home

Does It Smell A Little Like New Hampshire?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:11:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Triumphalism has returned to the Obama supporting blogosphere and the Media. Everyone is dying to call the race for Obama.

Now I was one of those ready to declare Clinton dead, twice in fact. Once before New Hampshire. And again on Super Tuesday. But I will miss this parade. I expect Obama to win comfortably tomorrow in Wisconsin. But I see no signs of the type of demographic shifts that will give Obama popular vote wins (we may discover how important the "will of the people" remains if Clinton wins handily in Texas and does not get the lion's share of the delegates) in Texas and Ohio on March 4.

Are any Obamaniacs in the blogs and the Media worried about the lay of the land here? Doesn't look like it. Time will tell if their confidence was justified.

Update: This thread is now closed, we're over 200 comments. Thanks for your thoughts.

< Barack Obama - Deval Patrick Thread II | Soft Judges >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Does It Smell A Little Like New Hampshire? | 194 comments (194 topical)
    Wisconsin is (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:20:09 PM EST
    Collegetowns USA so I doubt Clinton will come closer than 10 points but I'd sure like to be wrong.  Their moms could deliver it for Hillary.

    I am talking TX and OH (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:22:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    After Michelle Obama's gaffe today... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ineedalife on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:43:01 PM EST
    saying that this is the first time in her adult life that she is proud of America, TX and OH may get tougher. If they hear about it, that is.

    [ Parent ]
    But does she put her hand over (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:41:53 PM EST
    her heart when she says the Pledge of Allegiance?

    [ Parent ]
    She wasn't (none / 0) (#225)
    by ghost2 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:18:23 AM EST
    When Bill Clinton ended genocide in Bosnia?

    [ Parent ]
    Wisconson (none / 0) (#13)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:25:13 PM EST
    seem more like New Hamshire than TX and OH.  They're too far out to judge.  Obama campaign is already trying to lower exsoectations for Wisconson

    [ Parent ]
    Too late (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:29:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hillary will do well in WI (none / 0) (#114)
    by Prabhata on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:54:24 PM EST
    I think that WI will be like NH for Hillary.  It will be close enough that it will help her in TX and OH.  TX worries me a little bit.  The Latino vote is not measured in the same way as the Dallas vote.  Now why would Texas Democrats do that?

    [ Parent ]
    On dkos (none / 0) (#227)
    by ghost2 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:20:40 AM EST
    Obama supporters have been posting with glee that b/c of low turnout of latinos in '04 and '06, their districts don't have that many delegates, and therefore their votes will count for much less.  

    Hurray for democracy!

    [ Parent ]

    I've given up on trying to predict (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lepidus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:35:16 PM EST
    I was convinced that Hillary Clinton would lose both New Jersey and California. At this point, I'll believe what's happened once it happened, but I'm not playing the expectations game any more.

    Everyone (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by tek on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:45:58 PM EST
    meditate for good weather in WI!

    Too Late (none / 0) (#219)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:22:03 AM EST
    It may not snow til later but right now it is cold, cold, cold (2 degrees with a wind chill of -15)  and given that we had rain day before yesterday there is now ice underfoot everywhere!

    It's hard walking for the young, nimble and healthy. For us old coots it's sheer lunacy to attempt to walk very far. Unless broken bones are your thing. Oh and stores are all out of ice melt as is the ever prescient city of Kenosha.(SE WI) I'm spreading table salt. As well a gloom. But I am increasingly glad that I voted for Hillary by absentee ballot last Friday and thus to not have to go out today at all.

    [ Parent ]

    that's not good. (none / 0) (#228)
    by ghost2 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:22:44 AM EST
    Students will be bused to the polls.  Hillary voters are not densely packed in one area, and therefore, have to mostly make it to the poll onr by one.  

    [ Parent ]
    LG is an Obama supporter in (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:13:14 PM EST
    Hillary's hilariously stereotypical demographic clothing.

    Good call (none / 0) (#68)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:15:59 PM EST
    Get her (or more likely him) out of here.

    [ Parent ]
    done (none / 0) (#159)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:46:26 PM EST
    see my comment below, she was an imposter and Obama supporter.

