Obama Camp: Ohio Looks Tough, Texas More Promising

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Expectations game?

Unlike Clinton, who has been barnstorming Ohio, Obama had only two events in the state on Sunday and was spending the night in hometown Chicago. He heads to Texas on Monday for a final day of campaigning before awaiting returns on Tuesday in San Antonio.

His aides said privately that they felt they had a good shot at a win in Texas, but were less certain about Ohio, where they braced for a possible loss.

This is consistent with the polling we have seen. I think it feels like the lay of the land. It is going to come down to Texas whether the race ends Tuesday night.

BTW, why the mystery on how much Obama raised in February? Makes me think that it was not the monster numbers implied.

[Update (TL): Comments now closed.]

< Continuing A Theme: The Obama Rorschach Test | Cleveland Plain Dealer Poll: NAFTA Not Defining Race >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I now think (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Lena on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:57:16 PM EST
    that HRC will continue on, as long as she wins Ohio and stays close in Texas.

    If Obama implodes over the Rezko trial and she wins Pennsylvania, then the superdelegates may prefer her to him.

    At this point Obama seems more like a passing fad than a Democratic party favorite.

    Interesting he's back in Chicago (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:08:32 PM EST
    on the eve of the opening of the Rezko trial.  I would think he'd be far, far from there -- although the reach of the Chicago media is far, too.

    Far, far away from (none / 0) (#12)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:10:27 PM EST
    his kids....He went home for Valentine's Day too.

    60 percent.... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:09:54 PM EST
    no way that Clinton quits, unless she looses big in Texas in the popular vote.   Texas is going to be Red, but will be a battleground state for the same reason that inevitably-Blue California will be -- its too big a prize not to compete for, and forces the other side to devote resources there to ensuring a win.

    A big loss in Texas for either candidate means that candidate would have a very hard time running a credible campaign there in the fall -- and the state would likely be 'written off' if a big loser in Texas gets the nod.

    (and appropos of nothing, but I keep hearing Obama supporters saying that unless she gets 65% of the delegates on Tuesday, she can't win.  Which is true... without 65% of the delegates, she can't lock in the nomination with pledged delegates.  None of them seem to want to mention that Obama has to take 60% of the delegates on Tuesday, or he can't lock in the nomination...)


    Yep (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:11:42 PM EST
    The Superdelegates will determine the nominee. Wrote about this yesterday.

    Hillary must get 65% (none / 0) (#15)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:14:32 PM EST
    to pull even with Obama in elected or pledged delegates.....Neither can clinch without the superdelegates.....The idea is to have a majority of the pledged delegates....

    Bill Richardson has said that whoever has the lead in pledged delegates on Wednesday should be deemed the nominee and the other should withdraw....It looks like he will endorse Obama on Wednesday.

    The superdelegates will not allow Hillary to fight it out to the convention....


    Heh (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:17:38 PM EST
    Oooooh, bill Richardson say so? Tell Bill Richardson to STFU. Who died and made him King of the Democratic Party?

    BTW (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:19:44 PM EST
    IF Hillary wins Texas and Ohio and he comes out with this crap after THAT, then he will look like an idiot.

    Scratch that, he will look like a bigger idiot than he has already in this campaign season.

    Worst candidate I ever saw.


    C'mon, that honor goes (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:26:52 PM EST
    to my former governor Tommy Thompson, the one who gave wrong answers in a debate because he really, really had to go to the bathroom.

    BR is so full of himself (none / 0) (#209)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:46:21 PM EST
    I'm disliking him more and more. He's changed or was he always the prima donna?

    I want the link that says he's on board for Obama Wed.


    What happened. I leave you folks alone (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:22:11 PM EST
    for a day and all of a sudden Obama is the worst candidate ever?

    Richardson (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Shawn on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:23:22 PM EST
    Not Obama.

    Richardson. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:24:13 PM EST
    Not Obama.

    Well (none / 0) (#35)
    by chrisvee on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:23:01 PM EST
    Worst Dem candidate, right?  After all, there was also Fred Thompson who barely appeared to be running a campaign. :-)

    Yep (none / 0) (#117)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:40:10 PM EST
    Bill Richardson was a joke of a candidate.  If I didn't know better I'd think his resume was faked.

    Actually, I do know better and he owes most of his resume to the Clintons.  I guess he's figured they've carried him about as far as they can and that Obama will help him add to it.  


    I just figured out the post-Tues spin (none / 0) (#122)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:43:18 PM EST
    for Obama: Look at how far he came from behind!  He almost beat her!  He was nothing a year ago and he almost took out the most powerful political machine in show business!

    The fight must go on!


    Why not? (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:46:21 PM EST
    Seriously, why wouldn't the Superdelegates allow the contest to go on?

    Political professionals recognize just how insubstantial Obama's lead is when viewed from a general election perspective.   Its a lead based on states that the Dems will write off for November, and a bunch of states in which the Clinton campaign failed to properly organize, and Obama did (the post ST week).

    If I'm a super-delegate, I'm gonna want Obama to show me that he beat Clinton substantially in a big state that will matter (Illinois doesn't count) in November before I say "okay, its over, and we have our candidate."  

    Given all his advantages -- the media, the money, the momentum -- Obama should be kicking Clinton's butt on Tuesday.  The fact that Clinton was able to completely regroup after the horrible post Super-Tuesday week, and will likely at least hold her own this Tuesday, tells superdelegates that they'd be foolish to go with Obama just yet.


    And Maybe It's Just Me (none / 0) (#123)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:44:45 PM EST
    But it has felt like the tide may be turning a bit on Obama this past week or so.  The media has gotten a bit tougher, the culture a bit harsher for him.  There's the NAFTA issue.  His lack of activity as chair of his committee seems to be gaining a bit of traction.  And Rezko's trial starts tomorrow.

    If I'm a Super Delegate, I'm going to look at a calendar and see I've got at least until May or June before it starts to get to be critical to have a nominee.  Why rush into something that could blow up in my face?

    Plus, I'm probably also thinking that even if it becomes clear at some point that Obama will be the presumptive nominee, the more delegates Hillary gets, the easier to change horses in August if Obama collapses over the summer.  I don't think he necessarily will collapse, but given how new he is on the scene and how untested against the national GOP, why not hedge the party's bet?


    One More Thing (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:47:30 PM EST
    It seems to me the people calling for a decision to be made are almost uniformly Obama supporters.  Now, that's understandable, but I think the reason they've grown louder and louder is because they know how close the race still is and how easily it could still slip away from them.  I also can't help but wonder if the pressure they've applied to some super delegates, particularly African Americans, won't come back to bite them.  If I were an undecided Super Delegate, I'd want an excuse to go to Clinton at this point, just for what they did to poor John Lewis (and I know it might not have been the Obama campaign officially, but they sure as hell didn't denounce it either).

    Kerry and Durbin (none / 0) (#182)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:27:26 PM EST
    have called for Clinton to stop.  But Diane Feinstein said that she should go as long as she wants as she is the first women to be so close to the presidency.

    Kerry and Durbin (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:30:27 PM EST
    Are Obama supporters.  When folks who aren't in the tank for him start to talk about her needing to throw in the towel, then I'll take it seriously.  

