Obama Up 5 In WI

By Big Tent Democrat

Research 2000 says it is 47-42:


Barack Obama 47% 53% 42%

Hillary Clinton 42% 36% 47%

Undecided 11% 11% 11%

More . . .


WHITE 44% 45% 11%

BLACK 84% 5% 11%

HISPANIC 34% 54% 12%

Obama is doing very well with white male voters in Wisconsin according to this poll. If he can translate this result to Texas, Ohio and Pennsyvania, he will be the nominee.

Two issues here for Wisconsin, how much of Obama's support is non-Democratic, and will they turn out? This turnout model has only 52% of the electorate being women. If it is 55 of 56%, Obama loses.

< How the Candidates Differ On Immigration | Holy Joe: Nothing Wrong With A Little Torture >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    I could see Obama or Clinton winning Wisconsin, but I still favor Obama because he's been in the lead there and with his streak of wins he should be able to hold onto it.

    The danger is if women or white voters turn against him for his big SD push.  But, IMO, that's likely to be too inside baseball for the average voter to care about.  I think Obama wins Wisconsin.

    Here's a question, have we had any big surprises in this election other than NH?  It seems to me, most of the states have gone exactly how polls indicated.  Sure late polls showed Obama closing in California and Massachusetts, but I think Clinton's win more likely shows mistakes in the polling than any real counter-surge by her.  Given Obama's consistent lead in Wisconsin, I expect him to win.

    Of course, I'll still be making calls on Clinton's behalf this weekend because if the polls are right, she does have a chance.

    Well you can add 3 more votes... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:56:29 PM EST
    Two of my friends and I just got back from the Municipal Building in Kenosha, WI and we all used absentee ballots to vote for Hillary.  I realize that means nothing, I just wanted to tell someone that I voted and that 2 other women voted and that we all voted for Hillary and met and talked to 2 other women who also voted for her.

    There a lot of voters going in and out of the Municipal Building and I would guess that it's because we are supposed to be getting more snow over the next few days and people didn't want to chance not being able to vote.

    One of the women we talked to was really, really angry about all the Clinton bashing and said that she would never vote for, now don't jump on me these are her words, "that Clinton bashing Obama fella". There really are a lot of us that feel that way. Wonder if any of that is reflected in the polls being a little closer here in Wisconsin than many thought they would be.


    that Clinton bashing (none / 0) (#73)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:03:39 PM EST
    now don't jump on me these are her words, "that Clinton bashing Obama fella"

    Don't worry, I won't jump on you!

    It's just a shame that so much of this is happening.  Surely there are those on the other side that think the same thing.

    (And I continue to believe that Hillary is subject to the worst of the bashing, but that most of it's from the media (see, e.g., Chris Matthews), rather than Obama supporters).

    I just hope our "circular firing squad" can keep the shooting to a minimum -- we'll need all we can get in November.


    Two great canidates (none / 0) (#78)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:07:49 PM EST
    either would be good.

    Some sites are getting scary. I can't visit Taylor Marsh anymore.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#85)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:16:28 PM EST
    I like both -- to a degree. ;-)

    But when I go onto Dkos and am smarting from all the anti-hillary posters there, I sneak onto Taylor Marsh's site and suck in the heroin, lol.


    Wait, are you me? (none / 0) (#90)
    by hitchhiker on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:19:50 PM EST
    Cause that's exactly what I've been doing.  Then coming here for a refreshing bit of civility. :)

    exactly (none / 0) (#88)
    by tworivers on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:18:35 PM EST
    Let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.  Either Hillary or Obama would be vastly superior to "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" McCain.  

    MJS says high early voting in Madison (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:07:09 PM EST
    and predicts about 25% of ballots will be cast early in Madtown, presumed to be an Obama town.  And the predictions of overall turnout of 35% still hold -- and it may be decent "Dem weather," as we say (see latest forecast, especially for Dem towns, below).

    Please estimate the gender (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:14:02 PM EST
    and ethnicity % of the people you saw at Municipal bldg.  

    I was't there long but (none / 0) (#134)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:56:14 AM EST
    I would say that it was at least 60% women. And most of them were over the hill and off the pill. Saw only one really young person, male, and only a few men. It's hard to say because I really wasn't there all that long. (about 20 minutes)

     I was only there that long because us old bats got to complaining to each other about the Clinton bashing. All of us had voted for Bill Clinton and while we all expressed disgust that a man that smart can't seem to keep his pants zipped, we all also liked him and we all, everyone of us, respected Hillary Clinton.


    big surprises (none / 0) (#8)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    Not sure how you define big surprises, but I would argue that a few of the states that Obama won on Super Tuesday were surprises.  

    Further... I would say that some/several of the Obama wins have been fairly big surprised in that they were by such large margins.  