    [ Parent ]
    Latina Granny 63 Was an Imposter (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:42:48 PM EST
    The poster pretending to be a grandmotherly, Latina Hillary supporter turned out to be an Obama supporter who posts as Xtreme Fupa.

    Both have been banned and all their comments deleted from the site.

    jeez (none / 0) (#163)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:49:58 PM EST
    Xtreme Fupa

    omg I'm embarrassed by that name, thats terrible, can you ban IP's or just names?

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks. Those exclamation points (none / 0) (#188)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:37:55 PM EST
    were making me about ready to bash my forehead with my keyboard.

    [ Parent ]
    Getting back to the original (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by mg7505 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:52:38 PM EST
    issue, I'm going to disagree with BTD on this one. Obama will take WI by probably as big a margin as he took Minnesota. The residents of the two states are quite alike, as a few people have pointed out.

    Of course I still "hope" that HRC wins (I'm trying not to plagiarize BO, who invented, copyrighted and patented that word).

    News Flash (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by talkingpoint on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:37:36 AM EST
       Hillary will win Wisconsin. All the talk and opinions about Wisconsin will be over in just a few hours.

    Link? (none / 0) (#200)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:44:50 AM EST
    P.S.  I hope you are right.

    [ Parent ]
    Hoping (none / 0) (#220)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:25:29 AM EST
    Your crystal ball is working better than all the crystal balls that say otherwise. Actually I wish everyone with crystal balls would just be quiet and let the voters vote, the votes be counted and the results announced. Sometimes I think that all the speculation and the polls skew the vote one way or another. Not saying this is true, just the way that I feel.

    [ Parent ]
    New Hampshire revisited (1.00 / 2) (#20)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:35:09 PM EST
    How many states has Obama won since New Hampshire? How many has Clinton won? Oh, I forgot, the states where Obama won don't count nor do the thousands and thousands of voters. Clinton has 35 years of experience, 7 as a Senator. Does living with a surgeon for 8 years mean a spouse can perform operations? Feel the love for the Democratic Party when the Clinton's want do-overs in FL and MI. Rules is rules. Wishful thinking? Don Quixote?

    This is hilarious (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:37:12 PM EST
    Do Obama supporters deliberately miss my point or do they not read the post?

    Thanks for the comedy.

    [ Parent ]

    I am beginning to think (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:42:34 PM EST
    that the missing of points might be deliberate, otherwise they would not keep talking.

    BTD, how you do this every night is beyond me.  You have the patience of...well, I can't even think of anyone that patient.  You are definitely doing the Lord's work here.

    [ Parent ]

    I am convinced some Obama (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:24:29 PM EST
    supporters just plug in a pre-written comment regardless of the post.  Especially late at night.  Obamaspam.

    [ Parent ]
    The odor from New Hampshire (1.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:13:30 PM EST
    This is what we know about New Hampshire. In the very partial recount the Secretary of State didn't allow the examiners to compare the votes versus the roster at polling places. The memory cards weren't ever produced for examination. The Diebold machines are eminently and demonstrably hackable.

    Oh, and in some locations Clinton got a hundred or two extra votes as compared to the actual ballots. How does a couple of hundred votes just show up? I'm not saying that Clinton or anyone in her camp is responsible. I'm saying that this is what is. Something or someone is responsible those extra votes.

    Does this prove that there was a statewide election fraud? Of course not. It proves that there were repeating inexplicable errors at some polling places that favored Clinton. The polls, including the one MSNBC exit poll that Matthews let slip, suggested an Obama victory. No one else released their exit poll information (that's peculiar). Exit polls are how observers judge elections as fair or fixed all over the world, except, perhaps in New Hampshire.

    In short, there has been no full recount, or actually, there has been no actual count, unless you trust the hackable Diebold machines. The majority of the ballots in New Hampshire haven't been counted by a human being.

    So when someone says that a primary smells like New Hampshire it suggests hackable machines, no counting the votes, and weird vote swings that don't show up in the polls (sorry, even Zogby didn't see enough to change what he was predicting).