    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by ajain on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:39:27 PM EST
    Besides, who really cares about Kerry?
    I mean if he really had any leverage his state would have gone to Obama, given that the state establishment was fully behind Obama.
    Plus I think major Clinton backers will come out of the woodwork and speak out on her behalf if he does not win.
    Also, I have a feeling John Edwards wants to support Clinton. Just a feeling.

    I think you are exactly right (none / 0) (#134)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:50:02 PM EST
    Especially with the Rezko trial making the NY Times in such a big way.  I'm sure that a lot of super d's haven't really been paying attention to O's record at this point, but now that it's starting to come out (a lot of them get their news the same way we do; being a super d doesn't necessarily translate to being in the "loop" for some of the lower rung d's) they might be saying, "holy crap, what did I almost buy?"

    Also, I think a big part of this has been the SNL thing.  We all respond to pop culture.  Super d's don't wanna look stupid, and SNL speaks to a lot of college kids, too.  Some are probably regretting those Obama tattoos they got back in January.  That's a hard one to explain in seventy years when your grandkid asks, "What's with the O on your hiney, grampa?"


    Totally agree on SNL (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by lily15 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:16:04 PM EST
    No one wants to feel they are backing a has been...and popular culture determines who is in and who is out...SNL and the very very cool and popular Tina Fey (she wrote the film Mean Girls by the way) changed the narrative in one fell swoop...especially Tina Fey...It's amazing actually the effect it is having...you can feel it around the blogs...there is a slight shift...but of course...the real question is what effect is it having in Texas and Ohio..also Jack Nicholson's video....The 3 a.m. commercial appears to have been effective..and Hillary has improved dramatically on the stump...and her new stump speech is excellent now...as though she has a new team leading the way...I've been watching her in Ohio on CNN ballot box...and she is great...a new energy...

    I've seen a change in her, too (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:23:38 PM EST
    but, you know, we're a bit mercurial here at TL when our candidate is doing well as opposed to not.  As much as she just keeps plugging along, it's got to be nice for her to FINALLY have someone publicly on her side.  It's the same way anyone would feel--like, "hello?  I'm still in this thing."  And the constant pounding, and then to have Chelsea attacked when both Clintons have worked so hard to protect her...It is amazing she is still standing.

    I am glad she is enjoying the support and I think that it has taken some stress off to finally have folks being loud and proud.

    I know it's made me feel better.


    Hillary (none / 0) (#224)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:58:06 PM EST
    could have been an arrogant beotch, but it didn't materialize. She held steady and went forward. Thats the pedigree of a president I want in the Oval Office. Her work on children's issues is the dealmaker for me and of course healthcare back in the day when the obstructionists Republicans make a stink about it.

    wonder if someone locked Mark Penn (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:29:57 PM EST
    in a closet?  It's amazing to me that the campaign would have tried to mold her to a script when she so much better just being herself.  Higher energy level, quite funny and highly likable.

    That's the Shocking Thing (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:32:15 PM EST
    Everyone said the best thing about Clinton would be her campaign.  Instead, that's the worst thing about Clinton.  The best thing turned out to be her, which is far better if she gets elected, but still what a surprise and I say that as someone who never got the Hillary hate.  Still, it's amazing what fifteen years of hostile press can do to the way a person interacts with the public and how she is perceived.

    Kind of wonderful (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:58:35 PM EST
    in a tragic way.  She really is a magnificent unpackaged candidate!  You're right if she gets elected it will be much better for governance.

    This is very smart strategy for (none / 0) (#237)
    by hairspray on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:12:16 PM EST
    the Democrats. If Obama weakens after the swiftboaters start there may still be time to pull our chestnuts out of the fire.  I would think it might come down to a Clinton/Obama ticket.  I have felt all along that Obama's wins were in small red states and with more crossover and GOP votes than should have been allowed. We don't know at this point where we are with all of this mix and match, to say nothing about the skewing of the caucus results.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by tek on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:17:56 PM EST
    that, too. The only state she isn't leading in is VT--15 delegates.  Looks good!

    I Think So, Too (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:37:39 PM EST
    She might drop out if she loses Texas, but I suspect if she wins Ohio comfortably and only barely loses Texas she might not.  There's no reason for her not to see if the winds change, they've seemed like they might be starting to.  And if BTD is right and Obama didn't have a huge month, he could have some financial challenges since he's got to be spending money like it's water at this point.

    Here's a question I just asked at Corrente, why isn't Obama crushing Clinton at this point?  He's had by and large great press since before February 5th, all those post-Feb. 5 wins to build momentum, has out spent her, and the press continues to treat her like its favorite punching bag and yet, he could lose 3 of 4 states on March 4.  Indeed, the most likely outcome on polls is that he wins one big state (Texas) and she wins one (Ohio) and they also split the smaller states.  So after all this "momentum" he's hoping for a draw?  

    I fully expect folks to ask Clinton why she's still in the race on March 4th if she loses Texas, but assuming she beats Obama in Ohio, isn't that a question one could also ask Obama?  If she wins Texas and Ohio, how is he going to explain that?   And I don't think "I got five more delegates in Texas" or I crushed her in Vermont is going to do it.   For all this talk of Obama building a movement, it seems like the movement so far has failed to move half the Democratic primary voters.  Isn't that as much a problem for Obama as it is for Clinton?  Sure, he's still the frontrunner to be the nominee, but if he can't beat Clinton with all these advantages, how is he going to handle McCain?


    BDB (1.00 / 0) (#119)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:41:57 PM EST
    that is what  I have been saying all along: if Obama is such a force to be reckoned with, then why hasn't he already wrapped it up?  The guy pulls stadium crowds with tens of thousands...he raises millions of dollars...but that don't translate into votes.  What was the calculation, that based on numbers of votes, he's outspent Clinton three to one and he still hasn't locked it up?

    I am really interested in this money issue now.  I wondered how many college kids blew their "fun money" (inasmuch as all money is fun money to college kids) on Obama, or asked their parents for money to send...and now the well is dry.

    (Keep in mind I wondered the exact opposite about two hours ago.  Ha!  I guess I'm what the press would call "emotional.")


    Interesting (none / 0) (#144)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:57:45 PM EST
    Of course one could argue the same about Clinton: "why, if Hillary is such an experienced, talented politician, would she be blown out in 11 straight races, by an untested, phenom, subsisting on the donations of college students?"

    And Folk Did Argue That About Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:15:16 PM EST
    If Obama can't put her away on Tuesday, it'll be his turn.

    I know Clinton's answer - a campaign that was too focused on big states, out-organized at caucuses and in smaller states, and, while I'm sure she expected harsh media, probably underestimated the media's reluctance to criticize anything about Barack Obama or permit her to without labeling her mean, and I also suspect that even she's been a bit surprised by the overwhelming misogyny and adoption of rightwing smears being used against her by fellow democrats.  Although I admit that last one might be me projecting.

    So what's Obama's answer going to be?  If he loses Ohio on Tuesday, he's going to need a reason why because now he's the frontrunner.  He's supposed to win.


    There is always an excuse (none / 0) (#184)
    by ajain on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:29:49 PM EST
    how critic-The state has too many people.
    -It's a big state. Barack could not meet every voter and dazzle him/her.
    -The Clintons have been here before.
    -A television show mocked him.
    -Even though he is the front-runner and outspent her outrageously she is always the front-runner.

    sorry (none / 0) (#188)
    by ajain on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:31:12 PM EST
    a little mistyping at the beginning of the preceeding post.

