home

Electability? Momentum?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:49:18 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Gallup numbers:

Obama 47% (-1)
Clinton 45% (+0)

Vs McCain

Obama (D) 46%, McCain (R) 44%
Clinton (D) 47%, McCain (R) 45%

It is soooo obvious that my candidate, or yours, is so gonna lose and to McCain too. Now here are the ground rules of this thread. Be nice to each other. On topic, to wit, why will one candidate perform better against McCain than the other. And do not insult either candidate. Let's try to be civil, intelligent and on point, shall we?

< The Obama News Anchor | Barack Obama Was For Mail In Voting Before He Was Against It >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Electability? Momentum? | 188 comments (188 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Polls Biased (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:53:37 PM EST
    The people demand the truth, we all know the MSM is hiding the Gravelanche! :)

    there's a margin of error joke there (none / 0) (#2)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:58:41 PM EST
    but it won't come from me...

    Parent
    Actually, I see President McCain at this point. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:00:06 PM EST
    Especially if something reasonable isn't worked out on the FL and MI issues.  Each side has dug in their heels and I doubt we will have a united party come November.  I'm sorry to say that but it is what I see happening.  It is getting uglier every day and I don't see it getting any better.  

    A McCain President? (none / 0) (#162)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:33:44 PM EST
    The structural advantages of any Democratic candidate in November are just enormous.  Let me list a few (and sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I think we need to keep some perspective.

    1. Right-Track/Wrong-Track numbers.
    2. Bush approval
    3. Party Identification, registration, participation...
    4. The Economy (stupid) - and it's going to get worse.
    5. Gas Prices
    6. Unemployment going up up up
    7. Inflation going up up up
    8. General Desire for "Change"
    9. Demoralization among Republicans (who aint thrilled with McCain) vs. Excitement among Democrats
    10. Iraq War
    11. Dems beat Republicans on almost every issue
    12. Dems have lots of money
    13. No strong incumbent

    Unless the Democratic candidate (I like them both, just prefer Obama, and will vote for either enthusiastically) runs an awful campaign, I just don't see how he or she loses in November.  Both of these candidates are incomparably more compelling than Kerry, who did not enjoy half of the advantages this year's nominee will. I am confident that these structural advantages will allow the Democratic nominee to keep everything that was blue in 2004 and gain the margin of victory in Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico, alone enough to guarantee victory.  I also don't see how he or she doesn't pick up the 100,000 votes they need in Ohio - Ohio, folks, the state where people are hurting and which has been trending blue for three years. And while getting more than 300 electoral votes will be tough, the margins in red states will almost certainly be thinner, thus producing a strong popular vote total over 50%.

    Folks, so long as we don't destroy ourselves (still a possibility), the wind at our backs in very very strong. Of course, I am enormously frustrated by the fact that this is still a question mark.  By this point, given our strengths, the presumptive nominee should be jetting in to marginal congressional districts to support Dem candidates who will pad the majorities in Congress.  It should be in the bag.


    Parent

    Electoral Map(ology) (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:01:45 PM EST
    Very simply put...Hillary can win the map...Obama cannot.

    We very well may be in a situation with Obama, where he takes a popular win but loses the electoral map (again). He's going to have a lot of problems winning OH, PA, FL, MI, possibly NH. VA is in play for any Dem this year, but it won't win over the deficit from the big states.

    The assumption that Republicans will stay home in November is a false one, and regardless of primary turn-out, there is no evidence or reason to believe it will be outside one standard deviation of the mean...Obama puts states at risk that Hillary does not, and specifically, the states that will determine the next president.

    Totally Agree (none / 0) (#9)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:08:06 PM EST


    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#88)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:00:32 PM EST
    dissenter totally agrees! Made me chuckle.

    Parent
    This is my arugment as well ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:11:34 PM EST
    the map favors Hillary.

    I would add that even if he wins them, NJ and MASS may eat up valuable money, time, momentum, etc..

    Parent

    I respectfully disagree (none / 0) (#20)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:19:50 PM EST
    I don't see Clinton winning any states that Kerry didn't, except perhaps Arkansas, whereas Obama has a good shot at several purple states that went red the last time.

    Parent
    that may be true (4.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:27:28 PM EST
    it is at least equally true that he has a good chance of losing several that democrats have to have to win.
    think Ohio and Pennsylvania and Florida and Michigan.


    Parent
    I respectfully disagree I don't see (none / 0) (#25)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:23:35 PM EST
    Obama winning any of those purple states anymore than Clinton.

    Parent
    Ohio, Arkansas, West Virginia (none / 0) (#125)
    by liminal on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:31:16 PM EST
    Clinton will win West Virginia, Ohio and Arkansas.  All Kerry needed was Ohio.  If Clinton wins Ohio, West Virginia and Arkansas + Kerry's states, and Florida is in play for her, we'll be in good shape.

    (**Note: I think that Obama has other electoral strengths in the mountain west, and honestly think that either is still likely to win, as long as we seat and/or revote Michigan and Florida.)

    Parent

    seat and/or revote (none / 0) (#140)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:40:33 PM EST
    is it even possible they are so stupid as to not see this?


    Parent
    If I recall correctly (none / 0) (#169)
    by g8grl on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:29:08 PM EST
    Kerry lost Florida and Ohio.  Hillary does well in both states not to mention Tennessee and Arkansas

    Parent
    If you are arguing that Obama not being the (none / 0) (#163)
    by hillaryisbest on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:05:57 PM EST
    nominee will suppress the AA vote then just imagine what not having Hillary be the nominee will do to the women's vote.  And last time I checked there are more women in this country then AAs.  I'll put your arguement in the nice try category.

    Parent
    You should also note (none / 0) (#183)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:51:13 PM EST
    that the statistics do not show any sign of Dem turnout dropping for HRC as the nominee (it does show it dropping if Obama is the nominee)...HRC won't have depressed Dem turnout...Obama may have problems getting the base to show up on election day

    Hence the down ticket problems with Obama's campaign that are just beginning to be explored in the media and blogs.

    Parent

    I disagree. (none / 0) (#174)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:37:10 PM EST
    If you look at the polls, Obama actually has a more secure path to victory.

    If you'd like to refute other arguments, here's one and here's SUSA's Obama-McCain map Right now, they have Obama winning OH, MI, NH, and VA. He's down by 2 in FL and 5 in PA.

    Here's SUSA's Clinton-McCain map. She wins PA and FL, but loses NH and MI; VA as well. Well, she's tied in MI (leaning Mac), but down 8 in NH and 10 in VA. She also wins fewer states and less ECVs.

    Right now, her map is very concentrated, where Obama's is more spread out. So, in the sense of who can win the map, his is bluer than hers. I put my own spin on SUSA here.

    Parent

    These maps will severly contract (none / 0) (#184)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:55:54 PM EST
    by August or September

    This election will be won within 1-3% points (51-49%) either way...

    It should be abundantly clear by now, in light of this nomination fight, Obama is not changing the political paradigm (contrary to what he tells everyone)...its just not going to happen; in a country over 200 years old, we've always had partisanship, politicking, and discord...Obama isn't going to change any of that, he can't...the country was set up with a certain level of balance established through moderation of extremes...unless Obama is going to burn the constitution and toss out the federalist papers, and rewrite the history...he's ain't changing the system.

    Parent

    Not from the outside. You're right about that. (none / 0) (#185)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:00:05 PM EST
    That's why I wish people would stop expecting him to take a bloody nose from Clinton and just walk away.

    He needs to go for the knockout blow in PA. Whatever it takes. Get a little Malcom X mixed with all the MLK.

    As for afterwards, he'll be vastly different from Bush, and I think he'll be better than Clinton as far as not compromising as much (like on gays in military and DOMA).

    Parent

    Just to be clear (none / 0) (#189)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:25:23 AM EST
    Clinton vetoed DOMA...saying he signed it is not true, a specious "talking point"...

    Parent
    I just posted my little poll in open thread (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:07:07 PM EST
    OK, 23 people. Penna. 20 Hillary, 3 McCain. And 6 out of those 20 are GOP. 3 GOP for McCain. This would be for GE.

    The thing they have against McCain: Too Old. Too War Hawk, just don't like.

    The thing they have against Obama: Think he is all talk and weak. That he says things to be a nice popular guy, will not be able to deliver.

    So might not be what you think, but again, this is only a small sampling of a few in NE Penna. I will keep on asking, but all of these people have only recently come out of the cupboard for Hillary and stated a choice. I think she can beat McCain.

    I think Clinton would do better agaisnt McCain (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:07:15 PM EST
    Althougn I don't know if she would be able to win. Clinton's negatives started out high and have more or less stayed put. She has been attacked by the right for so long that people have made up their mind if they like her or hate her, and the people who support her do so knowing that she isn't a perfect person or a perfect candidate.