    Until and unless there is a true and full count of the votes in New Hampshire the results of that primary have the same authenticity of the results of the Republican primary in Washington State. That is, unless the Republicans finally got around to counting the last 13% of the votes there, in which case it has less authenticity.

    oh for the love of God (none / 0) (#134)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:16:30 PM EST
    to bed!

    [ Parent ]
    Jeez, what a bummer. (none / 0) (#140)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:22:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not according to excellent posts (none / 0) (#178)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:29:24 PM EST
    by observers on the ground there, who really understood the issues and posted at DKos . . . when I still could stand to go there.  The NH recount showed it was clean.  But thanks for reminding me of yet another story trumped up by media doubting Clinton could win.  That ticked me off, too.

    [ Parent ]
    Won't it take a demographic shift (none / 0) (#1)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:13:51 PM EST
    For Obama to win comfortably in WI?

    No (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:23:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sigh (none / 0) (#18)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:32:26 PM EST
    Exit polls from 2004 primaries.

    WI
    89% white
    6% A-A
    52% female
    45% with college degree

    OH
    81% white
    14% A-A
    52% female
    37% with college degree

    TX
    52% white
    24% Latino
    21% A-A
    53% female
    42% with college degree

    [ Parent ]

    Your point? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:36:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama cannot win comfortably in (none / 0) (#25)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:37:41 PM EST
    WI without winning whites, and staying close with white women and white working class men.  That would represent a demographic shift.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:38:35 PM EST
    Wel, I do not agree.

    [ Parent ]
    With all due respect, then (none / 0) (#48)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:58:10 PM EST
    if you really were ready to call Clinton dead before New Hampshire and Super Tuesday, then I would be inclined to believe the opposite of what you believe as a good possibility.  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    sorry if you have explained this elsewhere (none / 0) (#57)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:06:42 PM EST
    but I am really curious as to why you think WI does not have very favorable demographics for Hillary?

    Primary - she does well. Low AA, high working class pop. Seems ideal for her, no?

    [ Parent ]

    There are other factors (none / 0) (#63)
    by Shawn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:12:38 PM EST
    But this might explain it a little.

    [ Parent ]
    you mean people (none / 0) (#71)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:19:02 PM EST
    who are relatively near Obama's constituency, and thus know him better than the rest of the country, would be more inclined to support him?

    Or do you mean that people who are relatively near Hillary's hometown are less inclined to like her?

    :)

    [ Parent ]

    So, why "inclined to support" re Obama (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:28:42 PM EST
    but "inclined not to like" re HRC?

    BTW:  I notice today AP has changed its campaign story so that both Obama and HRC are, in fact, running to be President of the United States.  Earlier that is what he was running for but she was running to be Commander in Chief.  

    [ Parent ]

    i didn't want to (none / 0) (#86)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:31:44 PM EST
    plagerize myself, by using the same line twice.

    [ Parent ]
    It's PLAGIARIZE (none / 0) (#95)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:38:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Good point. (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:47:10 PM EST
    I have a dream, air castle, bubble*, chimera, daydream, delusion, emotion, fancy, fantasy, hallucination, head trip*, idea, image, imagination, impression, incubus, mental picture, nightmare, pipe, pipe dream*, rainbow, reverie, romance, specter, speculation, thought, trance, vagary, vision, wraith


    [ Parent ]
    Neither. He really wasn't on the radar (none / 0) (#173)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:07:33 PM EST
    up here until this campaign -- at least for Wisconsites who live and work here.  But see downthread for how many people work in Illinois and live in Wisconsin, or have homes in both states (the ones who call Wisconsin the 51st state, "Up North"), or come from Illinois to go to college in Wisconsin, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep. Southern Wisconsin (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:52:32 PM EST
    has become increasingly a burb of Chicago; there has been much local media on that in Wisconsin, where it is more affordable (although it also means Illinoisans, used to their price level, don't bargain down as much, driving up southern Wisconsin prices a lot).  This is so even all the way north to Milwaukee's trendy Third Ward condo district.  And Lake Geneva and environs have been Illinoisan for more than a century, with luxurious second homes (so Illinoisans could conceivably have evidence of residency, by Wisconsin's loose rules, register tomorrow, and vote in both).  And many, many students from Illinois go to Wisconsin schools -- lots at UW-Madison and UW-Parkside in Racine/Kenosha near the border, and many at smaller schools such as Beloit College on the border.  