    I'd love to "subsist" (none / 0) (#162)
    by tree on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:10:00 PM EST
    on that kind of dough. $36 million a month? Sweet Jesus!

    see here's the deal (none / 0) (#156)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:05:17 PM EST
    things look really bleak in the middle east...Lebanon, Gaza. All notions of GWB resurrecting his place in history by achieving a peace agreement are out the window.

    See War and Piece article from earlier today.

    See Robin Wright - Wapo March 1st

    Hillary's going to hang around because her 'experience' is likely to become a more sought after commidity if things turn out to be as bleak as they appear to be.


    Actually the situation in the country and world is (none / 0) (#240)
    by hairspray on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:24:42 PM EST
    getting bleaker by the minute.  I almost feel that if Obama wants the job so badly he should have it, but then I remember that I want my kids and grandkids to come out of this okay and I think that Hillary can handle it.  Lord knows I don't know why she would want it tho'

    I think if (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by sas on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:57:34 PM EST
    she wins Ohio , she will continue on to

    I personally think she will win the primary popular vote in Texas, but lose the same day caucus.  (Yes, you can vote twice on the same day in Texas - boy, those Democrats give new meaning to "vote early, vote often".).

    Popular vote is what matters in Texas (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:58:46 PM EST
    what's your feeling on that? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:01:46 PM EST
    Will we have real caucus turn-out numbers to use in the turn-out tally (I am thinking of WA state, where caucus turn-out was a third of primary turn-out)

    And what's your opinion on what a "win" is, BTD?  Delegates and popular vote in OH and pop vote but not delegates in TX?  Because you said she had to win both TX and OH to keep going.  Not that you owe me an explanation, but can you define "win?"


    Popular vote is what matters in both (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:02:54 PM EST
    I think so, too (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:06:37 PM EST
    I think that the tide might be turning (knock wood, spit three times, walk under a black cat...).  The question is, will the media report on it?  As in, on Wed morning, will the story be about how Clinton eked by a win and is holding on by her fingernails (or claws) or will it be about Obama still winning 11 in a row to her measly 2?

    It'll be interesting to hear the spin on Obama insisting he "won" TX by delegates if she has the popular vote.  We've heard that before.  Seven years before and four states over, one down before.


    They have to report wins (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:09:27 PM EST
    And that means the popular vote.

    Sure they will try and belittle it but the headline is who wins.


    Her (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by tek on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:19:23 PM EST
    people are working hard to get out the caucus vote.  We'll see.

    counter-intuitive (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:53:23 PM EST
    the best thing for Clinton would be to win the popular vote, but lose the delegate race in Texas because of the caucuses.

    Suddenly, there is indisputable proof that caucus results are simply not "relevant" to a race in which neither candidate can lock in the nomination -- that they bear no relation to popular support, even in competitive races.  


    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:41:41 PM EST
    No disagreement from me... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:11:03 PM EST
    ...but you would still have to explain WI and VA.  The former has been a battleground state where Democrats and the most progressive U.S. senator won by razor-thin margins.  I thought the spin on that was particularly...well, there wasn't much to say, was there?

    I'm with you here (none / 0) (#89)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:59:43 PM EST
    with the weird hybrid system, delegates could be anywhere and mean squat.

    Ahem (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:09:20 PM EST
    And Pennsylvania.  We get to vote also.

    Here's my question (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:46:19 PM EST
    Was Obama's trip to RI anything like Bush's trip to California in 2000? We'll know Tuesday night, but my money is on yes.

    I'm trying to understand it (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:49:49 PM EST
    and can't say I do.

    The best polling for Obama has him down 9.

    Rhode Island is a small story on Tuesday anyway.

    Say for the sake of argument he won Rhode Island but lost Texas and Ohio. How does that help Obama?


    It's a mind trick (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:57:55 PM EST
    to pep his supporters. A pretty stupid one, if you ask me, given that his campaign stinks when it looks like he's winning.

    There's the outside chance that his internals look so amazing for OH and TX that he's trying to carry all 4 states, but that seems pretty far out of the realm of possibility.


    If that were so (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:59:27 PM EST
    he would be all positive now.

    Who knows (none / 0) (#91)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:02:02 PM EST
    Your question about the money has me interested.

    Like Chelsea visiting Hawaii (none / 0) (#75)
    by catfish on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:51:18 PM EST
    And all the Clintons campaining in Wisconsin, which neighbors Illinois.

    Um (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:54:11 PM EST
    The candidate's time is precious.

    He gained in RI recently (none / 0) (#143)
    by catfish on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:57:01 PM EST
    She is barnstorming Ohio compared to him. If he can get her to leave Ohio to defend her lead in RI, he can stem her lead again in Ohio.

    That's my guess.


    Bizarre comparison. (none / 0) (#222)
    by Ramo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:57:12 PM EST
    1. The Dem primaries aren't winner take all.
    2. RI is over-represented, relative to the big states, in the delegate count (state delegates are normalized by number of Dem voters, rather than total voters).

    Obviously it makes no sense viewed through general election rules, but it's perfectly rational if you see it as a contest over votes, and even more so as a delegate battle.

    in his defense... (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:45:44 PM EST
    he did fence in the lot and mow the land, so the deal on the driveway was only fair.

    And further in his defense . . . (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:51:50 PM EST
    by putting the only gate in that fence facing onto his new driveway, that made the Rezko lot inaccessible to anyone but Secret Service, so we all can sleep a lot better at night . . . unless that phone rings at 3 a.m. . . .

    But Kathy if someone sells you a portion of a (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by athyrio on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:57:54 PM EST
    lot which reduces the size of the lot and thereby forces it to be unbuildable and thus a nice empty lot to be next door to, I consider that a type of bribe....Am I wrong??

    He was required by ordinance to fence in the lot. (none / 0) (#155)
    by Angel on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:03:16 PM EST
    He was required by ordinance (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:10:02 PM EST
    to fence in a lot that he did not own.

    Man, I am glad I do not live in Chicago!

    (but I want the name of that bank that allows you to sell a strip of property that they hold a mortgage on without first paying off the debt)


    Howard Wolfson on This Week (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by lily15 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:48:15 PM EST
    today says Obama has not released the documents.  He kept asking Axelrod  (also on This Week) to agree to release all the records relating to Rezko...Axelrod would not promise...the plot thickens...Wolfson effectively made his point.

    What's the chance (none / 0) (#14)
    by Lil on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:12:27 PM EST
    that Obama downplays it because he knows he is going to win and wants to make it look like he's still the underdog pulling it out? I guess I'm the pessimist to Kathy's optimist, although I wish I were in her camp.

    Lil (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:18:36 PM EST
    you just caught me in a good mood!  But, looking at it logically, this would be the first time the Obama camp played the managing expectations game to any effect, which makes my Magic 8 ball come up: not likely.  Then again, I also think we could give ourselves aneurysms trying to outhink either political campaign.

    I'm more curious about what BTD said about Obama's fundraising numbers, but I tend to go the other way: I think he raised an obscene amount of money, and they aren't going on and on about it because it would sound unseemly.

    But, the FEC reports are due in tomorrow, right?  So, either way they have to show their cards.  I think if Clinton did outraise him, it'll be HUGE for her--a great boost.  So, color me the pessimist on this one.