    Obama is running as the dream candidate. He started out with low negatives, and they have been going up as people get to know him and take sides. The right has barely begun their attacks on him, and he is already slipping in the polls. He has peaked, and he still barely defeats McCain. By the time election day comes around it is unlikely that he will have enough support to win.

    Obama's negatives (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:48:38 PM EST
    The last I saw was HRC's negatives were at around 48% and Obama's were at 46%.  I don't think she can go higher (we know everything, already), but his can go through the roof - especially if he continues to fight Florida and Michigan.

    Parent
    They don't need to run against McCain (none / 0) (#24)
    by Knocienz on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:22:38 PM EST
    They are also running against 4 more years of Bush.

    There are a whole lot of moderate Republicans (that I have spoken to) who want to repudiate Bush, but don't want to repudiate their own history of dislike towards the Clintons. They have all expressed a resulting desire to vote for Obama in November.

    Parent

    That depends on them thinking Obama is ok (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:39:02 PM EST
    Moderate Repblicans will only vote for Obama over McCain if they are convinced that 1) Voting against McCain is a repudiation of Bush and 2) Obama would be a better choice. By the time the election comes around, these people will have been subjected to a nonstop barrage of attacks on Obama that will convince them that his election would be the downfall of the nation. Remember - they were convinced to vote for Bush twice, they are very vulnerable to this kind of attack.

    Parent
    Speaking from my own experience (none / 0) (#171)
    by Knocienz on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:31:24 PM EST
    This is unlikely to occur (again, the individuals that I'm talking with/about). The (ex-)republicans I work with are DEEPLY offended with the Republican party. Several of them didn't vote for Republicans twice

    (they just did their Libertarian protest vote the second time around and will do the same in a McCain vs Hillary election)

    Also these are the folks that are engraged over the torture/rendition and the warentless wiretapping, stuff that didn't come out until after '04 (Thank you NYT!)

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:29:11 PM EST
    That's the lynchpin of the Obama electability argument.

    And, in my view, it rewards people for being hateful.

    Obama's electability credential rests only on the simple fact that he hasn't been around long enough for republicans to feel like supporting him means they're admitting they were wrong.

    Problem is, in my view.  They were wrong.

    Parent

    One wrongness at a time (none / 0) (#45)
    by Knocienz on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:35:49 PM EST
    Republicans who are willing to accept being wrong for voting for Bush, and for even being members of the Republican Party should be welcome IMO.

    That they still feel that they are right to have disliked Clinton is lower priority for me. In some cases, it isn't even something that they are aware of. The Dynastic argument (24-28 years of 2 families in charge) one has some validity, but also provides strong cover for the 'still don't like Clinton' feeling.

    Finally, the fact is that Obama has run a very strong campaign. His success (he is winning according the rules of THIS election) is evidence that he is not a substantially weaker candidate than his opponent. He is showing electability with this.

    Parent

    It's a higher priority (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    For me.

    Eventually, I think you'll feel the same way if and when it's Obama's legacy that's at stake.  

    Parent

    Not a legacy person (none / 0) (#127)
    by Knocienz on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:31:46 PM EST
    I care about presidential legacies only in as much as policies that I care about are maintained or repudiated.

    I want to win in November and I want a candidate that will repudiate the lawlessnes of the current administration. I don't care how the Clinton legacy is perceived (nor will I care about the Obama legacy if he is elected) outside of the above parameters.

     

    Parent

    Who says that? (none / 0) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:52:17 PM EST
    "Republicans who are willing to accept being wrong for voting for Bush, and for even being members of the Republican Party should be welcome IMO."

    Who has ever said that Republicans are not welcome to vote for Democrats?  Really. Who?  I keep hearing this from Obama supporters and it makes absolutely no sense to me.

    As far as Obama's great organizational strength, I have only one observation: There are no caucuses in the GE.

    Parent

    That was a response to a specific statement (none / 0) (#135)
    by Knocienz on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:34:18 PM EST
    In particular, the 'rewarding them for hatred' statement. All I was saying was that I want them to join and don't need to charge them a "We were wrong about Clinton" fee

    Parent
    just a recommendation here,but (none / 0) (#115)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:19:31 PM EST
    look down the road at the possible campaign against obama. he has cooperated much more than i thought he would in giving the other side negatives and issues that can use against him. i shake my head at it.

    Parent
    The criticisms of Obama... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Alvord on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:08:40 PM EST
    ... from Hillary Clinton are nothing compared to what Obama would face against McCain.

    McCain and the Republican attack machine will be relentless in going after Obama. The major line of attack  will be against his lack of experience. There will be plenty of dirt thrown too. Obama will not have the media on his side in a matchup against McCain. At best the media will remain relatively neutral.

    Hillary is where she is after having already stood up to the toughest attacks the Republicans and the media can throw at her. She is best suited to take on McCain.

    MHO (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:11:14 PM EST
    I think Hillary can and will pull more republicans than Obama for reasons that have often been stated. they don't much like McCain and could stand her far more than Obama in the Whitehouse. Not to mention repub women will begin to feel the history being made once Hillary gets the nom and will vote for her behind that curtain. of that I am certain.

    McCain will pull indys from Obama and given the results from Miss and his stance on the revotes..I just don't think Obama can win the GE.

    I agree about repub women (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:19:42 PM EST
    and think they are an overlooked advantage Clinton has.  One of my bankers (female) is a republican (natch) who has hated Clinton for years for staying with Bill (I know, but that's her reason so what can I say?)  Then, she heard Clinton speak on our local news, and started paying attention to her, and to the nasty press Clinton has been getting, and she actually voted for Clinton in our primary.  She said that she just could not in good conscience vote against a woman who has made it that far under that much pressure and still keeps going. (Working in a bank, she has seen many, many less experienced men get promoted over her, so that came into play, too)

    Parent
    I think so too (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:23:39 PM EST
    because I think she will pull Republican women. That feeling is based on something my Grandma told me years ago.

    When my grandparents would go to vote Grandpa, who was a bit of a martinet, always assumed that Grandma voted Republican just like he did. Grandma told me that she did not. "But don't tell Grandpa," she said, "we don't want to hurt his feelings."

    Her own mother died in 1920 and never got to vote. Hard for us to believe today.

    Parent

    Reminds me (none / 0) (#36)
    by eric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:30:02 PM EST
    My grandmother told me that she voted for Truman instead of Dewey, something that my grandfather wouldn't have liked very much...Heh

    Parent
    I also agree on Republican women (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by davnee on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:55:56 PM EST
    My mother being Exhibit A.  She voted HRC in Texas and she told me her vote was both sincere and surreal.  Sincere because she actually believes HRC would be a good president.  Surreal because she's cracked as many Clinton jokes in her lifetime as anyone.  But even more surreal because she's thrilled at the prospect of a woman president and couldn't believe she was finally getting to pull that lever.  As for my father, she said maybe she'd tell him, maybe not.  Depended on whether she wanted to mess with his head or not.   This is a vote goldmine folks.  It is not open to Obama.  Now Obama might have some goldmines of his own.  But this one should not be overlooked.

    Parent
    Hillary has the better chance although slim (none / 0) (#28)
    by nashville on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:25:49 PM EST
    because when the "staight-talk express" begins the assault on the candidate of hope and change and the media turns on Obama it will be very ugly IMO.

    In the GE, let's say all AA or 20%(generous estimate) are really made at Clinton for her campaign and refuse to vote for her against McCain.  Then take 25%+ of the females (1/2 of the population-low estimate) won't vote for Obama because of the divisive campaign.  

    Then subtract all of the young enthusiastic voters with short attention spans...Well do the math.

    Please don't tell me about all of the indy/repubs that will vote for him.  I've heard from a number of R that voted for Obama in the primary here in TN. NO WAY are they voting for him in the GE.  You can just fuh-git-a-bout-it!

    I just feel quite sick today because of what has happened in this campaign.  "Hope" and a "different kind of politics" my foot!  It has been do anything to win on both sides. It is after all POLITICS!

    Parent

    I agree completely - it's something I've (none / 0) (#48)
    by MMW on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:36:33 PM EST
    felt. Republican women will vote for her. Rightly or wrongly she resembles them (not in complection - but in the stand by your man and get something out of it meme).

    Obama has peaked. They will hit him with his inexperience. And I don't believe I'm about to say this or that I did it, but I'm going to shoot myself right after so don't bother gunning; I watched an interview on fox "fair and balanced" with Romney last night (don't ask me who was interviewing him - I don't know fox people). But Romney said "Obama is a better match up for McCain" his reason, Obama has no achievements, that pretty speeches were fine, but there are no achievements. I was so repentant after these actions that I quickly switched to the Food Network. Like I said, I'm already ashamed but that's the narrative and it's one they can run with.