    But Wasn't Obama Leading in the Polls (none / 0) (#16)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:08:59 PM EST
    in those states he won?  

    I'm trying to think of a race where the candidate who was consistently leading in the polls a week or two out got beaten?  I care less about the amount of the lead because polls aren't THAT accurate.  Arguably, maybe Connecticut, but Obama's poll movement, IIRC, was steady and he was up in polls the week before Super Tuesday.  I simply cannot think of a result in terms of a primary/caucus winner where the unexpected happen except for NH (and in retrospect that had a lot more to do with polling issues).  

    I'm not saying there isn't one, I'm asking whether I'm missing one for either candidate.


    CT and MO (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:10:41 PM EST
    But Clinton surprsied the pundits by winning big in CA, MA, NJ and AZ.

    If she somehow wins WI, it will be an earthquake.


    Perhaps I Just DIdn't Listen Enough to the Pundits (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:14:09 PM EST
    So I wasn't surprised by any of those outcomes.  Clinton had been leading consistently for months until, like the last week.

    Or perhaps it was being in California, I was never really very worried about Clinton here.  But then I was unaware of the fact that every hispanic household has a photo of JFK on the wall next to the Pope's. I thought they mostly had their own family members, like everyone else.  Had I known of the huge - albeit remarkably hidden - Kennedy influence, I'd have been scared to death.


    Agreed: WI is underrated (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by AF on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:22:26 PM EST
    If Clinton wins WI, it would completely turn around the race and she would have the wind at her back going in to March 4.  I would put my money on her to win the nomination.

    But conversely, an Obama win, particularly a decisive (10 pt) win, would be more significant than people realize.  Political junkies may have already factored it in, but I doubt the general public has.  If Hillary wins big in OH and TX after losing big in WI, she would indeed be the Comeback Kid.

    Bottom line: WI is big for both candidates.


    Now THAT is going out on a limb. (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:13:11 PM EST

    Tornado a better metaphor (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:44:02 PM EST
    for Wisconsin.  A lot of them here (I've lived through quite a few, when some of my neighbors did not.)  We have earthquakes but barely on the Richter scale -- at least not since the mid-19th century.

    Wisconsin Would Be Huge for Clinton (none / 0) (#31)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:20:13 PM EST
    I don't think she's going to do it, I still think it's Obama by 10.  Whatever increase Clinton gets among more women, gets offset by increase in AAs and/or independents and Republicans.  

    Still, after the couple of weeks that Obama has had, if he loses a state he's been winning, talking about a sudden change in perceptions.  

    But I think the reason that it would be a shock, is that I think it is unlikely - albeit not impossible - to happen. (The SoCal resident in me can't bring myself to use the E-word, yikes!)


    Doesn't it bother anybody (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:23:56 PM EST
    that a Democratic candidate has to depend on Independents and Republican crossovers to win the Democratic nomination?

    Yes (none / 0) (#42)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:31:59 PM EST
    But it also bothers me that we have caucuses, the way pledged delegates are allocated, and so many other things.

    To me, this is an issue of reforming the system for 2012.  

    I should say, I have less problem with open primaries in bright red states where there are few democrats.  I'd at least be open to arguments that it's a form of party-building.  In bluer states, I don't see the benefit.


    Rush is urging all his listeners today (none / 0) (#60)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:53:36 PM EST
    to cross over and vote for Obama...Hmmm...does this mean he likes Obama? or does this mean he thinks Obama is easier to beat than Hillary?

    Not at all (none / 0) (#46)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:36:35 PM EST
    An Independent is just a confused Democrat. :)

    Or a conniving Republican (none / 0) (#47)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:38:43 PM EST
    I've always felt (none / 0) (#51)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:46:58 PM EST
    that claims of trouble making partisans cross the line to screw up the other party are more myth than reality.  Sure some do it but not in any significant number.  

    I don't know (none / 0) (#57)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:52:22 PM EST
    I've seen through out the years where independents voted in open Democratic primary in large numbers and then in the GE the independent vote went to the Republicans.  I guess it would have to  be in primaries where the selection in their party is more or less a given.

    Fickle (none / 0) (#68)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:00:56 PM EST
    I think part of it is that independent voters are fickle.  If they bought into the party-lines, they'd be registered as partisans.  

    So they might genuinely support a candidate in the primary but change their minds after six months of campaigning.  That's why I think these electability arguments are ridiculous. Nobody knows how any of these candidates, but especially Obama*, is going to look after a long national campaign.  When John McCain was asked about the 17,000 people at the Obama rally, he basically said, I wonder how many of those people know that he's been named the #1 most liberal senator?  Now, I don't have much use for GOP smear campaigns, but I'm not an independent.  I think it's crazy to think independent voters are 100% set now and that what happens over the next 9 months is irrelevant to how they vote.  