    It would sound unseemly? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:21:05 PM EST
    Um, 36 million sounded unseemly a month ago and they used it before Super Tuesday.

    Nah, you are wrong on that one Kath.


    I Think He Raised A Lot (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:57:46 PM EST
    But he's also spending it like a drunken sailor.  It may not be what he took in, but what he put out that he's not anxious to get out there.  $50 million sounds fantastic unless he's already spent 48.

    empirical data (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:13:17 PM EST
    I've now seen 2 newscasts today in Austin with no Obama commercials in them.  First time in over a week I've not had to mute something.  However, there may have been Obama commercials I didn't see  :-)

    The "3am" Clinton ad played in both newscasts, so someone thinks it works.


    what if it's something like (none / 0) (#46)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:27:01 PM EST
    100mm in one month?  

    Well, okay, I can see how they would spin that into a happyface.

    There must be some Obama Talking Points going around about managing expectations because I've seen it said in a couple of places (including here) that Clinton must have lied about raising 35mm in 14 days.  These people seemed to believe there was no way to prove otherwise, so Clinton must have lied.  I, of course, told them about the FEC filings.  Anyway, we'll see when the reports are released.

    I hope you are right, though it would be nice if you weren't for once. :-)


    They would have announced long ago (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:28:46 PM EST
    100MM? McCain could quit right now.

    BTD... (none / 0) (#77)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:52:14 PM EST
    ...do you think that - should Obama be the nominee - McCain's current mess with the FEC gives Obama the political cover he needs to opt out of public financing for the general?  I would think it would, although McCain's story is a rather complicated narrative whereas Obama's breaking his pledge - however much I think he should - is easier to understand and use against him...

    Not with the Media (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:55:30 PM EST

    UNLESS he does it while Clinton is still in the race.

    I agree... (none / 0) (#90)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:00:04 PM EST
    ...with you again! :)

    He should do it now, get it out of the way, and try to simply the story of McCain's gaming the system himself. It might just gain traction.


    lol (none / 0) (#53)
    by Lil on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:31:32 PM EST
    re: we could give ourselves aneurysms trying to outhink either political campaign.

    I dunno (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:15:23 PM EST
    The Obama camp has never been good at the expectations game.

    I think this seems about right. Especially since everyone has set the game as Hillary has to win both.

    Heck, I have too.


    Well here's hoping (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Lil on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:20:48 PM EST
    and good if it comes true.

    possible (none / 0) (#23)
    by myed2x on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:19:20 PM EST
    but HRC has now dismissed Texas as unimportant due to it's strange makeup, even threatening to sue based on this 'strange makeup'. So really, it's on to Ohio and further, why? Cuz the goalposts have been moved once again...

    myed2x (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:22:53 PM EST
    let's be fair here: Obama's campaign has made the same threats about suing.

    So, you should say that BOTH of them have postured over this issue.  If you have proof that this is not the case, please post a link.  Otherwise, stop presenting the threat as a one-sided indictment against those dirty Clinton pols.


    yes... (none / 0) (#48)
    by myed2x on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:28:14 PM EST
    hmmm, I don't have proof positive, yet perhaps I've been duped, but going with the narrative it would make sense that it would be HRC issuing such statements...now if it were an OB covert attack, then I'd feel foolish, but I just don't think thats the case.

    Regardless, I worry/fret over the fact that we may be being manipulated on higher level than we realize.


    going with the narrative.... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:42:30 PM EST
    ...you realize that narrative, more often than not, is fiction.

    The original story on this lawsuit biz (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:52:01 PM EST
    said that on a conference call with both campaigns and the TX democratic party, both campaigns expressed reservations about the rules and wouldn't rule out legal action.  The call was to iron out a written agreement about these bizarre rules.

    The story also implied, through an anonymous source, that the Clinton campaign pushed harder, FWIW.  I don't have a link though.

    Frankly, I think both campaigns were right to express concerns since this has all the signs of a huge clusterf**k.  I'm so hacked at the TX democratic party, it would be sweet justice if both sides sued them.


    No one is suing (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:40:30 PM EST
    You are mixing apples and oranges (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:24:38 PM EST
    The popular vote is what matters now. Not the delegate count in the bizarre Texas system. I personally think the delegate breakout is unimportant in both.

    This is about the will of the people, the popular vote.


    but (none / 0) (#50)
    by myed2x on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:29:09 PM EST
    damn BTD was the delegate not what was being touted by the HRC campaign mere weeks ago?

    After South Carolina (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:30:15 PM EST
    Yep. They are shameless hypocrites.

    BTW, did you know Hillary tied in Alabama?


    you know as well as I do (none / 0) (#16)
    by myed2x on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:14:36 PM EST
    "This is consistent with the polling we have seen. I think it feels like the lay of the land. It is going to come down to Texas whether the race ends Tuesday night."

    it is not going to come down to Texas. It should but it won't. And if HRC wins Ohio then it will be on, but if she doesn't win Ohio, then it will be the next one, and so on, and so on...

    Be honest BTD, you see what's happening here, I actually am neutral between the two, but I see hypocrisy on both sides, only the hypocrisy on issuing firewall statements and then rewriting is getting a little tiresome now....

    I do not agree (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:16:36 PM EST
    I think it is possible sdhe goes on if she wins Ohio and loses Texas. But it will be going through the motions.

    If he loses OHIO, then she will not go on period.

    By Friday, she will concede.


    Friday is a day (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:22:04 PM EST
    that seems to be circulating....



    But she has to lose one of the big ones (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:23:13 PM EST
    That still has to happen.

    I hope so (none / 0) (#38)
    by myed2x on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:23:18 PM EST
    I'm just become weary of the bitterness that is being propagated b/c of this, whether or not it's justified or not...I keep feeling like there is a Republican strategist just working this all from the background muttering 'yes, yes my pretties, keep fighting, destroy yourselves from within' while mannequin McCain waits off stage for his opportunity to enter stage right with the panacea for all our ailments'

    Don't worry (none / 0) (#57)
    by Lil on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:33:54 PM EST
    We will beat McCain.

    I agree (none / 0) (#21)
    by Lil on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:18:14 PM EST
    but the first time I ever heard the idea was way back when Michelle Obama said something like if they didn't win Iowa it would be over. That obviously didn't shake out that way, but I remembered being surprised at the time that it was the threshold they had.

    Rumor has it (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:20:59 PM EST
    that Obama's internal polling shows him up in Ohio.....I think he is trying to dampen expectations consistent with the public polls.

    He has taken time to go to RI and Ohio, rather than staying in Texas to lock it up....He looks like he is trying to win both to end it.

    One of the t.v. guys says the guru for Youngstown, Ohio says Obama will win Youngstown, a gritty rust belt factory town, and thus win Ohio.


    Rumor has it? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:21:45 PM EST
    Oh boy. Who told you that one?

    I will try to find the blog (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:23:11 PM EST
    Hold on.

    Ah a blog (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:25:25 PM EST
    Well, that will be definitive.

    heck, might as well tell me Zogby said it.


    well, (none / 0) (#55)
    by myed2x on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:32:51 PM EST
    TL did cite Zogby in a positive light when it fit the narrative....despite your 'speaking for me only' disclaimer prior to that ;)

    Not me (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:33:35 PM EST
    I have stated in unequivocal terms that Zogby is a charlatan.

    Charlaton is a tad too whimsical ... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:56:17 PM EST
    a word for Zogby.

