PPP Poll: Obama With Comfortable WI Lead

By Big Tent Democrat

According to PPP, Obama will capture a comfortable win in Wisconsin tomorrow:
Obama 53 (50)
Clinton 40 (39)
What is interesting about this poll, and PPP's track record is not the greatest, is that it has Obama leading among women and all white voters. More than that, the pollster states that in a traditional turnout model, the race is close, 47-44, but they expect a massive turnout favorable to Obama. I assume they are expecting a very large African American turnout and a very large youth turnout.

Time will tell us if they are correct.

< Parsing The Pledge | Should Library Users Be Required to Show ID? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I wonder... (none / 0) (#1)
    by americanincanada on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:51:16 AM EST
    I am wondering if this story about Obama/Patrick and stolen words is going to make any differences. it is all over local WI newscasts and is also breaking wide in MSM, with CNN running the story a couple of times already this morning.

    Do you think it could affect outcome and/or last minute deciders?

    Really? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:57:56 AM EST
    That's not good.

    Also on JS online, largest Wisconsin paper (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:58:36 AM EST
    and as noted in another thread, there is high awareness of the problem of plagiarism among journalists, after the WaPo problems.  Plus, a Milwaukee JS reporter was fired for plagiarism.

    Are you telling me this nonissue (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:04:22 PM EST
    is really going to be an "issue?"



    I'm telling you what's in the media (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:11:38 PM EST
    and as your argument is to vote for Obama based on what media think of him, wouldn't it matter?

    It's Not A Non-Issue (none / 0) (#49)
    by cdalygo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:31:55 PM EST
    Sorry, but I disagree with you here. The speeches are lifted word for word.

    Granted there is nothing new under the sun especially in politics. But when you package yourself as something new and refreshing to the typical political process, you better stay squeaky clean. It also plays into the theme that he is a lightweight who lacks experience.

    Moreover, note how every criticism of him comes from the Hillary campaign. Nothing could have just come from the press? Who is he going to blame if and when he takes the nomination?


    The first news reports on the (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:43:46 PM EST
    Patrick/Obama speeches attributed the info to an unidentified campaign (!).  

    BTW:  David Axelrod worked for both Deval Patrick and Barack Obama.

    NYT ran the story.

    If Obama keeps walking away from such new coverage unscathed, he really is a remarkable candidate.


    Look at CNN Ticker (none / 0) (#70)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:58:03 PM EST
    The Title is:  "Obama Camp: Clinton copied too." A bit childish sounding. They point to her using the phrases '"Yes, We Can" and "Fired Up, Ready to Go." Clinton's camp say Obama used parts of the governor's speeches.

    This has now just been added to the story:

    CNN's Chris Welch reports that Obama is playing down the allegations, telling reporters that he's written two books and most of his own speeches.

    "Deval and I do trade ideas all the time, and you know he's occasionally used lines of mine, and I at a Jefferson Jackson dinner in Wisconsin used some words of his. And you know I would add I've noticed on occasion Sen. Clinton has used words of mine as well," said Obama, adding, "...As I said before, I really don't think this is too big of a deal."

    I suspect it sounded so so sandlot that it was time to play it down rather than get a tit for tat going that takes away from the normal discourse.


    But, the NYT recently profiled (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:22:57 PM EST
    Obama's lead speechwriter, the 26 year old guy.  

    . . . whose profs may be rereading (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:51:43 PM EST
    his term papers now, checking the footies.

    "Yes, We Can" (none / 0) (#117)
    by badger on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:37:01 PM EST
    is from Patrick's Axelrod-managed campaign too. It's mentioned in at least one article about Axelrod - can't remember the exact source of the article.

    I thought (none / 0) (#156)
    by herb the verb on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:22:34 PM EST
    it was from "Bob the Builder"....

    wow (none / 0) (#16)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:04:46 PM EST
    it sure did not take long for Obama's "ahead in polls" to get filled full of this silly plagiarism meme from Hillary's camp.

    Do you realing think the average voter believes much less cares about this partsan Clinton talking point?


    Hey (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:07:39 PM EST
    You are being abusive again.

    I warned you once. One more time and you are out of here for the day.


    I apologize (none / 0) (#37)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:17:58 PM EST
    if my language in that post was abusive. But I think the question in it is fair. We are talking about a Hilary Campaign meme, that is where it is coming from and honestly I don't see where else it is picking up steam.

    The media is not blowing up, the people I know are not aware of it. It seems to only be a big issue on pro-clinton websites and with hard-core hillary supporters.

    It not sticking and I doubt it will be even a talking point a week from now. It just looks like politcal mud slinging to me.


    but that is (none / 0) (#38)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:18:42 PM EST
    just my point of view.

    Most likely it will just (none / 0) (#55)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    make Clinton look petty and bad. She is going negative with a miniscule and questionable charge, against the positive message of hope and change. I say it drops her a point or two.

    they wont remember the point (none / 0) (#57)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:44:00 PM EST
    just her negative tone and attitude.

    It goes to the issue of CHARACTER for Obama (none / 0) (#143)
    by felizarte on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:14:01 PM EST
    plagiarism, is plagiarism and DISHONEST. I hope that a lot more people see it that way.

    Hillary borrows lines (none / 0) (#147)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:16:34 PM EST
    from past politicians all the time including her husband, without mentioning the sources. This is just the mud of the week and it aint sticking.

    And what about Obama campaign memes (none / 0) (#65)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:52:35 PM EST
    Do you have as much issue with that?

    Honestly to some people (like me) this is not a campaign issue, but part of concern about Sen Obama. If I back a candidate I want to know I am backing THAT PERSON, not a made up image version with someone behind the scenes driving the message.

    This reminds me a little of Rove/Bush, although I am in NO WAY comparing Sen Obamas views, character or accomplishment to GW Bush.


    Abusive (none / 0) (#96)
    by Traven on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:26:31 PM EST
    You consider that post "abusive"?  Jeepers.

    Well, yes, I really do believe that (none / 0) (#28)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:10:53 PM EST
    and I'm an average voter in Wisconsin.  

    Why don't you believe it?  Or, worse, why doesn't it matter to you?


    No. (none / 0) (#101)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:28:47 PM EST
    You are not an average voter in Wisconsin.

    Average voters... anywhere... are not very active participants on blogs.  


    According to polls (none / 0) (#109)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:33:09 PM EST
    the average voter is more likely supporting Obama.

    Where does PPP (none / 0) (#151)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:18:33 PM EST
    have that in the crosstabs of this poll?

    Are you really ... (none / 0) (#183)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:17:38 PM EST
    ... trying to say that average voter in Wisconsin has posted over 200 comments on one blog, just in the past week.

    Come on... you know that isn't true.

    Average voters do not spend significant time on blogs.  Studies have shown that in the past, and they still hold true.


    Go talk to Ben Masel who posts (none / 0) (#184)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:26:45 PM EST
    that the vote in Wisconsin will be determined by videogamers.  Those are average voters for him.  

    Again, these polls are not accounting for blog use of respondents.  In almost all categories actually used by PPP, I am an average voter in Wisconsin.