    * And before I get 1,000 responses about teh awesomeness that is Barack Obama, I don't think you can claim that the reason he trails Hillary in state X is because "he hasn't campaigned there" and then also argue that GE voters know as much about him as they do Clinton and McCain.  One of Obama's strengths is that he is new.  But it's also one of his weaknesses because it means that a lot of voters don't know him very well (and I think Dems are more likely to vote on faith about him than non-Dems) and we have no idea of what they might think of him in November when they will either know him or the GOP image of him, better.  At this point, it's a lot harder to tell voters something new about Clinton or McCain, for better and worse.


    actually the newness (none / 0) (#71)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:03:09 PM EST
    is his weakness. taht why his polls goes up when he spends time in a state.

    It happens often in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:10:34 PM EST
    with even coordinated campaigns by Republicans -- and the largest paper in the state essentially encouraged it on the Sunday front page last week.  I have been reading the same in conservative blogs here.

    With not much of a contest left among Republicans now, crossover vote to pick the candidate to beat could be huge in Wisconsin.  It's what we do, with a wide-open primary, no party registration required and same-day registration, etc.


    Oh really? (none / 0) (#135)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:05:24 AM EST
    As an Independent I really resent that. Perhaps you are confused about what it means to be an Independent. It means that we support candidates and causes and our own conscience. We aren't a bit confused about thinking it somewhat, help me out here I'm trying to find a word that won't get my comment deleted, okay silly will do, to blindly vote party. (If you were just kidding, never mind. ;( )

    And many of the older Independents I talk to are more than a little irked about some of the age discrimination remarks being directed at John McCain. These are people that may not like him on some aspects but still see him as an honorable man (I do not) and are angered by their perception of age discriminatory remarks. (See several posts at firedoglake for instance) Are many Democrats just determined to alienate as much of the population as possible by insulting them? Repeatedly.


    This was meant to respond to (none / 0) (#136)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:08:35 AM EST
    a comment about Independents being confused Democrats and somehow I'm sounding like a confused Independent. Sorry. Color me a Repentant Independent.

    not as much as (none / 0) (#52)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:49:12 PM EST
    Hillary not appealing to independents.

    In Polls Against McCain (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:51:45 PM EST
    Hillary and Obama get about the same number of independents, depending on the poll.

    The great lie is that independents are moderate, they aren't.  There are independents across the political spectrum.  They simply opt out of the two-party system.  So liberal independents are likely to back Clinton or Obama.  Moderates could back them.  Conservatives will be unlikely to.  


    Sounds like a reasonable argument (none / 0) (#62)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:56:27 PM EST
    national polls... (none / 0) (#75)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:04:40 PM EST
    have Hillary losing to McCain and Obama beating McCain.

    I am fairly certain that independents are the reason, but would be open to seeing evidence otherwise.


    Depends on which polls you choose (none / 0) (#128)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:36:14 PM EST
    Others show essentially no difference between the two candidates vs McCain.

    Everyone is an Indie in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:11:41 PM EST
    in a way.  Keep in mind that the state does not require party registration, straight-party voting, or the like.  It's a wide-open primary here.

    Turnout model may be low for women (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:04:24 PM EST
    as Wisconsin consistently has among the highest women's voting rates in the country.  (The DC-based Institute for Women's Policy Research study on the status of women in the states in the year 2000 put Wisconsin women voters at 12th among all of the states.)  

    However, what is the poll's predictor for youth voters?  Wisconsin had the second-highest turnout of young voters in 2004 and the highest in 2006.


    I thought he would win by 10 (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    He went up with a counteing ad to Hillary's attack on Obama being afraid to debate. It must be working.

    it will be close to 10% (none / 0) (#76)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:05:25 PM EST
    as he spends more and more time in WI

    They slightly undersampled (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:52:57 PM EST
    women versus the 2004 Prez election:

    Wisconsin exit poll 2004

    (please post this in the for what it's worth department.)

    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:03:38 PM EST
    Actually I would say it is possible they undersampled it more than that, but they likely also undersampled A-As.

    The reason is this is a Dem primary where women are a larger part of the electorate.

    My quick look tells me that the undersampling of women is a larger possibility here.

    I imagine, based on this, that women COULD be as much as 58% of the electorate in the WI Dem primary.


    It's hard to know (none / 0) (#86)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:17:06 PM EST
    Since I didn't see where they'd broken out the AA vote.

    Michael Moore supports Obama.  I wonder if that matters.


    My back of the envelope (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    had them at 15% A-A vote.

    Oh, whoops (none / 0) (#101)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:26:27 PM EST
    got my states wrong.  MichaleMoore is Michigan.

    Maybe undersampled youth vote, too (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:18:18 PM EST
    -- highest in the country in 2006.  See post above also for more on women voters, 12th highest in the country here in 2000 (and 2004, I now find).