    Similar de facto burbs of the Twin Cities are in western Wisconsin, many students as well with tuition reciprocity between the states, and you saw how Minnesota want.  And you also saw this immense impact of Illinoisans in Iowa, on their western border (and with even looser rules about residency in Iowa caucuses).  

    All this will make it hard to measure tomorrow.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks (none / 0) (#139)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:21:56 PM EST
    That's helpful.  So I'll still be worried even in Obama wins.  But I'll take it!

    [ Parent ]
    Youbetcha. And your research on (none / 0) (#170)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:01:51 PM EST
    the demographics here is good, too.  But as I've noted elsewhere, keep in mind that this is a very segregated state, and most AAs in the state live in one Congressional/delegate-allocating district . . . although it is not mostly an AA district, as I recall (I've got to look up the recent revised stats -- the census redid Milwaukee last year, based on a challenge, that boosted us to more than 600,000 population, so also look for the up-to-date stats).

    That could skew matters on delegate counts vs. popular vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, also re your exit poll stats (none / 0) (#182)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:35:04 PM EST
    They suggest that the pollsters following that model tomorrow could be off at first (until they make their usual adjustments to reflect realities).  Those stats are more than double the actual educational level attained by residents of the state, so if the less-than-college Wisconsinites turn out more like their share of the population, that could have an effect.  And the model also seems off in terms of women voters, in a state with one of the highest women's voting rates in the country.  Also, the youth vote that with a great GOTV effort was second in the country in 2004 actually was first in the country in 2006, with another great GOTV effort in some UW towns to win back the legislature (and it worked for the Senate but not the Assembly).

    Of course, those exit polls also were for a day that was at least 50 degrees warmer than it will be tomorrow in Wisconsin. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Next only counts in horse shoes (none / 0) (#122)
    by Prabhata on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:03:05 PM EST
    I don't think that being next to another state has any significance.  CA votes very differently than all the states next to it.  There are some similarities because they are in the West, but not enough to correlate.


    [ Parent ]
    Shawn, my post downthread (none / 0) (#172)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:04:15 PM EST
    as it turns out, was affirming yours.  The map matters, with the proximity of the Flatlanders (their state now is renamed, so they're Obamalanders, I guess).

    [ Parent ]
    Don't the (none / 0) (#38)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:47:29 PM EST
    52% women and 6% A-A numbers both seem low for this election cycle?  I think with those demographics it could easily go either way, depending on turnout.


    [ Parent ]
    Probably (none / 0) (#43)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:54:18 PM EST
    Since 6% of WI is A-A and most of those are Dems, stands to reason it will be closer to 10% in the primary.

    Still, I draw two conclusions:
    (1) Obama is unlikely to win comfortably tomorrow.
    (2) If he does win comfortably, that would represent inroads into Hillary's base.

    Which is why I think WI is more important than a lot of people realize.

    [ Parent ]

    What makes you think (none / 0) (#152)
    by coigue on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:33:55 PM EST
    that Obama appeals only to African Americans?

    If that were true he wouldn't have come this far.

    Am I missing something?

    [ Parent ]

    Yup, you're missing something (none / 0) (#175)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:11:57 PM EST
    Nobody's saying Obama appeals only to African Americans, but he has consistently won a higher percentage of African-Americans than non-African Americans and there have been other demographic patterns as well: he does better with men than women, non-Latinos than Latinos, and the college-educated than non-college educated.  Demographics matter.

    [ Parent ]
    Texas (none / 0) (#49)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:58:32 PM EST
    demographics are probably not as important as on would think because of the way the delegates are allocated.  See Burnt Orange Report for an breakdown.  

    Wisconsin has an open primary and the Independents/Republican crossovers may be more of a factor there.

    [ Parent ]

    Demographic shift? (none / 0) (#149)
    by coigue on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:31:38 PM EST
    Can someone tell me the demographics in Idaho, Washington State and Idaho?