    Parent

    Right, that is why I said Hell Froze over today (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:00:16 PM EST
    My very very very Republican Owner of the Company said she will vote for Hillary and so did her cousin. It has to be a first time in their family. They are excited even. They wanted to go to the rally. Are going to the St. Pat's parade in Scranton Saturday just to see her. I held my gasp until she left my office. Amazing. I truly believe the women from both sides will pull through for Hillary when it is just her and McCain.

    Parent
    hillary has lost all in my opinion she is (none / 0) (#117)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:21:19 PM EST
    going to lose, however obama is just now starting to lose voters. as his campaign makes more bad decisions, expect more loses.

    Parent
    Experience Will Be A Big Factor Among Seniors (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    Clinton is perceived to have more experience than Obama. By needlessly putting Social Security on the table, Obama has eliminated any Democratic advantage among a group who strongly support maintaining that program as is. The Dems in this group appear to be more offended by the Reagan remarks. Women outnumber men in this demographic and they seem to be the most angry about what they see as discrimination Don't see Obama being able to do well in this group.

    Obama will get a smaller share of the women votes. This may be offset by a larger share of votes from men but I don't see either getting more than McCain.

    While neither candidate's position on gun control is going to thrill the "don't touch my gun" crowd in western states, Obama is on record for what has been described as "radical" gun controls.

    Obama's approval of driver's license for the undocumented (no matter what your personal opinion) is not a popular position as shown in NY and is bound to hurt with even some Democratic voters.

    Obama's own words on health care will be used against him in the GE and will make that issue less effective.

    Have yet to see what the impact of negative media coverage will do to Obama and IMO by the time the primary is over he will be unable to use the race card effectively against the Republicans.  

    Here's the deal (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:34:35 PM EST
    Either Clinton or Obama will have a solid leg up on McCain on domestic issues: the Economy, healthcare, education, the environment, and so on. The real question is who can neutralize better McCain's advantage on foreign policy, and I don't think it's close, Clinton wins by a landslide.

    Clinton passes the C-i-C test. Obama has yet to prove in my view that he has the knowledge and judgement on foreign policy this country needs. I think you're seeing Clinton do better in some of these recent theoretical GE matchup polls because she is adressing issues of being ready to take on National Security and International issues on day one. She really can negate McCain's advantage there. Now I'm not discounting the new people Obama is bringing into the process, but you can beat the GOP on the strength of just young people, you need older voters, working class voters, Latinos and solid support for women. Clinton will need to work on getting young voters and African Americans, but the GE is a whole new ballgame and compared to McCain I think she'll be able to draw excitement from all Democratic constuencies.

    I agree & link this point to R women (none / 0) (#100)
    by davnee on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:07:14 PM EST
    My gut tells me that despite all HRC's baggage with Republicans, her ability to pass the CiC smell test while Obama cannot is the key for winning over R's that are fed up with Bush and the wingnuts.  HRC and BHO both have the advantage over the R's on the economy, but only HRC can answer the red phone.  Like it or not, the red phone is essential to R's.

    This may be a controversial point, but to me HRC has it over BHO both ways when it comes to Republican women.  She's running legitimately both as a woman and as the masculine dem candidate. She gets these women because she will both inspire their dreams of equality and because she will reassure them on their fears of the dangerous wider world.

    Parent

    I think it is important that... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Oje on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:25:53 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton used the word, "threshold," not test. The Obama campaign and the press morphed the word into "test." Also, she said it was up to Obama to demonstrate that he passes the threshold - which he had to do regardless of what Clinton surmised about her own passing of the threshold.

    The idea that Clinton pushed McCain's campaign is laughable, since it would be the height of folly to suggest that he - a Vietnam veteran and former POW who is the Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Armed Services - has not crossed a threshold.

    In a press call, Wolfson responded to reporters' questions using the word "test," but his full quote returns to the idea of a threshold. The word "test" is designed to cheapen the comment and subject it to ridicule.

    Parent

    I have to agree with the (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:34:58 PM EST
    Tweety Joe Scarboro CW.  Hillary is a solid, dependable 51%.
    Obama is a roll of the dice.  he will either win by 10 points or lose by 10 points.

    I've always thought this too (none / 0) (#153)
    by davnee on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:06:35 PM EST
    I think it is all about risk and reward in this election.  Does Obama deliver the landslide and consequently the big coattails all across the country or does he flame out spectacularly?  I think the flame out is inevitable.  He will never deliver the transformation he's promised.  Disillusionment will be his legacy.  Now, it's all about timing.  Will he be McGovern or Carter?  That is the only unanswered question in my mind.

    HRC is just the little engine that could.  She'll puff her way along to the presidency and I think just get over the top.  Politics may not change for the better in this country with her, but policy sure will.

    Parent

    In a more perfect world (none / 0) (#4)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:01:35 PM EST
    An extended campaign would be a benefit for the Democratic candidate.  More media coverage, more face time in each state, a GOTV framework started etc. If civility returns to the campaign, they should be OK.  If not, a civl wars among the left is brewing.

    Less time for the right to focus their attack (none / 0) (#13)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:10:40 PM EST
    That's an important aspect of the longer campaign.  They can't completely focus their attention on attackign the Democratic nominee, since they can't be 100% sure which one will win. They started out coming down hard on Clinton, then they switched to Obama, and now they are wavering - if they come down on one side too early they might end up weakening their own arguments.

    Parent
    these numbers make sense (none / 0) (#6)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    because the two democrats are so similar on so many issues. so, there's a genuine split between them. and the media fawning over mccain keep him in the race. for now. and either democrat will have more than enough money to change that head-to-head tie.

    but what this rally shows us is how scared the media are of gravel. they don't even poll him!

    They need one another (none / 0) (#10)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:08:29 PM EST
    I am strongly pro Hillary but  don't see how either one of these 2 wins without the other.

    Hillary has probably the strongest coalition but without BO on the ticket our community (AA) will feel hosed, that's how bad it has become.

    I looked carefully at the results in MS and they are scary especially for Obama. He will lose the entire South (nothing new to us Dems) and he still doesn't appeal to blue collar Dems and White women above 50 are now really as angry as AA.

    Hillary will carry AR and has latinos and blue collar Dems but without Barack, she loses upscale Dems and will certainly not get the AA in the usual proportions.

    The person more likely to win without the other is HRC because she has all other minorities, the white women, blue collar Dems, but  am not sure that would be enough.

    I like your analysis but (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:20:57 PM EST
    I don't understand why you say HRC will lose upscale Dems without Obama in a GE.  Could you explain your thinking?

    Seems to me she will certainly lose that hyperactive crowd of young newbie Obama activists, but that's survivable in the GE.

    Upscale Dems may have decided they rather disapprove of her  at this point, but they don't have the blind passions of the young and will not hesitate to vote for her, or any Dem, over McCain.

    Parent

    Upscale dems hate racism (none / 0) (#60)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:42:55 PM EST
    I've had to fight the urge to buy into the "Clinton is a racist" meme, myself. Logically, I can see that the arguments don't make sense, but every time one comes up I have to go through the research all over again to reassure myself that the arguments aren't right this time. If Clinton somehow wins the nomination without an overwhelming endorsement from Obama (such as his running with her or campaigning for her), then she's wiped out in the general election because so many people hate her because of the "racist campaign".

    Parent
    You're right (none / 0) (#84)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:57:38 PM EST
    upscale Dems hate racism, but I have yet to talk to one who really buys the idea that the Clintons are racists.  There's some nose-wrinkling and tut-tutting at what they think are her unsavory campaign tactics, but nowhere near enough to keep more than an insignificant number of them from voting for her over McCain.

    Upscale independents are perhaps another story.

    Parent

    Just a question (none / 0) (#30)
    by themomcat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:26:30 PM EST
    What if Clinton picks a Black or Hispanic running mate? Do you think that would increase her chances of winning the nomination and the GE against McCain?

    Parent
    I would like to think (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:30:33 PM EST
    race would not enter into it.
    if it did I think the benefits are greater, in important places that are possible to win, with a Hispanic.
    for example, we are not going to win most southern states.
    period.

    Parent
    I would find that just as insulting (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:34:09 PM EST
    as Obama choosing a woman.  It's not just an aa or just a woman that voters are supporting; it's that aa and that woman.

    Parent
    race based politics (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:36:09 PM EST
    is insulting by nature.
    I was just answering the question.


    Parent
    It's too late to worry about that (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:53:01 PM EST
    Race and gender were injected into this campaign by the media months ago and Obama has been using it to his advantage. Most newspaper articles on Obama mention the "historic" nature of his race, he has been charging Clinton "surrogates" (aka, anybody who supports her, whether they are authorized to speak for her or not) with racism for months, and he has run ads and given speeches in black areas entreating people to vote for him because he is black. His campaign managers are reputed to have even gone so far as to threaten black superdelegates with losing their seats if they don't stand up for Obama.