    Btw, interesting tidbit buried in a story in the Milwaukee paper yesterday: the Obama camp said, the day after its huge rally in Madison said to be 17,000 or so, that it is switching tactics to "smaller groups" in Wisconsin.  Lower in the story were numbers of turnout at rallies yesterday of about 1,000 (and I hear that those estimates are high).  As for the Obama rally this morning in Milwaukee, reports are of "several hundred" there.

    Bill Clinton pulled about the same numbers in Milwaukee and Waukesha yesterday. . . .  So it will be interesting to watch for the Clinton event being planned for Milwaukee on Monday -- after yet another massive snowstorm ought to be over, and a day when schools are closed anyway for Presidents' Day.  That may or may not free up more moms. :-)


    p.s. AA Congresswoman coming to town (none / 0) (#95)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:23:01 PM EST
    today for Clinton, Corinne Brown from Florida -- we just got word today that she's coming up to the cold weather, bless here.  This could counter the Lewis story -- and the Obama endorsement by the first AA from Wisconsin in Congress, Gwen Moore of Milwaukee.  (The city is a bit more than a third AA, almost all of the AAs in Wisconsin --- and almost all are in her district, too.  So are a lot of the Latinos/as in the city, although the district (my district) also has a lot of whites, the largest campuses (UW-Milwaukee at 30,000 and Marquette at 12,000, and others).  So that congressional districting, of course, could affect delegate allocations.)  

    They seem to be basing it on '04 primary turnout (none / 0) (#121)
    by Shawn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:55:02 PM EST
    Wisconsin primary '04

    That's probably whack though, because female turnout has been up pretty much across the board.

    Some examples:

    NH '04 - 54% female
    NH '08 - 57% female

    MA '04 - 54% female
    MA '08 - 58% female

    MO '04 - 52% female
    MO '08 - 56% female

    LA '04 - 54% female
    LA '08 - 60% female


    The margin of error (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    is 4 points.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:01:53 PM EST
    it is a tie really.

    I am most interested in the turnout though.

    If it is 56% women, Hillary is going to win Wisconsin.


    Weather forecast so far . . . (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:00:34 PM EST
    is for the (yet another! we're so weary) massive storm to be through Wisconsin by Monday, in time for the Clinton rally being planned for Milwaukee.  And Milwaukee now is to get "only" half a foot of snow in the weekend storm, so not slowing down by as much as feared the GOTV efforts toward Tuesday, when there is a small chance of snow and a balmy high of 20 in the forecast.  (At midday, of course; it will be colder for early and after-work voters.)  

    But the worst of the weekend storm looks to be aimed at south-central Wisconsin around Janesville and Madison, homes of Russ Feingold -- and although Madison may be going Obama, Janesville is a strong union town of some of the first factories here and a historic reform town of many amazing women (Frances Willard, Lavinia Goodell, etc.) in the past and present.  Let's hope it digs out fast from more than a foot of snow more now predicted.


    AP says margin of error is (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    The poll says 4 (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:03:10 PM EST
    So Obama could be at 51-43, and Clnton could be at 46-38.

    But let's assume it 4-6 points.

    the turnout model is the key.


    4% ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:02:16 PM EST
    ... is fairly typical in this kind of survey.

    Further... my guess is, that based on other polling in Wisconsin, this poll probably represents the bottom of Obama's current support.  


    Considering that (4.00 / 1) (#29)
    by badger on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:16:45 PM EST
    Obama has to be a lot stronger in the Milwaukee and Madison Congressional Districts, I would think that this shows him to be weaker than Clinton in the remaining 6 CDs, maybe by a lot.

    He may take the popular vote and lose on delegates, depending on how WI assigns them.

    It looks to me like a tie at best and maybe advantage Clinton.


    Obey's district'll go Obama, (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:50:59 AM EST
    iffy tho whether by enough for 4-2 delegate split.

    He scored big in Duluth, and Eau Claire and Stevens point had monster turnout on campus in '06, over 80%.


    I dunno (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    The last two have had it at 5.

    I think this is probably the lead now.


    What other polls show him doing better? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Shawn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:06:58 PM EST
    Rasmussen had it 47-43 yesterday. The only other WI poll I'm familar with was ARG's from a week ago, which had Clinton ahead.

    Last 4 polls... (none / 0) (#18)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:09:44 PM EST
    ... that pollster has show a 4, 11, 4, and 9 point advantage for Obama.  That does not include this new poll from Research 2000.  

    Thanks for the link, but.. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Shawn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:12:37 PM EST
    That's a 4, 11, and a 4 for Obama. The 9 is the ARG poll I mentioned that showed Clinton ahead.

    oops... (none / 0) (#26)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:15:17 PM EST
    ... yea, you are right.  I read that wrong.