    You mean this blog post? (none / 0) (#85)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:22:04 PM EST
    Link   With no link from the front page of the website?

    And it's not on the websites of these WI papers:

    Green Bay Press-Gazette

    Madison Capital Times & Wisconsin State Journal

    Kenosha News

    If this story is picking up steam in WI, there's no evidence of that on the Internet.


    Well (none / 0) (#32)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:14:54 PM EST
    if Obama's attraction as a candidate stems primarily from his "yes-we-canism" and his authenticity (seeing as he and Clinton agree on pretty much everything but healthcare), then a story that leaves a big gaping hole in his authenticity may leave people wondering whether they really want to vote for him.

    Obama's attraction (none / 0) (#39)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:21:54 PM EST
    is his 50 state strategy and he bottom up campaign. That is what his can do platform is about.

    Obama's attraction (none / 0) (#41)
    by cdalygo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:26:12 PM EST
    He may say a 50 state campaign but he's pushing a 48 state campaign (see Michigan and Florida)

    once again (none / 0) (#47)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:31:25 PM EST
    that is not his fault. FL, MI and the DNC all acted stupidly. Obama played by the rules.

    Plus even if those two states are seated he leads in pop vote and pledged delegates.


    Clarification (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by cdalygo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:37:40 PM EST
    One, Obama's campaign pushed for the uncommitted vote in Michigan. That is hardly "playing by the rules."

    Two, three other states went early besides Fla and MI but those are the only two that got stripped.

    Three, the Fla legislature - controlled by Republicans - moved the primary up.

    Four, everyone just assumes that Hillary campaigned in Florida but cites no proof. (Both Obama and Hillary ran national ads in that state.) Others ignore that it occurred within days of South Carolina so voters knew about him.


    He leads (none / 0) (#75)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:09:19 PM EST
    with both states seated anyways. It is getting to the point where Hillary can't lead in pop vote or delegates no matter what.

    I just read today that Hillary's campaign is now suggesting that superdelgates from red states are now less important. Great message to send out to the Dems struggling to get elected in those states.

    It seems like there is a new hoop for Obama to leap through almost everyday now, beit new math or which states now matter.

    Lets face it Obama leads in pledged delegates and pop votes. He beats Hillary in national polls. He slaughters McCain in national polls while Hillary loses to McCain in national poll. Normally these would be big deciding factors in a close run.

    Instead we have one side trying to discount legit wins and force in incomplete/improper contests, in hopes of winning by only by superdelegates?


    He is the one who wants only 48 states (none / 0) (#152)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:19:37 PM EST
    which is the point of the post to which you replied.  Focus.

    Good point n/t (none / 0) (#48)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:31:29 PM EST
    I thought (none / 0) (#45)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:30:14 PM EST
    his attraction was that he was not a "politics as usual" candidate, and that he claimed to call his supporters to unity and, gosh, I don't know, other good things.

    That is why I think the plagiarism charge could hurt him, because it exposes him as a regular politician, capable of such dastardly deeds as plagiarism, not a sui generis kind of candidate.


    Here's One Answer (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by cdalygo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:33:38 PM EST
    "Admitting to it" would have been crediting the speaker when he gave the speech (over and over again). It's called footnoting and citation. It also occurs before you get caught.

    a 50 state strategy (none / 0) (#50)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:32:40 PM EST
    and bottom up politics are not politic as usual. Mark Penn is politics as usual to a T. That is why Mark is getting schooled right now.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#72)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    His 48-state strategy </snark> and the bottom-up campaign (first practiced by Wes Clark and Howard Dean, but no matter) are not politics as usual.

    Plagiarism arguably is. This is a moment where potential voters might see through his claims to be above "politics as usual."


    You don't really think? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:53:29 PM EST
    That any democrats, don't care who, is going to run a 50 state campaign, right? Seriously?

    because (none / 0) (#88)
    by americanincanada on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:22:24 PM EST
    he didn't admit to it until he got caught.

    This is exactly the same thing that derailed and ruined Biden's presidential run. But with Obama it's all ok? Interesting.


    Forgot that about Biden's law review (none / 0) (#185)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:29:17 PM EST
    article.  I think we can guess the assignment for some reporters today, as Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review. . . .

    More of the same (none / 0) (#64)
    by john5750 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:52:16 PM EST
    Another example of Obama's false promises, empty rhetoric, and twisted accusations.

    What's left (none / 0) (#124)
    by tek on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:50:20 PM EST
    interesting to me is that the Obama-rama blogs that usually have big headline stories about how Obama is running away with the nomination don't have anything up on him today. HuffPo, the most egregious, is actually carrying the story of Obama plagiarizing the speeches.

    I wish we had a SUSA (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:52:56 AM EST

    Interestingly, SUSA did do a GE head-to-head (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:56:52 AM EST

      Asked of 537 registered voters
      Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4.3%
    If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?

    49%    McCain
    42%    Clinton
    9%    Undecided

      Asked of 537 registered voters
      Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4.3%
    What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?

    42%    McCain
    52%    Obama
    6%    Undecided

    Makes me think that there might be a primary poll coming later.


    Just mentioned that (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:57:34 AM EST
    Same here. Large AA turnout? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:57:05 AM EST
    With only 6 percent of Wisconsin being AA?  And almost all in one Congressional district?  The poll is not predicting delegate counts, of course, but that segregation will not translate into much AA help in the delegate results for Obama.

    I wish we had a local poll -- UW, St. Norb's, etc.  Those always have been the most accurate about Wisconsin.


    They may have one (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:57:12 AM EST
    They have a GE matchup poll where Obama does MUCH MUCH better than Clinton in Wisconsin.

    The crosstabs are hard to believe though.


    If these crosstabs are right (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:01:24 PM EST
    then Obama is going to walk away with the Primary, no problem.

    I'm inclined to believe that he will.


    If thiose crosstab are right (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:03:44 PM EST
    He wins 60% of the vote in the nation.

    they are wrong it seems to me.


    I don't think you can extrapolate (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:05:42 PM EST
    from a Wisconsin poll to the nation. I think it is possible to read the tea leaves about the primary from a GE poll, though.

    If Hillary's internal numbers look like this, I can't blame her for pulling out of the state.


    She stayed (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:06:47 PM EST
    Indeed she did (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:09:15 PM EST
    Who knows, maybe Wisconsin will be a reverse Missouri.

    We like to think so (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    since at least the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which made Missouri the only slave state in the Midwest.  Wisconsin was under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which outlawed slavery two years before the U.S. Constitution could not do the same.

    The states could not be more different, but for the popularity of beer.


    beer (none / 0) (#58)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:45:24 PM EST
    it will bring us all together in the end.

    She did NOT abandon Wisconsin (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:15:03 PM EST
    as Obama did on Thursday, yesterday, and again today, returning only tonight (and in Kaukauna, yikes, not a big venue).  But the media meme -- at the national level, anyway -- ignores that Clinton has been here straight-through for days as planned and, with the weather problems yesterday, is doing events in four cities in Wisconsin today and tonight.