    What is insulting is that Obama's campaign is allowed to use race to it's advantage but nobody is allowed to call them on it without being accused of racism.

    Parent

    Do I ever agree with you on this. (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by hillaryisbest on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:39:39 PM EST
    It has made me sick the way the Obama camp has used race.  Axelrod's conference call yesterday was a prime example.  I am white and gay and have always fought for breaking barriers.  And like I said before I used to really like Obama.  But three things turned me against him:

    1. Dumping on the Clinton legacy.
    2. The negative use of race by his campaign.  Note I am all for using race as in a positive way.
    3. His sexist comments towards Hillary (claws coming out, being First Lady was just having teas etc.

    Now not only will I not support him but if he is the nominee I will actively work to defeat him.  The past few days were the last straw from me.


    Parent
    Hey, Capt (none / 0) (#54)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:39:15 PM EST
    I was responding to the question, too!

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:41:10 PM EST


    Parent
    I do think (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:43:00 PM EST
    that Richardson, as odious as I am finding him lately, could put some western states in play in a pretty big way.

    Parent
    It already has. (none / 0) (#67)
    by themomcat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:47:06 PM EST
    Whether you or I or either candidate or the electorate likes it. The V.P. slot has always been a symbol of balance whether it was geographical difference, i.e. Kennedy/Johnson, or ideological Clinton/Gore. Why not a minority candidate that has a high profile in the Democratic party as V.P. to balance the ticket?
    Most Southern states are lost to the Democrats for now but we may turn around some of the states that are purple by appealing to their sense of fair and balanced, states where it is important to reflect the diversity of the electorate.
    Plus it wold give a boost in future elections to candidates like Obama, who I believe would have had a better chance as V.P. or remaining in the Senate for another election cycle or two.

    Parent
    One of the names being floated (none / 0) (#78)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:53:46 PM EST
    for Obama is Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.  The thinking goes, I think, is that she's a woman in a red state that might go his way.

    I don't necessarily buy it, of course, but it's out there.

    Parent

    Sibelius SOTU speech was was so bad ... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:59:42 PM EST
    ... I was waiting for her to start leading a round of Kumbaya. It was enough to make me hope never to have to hear her speak again. Especially not in a VP debate.

    Just my reaction; others may like her, I guess. Someone picked her to give that response.

    Parent

    I grew up in Kansas (none / 0) (#89)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:00:51 PM EST
    And hell will freeze over before Kansas votes for Obama or Clinton in 08.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:38:43 PM EST
    It would be insulting to indicate that any black will do. Just the same way it would be insulting to say any woman would do.

    Parent
    They would, though (none / 0) (#83)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:57:21 PM EST
    Well, not quite "any", but a female body or black body would be very symbolic. That's why Ferraro was chosen so many years ago (a fact that she is the first to admit), and that is why there are rumors that McCain might choose a female VP. The person has to have decent qualifications. They aren't going to insult America by putting in a person who is totally unqualified. But the standards for VP aren't as high as the standards for President, and the position is a good lauching off point for Presidential hopefuls.

    Parent
    Obama on our ticket means losing (none / 0) (#166)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:18:28 PM EST
    our best vote-getter, Bill Clinton. Sorry, but the AA community buying into the myth that the Clintons are racists means that Obama has cut off Bill at the knees, and he cannot be used well to campaign for such a ticket even with Hillary on it. We need a ticket that allows us to use Bill -- if Gore had used him, Gore would have won, and we would not have had these horrible Bush years. We cannot take the chance again of not using Bill Clinton. We need the far larger group of voters that he could bring, white men -- far more of them than Obama is getting. Gore and Kerry got 41 of the white vote and both lost. We need to do better than that to win, and Obama is getting little more than 35% of that demographic. We've got to have Bill on the campaign trail more than Obama. Reap. Sow. So it goes.

    Parent
    The lynchpin of Obama's electability argument (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:09:07 PM EST
    is that being attacked too much by republicans hurts your electability.
    if thats his lynchpin (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:32:02 PM EST
    we are in big trouble.
    I think they cant wait to run against him.


    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:36:13 PM EST
    They're betting on the idea that when Republicans really start in on him that it won't polarize him too!

    Parent
    Does this take into effect (none / 0) (#16)
    by HeadScratcher on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:14:10 PM EST
    The Bradley effect? The electoral racism that is out there in rural Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania is quite shocking and I can see that the only way Democrats can win this election cycle is if they don't nominate an AA and therefore the racist whites will stay within the party.

    I'm referring to counties where Hillary is far outpolling Kerry from 2004...

    In other words, the only way for progressives to win this time is by courting racists?

    Those racist whites (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:37:39 PM EST
    you speak of are almost always equally misogynist when it comes to women in positions of power, so I doubt they would vote for Clinton, either.  McCain, regardless of his actual policies, is just much more their type.

    The real danger with Obama as the nominee, seems to me, is his disclination to campaign on specifics.  That's only working well enough with Dems. to get him to 50 percent as it is.

    If he thinks he can win over large enough numbers of independents and GOP voters from the aging but still pretty swaggering McCain with that kind of campaign of personal magnetism, slathered with screeches about racism and race-baiting, whether true in the case of McCain or not, we're in deep trouble.

    Maybe he'll do a complete switcheroo on his campaign tactics for the GE, but I'm sure not seeing any signs of it yet.

    HRC has major flaws and vulnerabilities as a candidate, but she would compensate by holding McCain's feet to the fire on every jot and tittle of his policy positions.  Given his weakness on policy other than bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, there's a huge opportunity to make a complete fool of him-- the somewhat stern but overwhelmingly competent and steady mother versus the glamorous but superficial and careless aging father figure is I think a potential goldmine of votes right across the spectrum, especially for women.

    Parent

    Grandfather figure is more apt (none / 0) (#161)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:15:22 PM EST
    ... the somewhat stern but overwhelmingly competent and steady mother versus the glamorous but superficial and careless aging father figure...

    When you are young, anyone over 40 appears equally old. But I am Hillary's age, and McCain still appears old to me, whereas Hillary does not. I think many boomers may share these perceptions. Hillary is our peer, McCain is not.

    So I think the label to use here for McCain (if you are going to employ such stereotypes) would be a grandfather figure. That is also a better fit and amplifies your characterization of McCain's personality, which I do agree with.

    Parent

    Point taken (none / 0) (#188)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:08:46 AM EST


    Parent
    To be accurate (none / 0) (#23)
    by debcoop on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:21:57 PM EST
    The Bradley Effect refers to polling in which a voter says they would vote for Tom Bradley (Mayor of LA) for governor but his actual vote totals were significantly less than th epolling would have indicated....because a signifiacnt number of white voters did not pull the lever for him in the voting booth.  

    The Bradley effect is not just....NOT VOTING for a black candidate...it is misreporting that one will vote for that candidate and then not vote for that candidate.  It means underperforming your polling numbers.

    Parent

    Thank you. I'm tired of misuse of this. (nt) (none / 0) (#167)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:22:47 PM EST


    Parent
    have you been to those places and personally (none / 0) (#186)
    by english teacher on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:36:27 PM EST
    identified clinton supporters as racists?  are or you just talking sh*t?  your comment is execrable.  why can you not fathom that white voters favor clinton over real issues like the economy or foreign policy experience.  why are you making it about race?  have you even talked to white voters in these areas?  i seriously doubt it.  this is a disgusting meme and you should be embarrassed.  whites voting for clinton are not doing so simply because they don't want the black candidate to win.  that is insulting, stupid, and dare i say divisive on your part.  

    Parent
    Sorry about the last thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by Joelarama on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:14:46 PM EST
    (thought I did not take part in it).

    I support Hillary.  My boosterism for her personally could never rise to the fevered pitch I see coming from Obama's camp.  

    In this race, my decision never been about electability (It would be different if I saw evidence a particular candidate was truly unelectable).

    I believe she would make the better president.  I believe either of these candidates could and should beat McCain.

    However, with the shrill infighting and division I'm witnessing lately -- which I believe is being stoked by many writers I used to respect in the left blogosphere -- either one could very well lose to McCain.

    Obama/Clinton (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:15:58 PM EST
    Or Clinton/Obama seems a sure winner at this point. Even though most Democratic voters are not in the pits brawling away or on the fainting couches noting every slight it seems such a no brainer that this ticket would energize the party and Americans who could not stomach another 4 years of BushCo.  

    Yeah (none / 0) (#22)
    by spit on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    both are electable, IMO. They have to pursue slightly different strategies, but I've never gotten the electability arguments coming out of either camp.