    [ Parent ]
    I said it earlier (none / 0) (#2)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:14:55 PM EST
    but, what I am seeing in the news reminds me a lot of how the media were acting right before the polls closed in NH.  Their language went from ecstatically Obama to very couched "wait and see" rhetoric.

    I'm not saying that I think Clinton will sweep WI (though Cream is doing her best to make it so!) but it does appear that the Obama tide is waning.

    My theory: they have stopped coddling the press.  You don't make make the press stand outside in zero degree weather for an hour.

    Politics is personal.

    Kathy, here's an interesting column by (none / 0) (#4)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:18:30 PM EST
    Howard Kurtz on media coverage of Clinton.

    Washington Post.

    I've become a pessimist and I expect Obama to win easily but not by too much delegate wise.

    [ Parent ]

    Howie Kurtz is defending Hillary now? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:22:05 PM EST
    Another stopped clock, I guess.

    [ Parent ]
    Fixed your link (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:41:29 PM EST
    Here

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks...I forgot to check it. I think I had an (none / 0) (#104)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:45:07 PM EST
    extra http in there.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, a little over the top (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:15:52 PM EST


    Have you seen this? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:22:16 PM EST
    My memory is hazy. Was the Dean campaign as pathetic during its "implosion" stage as the Clinton campaign has behaved the last week or two?

    I'm trying to figure out if this is normal behavior for a desperate campaign or if the Clintons are reaching new heights of idiocy.



    [ Parent ]
    That's what BTD and I are talking about (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:24:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What a dumb a**. I always read the links (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:31:07 PM EST
    before I post but I was so disgusted with that I posted before reading it.

    [ Parent ]
    kos is positively begging (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:33:05 PM EST
    to be wrong about this.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm positively begging him to be wrong (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:43:37 PM EST
    too. I can't decide if I want Clinton to win this bad because of her or because of behavior like that.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't be too hard on yourself. (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:56:41 PM EST
    But be grateful BTD didn't notice your goof before you did!  (I speak from painful experience.)

    [ Parent ]
    More than a little over the top (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:36:08 PM EST
    Closer to MSNBC's version of dancing on her grave.  I guess I take this too personally because of the amount of time I have spent on many of these sites over the last 4-5 years but I never thought I would see it get this nasty toward another Democrat.  

    [ Parent ]
    Pride goeth before destruction (none / 0) (#61)
    by badger on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:10:29 PM EST
    and a haughty spirit before a fall.

    [ Parent ]
    King James Version? (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:29:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't sound right any other way (none / 0) (#91)
    by badger on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:35:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    See, now (none / 0) (#120)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:58:26 PM EST
    That is such a contrast from the discussion we had here. Both sides and many arguments represented, and I actually learned a few things and was exposed to different points of view. Some of the ridiculous, of course, but some valid and almost all thoughtful.

    Over there is like a monkey house.

    And for the record, I don't like the completely pro-Hillary blogs either, though there is less feces-throwing.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm an Obamaniac, (none / 0) (#6)
    by hvs on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:20:17 PM EST
    I guess (though I prefer to be called an "Obama supporter"), because I think Hillary's support for the Iraq war authorization disqualifies her and because I think her negative's indicate she'll attract rightists who'd otherwise sit out to come to the polls. And I, for one, am indeed worried about the lay of the land because I have not heard a convincing argument why she shouldn't win WI. Polls in this season have been notoriously off-track. Why shouldn't she win?

    I'm worried, indeed.

    Worried too (none / 0) (#51)
    by magster on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:00:16 PM EST
    The "vibes" don't bode well for Obama.

    I phone banked for Obama in WI tonight, and I had seven Obama supporters to two undecideds (aka Clinton supporters too nice to hurt my feelings), 10 phone messages, and 23 wrong number/do not answer (is it common for campaigns to have such a high number of bad numbers).

    We shall see.

    [ Parent ]

    Bad Numbers (none / 0) (#119)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:58:12 PM EST
    In my experience phone banking for Clinton out here in California, there were a fair number of "bad numbers."  I don't know if I had it that high, but if Obama is focusing on college students and younger folks, it would stand to reason that many of them change numbers fairly often.