    It isn't hard to look at local media reports these days to test the national media memes.  See jsonline.com, the largest paper in the state, for reports on Clinton's events already today and more on the way.  And where is Obama today, anyway?


    It'll be interesting to see if this turns out (none / 0) (#91)
    by my opinion on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:23:41 PM EST
    to be a bad decision by Obama. If it does, how will he account for it?

    Yes, it probably underestimates women (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:05:27 PM EST
    voters in Wisconsin, one of the highest states for women voters' turnout, yet PPP used the national norm of 54%

    And it may overestimate AAs, at 12% of PPP's sample -- again, the national norm -- since they're 6% of Wisconsin's population.  Most will vote Dem and for Obama, but at the rate of being 12% of Dem voters in Wisconsin?  I don't quite see how.  And again, they won't have as much impact on delegate counts, with almost all of the AAs in Wisconsin in one district.

    So I suspect that it's closer than PPP's margin, more like other polls that put it at 4-7%.  Of course, none can predict a major factor in Wisconsin -- whether it will be "Dem weather."  It's snowing again!  And much of the state still is unwalkable with ice, undriveable in parts from flooding, etc.


    what data (none / 0) (#19)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:06:27 PM EST
    leads you to suggest that?

    Huh? It's still snowing, so (none / 0) (#26)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:09:27 PM EST
    we don't have data on total snowfall today yet.

    Do you mean population data, residency data?  That's from the census -- so you could look it up -- plus I happen to live in the one district that has almost all of the AAs in Wisconsin.  

    What data do you have that suggest otherwise?


    This is HIGHLY suspect! (none / 0) (#93)
    by ghost2 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:24:44 PM EST
    You may think I am crazy.

    I think this election season is one in which pollsters try to cherry pick their turnout and demographic models to effect the outcome.  I don't know how they could avoid their bias affecting which ones they choose.

    Of course, it's entirely possible that they have objective methods of determining who is turning out.  But if they did, the methods haven't shown much magic until now, have they?  

    I am still angry at DMR poll which had a turnout model and a percentage of new voters which didn't materialize.  But it got the margin right at the end, perhaps because it created a groundswell for Obama.  It started a huge Obama drumroll.  Perhaps, it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    I wrote a diary after NH about how Rasmussen ignored its own data in the closing days, and decided to roll the average for an extra day, so that its final number was more in accordance with the general mentality.  Hillary's surge was hidden in their data.  However, they must have definitely known it, based on their daily data.

    Polls have been all over the place this election cycle.  One reason, among others, is the quick turns and unpredictability of this race.  

    Just because polls have been hugely wrong doesn't stop them from being reported and building a huge perception. Therein lies the problem.


    We do have Ben Masel, who is (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM EST
    on the ground, and willing to provide his predictions of how the delegates will be apportioned, and by Congressional district, no less.  

    Who needs SUSA when you've got me? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    Clinton's appearances today are about salvaging specific delegates. In DePere now to fight for the closest CD, Steve Kagen's 8th. It's pledged delegates split 3-3, but Kagen's vowed to cast his SuperD vote for the District winner.

    TYPING INTERRUPTED by Obama robocall. Smart, he emp;hasises mechanics of voting in this youth ghetto neighborhood. (informs you can register at polls, bring Phorto ID plus proof of address.)

    Back to regularly scheduled prognastication....

    Spotting a trend, smalltown young Ron Paul supporters switching to Obama. Looking at 25 of the Myspace friends of my 2006 Senate run who'd put Paul on "Top Friends," 8 now list Obama above Paul, 4 have dropped Paul completely, now list Obama.

    On to the CDs..
    1st (Ryan) narrow Obama, 3-3 NO CHANGE

    2nd (Baldwin) Obama 5-3. NO CHANGE I'm hearing a lot of 6-2 locally, but I don't buy it. Clinton's rescheduled visit for tonight is firewall on the 6th delegate. She loses Madison in a rout, but breaks even in the burbs.

    3d (Kind) Obama UPGRADE from 3-3 to 60% chance of 4-2. based on reports from the ground in rural Counties especially Trempeleau and along the Kickapoo, plus the success of Obama's visit to Eau Claire. Congressman Kind's said he'll cast his SD vote with the district winner.

    4th: (Moore) Obama likely 3-3, big turnout favors an Obama delegate split, as Clinton's support from public employee Unions is diluted. 20% chance Obama 4-2. Clinton's weather-forced retail appearances yesterday probably better for her than a typical staged event.

    5th (Sensenbrenner) Clinton 3-2, on prochoice Republican womens' crossover NO CHANGE

    6th (Petri) Obama, 3-2, I'm becoming confident on this one. UPGRADE OBAMA

    7th (Obey) Obama, Dicey as to whether he makes the 4-2 split. He romped in Duluth, and the Eau Claire and Stevens Point campuses had monster turnout in `06. Eau Claire County straddles the District line. now 70% chance of the 4-2. UPGRADE OBAMA

    8th (Kagen) 6 delegates. Tossup. Was lean Clinton UPGRADE OBAMA. Kagen's also said he'll cast his SD with the District's voters.


    Clinton in Eau Claire today, Ben (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:22:08 PM EST
    so that could affect a couple of your calls above.  And her event in Madison tonight may have impact, although I agree that it will go for Obama.

    You have, I think, seen my earlier replies to your similar analyses -- especially of my district, Gwen Moore's.  The AA turnout will be well above their 6 percent of the statewide population, since they're more than a third of Milwaukee's population.  But my district also has the UW campus with the most Wisconsinites, almost all of the 30,000 students (and far more AA students than at Madison) -- although it also is the campus where 10% of students take women's studies courses, and the district has strong women's groups.

    Btw, some of us in the 4th also are very motivated to make it to the polls because of a significant local primary for our aldermanic seat in Milwaukee, and especially with the visits and endorsement of the grandfather -- Senator McGovern -- of the candidate most likely to take the primary (the current alderman's assistant).

    And I can report that this message was brought to you amid more robocalls from:  Clinton, via my union (AFT); Obama; and two for other aldermanic candidates.  As many calls in minutes as I've had in the last couple of days, including two others for Clinton (one from a Minnesotan, and we had a great chat), and one for Obama (from Moore) . . . and one for McCain from Pro-Life Wisconsin, ugh.  

    Interesting that Clinton calls outnumber Obama calls, though.  And now I've got to get back to phone-banking, too -- a great day for it, with the rotten weather continuing and keeping so many at home in addition to schools being closed for President's Day.  Btw, the Clinton setup for phone-banking is terrific, quite well designed.  


    My only Republican call (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:27:06 PM EST
    Tommy for McCain. Sounded not very enthusiatic, for Tommy.

    Ugh, got that one, too. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:35:15 PM EST
    And tried to forget the sound of Tommy talkin', as he says, in my ear again.  But you had to remind me.

    I thought she cancelled that one? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:28:59 PM EST
    In any vcase, it won't overcome the anchor of her videogame ban crusade with young voters.