    Regardless... I think, like BTD said, it is probably a 4-6% margin for Obama right now.

    And I will guess he wins by 10% or more.


    I think it will be (none / 0) (#49)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:46:23 PM EST
    around 10% as well.

    Dude... or Dude-ette :-) (none / 0) (#82)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:13:59 PM EST
    I'm glad you admitted you read it wrong... we see so little civility these days... from both sides, too. Thanks

    Its Dude... (none / 0) (#89)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:19:47 PM EST
    ... and I have no problem admitting I was wrong on something.

    So Obama Is Up (none / 0) (#27)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:15:25 PM EST
    If ARG were usually right, Clinton would already be the nominee.  Just as if Zobgy were worth a damn, Obama would be the nominee.

    Poll (none / 0) (#111)
    by mouth of the south on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:38:03 PM EST
    That ARG poll showing Clinton ahead by 9 or 10 was done the first week in February, not a recent poll.

    first week ... (none / 0) (#113)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:41:36 PM EST
    ... in Feb was last week.

    But regardless... ARG doesn't exactly have a strong record of accurate polling this year.


    That is true (none / 0) (#122)
    by Shawn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:57:54 PM EST

    Average of polls is +4.3 for Obama (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:24:23 PM EST
    in Wisconsin, per Real Clear Politics this morning.

    That would be a good thing to look into (none / 0) (#7)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:03:28 PM EST
    Non-democratic party members voting for him. We'll see, I guess.

    This definitely ain't over. Thanks for this, and congrats on the Newsweek gig!

    Hillary will pull pro-choice Republican women (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:54:07 AM EST
    (and there's still quite a few) to carry Sensenbrenner's district in the Milwaukee burbs.

    Still high undecideds (none / 0) (#10)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:04:45 PM EST
    That makes it closer.  Are the SEIU and UFCW big enough here to make much difference?

    My own view is that (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    outside of a caucus setting, unions do not mean that much at all.  

    It is a union state in some parts (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:25:52 PM EST
    but less so than before.  And remember, AFT -- the American Federation of Teachers -- endorsed Clinton at the national level.  (Not at the local level, which caused a bit of controvery with an unclear email sent in error by the state AFT last week.)

    AFT in Wisconsin? (none / 0) (#106)
    by badger on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:32:49 PM EST
    I thought everything was WEA (NEA).

    I'm AFT and got its calls (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:46:33 PM EST
    -- not that I actually can be in a union, as it's banned by law here for many of us.  But I belong, anyway, because I come from a long line of Teamsters -- and because I fight for the right to collective bargaining and hope that this so-called progressive state might come around for me and my colleagues.

    It could be that other teachers here, K-12s in the WEA, are NEA.  But some get the AFT newsletter, too, I think, so maybe they also are getting the calls.

    Btw, I also got robcalled for McCain by Pro-Life Wisconsin.  That was a wasted call for them. :-)


    "Here" (none / 0) (#15)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    It doesn't really matter anymore if SEIU and UFCW are big enough "here."

    The international endorsements by both unions mean that they can and will import organizers and members if needed/wanted by the Obama campaign.

    I disagree with BTD that they do not matter in non-caucus states.  I think that in caucus states they matter more, but I don't think that one can minimize the organizing and mobilizing abilities that SEIU has.  


    Tell that to Dean (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:09:08 PM EST
    Dean (none / 0) (#21)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:12:21 PM EST
    I never said that unions guarantee a win.

    I said that unions help.  

    A candidate cannot win with union support alone.  But I disagree that union support, especially from one like SEIU, is irrelevant in primary states.  Unions know how to organize and mobilize.  And again, SEIU mobilizes with the best of them.  

    (bias alert... I work for SEIU)


    Only states that are union friendly... (none / 0) (#41)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:31:57 PM EST
    which means, count out the South.

    Not going to do Obama much, if any, good here.


    Again... (none / 0) (#44)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:35:43 PM EST
    ... I disagree.

    It is not necessarily about being union friendly.  It is about mobilizing people.  

    It is about mobilizing staff and volunteers to campaign for Obama.

    These unions will not be campaigning for SEIU or UFCW.  They will be campaigning for Obama.  


    I'm Terribly Confused (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:49:16 PM EST
    I thought unions were outside special interest groups trying to thwart the will of the electorate by spending money in a particular state?  

    Oh, wait, that's right, that was only when they supported John Edwards.

    I've said it many times and I'll say it again, the willingness of liberals and Democrats to give Obama a pass every time he throws them under the bus will come back to haunt them in an Obama administration.  If you don't hold him accountable now, when he needs you, you aren't going to be able to do so later, when he won't.


    Depending on the industry... (none / 0) (#114)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:43:50 PM EST
    unions hurt worse than they do good.