    That said, McCain was the only way the GOP had a shot at all this time, and they went with him, so in neither case will the election be a given, either (as IMO it would have been with a Huckabee or a Romney nomination). Still, I'd rather be us than them.

    As for the long primary, I don't see it as a bad thing that all national political eyes are on the Democrats, and "who will be the Democratic nominee?" is the question on everybody's minds. I think it actually helps us, so long as things don't get a whole heck of a lot nastier than they've been.

    The convention needs to be held (none / 0) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:25:39 PM EST
    And someone OTHER THAN CLINTON OR OBAMA needs to be chosen.  The divisions are too deep.  I know because I'm part of the divide.  There is nothing on earth that would drive me to vote for a certain Dem candidate.

    Neither of them can win at this point.  They both need to be scrapped.  

    I understand that this tack can be taken at the convention.

    So who should we choose?

    How about Al Gore with I don't know who as a runningmate...um, I know, OPRAH!  The two would poll 5-10 points over McCain.

    That is the (none / 0) (#55)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:40:05 PM EST
    dream ticket!

    Parent
    Please not Oprah! (none / 0) (#64)
    by nashville on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:44:24 PM EST
    I believe she is primarily responsible for the turn in in this campaing from discussion of the issues to identity politics. JMHO

    Parent
    McCain not easy to beat (none / 0) (#29)
    by tworivers on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:26:20 PM EST
    I think McCain would be tough against either of them.  Ultimately, I think the Dems will win, but it may very well be a squeaker (I hope I'm wrong about  
    this - I hope it's a cakewalk).

    If Clinton and Obama don't run together, McCain might even eke out a victory.

    On a side note: I agree completely with BTD that
    Pelosi's statement the other day (scoffing at the idea of a Clinton/Obama or an Obama / Clinton ticket) was the height of idiocy.

    McCain Is Toast Either Way (none / 0) (#31)
    by OxyCon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:27:12 PM EST
    McCain is a terrible candidate. I have no animus towards him so I regret piling on him, but he clearly reached his physical and mental peak a long time ago. The year 2000 was his time, and it's long past. When he keeps saying "my friends" at the beginning of every single sentence, all I can think of is that he is in the beginning stages of Alzheimers. None of the Repub candidates were acceptable to me, but I'd feel alot better if Romney were the Repub candidate. At least he could claim some competence and personal success.
    I firmly believe that we are doomed as a country if Hillary isn't our next President. I strongly think McCain and Obama will be absolute disasters, and after 8 years of Bush destruction, we really need someone in the White House who is competent. Never forget that Hillary is married to the only person in this country who carries the ultimate manual for running this country competently in his head. She'd never have to pick up the phone to get the very best advice a President could get.
    I hear there are talks about (none / 0) (#39)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:30:53 PM EST
    McCain/Romney.

    In which case, that's a game changer.

    Parent

    I dont really think thats true (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:33:00 PM EST
    I think the only reason Romney did as well as he did was the process of elimination.
    he was not Huckabee or McCain.

    Parent
    Romeny's (none / 0) (#49)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:36:47 PM EST
    experience in business and our awful economy might be a potent elixir that woos a lot of dem voters, especially women, away from an Obama ticket.

    I have heard many people in GA talking about how important McCain's running mate is because of McCain's age.

    Parent

    It might also work (none / 0) (#82)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:57:15 PM EST
    ...because he's attractive and "youthful" (given that he's 60+ plus he has the business experience.

    They could also put Romney up, in the event that McCain loses, it props Romney up to be the presumptive nominee in 4 years.

    Parent

    Romney is quite Presidential (none / 0) (#121)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:25:30 PM EST
    I've always thought so and he would be a good choice for McCain's VP.

    Parent
    Except Romney's business experience (none / 0) (#148)
    by liminal on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:03:00 PM EST
    involves basically running around and firing lots of people.  I think that Romney is easy to attack, especially in today's atmosphere, and especially in important industrial states like Pennsylvania and Ohio (though I guess Mittens might put Michigan into play for the Repugs?)

    Parent
    McCain is a historic candidate, too (none / 0) (#168)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:26:15 PM EST
    and we better face it.

    He would be the first Vietnam vet president ever.  See how significant the vet vote was for a series of WWII presidents.

    He would be the first POW president ever.  His story is powerful, as powerful a narrative as the others.

    We cannot presume that he will not do well.  He has got a lot going for him, not even tapped into yet.

    Parent

    three different approaches (none / 0) (#33)
    by Polkan on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:28:16 PM EST
    Sen. McCain will try to run on national security. He will nominate a VP to balance him on economy. His message was supposed to be: 3am call. Maybe there's another call at 4 am.

    Sen. Clinton will try to neutralize McCain on national security (by claiming 3 am call) and carry the election on economy. Her message: it's the economy, stupid.

    Sen. Obama will try to paint them both as old Washington insiders and change the conversation to hope, end of bipartisanship, etc. His message: I'm a uniter, not a divider.

    Uniter Obama (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:41:40 PM EST
    Yeah, he's been doing a swell job on that so far in the Dem. Party. He can do that for the whole country if we elect him!

    Parent
    Bet you that's their response. (none / 0) (#103)
    by MMW on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:08:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Last post on MSNBC and Olbermann (none / 0) (#34)
    by debcoop on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    At this point Chris Matthews is acting less biased toward Hillary Clinton as a candidate than Olbermann is.  Why would that be?  I think 2 reasons....One, unlike Olbermann, Matthews loves John McCain....so he is preparing to turn against Obama if he's the nominee so he's, at this point,  being more "openminded"  Two..as an old politico he thinks tactics should be ..hardball..

    Chris Matthews is and has been a weathervane....so I think while he seems "fairer" to Clinton it only because he's getting ready to turn.

    It depends how the nomination is won (none / 0) (#51)
    by zzyzx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:38:09 PM EST
    If Clinton wins the nomination by running the table the rest of the way, she would stand a chance.  If she gets it after losing the delegate count, the popular vote, the number of states won, and isn't polling better, there's no way that she can win a general.  

    You need to have an argument that the other side will buy in a race like this.  Obama's is pretty straightforward - I played the game under the rules as given and received the most delegates.  While Superdelegates are also part of the rules, they're also one that people aren't comfortable with.  If they en masse change the results of the primary and there isn't an overwhelming reason to do so, it would suppress turnout to the point where McCain would win, perhaps in a landslide.

    what if (none / 0) (#66)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:46:27 PM EST
    Clinton has the popular vote lead and Obama has the delegate lead?

    Parent
    she will (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:47:30 PM EST
    take the nomination
    IMHO

    Parent
    this is what I was (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:50:30 PM EST
    wondering in a previous thread.
    what if Clinton cuts a deal on the delegates in Florida and Michigan while planning to win the popular and take the nomination that way.
    most of the all seeing all knowing pundits seem to be in agreement that if she has the popular vote she can and will take the nomination.  and I agree.


    Parent
    How does she win the popular... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by zzyzx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:58:19 PM EST
    ...without a FL revote?  She needs to not just win the popular vote, but do so in a way that people who lean Obama will accept.  Without WA, IA, ME, and NV, Obama has a 700k lead.  Clinton should cut into that lead significantly in PA, but Obama is likely to widen it in NC.  This means that Clinton would have to reverse the polls in IN (possible), win KY and WV big (quite possible), cut OR's losses to almost nothing (difficult), and then she would probably have to make up 2-300k votes in MT, SD, and PR.

    The votes aren't there without FL IMO.  

    Parent

    Superdelegates can still "count" Florida (none / 0) (#123)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:28:30 PM EST
    As a personal matter, they could still take Florida's Jan 29th result into consideration.  Maybe not officially, but if it's a very very close for them it could have some psychological effect on their deliberations.  And I happen to believe it should.  Too many people to ignore no matter what happens.

    Parent
    Super-d's are supposed to look at all the states (none / 0) (#170)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:29:55 PM EST
    because the general election is in all the states, and they have to see which ones we can win.  

    They don't have to go along with the DNC's 48 states and ignore two we could win, or Obama's red states we can't win, or what MSNBC is the popular vote.

    Super-d's are politicians, and their task is to figure out who can win -- not who has only won the spin so far but will lose.

    Parent

    Then there could at least be a case... (none / 0) (#70)
    by zzyzx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:49:52 PM EST
    This isn't a popular vote contest so that shouldn't decide anything, but at least there would be an explanation for the actions that some Obama supporters would accept.

    The only way that Clinton gets the popular vote lead (taking FL and MI out of the equation for now) is if she does indeed win and win big in every contest from here on it.  Do that and giving her the nomination makes sense.  