    Nope. She'll be there. See JS (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:06:53 PM EST
    But it does fit my narrative (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:30:00 PM EST
    that she's playing to salvage delegates.

    Well, yes, delegates matter -- as Obama (none / 0) (#116)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:36:40 PM EST
    kept telling us in all those states where he got more delegates but tried to salvage his campaign from the clear evidence that he lost the popular vote.  

    no he has (none / 0) (#149)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:17:54 PM EST

    Oh oh, my Congresswoman mucked it up (none / 0) (#161)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:24:40 PM EST
    again.  From JS Online: U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore [who backs Obama and is Wisconsin's first AA in Congress] wrongly said on the radio that some 17-year-olds can vote in Tuesday's presidential primary. The Milwaukee Democrat said . . . that 17-year-olds who will turn 18 by the Nov. 4 general election are eligible to vote in Tuesday's primary. But that is inaccurate - all voters must be 18 Tuesday to cast a ballot, according to . . . the state agency that runs elections. . . .

    One of the co-hosts for the station's morning show said Moore stated on the air Thursday that some 17-year-olds could vote in the primary. . . .  repeated that on this morning's show, but corrected his statement by the end of the program after hearing from election officials.

    Moore could not be immediately reached this afternoon. Her spokesman, Andrew Stevens, said she confused her facts because some other states allow such voting.  Reince Priebus, chairman of the state Republican Party, called the comments irresponsible.  "You've got respected members of Congress spouting out complete inaccuracies, which will encourage underage voters to go out and vote and that is illegal," he said.

    [The leading Dem in the state senate, from Madison] pushed a bill last year that would have allowed voting by some 17-year-olds, but he abandoned the bill for the time being because of opposition from local election clerks.  


    Yup (none / 0) (#194)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:36:40 PM EST
    Fred risser, the longest serving State legislator in the Country pushed it. Pretty bitter that the Clerks jammed him. Really not difficult to have complied had it passed.

    Polls not accurate (none / 0) (#74)
    by john5750 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    When the polls show Obama ahead with Republicans it fails to show how many Repubs are voting for Obama to win primary because they don't want McCain to have to go up against Hillary.

    Ha! (none / 0) (#106)
    by Traven on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:30:39 PM EST
    ROFL.  That's a good one.  Man, those Republicans are smart!

    This thing will be over soon. (none / 0) (#8)
    by tigercourse on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:57:59 AM EST
    I'm 80% sure Obama will win the nomination. At this point GE polls (I know, way too far out) show him doing well, so I'm not that broken up about his victory. If the media continues to be half as favorable to him as they have so far, I think he might do okay.

    He's not the candidate I would prefer. I don't like his style or his seeming beliefs on the roll of a president. I frankly see him as a Democratic George Bush.  But I guess that means he can win (just like the idiot prince did).

    you have come to my position (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:58:45 AM EST
    on this.

    Why though? (none / 0) (#119)
    by ghost2 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:39:48 PM EST
    Does media, his supporters, his financial backers are all benign and just charmed?

    As Bill Clinton said, it's like rolling the dice.  In a time of tremendous crisis for America and the world, you assume that he can govern effectively.  I remember Biden's words: the next President has no margin for error.

    You also assume that his backers (and I mean the main ones, the ones who provided credibility, seed money, and leverage at the beginning), and the big corporate media expect very little for having supported him.

    I think you are forgetting something.  You always think the media's atrocious attitude towards democratic candidates is due to peer pressure and laziness.  A lot of it is.  However, I think you are blind to the power of media owners and power brokers in driving the narrative.  Not everyone is as blatant about it as Murdoch.

    I don't think the movers and shakers at the media would sacrifice their own interests so eaily.  

    As an aside, it occurs to me that while so-called progessive blogs relish every chance to call Hillary a corporist, they seem to be completely oblivious to the corporate nature of media (especially when it doesn't suit their purpose to remember it).


    If that turns out to be true (none / 0) (#29)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:11:26 PM EST
    At what point in the campaign should Hillary step aside? Is there a certain delegate lead or po vote lead level that should act as the finish line?

    I ask because I think her staying in beyond when she can realisticaly win, is damaging to general campaign. Even more so now that she has started to go quite negative in her ads and speeches.

    If WI goes big to Obama and TX doesn't for Hillary, shouldn't that be it?  


    If Hillary loses Texas, that's the end IMO (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:13:31 PM EST
    And by "loses," I mean popular vote in the primary.

    doesn't she need to win TX (none / 0) (#40)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:25:08 PM EST
    by a decent margin? The upcomming states favour Obama greatly.

    No, she just needs a win (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:28:29 PM EST
    because if neither wins by a landslide approaching 80%, they will both need support from the Super Delegates to win nomination.

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#87)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:22:22 PM EST

    I just don't understand all of the defeatist attitude coming from proposed Clintonistas.  That's the kind of attitude MAKES you lose.  Did any of the Obama people cry like this when HE was behind?  Seriously folks...if there's one thing we should learn from Obama people is that you have to believe you can win AND make it happen.  Buck up because I believe this will go all the way through each state, split the way it's been split...Clinton winning by a little here, Obama winning by a little there...it's all there.

    Excuse me, can I get to vote too?...... (none / 0) (#76)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:10:12 PM EST
    Can't help it if I live in Pennsylvania. I am a registered and proud Democrat and not afraid to say that. Maybe I don't want Obama and maybe I don't want Hillary, and maybe I wanted Edwards, but now that I will have to make a choice, please allow me. All those Independents and Republicans got to vote in those open primaries, at least give me a chance also. I know what they think in Florida right now. Please do not add another state that would be pissed off also. We have time.

    Not over until its over (none / 0) (#113)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:34:49 PM EST
    For goodness sake, why do want her to drop out at this point?  By your logic, Obama should have dropped out last October when he was far behind and felt the need to start going negative on her.  Sheesh, let them get campaign through the next month.  What are you afraid of?  When Sen. Obama racks up 2025, then you can say she should concede.

    I'm sure the Democratic party, and the nation, will survive if they campaign through Pennsylvania.  We've been through far worse than an exciting--and indeed historic--primary battle.


    The collective rush to judgement frightens me (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:58:41 AM EST
    When we see states like WI drink the Kool-Aid like this, something is seriously amiss. I know there are a lot of college students there, but come on.

    The turn toward Obama has been much too sudden and complete for comfort. I still want to know where his money is actually coming from. I refuse to believe it all comes from sustainable building architects in Starbucks on their Macs sending in $25 donations.

    Well (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:59:23 AM EST
    if he is the nominee, I do not want to find out until AFTER November.

    Thanks, I needed that (none / 0) (#68)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:56:05 PM EST
     That was very funny.

    Don't buy the myths about Wisconsin (none / 0) (#22)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:07:24 PM EST
    The state is below national norms in education levels attained, for example.  But because a lot of media, nationally and locally, studied journalism at UW-Madison, they think all of Wisconsin is like Madison.  NOTHING could be farther from the truth.  