    Sis's plant toiled with the idea for over a decade, but for the representation they would receive for what the union would take out in pay, wasn't worth it.

    And looking at what they do with their dues, it's a wise decision.

    Unions have lost their momentum, because the workplace has changed. Businesses now see that it pays to have a safer work environment, by lawsuits -- not strikes. Now they pay employees a dividend for no loss-time accidents -- and that dividend is more than unions take out in dues! :D


    If they don't exist... (none / 0) (#50)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:46:25 PM EST
    they can't help.

    I have... (none / 0) (#55)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:50:59 PM EST
    ... already discussed this earlier in this thread.

    They don't HAVE TO exist in these states in order to be relevant.

    The unions' state councils did not endorse Obama.  The International did.  That means that organizers and members from all over the country can be flown in to TX, OH, WI, PA, and all of the other states.  And it also does not mean that they will just be organizing and mobilizing union members.  Instead, they can fly in dozens, if not hundreds, of organizers to get go door to door talking to people about why they should vote for Obama.  

    Shoot - I have already volunteered to go to Hawaii or Puerto Rico if needed.  :)


    I'll just show this to my sis (none / 0) (#97)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:24:13 PM EST
    I'm sure her crew will be very happy to see what unions can do with their money. Think our local Kroger is going to be losing some business.

    If they can't get to goto Hawaii as they work for a living, pulling over 40hr weeks, no point in sending kids there on their dime -- especially to work for a candidate that doesn't do them one bit of good. :)


    first of all... (none / 0) (#102)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:28:03 PM EST
    ... there was a smile at the end of my statement.  that typically means someone is joking.

    Trust me.  I won't be going to Hawaii/Puerto Rico any time soon.

    But you have to know that unions spend money - significant money - on politics.  It is what it is.


    Which is a main reason (none / 0) (#110)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:35:48 PM EST
    for over a decade that plant has voted down unionizing.

    Their not funding others on their dime, to tell them what to do; or to have union shopkeepers who won't do a damn thing.

    Long ago unions had a reason to exist, but not today (businesses now see how expensive lawsuits are, instead). The result is excellent safety, benefits and good working conditions (they even have air condition finally) -- without one shopkeeper in the house.

    [Way to go, Edwards] :)


    Again... (3.00 / 2) (#112)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:40:18 PM EST
    ... this is off topic to the conversation at hand.  This thread is not about whether unions are necessary today, and I am not going to have it here.  

    Then don't go there... (none / 0) (#117)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:50:11 PM EST
    with off topic chatter, and being smug about it. I careless if you applied to goto Hawaii, but if you state it on the backs of workers who work for a living, I'm sure going to state something about it.

    Go ahead and ban me, I'll be proud to stand on principle, as my family WORKS for a living.


    What? (none / 0) (#120)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:53:35 PM EST
    How did I go off topic?

    The topic was whether union endorsements matter.  And I have continued to talk about that.  

    And again... the Hawaii thing was a joke.  Not sure why you are getting so worked up about it.


    A joke... (none / 0) (#123)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:01:11 PM EST
    when pressed upon it.

    It wasn't funny, dear, not at all. I make little over 6k a year because I'm disabled. To know what little money I have to spend on groceries (and how my sis works hard to help) is being spent on junkets by overpriced bag boys -- no, not funny at all.

    I called you on it. So don't get fussy now about "off-topic" and "I won't have it". It's patently offensive.


    Look... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:06:05 PM EST
    ... both Jeralyn and BTD have been very clear about wanting to keep conversations on topic to what is being discussed in the post.  It is not my rules.

    And no... it wasn't a joke when pressed upon it.  It was a joke immediately.  Hence the little smiley face.


    That is for them to decide (none / 0) (#125)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:09:26 PM EST
    you're not the moderator. And your tone that you were, is as funny as your joke.

    Let them do their job, not you.


    Its called... (none / 0) (#126)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:12:53 PM EST
    ... respecting their rules.

    And I am going to keep doing that.


    SandyK (none / 0) (#127)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:18:49 PM EST
    is anti-healthcare, anti-SS, pushes divisive race and gender themes, and thinks unions have no reason to exist... but is going to cross over and vote Dem if and only if Hillary is the nominee... lol

    do you really think (none / 0) (#54)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:50:43 PM EST
    Dean would have done better without union support?

    What union represents the Milwaukee breweries? (none / 0) (#61)
    by magster on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:54:05 PM EST
    I believe... (none / 0) (#66)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:59:39 PM EST
    ... that it is mixed.

    Some are UAW, which endorsed Obama a couple of months ago.

    Some are the Teamsters, which has endorsed.


