mole  even mentions   "envelopes  with visible   wad  of  bills."    

    Mole  will  be  the  government's   star witness in the Rezko  trial.  

    It  appears  Mr.  Obama  DID  know  Rezko,  and  knew  him   "very  well."  

    Thanks  for posting  this.

    Parent

    Ladies, ladies, ladies. (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:02:50 PM EST
    You do not take instruction well.

    P.S.  Off to Chicago Sun Times.

    Parent

    hehe... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:36:36 PM EST
    Thanks found it right before cooking my scallopini. Kathy, this is interesting... Some Palestinian groups that Obama supported before being Senator that feel betrayed. This is how he paved his path, used many local groups to get money, with pandering, then when he went national, the Palestinians did not exist. I guess it was Ok taking Rezko's money and getting the bundles from Arab Americans when he was small fry, but then he just put them out to dry. This is the Progressive they hail.
    Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing. As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"
    EI

    Parent
    He recently had a meeting with prominent (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:44:57 PM EST
    supporters of Israel, I think in FL.  He assured them he is on board.  I guess they had some reason to be worried, although I prefer his earlier stance.  

    Parent
    Well ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:49:13 PM EST
    This is my question, a Progressive of convenience? When he gets in the club, he dumps the people who brought him in, this is at the core of my mistrust. Forget healthcare all together if he gets elected, he already sold it up the river with the attacks on mandates. What else will sell out on? Iraq, women's issues, environment, etc..etc. A Progressive of convenience.

    Parent
    We are in total agreement. (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:05:02 AM EST
    I am particularly worried about his back bone on SCOTUS appointments, given the "present" votes in IL. Senate, although I do know the drill yada yada yada.  

    Parent
    It's very simple, if you're paying attention (none / 0) (#56)
    by Aaron on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:39:27 PM EST
    And you understand politics in America.

    Obama/Clinton ticket wins easily, in a landslide

    Obama/any other running mate, wins easily in a landslide

    Clinton/Obama wins easily in a landslide.

    Clinton/any other candidate has the only real chance of losing the general.

    Clinton certainly won't win Florida without Obama, but Obama could probably take Florida without Clinton.  Obama easily takes Ohio and all the states where Clinton has gotten a victory in the larger states like California, New York, those states are not going to go Republican no matter what happens.

    Nor do I see a reason why any thinking person would assume that Obama won't win it all the traditionally Democratic states, of course he will.  Assertions to the contrary are quite simply absurd, and a part of the fear tactics which I become so common coming from Clinton supporters.

    The only scenario where the Republicans have any chance of winning the White House is if Clinton gets the nomination and doesn't choose Obama as a running mate, because Clinton is hated a despised all across America by Republicans, independents and Democrats, and many people on the right, left it in the middle will come out to vote against her.  That's the reality.

    It's only people who have blighted themselves to the reality of America today who believe that somehow Clinton is the best candidate in the national election.  If she gets the nomination, she will either ride to victory on Obama's coattails, or she will face the real possibility of losing in November.

    But don't worry folks, Obama is going to more votes, more delegates and the nomination, and if Clinton doesn't step aside and graciously accept the vice presidency, then the Democratic Party will split.  Then will see which Mrs. Clinton puts first, her personal ambition, or the people of United States of America.  It's going to be a test of her character, and we'll all get to see who Hillary Rodham Clinton really is.

    Aaron (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:50:18 PM EST
    Exuse  me,    little  one.  

    Hillary  got 856,914   votes in Florida.
    Obama  only  got   568,930.  

    Obama  couldn't  even  beat  Romney's  598,930 votes,   let  alone  beat  McCain's   693,425.  

    Now   go  to  your  room and finish your  homework.  The  grownups  are  talking.

    Parent

    Wow! (none / 0) (#60)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:43:21 PM EST
    thank you for the completely unbiased report.  I am glad that we have people like you to tell us how to think and feel.  And the depth of your reportage, with supporting links and investigation, was breathtaking.

    Thanks for your hard work.

    Parent

    Who hasn't been paying attention? (none / 0) (#64)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:42:34 PM EST
    Clinton won't win Florida without Obama?  Pardon me but she wiped the floor with him in Florida.  Obama only wins the counties in the North bordering GA and AL.  In a general election, he'll also win Palm Beach, provided their delegates are seated.  But he will not win FL otherwise and would probably lose in any case.

    That part of the post was so delusional, I won't bother with the rest.


    Parent

    A blighted unthinker stammers a reply (none / 0) (#65)
    by Camorrista on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:11:03 PM EST
    Well, this is a fine how-do-you do.

    Just when the discussion was achieving civility, along comes Aaron to tell me that "Clinton is hated a[nd] despised all across America by Republicans, independents and Democrats, and many people on the right, left it [and] in the middle will come out to vote against her."

    Not only that, but he informs me that I wasn't simply somebody who didn't admire adore Obama as much as he did, but that my "assertions are quite simply absurd" and that I'm not a "thinking person" and that I've "blighted myself to the reality of America today."

    Undoubtedly, there are Obama admirers who are neither ignorant nor vicious nor twisted into a knot with pathological rage against Senator Clinton.  And undoubtedly, Aaron is not representative of most of Obama's supporters.

    Now some would argue I offer no evidence for either 'undoubtedly,' that, on the contrary, Aaron is not unrepresentative at all and that I express a wish rather than a fact.  

    Hmmmm. Nolo Contedere.


    Parent

    Wait a dagnab minute (none / 0) (#57)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:40:42 PM EST
    The "debates" on ABC7 were actually two separate interviews, 30 minutes each.  WTF?  Did they compromise to get Obama on?

    This is ridiculous.