    Buckeye State Blog (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:28:12 PM EST
    Here is the link.  And a quote:

    Apparently in discussions a week ago folks with the Obama campaign indicated Obama wouldn't be in Ohio this current weekend unless something BIG was happening. Specifically, they indicated he'd continue to focus on Texas unless internal polling showed him leading above the margin of error in Ohio.

    Second-hand hearsay, but there you have it.


    It's a convoluted sentence (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:36:20 PM EST
    there, but it seems to say that, since he was in Ohio this weekend, his internal polling therefore would show him not leading in Ohio, and so much so that it's outside the margin of error.  So I see something other than what you see.  Can you parse the sentence your way for us?

    Even that quote (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:35:45 PM EST
    is kind of counter to your argument.

    He will be in Texas all day tomorrow.

    He was in Ohio for a blip today.

    Sounds like the "rumor" is in reverse to your conclusion.


    So you're saying he's giving up on Ohio? n/t (none / 0) (#60)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:35:50 PM EST
    why (none / 0) (#62)
    by Lil on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:37:42 PM EST
    would he return to Ohio if his numbers were above the margin of error?

    My reaction is different (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:39:49 PM EST
    if he had a lead in Ohio he would be pounding it home and trying to win there, a certain KO of Hillary.

    Frankly, campaigns do not give their internal polling to people outside the campaign ever.


    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:22:41 PM EST
    Does rumor have it he is winning in RI too?

    Let me put it this way, Obanma sure is going negative a lot for a guy who has it locked up.


    Good point. (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by ajain on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:11:06 PM EST
    The fact that Obama has been so negative in this last stretch of his campaign tells me something. Maybe he is just fighting back, but as a loyal Clintonite I am hoping he is simply worried.

    He is like Michal Jordan (none / 0) (#187)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:30:50 PM EST
    Michael would twist the dagger into the opponent to make sure the opponent had no chance of recovery. Obama learned the lesson of New Hampshire. There he allowed Clinton to trash him without a response. No longer. So even if he is up 20 he would still do what he is doing.

    Well... (none / 0) (#193)
    by ajain on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:33:26 PM EST
    I think she has done more damage to him than he has done to her.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#216)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:52:57 PM EST
    She had done more damage to him. He is not trying to damage her in that sense. If he were she would be unrecognizably damage, as there is plenty of material with which to damage her. I think he simply wants to win the nomination with honor.

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#238)
    by ajain on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:15:20 PM EST
    Like what? What info will he put out? Will he bring up Whitewater (something Axelrod did elude to on This Week, and something that has no legs)? Will he re-ignite the rumor that she killed Vince Foster?
    This non-sense has been in the public arena for years. If it had the potential to kill her it would have already.

    Also, lets not pretend that Obama has not tried everything to damage her. He has belittled her foreign policy credentials to drinking teas with ambassadors, he said she would say or do anything to get elected, he said that her claws were coming out. I mean he has tried a whole variety of things. And of course, the most successful tactic employed by the Obama campaign - the race card.


    There is virtually universal consensus (none / 0) (#243)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:36:34 PM EST
    that the Clintons played the race card and it mostly backfired. Obama is no idiot, his campaign would go down the toilet if he tried to play the race card.

    In talking about damage, I'm talking about personal attacks, race-baiting, invective. Stuff that has nothing to do with politics or policy. You would be hard pressed to find Obama ever attacking her on that basis.


    I think you've been (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by tree on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:40:15 PM EST
    spending all your time on Obama supporting sites, or istening to too much MSNBC, if you think there is some kind of universal consensus on the things you mentioned, because there really isn't such a consensus out in the real world.

    Forget about fairly tale and MLK, (none / 0) (#248)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:58:26 PM EST
    both of those were innocent and misinterpreted by the MSM. But stuff like the Jesse Jackson comment and other comments Bill made in SC. Stuff like Hillary's pollster saying that Latinos won't vote for a black candidate and Hillary basically concurring in one of the debates. Stuff like Bill himself saying that black S. Carolinians were voting on the basis of race (never mind that he got the same disproportionate percentage of black votes during his runs). Stuff like a Hillary higher up confiding that they wanted to turn Obama into "the black candidate." Stuff like a Latino supporter of Hillary stating yet again recently that Latino's won't for a black candidate, and Hillary initially not censuring the statement. Stuff about drug use and drug dealing. Shall I go on?

    And you must admit that Hillary has played the gender card to the hilt. She hasn't exactly tried to hide it. Obama is at a disadvantage because he cannot similarly play the race card. If he did then he would truly be a Jesse Jackson (in other words, not a serious contender).


    we've talked about the (none / 0) (#258)
    by kangeroo on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:50:16 AM EST
    race vs. gender card issue elsewhere; you can tell from my comments there that i disagree with you on this.  as for bill's comments in sc, in chronological order: (1) he pointed out what he hoped would be disproven, i.e., what he was being told about how aa's would vote (against hillary), and (2) re: jesse jackson, my guess is that bill felt really hurt and betrayed by the aa community.  not to mention he was being harangued by resentful, race-baiting reporters, who were at the height of their anti-clinton, race-baiting frenzy at the time.

    SO, in other words, (none / 0) (#223)
    by tree on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:57:49 PM EST
    he ISN'T like Michael Jordan. Quickest 180 I've seen in a long time. Michael Jordan quick!

    are you kidding me? (none / 0) (#256)
    by kangeroo on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:33:58 AM EST
    seth and ajain, do you know how long obama has been attacking hillary?  what she's done in response doesn't even come close to everything he's done for just over a year now.

    No, close in RI (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:23:47 PM EST
    but still behind...

    Obama internal polling again? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:24:59 PM EST
    I think the opposite (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:31:23 PM EST
    He is spreading himself thin--so if he loses Texas, it won't look so hot to have spent so much time in Ohio or RI.  He appears to think he can win both Ohio and Texas....

    But, yes, of course he could be wrong or just trying to keep all the Clintons from descending on Texas.


    Um (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:38:13 PM EST
    the trip to RI can be second guessed but the trip to Ohio?

    Absurd. He does  not want her to win by double digits.


    really though (none / 0) (#54)
    by myed2x on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:31:40 PM EST
    to play devils advocate, who really went negative recently in TV spots?

    Barack Obama did (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:34:10 PM EST
    most recently.

    example? (none / 0) (#67)
    by myed2x on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:43:49 PM EST
    hmmm, the subject line response does have it attractions ;)

    um, his most recent ad? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:50:46 PM EST
    What is the ad? (none / 0) (#200)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:35:54 PM EST
    I haven't seen it...not being in OH or TX.  Is it worse than her implicit suggestion that he won't be ready for the 3 am phone call?

    Some guru (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by hlr on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:56:11 PM EST
    guru for Youngstown, Ohio says Obama will win Youngstown, a gritty rust belt factory town, and thus win Ohio.

    I would expect him to win Youngstown given the demographics -- 45% black. How does winning Youngstown translate into winning statewide?


    Okay (none / 0) (#249)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:00:37 AM EST
    The quote was referrring to the Congressional District which contains Youngstown.....Yes, Youngstown proper has a large African American community, but the surrounding communities such as Austintown, Boardman, etc where Hillary was today are all white....blue collar, Catholic....tough gritty whites....a few better- off whites....

    I went to high school there....