    Milwaukee brewery (none / 0) (#91)
    by badger on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:19:51 PM EST
    I think only Miller (gag) is still alive in Milwaukee. There's a lot more manufacturing in the state, and those places tend to be UAW, IAM or IBEW, and whatever union represents paper mills and box factories (which I should know, but don't, because my dad organized a local and was president of it in the 1930s).

    gag (none / 0) (#93)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:21:29 PM EST
    I never said Miller was good!  :)

    But yea... just checked, and it looks like Miller is a UAW shop, at least in Milwaukee.


    Few breweries left anymore (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:30:53 PM EST
    in Milwaukee, almost all owned by outsiders, too.  And Coors and Miller, one of the few biggies left, are amid merger -- and amid settling on a headquarters city.  It didn't help that a Miller exec was murdered last week, a big story here.

    So brewery workers are nervous about this, but there aren't as many as before -- and far more workers in other sectors, such as construction and cars, have been coping with essentially a recession in Wisconsin for quite a while.  The ECONOMY -- and that includes the economic issues of health care, with Milwaukee's costs often rated the highest in the country -- is a big issue here.  Note that Obama talked about his "new" (or as McCain correctly called it, Clinton's) economic plan here yesterday.


    What would an Edwards endorsement do for this? (none / 0) (#13)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:06:01 PM EST
    Any thoughts? Either candidate.

    IMO... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by sweetthings on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:27:43 PM EST
    An Edwards endorsement would really help Clinton. She desperately needs some new sources of support, given recent high-profile desertions by some of her committed supers. Edwards is one of the best ones she could land.

    Going the other way, I don't think an Obama endorsement by Edwards would really help Obama...but it would probably be the death knell for Hillary. Granted, I'm saying that mostly because I don't think Edwards really wants to endorse Obama, and would only do so if the DNC had 'made a decision' on who the candidate would be.

    Either way, though, if Edwards wants his endorsement to be meaningful, he needs to give it soon.


    I think... (none / 0) (#65)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:58:26 PM EST
    he would have to make it before PA to matter.

    It will matter most in PA... (none / 0) (#81)
    by sweetthings on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:12:02 PM EST
    But we have to GET there first. Which means Hillary has to survive March 4th.

    I know she's showing comfortable leads in Texas and Ohio, but the Obama machine is coming on strong and they still have a few weeks to hammer their message home. And because Texas has such a wacky primary system and has been gerrymandered beyond recognition, the deck is literally stacked against Hillary from the get-go. She needs a big win in Texas, in delegates as well as votes, and the system is not going to make that easy.

    If Edwards sits on his endorsement until just before PA, he risks having it be completely meaningless.


    Agreed -- Edwards did well (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:32:24 PM EST
    in Wisconsin in 2004, and a lot of his supporters here are among the sizeable undecideds -- who will be the late deciders with whom Clinton has done well.  An Edwards endorsement would matter.

    I'm Not Sure (none / 0) (#20)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:11:05 PM EST
    I tend to think Edwards' endorsement would be bigger for Clinton right now, than Obama.  If Obama loses on March 4th, then I think there's a good chance an Edwards' endorsement would be bigger for him than Clinton, although I still tend to think the biggest help Edwards could've been for Obama was Super Tuesday.

    If done right now... (none / 0) (#59)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:53:19 PM EST
    It would be a big scoop for Clinton at least in the short term. It would change the narative and help lock PA.

    For Obama, it be a bit less of a scoop, as his mo is pretty good right now as is. It would help in PA though.


    Wisconson (none / 0) (#25)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:14:59 PM EST
    Obama should say (none / 0) (#28)
    by magster on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:15:44 PM EST
    "By Hillary not campaigning in WI until Saturday, she is setting you up for her to say you don't matter if I win. Win or lose, you matter to me, and will always matter to me if I'm fortunate to become your next President."

    Time to start using Mark Penn against her.

    Except he didn't campaign there yesterday either (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Shawn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:16:58 PM EST
    And he won't debate there.

    Right, the debate (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:23:06 PM EST
    Clinton has told reporters in Wisconsin that she'd come to Wisconsin "tonight" if Obama agreed to a debate, which appears to put it back on him.

    This whole debate jab (none / 0) (#39)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:28:14 PM EST
    seems really silly.  Do we really need a debate before every new round of elections?  

    What are they going to say that they haven't already?  

    I understand why Hillary is making the argument, and it might be effective, but in truth it is pretty silly to me.


    Politics is silly (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:44:31 PM EST
    Given that Obama is running an ad in response, it seems the jab is working.

    Ask the public (none / 0) (#64)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:56:37 PM EST
    The debate ratings keep going up.

    CBC debate

    Also logic dictates that many folks have dinner to prepare, homework to supervise, etc. and don't have time to really watch debates until they're ready to vote.