    Point: fewer than a fourth of Wisconsinites (none / 0) (#187)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:34:51 PM EST
    have college degrees; almost half of Madtowners do.  As you can imagine, income levels thus are incredibly different (most of Madison living off the taxes of the rest of the state, of course).  In almost every demographic, Madison is -- well, New York, where so many in Madison come from, or Chicago.

    And Wisconsinites know it.  We also have been told repeatedly that Madison will go for Obama.  That may  not be an endorsement that helps him in the rest of the state.  (He ought not have talked here about being a Bears fan, either.)


    money (none / 0) (#27)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:10:36 PM EST
    Where the money is coming from is public.

    You can go through each one if you would like.

    And no one has ever said that all of Obama's money has come from "sustainable building architects in Starbucks on their Macs sending in $25 donations."

    It has just been said that Obama has built an incredibly strong on-line/small donation fund raising campaign to go along with traditional fund raising.


    I think it is a little petty (none / 0) (#44)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:29:25 PM EST
    to suggest Obama supporters are drinking the Kool-aid?

    He is winning because he has a better campaign, and a message that resonates to a wider field.

    I would think that everyone here would have some respect for both canidates and their supporters. This has been a battle of the Titans, that has generated record breaking turnouts almost everywhere.


    Clinton's running a crap campaign here. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:20:04 PM EST
    Started with the Videogame ban. Penn forgot that the 16 year olds she was trashing in '05 would be old enough to vote now. Obama had excellent positive spots heavy rotation on Adult Swim last night, and the weather meant every 18-21 was home to watch. He'll score not just on college campuses, but with rural and smalltown kids.

    "Why won't he debate" spots don't cut it after umpteen debates.

    Bill's appearances are a liability.
    Time passing by Clinton generation


    I stopped watching Adult Swim (none / 0) (#92)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:24:36 PM EST
    once Futurama left.  Adult Swim/Cartoon Network's based in Georgia, soooooo....

    Is there a videogame of voting (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:09:36 PM EST
    to give this significant demographic that you see any experience with a ballot?  

    (A lot of would-be first-timers I talk with, and I talk with a lot, are just so stymied by the process and think that they ought not vote because they don't know about the rest of the ballot, the local races -- and there has not been much of a GOTV effort with them around here that I've seen, as there was in 2004 that got such a great youth turnout here.)


    Outside Milwaukee, very little else on ballot. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:18:01 PM EST
    Nothing at all on mine.

    (for out of State readers, we have Primaries for nomnpartisan races tomorrow, City alders, judges, County Boards,  as well, but only if there's more than 2 candidates filed to run.)


    1st timers (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:19:40 PM EST
    That's why tho Obama robo I just got is so good. Skips the "Change," zeros in on voting process.

    Not the one I got, and I live close (none / 0) (#181)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:57:53 PM EST
    to the second- and third-largest campuses in the state.  But I'm in the district with most of the AAs in the state, so my robocall clearly was different.

    Of course, I now have no idea who first said what Obama said to me.  Maybe the same Hopi chief who first said "we are the ones we've been waiting for" -- but I won't be waiting to find out.

    This message brought to you amid three more robocalls, two for Clinton -- from the Milwaukee Labor Council -- and one for McCain.


    Grand Theft Elections (none / 0) (#195)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:26:31 AM EST
    Florida Edition, and Ohio Edition.

    From me (none / 0) (#131)
    by hvs on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:01:35 PM EST
    and I don't make that much money...
    But I read, which I guess makes me an elitist.  ; )

    Hillary's vote for the Iraq war is unforgivable (I've got an infant son, which influences me on that subject) and demonstrates incredibly poor judgment.


    Curious (none / 0) (#138)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:07:36 PM EST
    If I may ask, who did you vote for in the 2004 general election?

    No choice (none / 0) (#142)
    by hvs on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:13:44 PM EST
    but to vote Kerry. As it was for many other folks, mine was really a vote against W.

    Why do you ask?


    Because (none / 0) (#179)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:51:57 PM EST
    Because I wasn't sure if "unforgiveable" meant that you would never vote for Sen. Clinton in the general, should she win the primary. It sounded pretty absolute to me, but from your past voting behavior apparently it is unforgiveable only in the primary.

    And deliver (none / 0) (#182)
    by hvs on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:57:55 PM EST
    the country to McCain? No.

    No, her judgment is irrevocably damned. Plenty of people knew (less, probably) than what Hillary knew at the time and still were adamantly against authorizing war. I was, and I was specific about the likely consequences and they've all come to pass. And I'm not asking anyone to entrust me with the country.

    But McCain is...well, it goes without saying what McCain is.


    woo... (none / 0) (#24)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:07:48 PM EST
    ... this looks good, though this poll, like the ARG poll showing Clinton in the lead, is an outlier.

    I am heading up there this evening for some last minute GOTV/campaigning.

    Depth of Grassroots Organization (none / 0) (#34)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    The county where I reside does not vote in a primary until May. There is no Clinton organization in the county. The Obama group has been active since last April with over 200 folks meeting weekly. The group is self organized based on suggestions from the Obama website. Clinton supporters have consistently underestimated the depth of the self organized groups influence on election outcomes.

    This election isn't about drinkin' the kool aid, it's about the only candidate who figured out that our country needs a serious change in direction. Any candidate who figured it out would be in the same position as Obama.

    Born to lose (none / 0) (#63)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:51:11 PM EST
    I just can't get my head around the mentality of my fellow Democrats who talk about "drinking the Koolaid" and "cults". Shouldn't we be excited about a candidate who is good at both grassroots organizing and winning over large amounts of popular support through the media? Isn't this what winning in a democracy is supposed to look like? Or are we so used to losing that we're suspicious of anything that feels like winning?

    don't worry (none / 0) (#78)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:12:25 PM EST
    they will start acting rationally on this score once Obama becomes the nominee. They are just trying to push their own preferred candidate, using whatever rhetorical tools they find handy.

    Perhaps, once they acknowledge that they prefer Obama over McCain, and end up being called cultists themselves by the other side, they might have one of those moments of insight regarding their previous behavior.


    Ooor some of us (none / 0) (#99)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:27:11 PM EST
    recognizing the utter hubris in your audacity to assume that once we've "woken up" from our own cultish ways would just automatically say "I've seen the light!" and move towards Obama.  

    Not the case.  I know many Clintonistas that will either stay home or vote for McCain.


    Who's Republican lite? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:31:26 PM EST
    Will you just calm down? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:38:46 PM EST
    You are behaving boorishly.

    He hasn't sealed the deal (none / 0) (#121)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:47:05 PM EST
    I had an interesting conversation with a Clinton supporter who says she is unwilling to move to Obama because she doesn't trust that he has enough experience to make good decisions in a crisis. There are some things she doesn't like about McCain (although she doesn't care one way or another about Roe), but in her view, she'd rather have someone who has been tested under fire. I expect the Republican GE campaign will be crafted toward this people like my friend, and I don't think you can assume that this kind of voter, with her kind of concerns, will be swayed by Obama's rhetoric.