    [ Parent ]
    I've had almost 20 robocalls today (none / 0) (#125)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:10:05 PM EST
    in Wisconsin.  I'm not kidding, I knew they were coming, so I decided to count them.  And I've many in previous days, too.  I usually just don't answer (thank you to the God Calleridus:-) but also decided to tally who was calling the most (and talk back, so much fun!).  We went through this as a swing state in 2004, too, so we're battle-hardened.  Sorry 'bout that.

    Btw, I got one human candidate's voice today, too.  My choice for local alderman.  I told him that even if he didn't already have my vote, he would have won it just for calling me himself, instead of the machines that called me many times for other aldermanic candidates (there are seven of those!).

    And there might have been more calls, because I got a lot of beeps -- when I was trying to do business . . . and yep, when I was doing phone-banking, too. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    I'll Give You a Reason (none / 0) (#117)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:56:40 PM EST
    Open Primary

    Obama has lost Democratic voters overall by more than 1/2 million votes, but he still leads in the popular vote because of Republicans and independents and both have a history of participating in the Wisconsin primary.  

    I think there's a very good chance that Obama loses among Democrats tomorrow, but I still predict him to win the primary.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you're correct (none / 0) (#127)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:11:49 PM EST
    so observers, don't think all the votes for Dems tomorrow will be there in November.  We were the closest state in 2004.  And there have been open campaigns for crossovers on conservative talk radio, in addition to the subtle front-page encouragement of the conservative paper that's the largest in the state.

    [ Parent ]
    Cream City, I'd (none / 0) (#138)
    by hvs on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:20:23 PM EST
    be interested in your reaction to my reaction to the matter of the "I have a dream" speech.
    I don't think either borrowings from allies rose to the level of what people think they mean by "plagiarism."

    [ Parent ]
    I commented earlier in those threads (none / 0) (#168)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:58:07 PM EST
    -- and as one who has been plagiarized, as well as now teaching and part of a crackdown on it.  So I think you can imagine my reaction, or you can go read it.

    Aside from the definitional discussion, though, there's no question this was not good for Obama -- not the news that ought to have dominated the agenda the day before caucuses and a primary.  Of course, it may have worked well to distract from the even more problematic (in terms of perception) comment of his spouse here today.  The media honeymoon may be over.

    [ Parent ]

    CNN's new poll has Texas 50-48 HC. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:25:05 PM EST
    That's getting pretty close and with the caucus later that night, that doesn't look too comforting.

    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:29:22 PM EST
    It  is a different poll. IT does not reflect it is "getting close."

    If there was a trend in the same poll, that would mean something.

    Right now it ia a datapoint. Might as well be worried about the ARG poll that has Obama up 6.

    [ Parent ]

    looking for a trend (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:57:39 PM EST
    Have you seen the aggregation of polls at pollsters dot com?

    The one for Texas is here.

    [ Parent ]

    If Obama can get (none / 0) (#158)
    by coigue on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:43:34 PM EST
    a good solid bite out of Hillary's Latino base, I think it's pretty convincing evidence that he will sweep the general against McCain. It may convince some of the superdelegates, as well.

    [ Parent ]
    True, I think I'm looking for anything to (none / 0) (#41)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:52:59 PM EST
    reinforce my negative feelings right now.

    [ Parent ]
    Also, I think TPM had the (none / 0) (#132)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:15:51 PM EST
    Confidence level at 95% on that poll (i couldn't find the methodology elsewhere when I was searching earlier) which in my mind, may not produce the best survey results...I'd like to see some consistently lower CL polls with a low error rate and larger samples...many of the polls are a result of samples JUST large enough they can go to print and "keep up" with the race

    [ Parent ]
    Nm (none / 0) (#136)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:19:18 PM EST
    it was his posting of the Gallup national poll...

    Does anyone have a link to the methodology on the CNN/ORC poll?

    [ Parent ]

    Can't find demographics for the CNN poll (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:42:56 PM EST
    so I don't know what to make of it.  If I had to guess I'd say you could average it with the Rasmussen poll for the same time and come out with Clinton +10.  That's probably not far off.