    And That was on during the Premier of LOST (none / 0) (#70)
    by katiebird on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:02:16 PM EST
    Not only has there only been just One debate with only Clinton & Obama -- but (in the Midwest at least) it collided with the Premier of LOST.  

    Which was a big enough deal in my house (and we've watched/taped all debates) that we just taped the debate, thinking that we'd go back to it if we heard about "something happening" -- as it turned out we never went back.

    I know politicians don't care about anything as frivolous as TV schedules -- but viewers do.  And I'm guessing a lot of other people who would have ordinarily watched it missed that particular debate.


    The problem with this reasoning is (none / 0) (#84)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    that Hillary could ask for dozens of debates and then say that Obama is ducking them if he declines them.

    There will be at least 2 more debates.  If the race isn't decided on March 4th there will another before PA most likely.  


    One per contest day (none / 0) (#94)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:22:27 PM EST
    or per week really doesn't seem out of hand at all to me....especially when people seem to want to see the candidates, and given the realities of the working parent, etc.

    If an argument were to be made against debates, I say they should have started debating LATER...rather than stopping debates as the election gets R E A L L Y intense.

    However, the start-debate-later ship has sailed, so saying we can't have any more debates because we've already had so many is, IMHO, bogus.

    You are definitely entitled to differ with me and I respect that.... ;-).


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:26:15 PM EST
    I've watched most of the debates and I just don't see them offering much more.

    A new debate every week would just become redundant and provide fodder for the Republicans.


    Dozens don't matter -- a Wisconsin debate (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:34:52 PM EST
    does to Wisconsinites, who want to see them here and answering questions relevant to us.  And the Obama camp reply that there are two more planned is not a good answers, as the first one is two days after the Wisconsin primary.  As that dawns on more people, seeing the excellent Clinton ad hitting him on not debating here, it will be seen as not a good answer.

    She can debate Mike Gravel (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:01:50 AM EST
    any time she wants.

    He took the the day off to be with his kids... (none / 0) (#32)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:22:19 PM EST
    according to his press.

    Valentine's Day: (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    mom, apple pie, baseball.

    I like that he keeps (none / 0) (#69)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:01:40 PM EST
    family and career in perspective.

    Ready on Day ______. (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:25:46 PM EST
    What?! (none / 0) (#40)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:28:58 PM EST
    Are you trying to say that because Obama took a day off from campaigning to spend time with family that he is not going to be ready on day one?



    No. I meant to reply to the comment (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:35:22 PM EST
    below.  Sorry!

    ah... (none / 0) (#45)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:36:11 PM EST
    ... I see.



    SD Lewis flip flopping, (none / 0) (#104)
    by hue on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:30:58 PM EST
    says he's not switching to Obama yet and claims NYTimes story was wrong. (Sorry if this has been reported here before.)

    Lewis' spokeswoman, told the Washington Post that "it is plain there is a lot of enthusiasm for Barack Obama." But, she said, "those things are observations," not statements of preference. She said Lewis has left the option of changing his superdelegate support for Clinton on the table, but made no decisions.

    Im glad (none / 0) (#119)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:52:07 PM EST
    here is a must see chart (none / 0) (#107)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:34:33 PM EST
    of all states won by Obama and Hillary thus far

    Do we know (none / 0) (#116)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:49:26 PM EST
    the breakdown by Party Dem Ind Rep etc?

    Be afraid...Be very afraid (none / 0) (#118)
    by realistic on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:51:15 PM EST
        I support Hillary, but I am an ardent Democrat.  I think if Obama is the nominee, he will tank the party.  Why?  Because he can't take the heat.  Because he can't outperform McCain in a debate.  Because the Republicans will 'get' something on him, and make it stick--whether it's true or not.  Because Obama isn't a fighter, and guess what???????????????????????????  Mc Cain IS!
        Please be careful in making your choice, Dear Democrats.

    You are so right (none / 0) (#130)
    by talkingpoint on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:25:01 PM EST
    and I am afrid, very afraid.
       On a lighter side of things, Hillary will be in Kenosha tomorrow and I can't wait to see her.

    poll (none / 0) (#137)
    by Joan Evan on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:23:48 PM EST
    It looks like Obama is going to win Wisconsin, so I'm not bothering to vote for Hillary Tuesday.  What's the point anyway?  He'll win Hawaii and Wisconsin.  Polls show him winning in Texas now and it seems to me that the race is now over.  

    I know, I know, all you Hillary supporters will say that I must go and do it just to make it close or at least it is my civic duty.  But I have better things to do than waste my time on something that is already decided.  Either candidate for me will be fine in the general election against those awful Republicans.  I think we should just end this and have a nominee like the Republicans so we can be united for the November election.  The longer Clinton drags this out, the messier it will be for the Democrats.  Why fracture the party - especially since she will lose anyway?