    Will most Dems vote for Obama? Yes, even when Obama supporters like you condescend to us. Will all of them? No. Obama hasn't sealed the deal with a lot of the Democratic base. I am in the safest of safe states, DC is blue forever and always, so my vote is inconsequential. If I can't pull a lever next to Hillary's name, I may very well write her in. I wouldn't do it if I was in a swing state, but I am not. I can afford to register a protest.


    Maybe if you (none / 0) (#122)
    by tek on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:47:53 PM EST
    think about this issue in terms of framing it will become crystal clear. Democrats are tired of a double standard that has been in place for 20 years and especially in the last 8 where the media slants everything to favor Republicans. We're also tired of in-your-face neocons trying to take away our choices and dictate politics to us.

    Now, we have the Obamabots doing these very same things even though they are in our own party. The media is framing the nomination for Obama and shutting Hillary out, at the least. If they do mention her it's to slander her distort her campaign. It's disheartening to see that Obama people approve these heinous tactics so long as the corruption favors their candidate. Doesn't look to me like people who love democracy, looks like power-grabbing big time.


    CHANGE (none / 0) (#94)
    by john5750 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:24:46 PM EST
    Obama is change without a plan.

    HILLARY is change with a plan and the experience to implement the change in the right direction.

    We ALL want change from Bush.


    Ha! (none / 0) (#110)
    by Traven on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:33:26 PM EST
    LOL.  Another good one!

    Obama has the plan (none / 0) (#123)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    and the way forward to implement it. Look at his website for details.

    The canidates are within whsikers on most issues, to suggest otherwise is a bit crazy in my book.


    I don't think he's very good at talking about (none / 0) (#127)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:54:38 PM EST
    the issues. Maybe he should read his own website and memorize enough of it so that he can respond better on his feet.  I don't find his rhetoric inspiring and I think he misdiagnoses the problem in this country. I am inspired by someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about.

    Maybe he ought to memorize (none / 0) (#188)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:36:17 PM EST
    Deval Patrik's website.

    wow, i am impressed! (none / 0) (#53)
    by cpinva on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:39:09 PM EST
    so, let me see if i get this correctly: sen. obama is the only politician, in the entire country, who had an epiphany, and realized the country needed a change of direction? whew! now that my friend is true arrogance. were i to be cruel and callous, i might even suggest hubris, were i the cruel and callous sort. but i'm not, so i won't.

    i'm pretty sure this isn't coming from the senator himself, but his slightly over enthused supporters.

    sen. obama will get the WI AA vote, all 6 of them. as far as the college crowd is concerned, if they are out-of-state students, they can't vote, if they are still dependents of their parents, they have to vote absentee (how many do you suppose actually thought to do that?), leaving only those who are residents of madison to actually vote.

    as well, an earlier poster made a salient point: madison is not representative of WI as a whole, which tends towards rural and bluecollar, as do most of OH, PA and TX. with the exception of the AA population, this has not been a huge portion of sen. obama's support so far.

    we shall see.

    oh, btw, politicians steal from each other all the time, going back to the greeks. so what?

    Correct on many counts, but not (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:43:17 PM EST
    about student votes.  They can register as voters in Wisconsin, even tomorrow with same-day registration, if they meet the (pretty loose) requirements.  This does really matter most in Madison, though -- as it has so many out of state students.  (UW-Milwaukee is the campus with the most students from Wisconsin, and the other almost two dozen UW campuses in the state also draw almost all students from in state.)

    Out of state Students (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:23:27 PM EST
    Majority at Beloit. Over 30% at River Falls, Stout, Ripon.

    Ah, correct -- the small campuses do add up (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:33:51 PM EST
    and Beloit, on the Illinois border, is very Obama.  Ripon very out of state, too.

    I don't find quite the same data in UW System reports on UW campuses at River Falls and Stout, but no doubt there are a lot of Minnesotans there, at Eau Claire and Superior, etc.

    You're talking percentages, though.  I'm talking sheer numbers, with the size of UW-Milwaukee -- where the entire enrollment of UW-Superior could fit in one of our lecture halls. :-)


    Hillary ran (none / 0) (#61)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:47:11 PM EST
    on her questionable experience in the White House. That not change that is a rerun at best.

    You are persistent, but wrong. (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:49:57 PM EST
    It takes a clinton (none / 0) (#79)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:12:46 PM EST
    to clean up after a Bush. She ran as a Clinton with he husband front and center, talking about her previous work while he was in the white house. Didn't she?

    No. (none / 0) (#103)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:29:39 PM EST
    Obviously you've only chosen t listen to the little soundbytes that your fellows have selected fro you to hear...and refuse to listen to her campaign platform at all.

    If you were McCain (none / 0) (#82)
    by john5750 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:17:51 PM EST
    Would you rather run against a young, inexperienced, novice who is short on answers, aside from empty rhetoric, who has a shady Chicago side up for grabs with the swiftboaters, has no foreign experience and in fact flubbed a few times on the subject..............

    Or, a tough, very experienced in all phases, Senator who sits on all the important committees, has helped veterans, gives original and detailed answers, has a great record to back it all up, has foreign experience, an empty closet the swiftboaters no longer play in, and has fought the GOP machine and won.


    Clinton will raise (none / 0) (#108)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:31:52 PM EST
    so muc money for McCain, and hold far less indie appeal that Obama. The right wanted Hillary to win. They have been planning to run against her for more than a decade.

    I fear (none / 0) (#132)
    by hvs on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:04:51 PM EST
    you're exactly right on these counts.

    Careful what you wish for (none / 0) (#148)
    by herb the verb on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:17:46 PM EST
    I remember Dems hoping to run against Reagan in 1980.

    will will see (none / 0) (#125)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:50:33 PM EST
    Hillary lose WI tomorrow, which suddenly wont count for a variety of silly reasons.

    WI was a toss up to begin with. (none / 0) (#135)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:06:37 PM EST
    She was already looking ahead to OH, TX and PA before WI was even up front and center, so look to Obama people saying the same thing you are.

    Clinton has 6 point lead on Obama (none / 0) (#59)
    by john5750 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:46:25 PM EST
    Clinton to stay in Wisconsin
    after new poll shows her ahead

     A new poll says Clinton has a 6-point lead over Obama there.

    whose poll? (none / 0) (#67)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:53:55 PM EST
    ARG (none / 0) (#73)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    Link  Scroll down: They also have Obama leading in TX.

    ARG is not credible (none / 0) (#81)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:17:12 PM EST
    And that's old anyway.

    Yup, that was my point (none / 0) (#112)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:34:38 PM EST
    But if it were credible, we'd take it.

    www.hinessight.com (none / 0) (#84)
    by john5750 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:21:23 PM EST
    I found the poll news at www.hinessight.com today.

    ARG is junk (none / 0) (#89)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:22:55 PM EST
    You should be more discerning in your sources.

    Obama camp (none / 0) (#95)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:26:06 PM EST
    lowering expectations...looks like this is going to be close.