    I expect her to win the primary here but, with the weird evening caucuses on election day, an 8% win in the primary could result in a 5-6 delegate loss.

    I hate everyone who had a hand in putting this crap together!


    [ Parent ]

    Hi, Ralph-- (none / 0) (#36)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:45:07 PM EST
    Sorry, where is "here" for you?  WI?

    [ Parent ]
    Austin, TX (none / 0) (#50)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:59:11 PM EST
    in the only county which went blue in '00 in this reddest state.  We were also blue in '04, but I think Hidalgo in the valley joined us then.

    I have hopes for a Hillary win here because of her local history in registering voters for McGovern and some strong ties to the Hispanic community.


    [ Parent ]

    Very nice town, Austin (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:02:24 PM EST
    Except for the bats.  Y'all are getting the debates, right?  Can you tell me if it's true that they are closed to the public?  And if so, why?

    Also, a tad off topic (or on another topic): just saw this on another site vis-a-vis plagiarism.  This is going to be HUGE once it hits the media tomorrow.  Stealing from children?  The shame!  The horror!

    Bob the Builder

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, the debates are closed to the public. They (none / 0) (#56)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:04:49 PM EST
    do have a lottery for some tickets, about 100-200, I think.  Debate is being run by CNN and the Texas Democratic Party, so probably all the fat cats will be there.  And I think it is going to be in a smallish venue.  They have set up a $50 per person ticket event for the public.

    [ Parent ]
    sends a bad message (none / 0) (#60)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:09:00 PM EST
    I think, and leaves out a lot of college kids in a heavily college-kidded town.

    I wonder if this was something the Clinton folk asked for as an antidote to stacking the audience?  As I recall, the debate was originally going to be in Houston, but then was moved to Austin.

    I'm always fascinated by all these behind-the-scenes maneuverings.

    [ Parent ]

    What I heard was that because the debate would (none / 0) (#66)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:13:50 PM EST
    be on University of Texas property they didn't want to seem political and said that it couldn't turn into a campaign event.  So I think that had something to do with it.  But there will be some college kids there because UT did say that they thought it would be great for some of the kids to participate.  Austin is the capital of Texas and a VERY political town.  So anybody who is anybody in Democratic politics will be there.  Sort of like the California debates where all the movie stars showed up.

    [ Parent ]
    Except the TV viewers (none / 0) (#77)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:24:07 PM EST
    won't recognize them.  :-)


    [ Parent ]
    Which is why you must promise (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:36:55 PM EST
    to live blog the debate!   Now, at the lower left corner of your screen in the white Stetson is . . . .

    [ Parent ]
    What's funny is that they think EVERYBODY knows (none / 0) (#96)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:38:26 PM EST
    who they are!

    [ Parent ]
    Michelle Obama won't approve. (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:31:47 PM EST
    In the Newsweek cover story it was reported she strongly told Obama's handlers not to ever let the audience be stacked against him at a debate.

    [ Parent ]
    She was right (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:12:13 PM EST
    when the crowd is with him, as it definitely was in SC, he really does well.  When it is not with him, or when it's divided equally, he tends to do poorly or, at best, place.

    But, I would assume Bill Clinton is saying the same thing about the debates.  I wouldn't say it's a bad thing to note that if the crowd is with you, you do much better.  What worries me is that Obama does exponentially better when he has the room.  Again, all politicians have egos, but if Obama makes it to the GE against McCain, and finds himself in a tough room, what's going to happen?

    I must say, the kind of crap Clinton stands up to, all the while still smiling, just floors me.  It's one of the reasons I am such a firm and exuberant Clinton supporter: she just will not be stopped.

    [ Parent ]

    Did you catch the new, improved version of (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:15:02 PM EST
    Michelle's interview in the Newsweek profile?  

    [ Parent ]
    If they think I'm going to a $50 debate (none / 0) (#67)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:14:01 PM EST
    watch, well you know.


    [ Parent ]
    I tried to get tickets to the debate as soon as I (none / 0) (#70)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:18:00 PM EST
    heard about them.  I have a friend who is connected to UT and he is the one who told me all this.  I will stay at home so I can scream and throw things at the TV when BO states a falsie or disses HRC!