    Parent

    last night, on MSNBC yet (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:52:17 PM EST
    they laid out a fairly easily achieved scenario where she could do just that.


    Parent
    What "easily achieved" scenario.... (none / 0) (#90)
    by zzyzx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:01:07 PM EST
    ...gives her wins in OR and NC?   That's problem she faces now.  OR and NC are likely (IMO) to wipe out most if not all of her gains in PA, which will leave her just IN, KY, WV, PR, MT, and SD to make up the gap.   At least three of those lean Obama, so it wouldn't be easy.

    Parent
    easily achieved (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:03:17 PM EST
    ok
    bad word choice
    achievable would be more like it.

    Parent
    Oh sure, it's possible (none / 0) (#106)
    by zzyzx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:10:39 PM EST
    It would have to show a skill she hasn't demonstrated yet, as she has yet to win a state where she started out behind, but she's a smart woman and an effective politician, so there's a chance that she could learn that skill fast.

    The one impression that I get is that Obama is going to split campaign in the next 6 weeks, going to NC and IN as well as PA, whereas Clinton is going to stay focused there.  That makes sense for both of them, but it would create a bigger hole for her to dig out of.  

    Parent

    That's fine (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:56:27 PM EST
    If she has the popular vote I don't think she has a problem with Obama fans, at least not this one.  If she doesn't it's a real problem.  I would personally still vote (because that's what i do) but I see this as being a potential landmine.  Likewise, I think Obama needs to let Michigan vote (and Florida or accept what already happened) or he faces a potential landmine.

    Parent
    I dont agree (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:59:36 PM EST
    that she wont have a problem with Obama fans.  at least the more hardcore ones.  but I dont think that will stop her.


    Parent
    I'm glad you have such a low opinion of us (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:03:28 PM EST
    I think there are some (mostly bloggers) who won't vote for her no matter what.  But I think the majority (particularly African Americans, and youth - at least female youth) will support her if they think it's fair.

    Parent
    I said the more hardcore ones (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:07:21 PM EST
    which meant bloggers and blogheads.
    other than that I agree with you.  and btw I dont really buy the "fractured party" stuff.
    I really think the only ones who will walk are the, as I said, hardcore koolaid drinkers.
    and most of them would either not have voted or voted for someone like Nader anyway.
    thats just my opinion.
    I think the hand wringing about a fractured party is overwrought.


    Parent
    There's one more caveat (none / 0) (#99)
    by zzyzx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:05:11 PM EST
    Ferraro has to be dismissed soon or at least has to no longer appear on talk shows.  It doesn't matter if you think she has good points or not; what's important is how that makes Obama supporters feel.  People have long memories when they feel like they were defeated by racist attacks.  There are times where the perception is more important that's constantly insisting that you're right.

    Parent
    That goes the other way too (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:09:18 PM EST
    People who are not racists, don't like seeing people they know not to be racists called racist either...and they too also have long memories.

    Parent
    Bill and Hillary (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:11:54 PM EST
    come to mind

    Parent
    Yes, I am so appalled by the racism charge (none / 0) (#172)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:34:38 PM EST
    being tossed about that I never will be able to believe it again, of anyone, without solid and incontrovertible evidence.  There were those I trusted on this and trusted their call on this.

    I am now suspicious of anyone doing this, and I now have to suspect that they're playing the race card.

    I have been too trusting.  I have been played.

    Parent

    agreed (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:08:10 PM EST
    they need to get beyond this

    Parent
    I'm happy with both candidates... (none / 0) (#57)
    by ItsGreg on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:41:15 PM EST
    ...as candidates. I'd be happy to see either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama in the White House. In terms of electability, though, I'm inclined to give a slight edge to Obama.

    I base that largely on how well the Obama campaign has been organized. I'm impressed by the structure of that campaign. They raise a LOT of money from a LOT of different people, the campaign staff isn't getting paid the huge fees that we see some of the Clinton staff getting, the Obama campaign hasn't suffered any of the financial woes we've seen in the Clinton campaign, and their volunteers are generally well organized.

    I don't know that he'd be a better president than Clinton, but I think he is a much better organizer.

    Ah No (none / 0) (#62)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    He hasn't managed to organize himself a victory in most of the states that will matter.

    Parent
    considering the gaffes (none / 0) (#71)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:50:06 PM EST
    coming out of his campaign lately, and its failure to know how to effectively strike back without being perceived as whiny by all but their most ardent supporters, I am not firmly convinced he is running a good campaign.

    You have to look at the highs as well as the lows, and when Obama is losing, it is not pretty.

    Parent

    Gaffes... (none / 0) (#159)
    by ItsGreg on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:13:34 PM EST
    Both campaigns have shown they're capable of making gaffes. I'm talking about the actual structure of the campaigns. Consider that Senator Clinton began the interminable campaign season with huge name recognition and an equally huge list of financial donors whereas Obama began with relatively little name recognition and a rather thin list of donors. Consider that most of Clinton's money has come from a relatively small number of big donors whereas Obama's money has come from a large number of small donors. Consider the ways Clinton and Obama spend their money; Clinton paid her communications director Howard Wolfson more than a quarter of a million dollars in January where Obama paid his communications director only US$144,000 for the entire year.

    The fact that Obama started out at a disadvantage and has managed to hold his own is a testament to his organizational skills. Which isn't surprising because he began his political career as a community organizer.

    This isn't a slap at Hillary as a potential president. Again, I'd be personally happy with either candidate. I'm just of the opinion that Obama has shown himself to be a better organizer, and I think organizational skill translates into electability.

    Parent

    Organizing caucuses won't matter at all (none / 0) (#173)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:36:22 PM EST
    There are no caucuses in the general election.

    So take out all the caucus states, as they tell us nothing about how he will do there, and then what have you got?

    Parent

    I still don't get this (none / 0) (#73)
    by zzyzx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:50:57 PM EST
    Why do OR, WA, MN, WI, IA, CO, and VA not matter?  They're all swing states.

    Parent
    the matter (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:53:34 PM EST
    but they are not the states where electoral victories are won or lost.

    Parent
    A win in Co or Va (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:10:12 PM EST
    plus the Gore states plus New Hampshire, which Kerry carried, would be enough to win....

    And, the Gore states plus NH plus Nevada would create a tie in the Electoral College, sending the election to the House of Representatives....Each state has one vote....Currently the Democrats have the majority in 27 state delegations....enough to win....

    The Dems do not have to have Ohio or Florida....

    Parent

    that assuming (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:13:56 PM EST
    he wins all the Gore states.
    and you know what they say about what happens when you assume.

    Parent
    Don't think so (none / 0) (#116)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:19:49 PM EST
    Both VA and CO have a ton of military. Democrats in both states avoid things like raising taxes, gun control, etc. There are lots of federal and defense jobs here as well.

    McCain will hammer Obama on these issues and trust me, there isn't a big AA population to counter-act this. You can't win Colorado by just winning Boulder and Denver. Ask Kerry. He will get smoked in the plains and down south.

    Also, unlike VA, this is a pro-choice state. You don't have Supreme Court looming over everyone's head the same way....on women's issues anyway.

    I don't see a dem win here for either Obama or Clinton. This is a libertarian state.

    Parent

    Colorado Springs (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:30:46 PM EST
    is where Obama could pick up enough votes to win....He can appeal to white, religious suburbia...He won't get close to a majority but he could pick up a few percentage points over Kerry......

    Parent
    You're kidding right.... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:33:04 PM EST
    A pro-choice dem against Focus on the Family and the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Dream on.

    Parent
    Yep, that's (none / 0) (#139)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:40:29 PM EST
    where a Democrat needs to stem the bleeding.....Reduce the split from 85/15 (or whatever it is) to 75/25, for example.    

    Obama has started a friendship with Rick Warren (Hillary has one with Billy Graham), and knows how to connect with Evangelical voters....who have now seemed to focus on poverty, AIDS and global warming....Yes, I see Obama getting a fair number of younger Evangelical voters....

    Being pro-choice will mean he will never get very many votes there, but he will get more than Kerry....

    Parent

    Not enough. Losing by less is losing. (nt) (none / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:37:50 PM EST


    Parent
    And as soon (none / 0) (#142)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:47:20 PM EST
    as he starts pandering to religious voters, others will be throwing protest votes to Nader. That I can promise you. Most democrats in this state don't like religious pandering. That is how the republicans lost the state. It isn't because CO became "progressive" in the last few years. Outside of Denver and Boulder, look at the statewide elected Dems.

    Also, you are discounting another huge voting bloc. Hispanics. They don't hate McCain and if Clinton is not available to vote for, they will split their vote.

    Parent

    "Pandering" (none / 0) (#154)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:19:43 PM EST
    Sure, that would be a problem....But showing less than complete hostility is a step forward....No no need to change position....