    Here you go (none / 0) (#70)
    by s5 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:47:34 PM EST

    I'd love to carry Texas, but it's usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are.

    Texas is not important.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by americanincanada on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:54:50 PM EST
    OMG...you do realize she was talking about the GE, right? Not the primary?

    Ah, the response I was expecting (none / 0) (#96)
    by s5 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:17:16 PM EST
    Yes I know she's talking about the GE. The point is that it's another variation on "we don't need to win in X state because that kind of [state, demographic, etc] isn't important to us." It's the same theme in a different package.

    Just at look at how she's been moving the goalposts on the March 4th election. When she was up in the polls, her campaign started off with Texas AND Ohio were must wins. Now that she's down in Texas and close in Ohio, Texas is no longer "important to her plans for winning". Clearly the implication here is that Texas isn't a State That Counts(tm).


    Changing your own goalposts now? :-) (none / 0) (#101)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:22:28 PM EST
    Er, no (none / 0) (#104)
    by s5 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:27:00 PM EST
    She's saying that Texas doesn't count. Yet this line of reasoning didn't come from her campaign until she was down in the polls.

    Her campaign went from "we need to win Ohio and Texas" to "we're continuing on if we win Ohio".


    She did not say that (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:29:57 PM EST
    She said it was not gettable in November.

    As Alien Abductee likes to say, let's stick to the facts.


    Say that up here consistently when (none / 0) (#194)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:33:32 PM EST
    people are promoting paranoid untruths like about SS and I'll applaud.

    Please don't confuse (none / 0) (#108)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:34:19 PM EST
    fire the crowd talk from Bill for official campaign positions.  I'm not sure what she'll do if she doesn't win the popular vote in TX.  She does have a valid point about the GE though.

    She's obviously talking about the general election (none / 0) (#80)
    by Shawn on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:54:11 PM EST
    She said that to a Texas reporter, so I don't think she was trying to convince him that the Texas primary isn't important.

    Strategy. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Arbitrarity on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:49:04 PM EST
    So far, we are seeing more and more strategy of not losing, but at point is Hillary going to try to win this nomination?

    It's great to have two strong candidates, but it's also problematic because neither is going to win with a majority, only a plurality.  

    I'd really like to see either candidate go for that majority, instead of merely winning slightly more than the other and waiting for technicalities to pull them through.

    Um (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:50:23 PM EST
    One assumes she is trying to win Ohio and Texas. Not following your point.

    I'm speaking in a broader sense. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Arbitrarity on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:56:15 PM EST

    Instead of trying to make inroads with African Americans, the young, or the 'prius driving, latte drinking' crowd, all she ever did was try to stop him from pulling from her base.

    Obama has tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to take a greater share of the Latino and Women voters, but appears to have taken more of the Edwards support.

    To win the GE, one of them is going to have to take the other's 'core demographic.'  I'd feel much better about her viability if I saw her actively trying to do that.  


    Ok (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:57:48 PM EST
    I am sure she had a good shot at the A-A vote - NOT.

    Actually, if she could have held her base in Wisconsin, she could have won and may have had a real shot at winning the nom.

    Your political advice seems unsound to me.


    She had the AA vote (none / 0) (#87)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:58:44 PM EST
    until the confluence of "Embrace the Change" and Obama's win in Iowa.

    She had the African American vote ... (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:04:04 PM EST
    until any significant portion of African Americans voted.

    I agree with BTD here.  I don't think she ever had a chance with African Americans in the primaries.


    I see. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Arbitrarity on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:06:36 PM EST
    Okay, I'll concede the AA point.  I guess.  Though I don't see how foresaking the most stable democratic voting bloc is sound strategy.  Could she have outright won it?  Probably not.  But without such absolutely huge margins in regards to AA votes, he probably would not have done as well as he has up until this point.  At least trying to get them instead of conceding them would probably have made a difference.

    But why hasn't she tried to fight for the youth vote?  Or the wine-track vote?  

    Maybe I'm just being foolish, but expanding on one's support does not seem like a bad thing.


    It may not have been particularly smart (none / 0) (#115)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:39:35 PM EST
    but, so far at least, she's run the same campaign everywhere.  I see very little of the traditional "changing of the message" from her campaign, depending on what the audience wants to hear.

    One thing is for sure, if people vote for Hillary Clinton they know what they're voting for.  If we are ever to get a real mandate from an election, that's what it'll take - firm positions.


    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#214)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:48:28 PM EST
    ...where has he been that vague?

     Granted, his rhetoric has been better.  But what specific policy position has he been so vague on that you don't know where he stands?  



    Obama (apparently) outperforms the polls... (none / 0) (#93)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:05:18 PM EST
    ...since February 5 (leaving out Zogby's polls).  His average is 8.3 points above the average poll numbers (according to a new DailyKos diary).

    I actually don't think this will be the case this time.  It feels a lot like New Hampshire, where from what I understand there was in fact movement in the last day's polling toward Clinton.  I think that movement started to show up over the past 2 day in this case.  It will probably be close, but she's clearly stopped the momentum and regained some ground since Wednesday.

    If she does decide to go on (even if she loses Texas), it's a shame that there will be seven weeks of fighting before the next contest.  Yet another flaw in this awful selection process!

    "feels a lot like New Hampshire" (none / 0) (#102)
    by s5 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:22:40 PM EST
    Talkleft commenters were saying this before Wisconsin, and before the Potomac primaries too. For that matter, here's a post from BTD just before Wisconsin titled Does It Smell A Little Like New Hampshire?.

    I fully expect Obama to lose Ohio and Rhode Island, but hearing New Hampshire comparisons before every primary is getting a bit tired.


    Why? (none / 0) (#106)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:28:20 PM EST
    Because one of these times it may be true and that would be bad? :)

    Well.... (none / 0) (#111)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:37:28 PM EST
    ...I'm an Obama supporter and never said that before any of the post-New Hampshire primaries.  After New Hampshire, the momentum was always with Obama, however limited it may have been.  He didn't beat Clinton in several Super Tuesday states, but he did very well and it's likely that another few days would have netted him more victories. But since then, I have never thought that Clinton had a chance in a single primary, including Wisconsin (which I thought would be closer, but was sure that Obama would win).

    But this time it does seem a bit different.  Obama seems to have hit a ceiling in the Texas and Ohio polls and Clinton appears to have held her ground and maybe pushed back a bit.  And while I didn't much care for her ad, it may very well have worked with that same constituency that turned things around for her in New Hampshire, white women. Fair enough. That, and the fact that Obama has been getting it from all sides (including a somewhat defensive media that has been taken to task for being too soft up until now) all point to a Clinton moment.


    Its interesting (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:47:50 PM EST
    I honestly don't know what is going on, and I suspect neither does anyone else. We are all guessing. Sen Obama may have hit his limit, may still raise, or may start falling.

    I think that covers it pretty well, I am pretty sure I am right in one of these three scenarios! ;)


    I have no idea... (none / 0) (#132)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:49:11 PM EST
    ...what's going on.  This race has never not been interesting, and I've been wrong constantly!

    Just guessing and speculating - that's okay, I think. :)


    Stop the presses. Marvin has called it! (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:54:39 PM EST
    I imagine that you have pegged the multiple headlines that will be written and ready for Wednesday morning's papers.  

    I actually (none / 0) (#126)
    by americanincanada on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:45:51 PM EST
    don't think it smells as much like NH as it smells like California and MASS.

    americanincanada! (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:56:33 PM EST
    Stop with the giddiness!  You'll jinx it!!!

    Could it be that Tina Fey single-handedly turned this thing around?  Or was it a combination of things?  I've just really felt the wind shift.  

    For me (and sorry to bore those of you who have heard this before) I really felt like for a while there, anyone who supported Clinton wasn't just not an Obama supporter, but they were made to feel as if they were somehow lesser beings.  Like we didn't belong in our own party.  (And believe me, Obama's reaching out to repugs rhetoric did not help things)

    Maybe all these TV and movie folks coming out and SNL doing its thing and saying it's okay to support Clinton has made other folks realize that, yeah, she was their first choice for a reason. Speaking for myself, for a stretch it felt like just me, some TLers and my friends were the only Clinton supporters in the world.

    And I must say that the bad press building around Obama (such as it is) hasn't hurt things, either.


    Art does have mysterious powers. (none / 0) (#152)
    by ajain on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:01:54 PM EST
    I think its pretty funny that it took an SNL skit to turn the tide. It took pop-culture to really bring to the surface what so many of us were feeling.

    I'm glad it came up though. Not soon enough, but better than too too late.


    Hey now.... (none / 0) (#227)
    by americanincanada on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:59:14 PM EST
    not trying to jinx anything. Just visualizing the positive. there was a wonderful, nationwide moment of sending positive energy to Hillary tonight. You could almost feel the air move.

    it was spured by this video.


    I guess I am still on a high from it. Barakc Obama doesn't have a monoploy on creating a movement.

    As far as feeling like the only one. I did too. But not anymore. I don't know if it was Tina Fey but I will forever be grateful to her and SNL for finally opening some people's eyes and making it ok, even cool, to support Hillary again.

    I don't know what is going to happen on Tuesday but I do know I am feeling something that I have not felt in weeks. Hope. Barack Obama doesn't have a monoploy on that either.


    I suspect... (none / 0) (#228)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:59:25 PM EST
    ...her admission that she would take back her Iraq vote if she could helped matters.  As did the attack on Senator Obama's church and faith by the media and some of Senator Clinton's supporters.  Plus some guilt by those of us who supported Senator Obama but did not want to be perceived as sexist. You know, the reliable base that opposed the war from day one.

    Sure (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:28:15 PM EST
    And excluding polling on Weds and Fris. One of the sillier posts you'll see was that one.

    Did they exclude... (none / 0) (#121)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:42:54 PM EST
    ...those polls?

    I think the author of that thread included a number of caveats, but I see no reason to believe that Obama has not overperformed since Super Tuesday in most if not all primary states.  Maybe not by 8.3 points, but even if it's half that, given where the polls currently stand, that's a good omen for his campaign.

    I don't think that diary was silly, though.


    Plenty of caveats (none / 0) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:46:16 PM EST
    which begs the question, the point of the post was?

    The point of the post... (none / 0) (#147)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:58:27 PM EST
    ...was that Obama - according to one analysis with some caveats - outperforms the polls since Super Tuesday.  It was relevant to this thread, which is about the state of the race according to the polls.

    Did the author of that diary on DailyKos exclude Wednesday and Friday polls?  Or was that just sarcasm?  If so, why did I deserve it? I've agreed with you several times today, am being civil, chatting away about relevant things... what gives?


    The key being (none / 0) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:00:57 PM EST
    A LOT of caveats.

    Wisconsin was the meaningful performance.

    The rest were not imo.


    But not enough... (none / 0) (#157)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:05:32 PM EST
    ...to overturn the basic argument, that Obama has in general outperformed the poll averages in post-Super Tuesday primaries, by perhaps as many as eight points on average.  

    But anyway, it's not worth arguing over.  If you think it's irrelevant and worthless, fair enough.  It's your blog, after all.


    Actually (none / 0) (#164)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:10:37 PM EST
    it utterly overturns it when you exclude polls that undermine your argument.

    There is a word for it - oh yes, cherry picking.


    Which polls... (none / 0) (#181)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:25:57 PM EST
    ...were excluded from the argument?  Just one - Zogby, which you yourself have considered to be worthless.  Others that were excluded were those before John Edwards dropped out, which seems fair enough.  The averages came from Pollster.com.

    I don't think this DHinMI was cherrypicking the data just to arrive at a favorable result.

    You may think that the other states were not as important as Wisconsin in terms of Obama's overperforming, but overall, it does appear that he's outperformed - in polls without John Edwards - in every post-Super Tuesday primary.  I don't know why you find this such a terrible statement.  I'm willing to concede that it might not be as high as 8.3 points, but even if it were half that, 4 points in such tight races might make the difference.

    So, on the basis of this diary and what I've seen (I watch polls, too), I'd say that yes, since February 5 (and actually on February 5), Obama has outperformed the polls (and more than Clinton) in a way that potentially is a good omen for the upcoming primaries.  

    Look, I'm the Obama supporter who thinks that there is a "New Hampshire" feel to this primary, largely because Clinton appears to have stopped the momentum and even recovered a bit AND because the "Hillary is finished" narrative may work to her advantage, as it clearly did in New Hampshire.  I'm just bringing in some other information that is relevant to this conversation.  I'm not trying to prove that Obama will outperform, just that, according to one analysis, he generally does.  


    Keep your comment in topic (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:26:27 PM EST
    I just deleted two off topic comments.

    Are you going to delete (none / 0) (#259)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:57:31 AM EST
    the thread right below this - from #110 on down? It's all about Rezko and completely off topic. Not to mention rather gleefully scurrilous.

    What is silly (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:39:09 PM EST
    is your flat out lie that this site has done this 11 times.

    I am in a pretty foul mood right now so please be EXTRA civil at this site right now.

    Your comment will be deleted.

    This is for s5 (none / 0) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:39:46 PM EST
    Sorry... (none / 0) (#127)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:46:13 PM EST
    ...I thought it was for me!  I'm trying to be on my best behavior. :)

    I'm not sure what you mean (none / 0) (#124)
    by s5 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:45:32 PM EST
    What lie are you talking about, and what was uncivil? I'm sorry you disliked my comment; however, I'm attacking the New Hampshire analogy, not the commenter I was replying to. From what I can tell, my disagreement in this thread is lacking in name calling, trolling, or personal attacks. If you wish to explain what you disliked about my comment, I will note it for future reference.

    For the record... (none / 0) (#131)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:47:51 PM EST
    ...I didn't feel offended by s5's remark, which was directed at my post.  I'm an Obama supporter, but it does "smell like New Hampshire" to me.  I then responded to it in a friendly way.

    I was replying to Marvin42 (none / 0) (#133)
    by s5 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:49:53 PM EST
    But as I said, I was attacking the New Hampshire analogy, not Marvin42, who I don't know or have any personal opinion about. (no offense Marvin42, I'm sure you're a nice person!)

    Oh, I thought it was me... (none / 0) (#135)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:51:39 PM EST
    ...because I said I thought it felt like New Hampshire.  And I still do, for the above reasons.

    But sheesh, I'm just guessing - thinking out loud.


    See my comment 137 (none / 0) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:53:40 PM EST
    And if you can not abide by what I am asking, you should consider commenting at another site for a while.