    [ Parent ]
    Sounds like the optimum idea! (none / 0) (#84)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:30:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    We love the bats because they eat mosquitos! (none / 0) (#62)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:12:18 PM EST
    Yes the debate is here in one of the smaller venues at UT that holds ~7000.  Why the small venue?  Security?  

    After all the fat cats got their tickets, the venue was essentially full so they closed it to the public.  Thanks to a loud and persistent outcry, the lovely party decided they would give out 100 tickets via a drawing of some sort.

    Texas Democratic Party  -  for "some" people.

    Ripping off kids is a travesty.  Where's the outrage!


    [ Parent ]

    Failed linkage. (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:23:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    the bats (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:43:00 PM EST
    It is a bit freaky, when you walk out to your car at night and they are flying all around.  I grew up in SA and there are lots of bats their too.

    AS for tickets, they are giving out 100, and 20,000 people have signed up so far.

    [ Parent ]

    Austin (none / 0) (#109)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:48:18 PM EST
    is pretty favorable Obama demographics.

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't Clinton (none / 0) (#82)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:28:42 PM EST
    Didn't the Clinton camp have any interest or have any say in the delegate process in the years leading up to this? Word from the Clinton camp suggests that they didn't even know or understand how the Texas primary worked.

    [ Parent ]
    I can believe that since there hasn't been (none / 0) (#89)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:32:21 PM EST
    a caucus actually held since 1988, or so I read locally.  I doubt if anyone thought it would ever get this far.

    Most democrats I talk to here in TX were also clueless about how this worked.


    [ Parent ]

    I heard Bill explaining (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:37:17 PM EST
    it in speeches. Most people had no idea there is a hybrid system here.

    [ Parent ]
    Caucus (none / 0) (#162)
    by wasabi on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:48:26 PM EST
    We caucused in my precinct inAustin in 2004.


    [ Parent ]
    That is based (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:34:08 PM EST
    on a paragraph from a Wapo article:
    Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after learning of the state's unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting this month, according to one person who attended.



    [ Parent ]
    so . . . first they decide that (none / 0) (#102)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:43:03 PM EST
    first they decide that (using the Rudy 9iu11iani strategy) Texas and Ohio will be their firewall, and then after that they are surprised at how Texas works?  (That a large part, perhaps up to 1/3) get decided by caucuses?

    [ Parent ]
    Chorus: if she can't run a campaign, (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:50:32 PM EST
    how will she be able to run the executive branch?

    [ Parent ]
    Well it isnt just that (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:50:57 PM EST
    Many of her best districts don't have many delegates, because it is best on passed turnout.  The delegates are split proportionally in each senate district, and senate districts have between 2 and 8 delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    They are pretty much at the mercy of that (none / 0) (#137)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:19:21 PM EST
    It does seem odd that Dallas would have lots of delegates since it's been one of the reddest parts of the state until '06.

    When I lived there you had to turn over a lot of rocks just to find a democrat.


    [ Parent ]

    Bush (none / 0) (#166)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:53:02 PM EST
    barely won Dallas County, so it had good Dem turnout.  The county went blue in 2006, but there were intense GOTV efforts before that.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm worried too (none / 0) (#14)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:25:16 PM EST
    But a comfortable win in WI will comfort me a lot.  I don't get why WI is seen as so much better for Obama than Ohio and TX.  

    Hillary could well win Wisconsin (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:41:34 PM EST
    Events have gone in her direction the last 24 hours....The polls are close, and in 1988, the white vote collapsed.....

    I would not be surprised to see a narrow Hillary win.....

    Texas and Ohio are frankly too far off to tell clearly what will happen.  

    What do you mean the white vote collapsed? (none / 0) (#97)
    by hairspray on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:38:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Jesse Jackson's white vote (none / 0) (#185)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:36:18 PM EST
    collapased in the 1988 Democratic Primary in Wisconsin......Check the Wikipedia article on the "Bradley Effect."`

    [ Parent ]
    Was Jesse Jackson's appeal as broad as (none / 0) (#189)