    Parent
    Actually they are (none / 0) (#118)
    by zzyzx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:22:13 PM EST
    The Kerry states + OH are enough to win....

    ...but you have to keep MN, WI, WA, and OR as it just gets you to 271.  If one state is lost (even Delaware) and you can't pick up one of these minor states I just mentioned, then Clinton would HAVE to win FL, a state that's been trending more Republican over the last 8 years.  

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#120)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:25:17 PM EST
    How do you think Obama is going to win Colorado? I think you are drinking the kool aid and I am a dem in Colorado. He is not the kind of dem they elect here. On the other hand, I believe Clinton did win CO once.

    Parent
    Bill never ran a two person race (none / 0) (#130)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:31:59 PM EST
    Perot split off many conservative votes in both 1992 and 1996.....

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#133)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:33:41 PM EST
    Which is why I said I really didn't think either of them can win Colorado.

    Parent
    this is not going to be a two person race (none / 0) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:34:00 PM EST
    we know it will be at least a three person race.
    Nader (probably) wont get 20% but the way this primary is going its not impossible.


    Parent
    That is also true (none / 0) (#137)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:35:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Rasmussen and a group called (none / 0) (#63)
    by tigercourse on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:44:07 PM EST
    Susquehanna have out some new, not so good, numbers. Clinton and Obama lose Michigan and Penn going by Rasmussen. And Obama loses Penn going by Susquehanna.

     

    well that underscores the importance of PA (none / 0) (#126)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:31:19 PM EST
    A strong performance in Pennsylvania by either candidate may become the "tiebreaker" of this election.

    Parent
    That would only be true... (none / 0) (#138)
    by zzyzx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:36:15 PM EST
    ...if the race were tied.

    Making one of Clinton's strongest states demographically be the "tiebreaker" hardly seems like a fair argument.  

    Parent

    Well that's up to the superdelegates (none / 0) (#144)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:50:12 PM EST
    I think the media will frame Pennsylvania as a tiebreaker but let's revisit this closer to the election and see who is correct.

    Parent
    McCain will win unless dems are united (none / 0) (#65)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:46:06 PM EST
    We don't need a unity ticket but both Obama and Clinton will have to show a lot of leadership to unite the party.  At the moment, I am pesimistic about their prospects.  I think Obama has the higher hurdle.  He has been running as though democrats are part of the problem.  I don't think he'll make up for this among republicans and independents.

    Agreed. Obama has become too divisive. (nt) (none / 0) (#176)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:39:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Edwards endorsing Clinton now (none / 0) (#79)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:55:40 PM EST
    would be dandy.

    wow (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:01:38 PM EST
    I thought that was a statement not a wish.
    my heart leaped a tiny bit.

    Parent
    Well, if he really prefers Clinton (which I (none / 0) (#95)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:03:28 PM EST
    don't know), he should endorse her, because his endorsement of Clinton won't have any impact on Obama in the GE.

    Parent
    If only I would stick to subject lines (none / 0) (#129)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:31:46 PM EST
    I'd be happy right now.

    Parent
    Obama dropping out (none / 0) (#136)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:35:01 PM EST
    would be even better
    :P

    Parent
    Damn you :) (none / 0) (#143)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:49:21 PM EST
    it happened again...

    But you meant to do that.  Grr.

    Parent

    Donna Brazil resigns! (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:05:54 PM EST
    in my dreams.

    (ha ha two can play that game)

    Parent

    Capt Howdy banned (none / 0) (#155)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:41:48 PM EST
    no text

    ;)

    Parent

    Florida agrees to a revote! (none / 0) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:04:52 PM EST
    maybe


    Parent
    Gore won in 2000! (none / 0) (#177)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:41:13 PM EST
    Oh, that's right, he did.

    Sorry.  I'll go back and reread the rules of this game. :-)

    Parent

    Doomed (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:01:13 PM EST
    I frankly think either candidate could have beaten McCain if the race had not descended to where it is today.....

    Too late now--or close to it.....Both Obama and Hillary will sink like rocks.  The winner?  The candidate that loses the nomination and can claim he or she got robbed.....The other goes down to defeat in November.....

    Hillary needs African American voters in Ohio more than she needs the few downscale white women in Southern Ohio who would vote for her....The only way to win Ohio or Pennsylvania is to have a large African American turnout--that is how Democrats win....Kerry lost Ohio by 2 points because Bush got a higher than usual percentage of the African American vote, which many think was due to the gay marriage initiative.....Bush got 16% in 2004, which was up 7% over 2000.

    Hillary's ability to capture African American votes has been compromised, setting aside whose fault that is.....Obama will have great difficulty on the CINC issue....

    So you're saying that (none / 0) (#110)
    by Polkan on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:17:17 PM EST
    AA voters will vote for McCain versus Clinton?

    Really?

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#113)
    by CST on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:18:55 PM EST
    They won't vote at all

    Parent
    or they could just stay home (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:19:15 PM EST


    Parent
    We'll see (none / 0) (#160)
    by faux facsimile on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:14:05 PM EST
    These are the usual threats. We saw them also regarding McCain and the Dobson crowd. When push comes to shove though, it's hard to see how it will pan out. Given McCain's current company, it's quite plausible that somebody will slip up and remind everyone why Republicans are distrusted by many groups, including minorities.

    And while I'd put the odds of a Clinton/Obama ticket at zip-o, that doesn't mean there can't be a reconciliation of some sort if Clinton is the nominee.

    Parent

    McCain can win in a landslide, unknown factors (none / 0) (#93)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    President Bush is still the Commander in Chief.

    President Bush and Dick Cheney can still have an effect on world events and more specifically, matters of foreign policy.

    Let me be blunt: John McCain could be one international incident or terror/war related attack away from once again getting the benefit of a friendly press that insists on parroting the talking point that Republicans are better on National security and who better to ride that wave that John McCain.  If Obama is the nominee (experience comes into play even more) this thing could become a cakewalk for McCain.

    When Bush was endorsing McCain the other day he pointed out that he wanted to set the table to (regarding economic situation, stimulus package, etc) to give McCain a boost in November.

    Republicans do one thing better than our party and that is to stick together, fall in line, and try to win at all costs.  Remember that.

    Also, the decrease in casualties in Iraq (none / 0) (#97)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:04:15 PM EST
    will help McCain a LOT with the simple-minded voters. He will attempt to ride the "surge" to victory.

    Parent
    Thank the Democratic Congress for ceding that (none / 0) (#111)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:17:25 PM EST
    The Democratic Congress under the "leadership" of Pelosi and Reid have managed to cede much of the Iraq argument back to the Republicans by not forcefully opposing them and doing what they were elected to at least ATTEMPT to do.

    They have greatly diminished our moral authority on this issue and the Republican case that Democrats are a bunch of "defeatists" will be heard louder than ever.  (Especially now that the surge is perceived to have worked--perceived I say)

    Parent

    that last sentence (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:04:29 PM EST
    is almost unarguable


    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#109)
    by tworivers on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:13:59 PM EST
    And with Fallon having resigned/been asked to resign, the likelihood of some skirmish or worse with Iran shortly before the election goes up.

    Uggh.

    Parent

    Clinton brings the DEM Brand with her (none / 0) (#112)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:17:46 PM EST
    and the Positively American Platform inclusive of a centerist economic agenda that won in 2006  and Obama dose not, he is now tied to the Kennedy liberal social justice wing of the Party that is in love with its own wonder but the average American rejects as high cost politics.  Clinton has the tried and true Dem Leaders aligned with her who have won their races against Republicans Schumer, Bill Clinton, Strickland, Rendell, Menendez to name a few and her supporters while they are quiet are fierce and will not be beaten down or wonder off when she is slandered by her opponents in or out of the Party.  Party registration is at an all time high and my nephew, a Hillary supporter, reminds me they engaged before Obama against Bush over 12 percent of Kerry voters where first time voters.
    Obama lacks experience in campaigning, so do his supporters and his family for whatever reason. He has tended to surround himself with Dem leaders who lost their races to Republicans and or their power like Daschle, Kerry, Kennedy, Barazile etc. and are more likely to stumble well really have stumbled Proud to be American, Monster and the JF the Bs Lording it over the collective We.. The two biggest flaws and vulnerability for Obama in a general are no record to back up or contrast for recovery following blunders by Obama's campaign or his supporters, like the NAFTA nod wink incident, and two Axelrods strategy of using the liberal media as social attack surrogate to fend off examination of Obama resume and critics, works only if you have not broken the code or in conatined ideologically left leaning liberal audience willing to exploit others with their own arrogant elitist view of themselves. And that's a finite number of Dems and the Republicans indoctrinated to these types of politics wont show up, and vote for Obama in the General and the rest of us will not comply done that been there for almost 8 years.  You can already see the split if you veiw MSNBC-CNN-Fox and MSNBC et al triage Newsweek, Wapo do not have the non Dem reach that could help in a general.