    By Dan Balz
    Five days ago the question was, would Barack Obama walk away with Wisconsin? On Saturday it was, why is Hillary Clinton walking away from Wisconsin? By Monday morning, it was, could Clinton win Wisconsin?

    David Plouffe, the manager of Obama's campaign, was lowering expectations in his conference call with reporters on Monday morning. "They're contesting it ferociously," he said of the Clinton campaign. "I believe they think they can win it and that's what they're trying to do."

    Obama just abandoned Wisconsin! (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:30:06 PM EST
    is a headline you won't read.  But he just left, according to CNN (I thought he had an event tonight), while Clinton -- who has repeatedly been reported as "abandoning Wisconsin" -- still is stumping across the state, doing so until after 10 tonight.  

    Interesting to read your report; thanks.  Now we'll see whether this gameplaying (I think Obama will win the state, but I really don't have a sense of it, either -- especially with the impact of weather) gets picked up in Wisconsin's press, tv's, etc.


    after spending (none / 0) (#126)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:52:05 PM EST
    far more time there than Hillary it is hard to suggest he abandoned it.

    Uh, get a sense of humor (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:14:37 PM EST
    and a sense of how media reports constantly reported Clinton as abandoning Wisconsin, when she's the one who was here yesterday, today, etc. . . .  Got it now?  If not, no matter -- you're not voting tomorrow, and I am.

    So, did Obama "sneak off" to (none / 0) (#173)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:42:27 PM EST
    North Carolina, or not?  And if he did, indeed, "sneak off," how come the helicopters were available for the photographers to capture Obama and Edwards in front of the Edwards estate?

    The point is__ (none / 0) (#71)
    by Allin on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    The point trying to be made here is multifaceted. Obama claims change and yet--there is no change from the two speeches.  Obama pretends to be the original 'hope' and 'change' instiller in politics-there is no change from the two speeches.  Obama plagerizes Senator Clinton's plans---THIS validates.  Again--look at the chracter rather than the words and you just might see a clone of "politics as usual and a flaming fraud'

    I love (none / 0) (#100)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:27:19 PM EST
    Obama's character. I respect Hillary's as well, but that is changing every day now. She really is starting to seem more and more power hungry to me now. That may be Mark Penn's influence, but the image is a problem for her. Dismissing states,voters and now certain superdelegates as not really counting after the fact, speak to me.

    I liked Hillary the most when she teared up. I thought that moment and the win that followed gave her an oppurtunity to reinvent her campaign. Dump Penn, hit every state and treat every voter/state like they matter, win or lose. Maybe they didn't have the cash, I think she could of raised it then though. She would have kept the win margins close and maybe even picked up a few more states, enough to keep the lead and close the deal.

    Hillary finding herself on the trail was a chance to dump the media's negative take on her as well. Maybe it would not have worked, but it is something I would have liked to seen.


    Your Republican talking point is telling. (none / 0) (#115)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:35:48 PM EST
    "She really is starting to seem more and more power hungry to me now."

    So...a kid from Chicago with barely any experience in National Congressional matters pretty much starts campaigning as soon as he gets into the U.S. Senate is not in the least "power hungry"?  

    "Dismissing states,voters and now certain superdelegates as not really counting after the fact, speak to me."

    As he talks as if he's already the nominee when the two top/remaining candidates are both very much still in the game, that's not dismissive of many, many voters' opinions?  Trying to dismiss the opinions of Floridian and Michigan voters while having his campaign race-pressure his opponent's SDs doesn't speak to you?  Give me a break.


    I can explain why (none / 0) (#130)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:01:19 PM EST
    it is not a repub talking point if you wish.

    It is a recent observation on her campaigns desire to dismiss voters and states they lose. Dismissing these states and voters damages the party. Dem get elected in red states and they need all the support we can give them. Dissing indie voters is equally damaging as we want to grow the Dem party right?

    These are my own feeling based on what is coming from her campaign right now. Frankly I tend to blame Penn, but in the end it is Hillary's choice to put this points out there again and again. I also don't like the mud that is being tossed now either, and I see it getting worse each day. At some point the second place canidate is going to have to decide to put the party ahead of themselves. No one should want the nom brokered, that would be devastating. I don't see hillary's side even considering it. The line keeps being moved farther for Obama every day.

    He is beating her in every way that really should matter. If she can't turn it around shortly, and I mean turn it around (lead pop vote and pledged delgates, she should drop out.


    you know what, dont worry about it. (none / 0) (#137)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:06:54 PM EST
    If people want Hillary to stay in and only win by superdelegates so be it. But if that is the case I would seriously give McCain 3 to 1 odds on winning the general.

    If she can't win the pop vote and pledged delegates count she needs to drop out. Her campaign suggesting otherwise looks petty and power hungry.


    Yep, I elected my super-delegates (none / 0) (#140)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:11:10 PM EST
    while most of the pledged delegates are big donors.

    I'm glad that people actually experienced in waging political campaigns will help to pick a nominee.


    Does that go for him too? (none / 0) (#141)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:11:26 PM EST
    What if, in the end, Sen. Obama "can't win the pop vote and pledged delegates count" should he drop out?  If both go in one direction, the superdelegates seem certain to follow. If they split, why should either one of them drop out?

    If hillary leads in both like obama does (none / 0) (#155)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:21:34 PM EST
    yes, and I would swing my support in a second.

    Very gcood (none / 0) (#160)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:24:39 PM EST
    Excellent. You've avoided the quite likely situation where they are split, but thanks for your response. I feel the same way.

    When all the voting is done, and they figure out what to do about FL and MI, we can revisit this.


    i see that test as being for both (none / 0) (#159)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:23:48 PM EST
    and would be suggesting Obama step down now or at least shortly if the roles and positions were reversed.

    What I woudld not do is start dismissing swaths of states and voters, after the fact.


    If the future states (none / 0) (#166)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:31:15 PM EST
    favor her like the favor Obama you might have more of a point. If Obama did have a double digit lead over Clinton agaist McCain you might have more of a point. It not just one thing it is everthing.

    I assume with the pop vote you are seating FL and MI as is right? No issue there?


    didn't have (none / 0) (#167)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:32:00 PM EST
    a double digit lead

    Yes, he should (none / 0) (#163)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:26:56 PM EST
    If at the end of the primary season Obama is behind in the popular vote and pledged delegates, he should drop out.  He should not try to get super-delegates to swing the nomination to him.  I believe that is the official position of the Obama campaign.  

    So then Edwards would win? :-) (none / 0) (#171)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:37:40 PM EST
    Here's my reply to your earlier question (none / 0) (#174)
    by hvs on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    No choice (none / 0) (#142)
    by hvs on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:13:44 PM EST

    but to vote Kerry. As it was for many other folks, mine was really a vote against W.
    Why do you ask?

    I honestly believe (none / 0) (#146)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:15:09 PM EST
    If the roles were reversed in delegate counts, pop votes, favoring future states, national polling, raised money, momentum, and positive media coverage, Obama may have already stepped down by now. Clinton's name and network combined with the past envitabilty of her winning the nom has gotten her some party slack so far.

    If she loses WI by a sizeable amount and/or fails to win TX/PA/OH strongly I see that changing.  If she keep polling poorly in general national match ups compared to Obama, if she runs low on funding again, I see that changing. At some point the party will go the second place canidate, be it Clinton or Obama and ask them to fall in line with the leader.


    Wow (none / 0) (#154)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:21:03 PM EST
    You think your candidate is that much of a w**nie that if he were practically tied with Sen. Clinton and had strong states coming up, he would just give up?  If that's true, that's reason enough not to vote for him.

    Many of the polls have him behind John McCain in the general. Perhaps as soon as Sen. Obama wins the Democratic nomination, if he does, he will concede the following day. Why go through the fight of actually waging a campaign and allowing people to vote? It's so messy and uses up a lot of paper.


    practically tied (none / 0) (#165)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:27:28 PM EST
    how, she leads in nothing now.

    Not in pop vote.
    Not in pledged delegates.
    Not in national prinmary polls.
    Not in national matchups.
    Not in fund raising.
    Not even in Las Vegas bookie rooms.

    And the remaining states do not favor her. How is this a tie?


    The remaining states don't favor her? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:35:10 PM EST
    I believe they do. Texas will be difficult because of the arcane rules for aloting delegates. Ohio and Pennsylvania most definitely favor her. There are plenty of delegates left.  Although his lead in pledged delegates is not insurmountable, he will probably end up with more in the end. And she will probably end up with more popular votes. And they still have to do something about MI/FL, because Sen. Obama's 48 state strategy is not going to help in the general.

    As to your other metrics, none of them matter. You can't take a bookie onto the convention floor.


    Bwa ahahaha (none / 0) (#164)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    The funny thing is you think you would be complimenting Obama.

    Believe me, it is not.


    right it is better to lose (none / 0) (#168)
    by jdj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:33:10 PM EST
    by every single measure.

    Largest paper in Wisconsin reports polls (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:10:30 PM EST
    contradicting each other, as here -- PPP vs. ARG -- but also notes this on the PPP poll that puts Obama so far ahead:

    "The poll assumes that Obama will generate higher than normal turnout among young voters and blacks, based on the pattern in other states this year. Under a more standard turnout scenario, Obama leads only 47% to 44%."

    I think this may be addressing the PPP poll's model not reflecting Wisconsin's AA population being half that of the country.  Whether it addresses that Wisconsin is well ahead of the national norm in turnout by women and youth is unclear.

    really? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:14:57 PM EST
    you think PPP is so incompetent as to use national AA numbers for a particular state?

    Sounds to me that they are simply making an assumption about what the AA turnout will be.


    Tano, read up and stop your flashing (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:26:33 PM EST
    on anything you don't like, as I already have shown above that PPP's model is not reflective of census and other data on Wisconsin and apppears to set an almost unattainable level of participation by AAs.

    Your constant knee-jerk reactions to whatever you read here about AAs, without reading carefully or doing any research of your own, are just wearying -- and do not reflect at all well on your candidate, if his supporters are so unthinking and unwilling to engage in facts . . . as well as civil discourse.


    are you referring to the 6% / 12% disparity (none / 0) (#180)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:52:06 PM EST
    that you mentioned earlier in the thread?

    Please explain more. If AA's make up 6% of the population, and, like in most states, are overwhelmingly Democratic, wouldn't that make it somewhat expected, even in a normal election, that their rate of participation in a Democratic primary be close to double the general population level?

    I think we see that in just about every state. In Illinois for example, AAs are 15% of the population, but 24% of the vote in the primary. That proportion would indicate about a 10% AA turnout in Wisconsin. So yeah, maybe 12% is a bit much, if we go just with the IL result, but seems like its in the ballpark.

    It was not a knee-jerk reaction of mine. Your comment was not that, maybe, there was a slight overrepresentation of AAs. You claimed that they were somehow using national numbers - as if the national 12% AA rate in the general population was being used to estimate AA turnout in a Democratic primary in Wisconsin. Which would be gross incompetence on their part. Thats what you said, and I merely asked you if that is what you really thought was going on.


    Unfortunately, (none / 0) (#120)
    by tek on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:42:21 PM EST
    the weather will be terrible in WI tomorrow, which means a lot of older people will probably not get to the polls. This is why I really think we should have a National Primary Day at a season when the weather can be expected to be good.

    It'll be cold -- but no snow! (none / 0) (#134)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:05:19 PM EST
    in the Milwaukee area, with more than a third of the state's population.

    Btw, when it gets too cold to snow, that's looking good these days in Wisconsin.  More of a problem will be whether we can get around the old snow piles, the ice rinks from yesterday's floods (when it went above freezing with the lake effect for those of us in the southeastern part of the state, while it still was blizzarding in Madison, etc.), etc.  Go to jsonline.com and see some of the photos.

    But Milwaukee's mayor is for Obama, so he may find some way to get the plowing and shoveling crews back in action to clear streets, bus stop corners, etc., that have been so ignored for so much of the winter.  (Not a good thing for him if he had an opponent for his re-election, as we remember what lousy snow removal did for Jane Byrne in Chicago.)


    Gerrymandered snowplowing? (none / 0) (#176)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:49:18 PM EST
    Talk about carving out a win.

    You bet, and gerrymandered (none / 0) (#189)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:42:49 PM EST
    garbage collection, too.  That's how it works in big Dem cities like Chicago (do you recall the Jane Byrne campaign?) and Milwaukee.  Again, go look at the photos on jsonline.com of where the flooding is, look at who is in the photos and lives there. . . .

    Vote by mail (none / 0) (#177)
    by zyx on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:50:07 PM EST
    We do in Oregon.

    Nothing not to love about it.  VEREY high turnout.  Time to really spend with your ballot, when you have the time--thoughtful time.  No weather issues.

    NOTHING not to love about it.


    A lot to worry about (none / 0) (#191)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:43:53 PM EST
    according to a study of electoral fraud throughout our history, a book called Deliver the Voter.  Interesting reading these days.

    Fraud? (none / 0) (#192)
    by zyx on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:05:24 PM EST
    Do you mean there's more fraud in voting-by-mail?

    I don't think that has been found to be true.  There are safeguards, of course, and I just don't think fraud is more widespread than in other jurisdictions.  I've looked a little, and not found anything.  And we certainly seem to be doing okay.


    ARG poll (none / 0) (#186)
    by PennProgressive on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:33:33 PM EST
    shows , for whatever its worth, that Clinton is ahead in WI. As it has been discussed here before, ARG is perhaps not the best polling organization, but I thought you may like to see this, particularly the demographic btreakdown.

    According to ARG, Clinton leads Obama 49 to 42%.

    Among women, Clinton leads Obama 55-39%. Among men Obama leas 48-42%. Amonng White Clinton leads 52-40%. Among AA Obama leads 85-9%. Among Latino Clinton leads 50-44%.

    The  poll was taken over Feb. 15-16.

    ARG has generally been bad (none / 0) (#193)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:21:03 PM EST
    but the individual pieces of that poll look like they just might be close to right.  How about that.