    The remark (none / 0) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:52:52 PM EST
    was that Talk Left REPEATEDLY referenced New Hampshire.

    The lie was about Talk Left.

    The incivility was patent and directed at Talk Left.

    Right now the leash is very short on incivility and insults. I have been deleting comments all day.

    I am tired of it.

    I DEMAND the best behavior from you all.

    I will be suspending commenters liberally tonight.


    Maybe Obama isn't reporting (none / 0) (#148)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:59:28 PM EST
    his fundraising because... while not quite at the 100M mark, his numbers might be insane enough that he fears people will think, "don't you have ENOUGH money?" and won't donate anymore.

    Just speculating.  It's what I do....;-)

    I kinda think so too. (none / 0) (#158)
    by ajain on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:07:04 PM EST
    While I truly dislike Obama and hope he hasnt raised any money, I actually think he must have raised a decent chunk of change. Even though "unofficial" reports suggest $50 mil, I am sure the number is higher.

    I think they did not want to release their numbers because it would trigger a greater out-pouring from the Clinton supporters than it already has. Just a guess.


    the fundraising question (none / 0) (#153)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:02:22 PM EST
    BTW, why the mystery on how much Obama raised in February? Makes me think that it was not the monster numbers implied.

    I don't think its necessarily a bad sign.  One of the things that the Obama people have been incredibly good at is using "fund-raising" to change the subject when there has been bad news for Obama.

    I mean, Obama's January numbers didn't merely wipe out the fact that Clinton took in more in the fourth quarter -- his pre-emptive announcement made Hillary's 4th quarter lead a non-story.

    Her 4th quarter lead (none / 0) (#159)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:07:18 PM EST
    would not have happened (to the degree it did) without the news of his January numbers.  Nor would the personal loan have materialized, I would hazard to say.

    Fourth Quarter Ended in December (none / 0) (#161)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:09:36 PM EST
    So his January fundraising didn't change anything.  It was post-Feb. 5th that got a boost.

    Fundraising is one of the areas where Obama has been masterful at managing the media.  I think it's going to be an incredible number.


    From the actions of the Obama ... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:15:57 PM EST
    campaign over the last few days, it looks like they're not happy with where things are.

    My guess (but we're all guessing, aren't we?) is that they got some very bad internals on Friday which showed key trends reversing.

    There's just a grimness that doesn't look like a campaign about to wrap up a nomination.

    What actions are you referring to? I'm curious. (none / 0) (#191)
    by Angel on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:32:45 PM EST
    Haven't had much time to watch tv and read the blogs to know what is happening.  Thanks.

    It's not one of those things ... (none / 0) (#250)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:08:14 AM EST
    I just feel, I cannot point to direct evidence.  Just a grimness which doesn't look like determination.  

    It looks more like, "Oh, god, we're going have fight this thing for another six weeks."

    But sometimes politics is about feel.

    BTW, over on Dkos, they're having a fit over a completely innocuous statement Hillary Clinton made about Obama NOT being a Moslem.

    Last I checked the Diary had over one thousand replies.


    No (none / 0) (#201)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:36:01 PM EST
    They are simply trying to go in for the kill. Nothing wrong with that. He wants to get on with the GE.

    Obama needed callers (none / 0) (#230)
    by catfish on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:02:16 PM EST
    I signed up with all three email lists (Hillary, Obama and McCain) and got two emails from Obama's camp this weekend asking me to phone bank. None from Hillary none from McCain.

    Does this tell us anything? Inconclusive.


    Eh (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:03:55 PM EST
    I got emails from Clinton asking me to phone bank.  They've even set up phone banks here in California to help make calls easier.  

    My last email ... (none / 0) (#251)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:10:11 AM EST
    was just asking for money.

    I get phonebank info daily (none / 0) (#252)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:15:32 AM EST
    and lots more, but it's from my state and county Clinton organizers. Maybe you didn't sign up for your state group but only the national group?

    You could be right ... (none / 0) (#255)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:33:53 AM EST
    but I always get NY info.  So when there was a phone bank here they alerted me.  But mainly they just want my money.

    Everyone seems to want my money this week.  The Obama campaign even called me, and I've never given them money.  I'm not even on the email list.


    No disagreement from me... (none / 0) (#172)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:15:59 PM EST
    ...and I happen to think the results in MI would not be what you expect.  Having lived there for twenty-two of my twenty-five years and worked on political campaigns for Democrats, I do not think that the results would be the same.  I suspect her campaign managers know this, which is why they want the current, uncontested primary to count.  You know, the one where all the Democrats crossed over to support Senator McCain.

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#217)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:53:26 PM EST
    ...although I do love Senator Levin.  I happen to think he was right and that MI should have counted and should have been permitted to move up, but oh well.  Hindsight.  

    Tide is hopefully turning (none / 0) (#176)
    by athyrio on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:20:35 PM EST
    and actually originally I was a rather tepid supporter of Clinton, and liked Edwards alot...when Edwards dropped out, I took a look at what was left and started liking Clinton, due to the fact that she was being so unfairly attacked...(I also half the time root for the indians in western movies)...LOL....So in a perverse way, Obama helped me like Clinton much more....so thanks Obama supporters....

    Intrade Movement for Hillary... (none / 0) (#192)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:32:53 PM EST
    ...in Texas.  +6 points today.

    What does this mean?  Not a lot, just that enough people are paying attention to polls that suggest and other signs somewhat favorable to Clinton.

    Looks to me as if Intrade follows the polls (none / 0) (#203)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:37:29 PM EST
    And why in the wife's name? (none / 0) (#199)
    by lily15 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:35:05 PM EST
    And where did the money to buy the land come from?

    That is an issue as well.  This Iraqi billionaire...loans to Rezko...money Rezko wasn't
    supposed to have and which he is now in jail for pending trial...

    This is a joke, right? (none / 0) (#213)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:48:20 PM EST
    Don't embarrass yourself with this kind of stuff.

    I deleted it (none / 0) (#239)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:17:36 PM EST
    That was a very inappropriate comment you responded to, it's now history.

    Well done. (none / 0) (#242)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:31:15 PM EST
    Thank you (none / 0) (#244)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:38:34 PM EST
    It was weird.  First-time commenter, too.  May it be the last time.

    If it was the one I thought I saw (none / 0) (#247)
    by tree on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:42:44 PM EST
    I was going to invoke Godwin's Law.

    Don't be so sure Texas will go Republican (none / 0) (#246)
    by jfung79 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:41:25 PM EST
    On top of a SurveyUSA poll last week that showed Hillary within 6 of McCain, the latest WFAA/Belo Tracking poll shows McCain only leading Hillary 50%-46% in a general election matchup.  (He leads Obama by 8 and 7 points respectively.)

    Hillary has a good chance of winning Texas Tuesday -- but even if she doesn't, she would be the stronger general election candidate in Texas, and would definitely have a shot at it in November.

    New Zogby Poll (none / 0) (#254)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:20:31 AM EST
    Here is a link to a diary at Big Orange where the new Zogby numbers are described.  This diarest has for the last couple of nights gotten the scoop on the Zogby numbers ahead of time and been right.

    So, Obama leads in Ohio by 2 points.....

    Does that mean he is really behind by 8?

    Comments Closing Here (none / 0) (#257)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:47:57 AM EST
    Well over 200. There's a new post up on Texas and Ohio, feel free to comment there.