    Big Party concern, any incident attributed to uncivil discourse as a result of inflaming these historic groups grievance will either make the country and the Party stronger or it will disrupt the election for all Dems..

    wow (none / 0) (#119)
    by CST on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:24:33 PM EST
    Kennedy and Kerry are not tried and true??  What is so wrong about being part of the liberal/social justice wing of the party?  Last I checked, these two are pretty powerful in the senate still.  However you feel about Obama and Clinton, this is just a weird statement.  And frankly the idea that "left leaning liberal audience willing to exploit others with their own arrogant elitist view of themselves" is offensive.  And did you realize you were posting on something called "talk left".  And now being left is supposed to be bad?  Ok...

    Parent
    They are indeed tried and true (none / 0) (#149)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:03:14 PM EST
    but also fit right into the handy Republican theme of "elitist liberals" trying to tell all the good people in the countryside how to live their lives.

    For an example see: Loser 2004 Kerry


    Parent

    I dont disagree with (none / 0) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:31:46 PM EST
    everything you said but I think you have to admit that so far Obama has run a pretty damn good campaign.  whatever else you think about him.


    Parent
    now (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:32:40 PM EST
    if those same tactics will work as well against a republican as a democrat in a democratic primary is far from certain.
    Im just sayin.


    Parent
    "Pretty good" through prism of Media (2.00 / 1) (#145)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:52:06 PM EST
    Maybe if the media had applied an equal standard in criticizing and doubting his every move, ad, speech, and motive his campaign would not look so hot to you and many others.

    Parent
    disagree (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:55:45 PM EST
    I think its been pretty good with no prism at all.
    if it had not we would all be attacking John McCain now on Hillarys behalf.


    Parent
    The media effect hits up and down (none / 0) (#147)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:01:55 PM EST
    It has made Hillary's campaign seem worse and Obama's better.

    The good news for us who disagree on this is that the voters don't seem to care too much what the media is saying anymore.

    Parent

    Not sure I can, sure effective but reckless, (none / 0) (#157)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:06:20 PM EST
    I always worried when fringe Republicans in Leaderships roles attack Immigrants and Gays dehumanizing them making them rhetorical targets that it would legitimatize violence against them.  

    Parent
    People are overplaying the (none / 0) (#152)
    by Joike on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:06:21 PM EST
    animosity inside the party.

    The muck hasn't been all that mucky.  Neither candidate has come close to the tactics routinely employed by the other side.

    Feelings get bruised in primaries.  It's a fact of life, but most of us realize what's at stake in November.  None of us want what McCain offers:  eternal war in the Middle East, clones of Scalia in the Supreme Court.

    I've felt all along that the eventual nominee (Clinton or Obama) will defeat McCain.  It will either be close or a laugher (like '96 only without Perot).

    We have the issues, the energy, the fundraising and the demographics.  They have fear, fear and fear.  Oh, and slime (if Democrats win, the terrorists win).

    My hope is that either Obama or Clinton will pick Richardson as their running mate.

    McCain would have to single handedly capture bin Laden to have a shot.  

    I may sound optomistic, but when you look from the ground up at the races around the country, you see the Democratic Party ascending and the GOP waning.

    Our candidate will be competitive in more states than in '04.  Both can win 270 electoral votes and they can win without the "precious" states of Ohio and Florida.  It'd be close, but definately winnable.

    McCain has no margin of error and is essentially stuck defending the states Bush won and will have little opportunity to put our candidate on the defensive in the states Kerry won in '04.

    We can work ourselves into a lather now, but November is still seven and a half months away.  Think about that.  The process is too strung out, but we'll deal with it, and we'll win the White House and increase our majorities in the House and Senate and in state representation around the country.

    It is a good year to be a Democrat.

    Silly speculation (none / 0) (#158)
    by faux facsimile on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:06:42 PM EST
    I think the best way to understand where we are right now is to note that:
    1. 12 months ago Rudy Guiliani was considered a sure bet for the nomination.
    2. 6 months ago Hillary Clinton was inevitable.
    3. 2 months ago Barack Obama had it in the bag.

    The next 2 months is basically an extended advertisement directed at 793 individuals.

    The only unfortunate part is that we're in danger of replaying John McCain's nomination fight, a.k.a. 'last one standing.' While Clinton and Obama and their supporters demonstrate each other's unfitness to hold office, McSame is quietly raising cash, scaring babies, and making up to the Limbaugh/Dobson crowd.

    Whats going on with the Pennsylvania polls (none / 0) (#164)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:25:55 PM EST
    that show Hillary beating Obama by 20 points in primary,  but doing worse than Obama against McCain (losing by 6 compared to 3 for Obama)?

    Seems to show how silly the argument that being strong in a state in a primary means your candidate is more likely to win it in the general.

    Obama has taken back some of the momentum. (none / 0) (#178)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:51:27 PM EST
    Sen. Clinton had a big night last week, but then it turned out that thanks to the TX caucus, WY, and MS, he actually ended up winning the most delegates in those 6 contests. I spelled out how he did so here. The only difference is Obama ended up with 19 delegates in MS instead of 20, so instead of winning 3 more delegates, he won 1 more. That affects momentum b/c it shows just how hard it is for her to overtake him.

    After MS, his popular vote lead w/FL is still 400k. Assuming FL/MI revote, she's got to make up a 700k vote deficit.

    All during this campaign, Sen. Clinton has started with a huge lead in places only to see Obama narrow the gap considerably or overtake her. He has 6 weeks to charm PA. That's the best he can ask for. Six weeks with nothing to do but focus on PA we'll see how good he really is. After all, I think she's way out in front as of now.

    Considering all that, I can see how his campaign is confident right now, feeling like they still have the wind at their backs.

    Really? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:06:37 PM EST
    Is that why they are looking nervous, making strategic errors, and trying to essentially shut down votes (imo)?

    Wind at my back -> relaxed attitude. Not what I am seeing from that campaign right now. Despite the odds the Clinton camp seems to have the feel of a more confident campaign right now.

    Take a look here if you'd like: Time on Her Side: Obama Maintains Lead, but Clinton Might Have the Edge

    Parent

    The FL/MI thing is tricky. (none / 0) (#180)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:39:06 PM EST
    I'm of the mind that people understand politics. The SDs understand what she's doing. She essentially says that he can be her VP, but he's not ready to be P. Well, what if she has a stroke in March '09? He'd be P. The SDs are mostly politicians who care mostly about winning solid majorities in Congress, taking the White House, etc. I just think they'll side with Obama, though I am aware of the arguments like the one you linked to from ABC.

    He pointed out that CiC/VP argument's flaw, but he should have taken it one further. He should have noted that offering VP to someone unqualified to be P is another example of her bad judgment. I know how he couldn't really say that, but you get my point, I hope.

    On FL/MI, those people can be made up with. They're not going to swarm to McCain b/c they didn't count. In FL, they didn't count b/c the GOP state legislature forced their hand; in MI, they didn't count b/c the governor, a Hillary supporter, wanted a big primary early. Obama can make a case to those people regardless of what happens now, I think.

    I also think you'll see Obama emerge with that signature relaxed attitude by the start of next week.

    All my opinion, though.

    Parent

    Different take (none / 0) (#181)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:11:06 PM EST
    The SDs are NOT going to blow off FL/MI as easily as some Obama supporters do. FL is a big state, lots of electoral votes. It is a tough one, but not one to be ignored.

    You can't blame the FL/MI thing on either candidate, so please don't spin about how it was Hillary's fault (MI).

    My opinion: you are about to watch a 5 week unraveling of the Obama campaign. Let's check in with each other right after PA.

    Parent

    I was just pointing out that (none / 0) (#182)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:45:19 PM EST
    the MI Governor was the one who pushed for the early primary. She signed the legislation moving it from Feb. That's all I was saying.

    I know SDs won't ignore FL & MI. Obama is not going to be able to stop those states from either re-voting or counting somehow. I know that, and I'm sure he does, too. They have said they'll do whatever the DNC decides, but they're clearly going to fight for their best chance. After all, MI was going to caucus, and Hillary Clinton said no.

    We'll see if you're right about the unraveling. I'll definitely look forward to chatting with you post-PA.

    Parent

    Also what about a few GOP voters (none / 0) (#187)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:26:39 PM EST
    who remember that the nineties were really pretty good times for themselves?

    That's the "running on the economy" theme.  But I read awhile back that even Richard Scaife Mellon had chilled about Hillary Clinton (as reported through his spokesman).


    Electability? Momentum? | 188 comments (188 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment