PA Poll: Clinton By 16; WV Poll: Clinton By 28

By Big Tent Democrat

Franklin and Marshall's latest PA poll shows Hillary Clinton doubling her lead in the Keystone State:

Hillary Rodham Clinton has doubled her lead in Pennsylvania and now has a majority of Democrats’ support, according to a new poll out today. Clinton now leads Barack Obama 51 percent to 35 percent among likely Democratic primary voters, according to the Franklin and Marshall College Poll. In February, the same poll found that Clinton was ahead by half that margin, 44 percent to 37 percent.

More . . .

One presumes that Obama's vociferous supporters will now declare that Pennsylvania, like Florida, Michigan and Ohio, do not matter. Because we all know those states have never been the electoral battlegrounds in the general election.

And since OH, FL, MI and PA do not matter, you can be sure West Virginia does not either:

Looking down the road to May 13, Senator Hillary Clinton holds a huge lead over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia Presidential Primary. The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the race shows that Clinton attracts 55% of the Likely Democratic Primary Voters while Obama is supported by 27%. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure.
< John Kerry on Why Barack Obama Can Bridge the Religious Divide | Michigan Legislature Adjourns Without Passing Revote >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So much for the speech (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by dianem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:58:37 PM EST
    As I've said before, it was a good speech. But a man who has defined his candidacy with "words", character, and spirituality is going to have a hard time dismissing the words of his long-term spiritual advisor as meaningless, given the context.

    Yeah, too bad the poll doesn't reflect the speech (4.00 / 1) (#16)
    by po on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:07:35 PM EST
    it's results are for the period March 11 - March 16.  Oh well . . . we'll just have to wait until the next one to see if you're correct.  

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:11:18 PM EST
    It is not clear what effect the speech will have, positive or negative. It could have made things worse.

    The speech WOULD have (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by mg7505 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:37:19 PM EST
    made things worse if it were Clinton. Imagine if her pastor said such things and she responded with the exact same speech. The punditocracy would call it triangulating and arrogant. Why? Because giving a speech about race is not the same thing as answering voters' serious (rightly or not) questions about your pastor's ideology. That calls for a candid interview(s), not a speech on your own terms to insulate yourself from all race-related criticism. His speech just dug the trench deeper between Clinton/Obama supporters -- his loved it, while hers saw it quite differently. Woe to those stuck in the middle.

    Mea culpa (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by dianem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:16:50 PM EST
    It never occurred to me that they would release week old data during a time when the numbers are changing daily. It's like handing out last year's newspaper to a class discussing current events.

    Some numbers HAVE come out since speech (none / 0) (#45)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:27:42 PM EST
    the effect has been zero or neglible at most. (so far)  This was reflected by both Rasmussen and Gallup who already commented on Tuesday night results after the speech and there was no immediate surge back to Obama.

    There were some major flaws and red flags in the speech itself which may have cancelled any positive effect.  (e.g., grandmother, Ferraro, failure to disavow pastor, flip flop on being there in the church and hearing statements)


    Gallup (none / 0) (#99)
    by PennProgressive on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:50:43 PM EST
    daily tracking  poll shows that Clinton is leading Obama 48-43. Yesterday it was 49-42. The sppech was meant for the national audience not just Pennsylvania, because I think that the Obama camp is already looking forward to November (after stopping  FL,MI revote, they must be feeling pretty good now).  A  few more days' tracking will be able to detect whether the  speech accomplished what senator Obama hoped for---to regain the  momentum. But in PA and KY, IN or  NC it may not have the desired  effect.    

    Just did a walk through (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:58:52 PM EST
    in the so called A list of blogs, and did not see the stories TL is covering.  

    Makes ya think.  

    And vice versa i am sure (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    People need to judge with the own minds what they think matters.

    One thing you will not see here is false smears against Barack Obama. you will see those all over the A-List blogs.

    That is my objection to them.


    Yep. I used to not like too much moderation (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:06:54 PM EST
    but Talkleft has more than proven it's worth it.

    BTD, if HC wins these upcoming states by anywhere near these margins, do you really think she should drop out rather than let the SD's decide it at the convention? I have really mixed feelings about that because I think a floor fight would be bad for our party, but I don't want to nominate someone who may no longer have much of a chance to win in November. Though, I'm starting to have my doubts that we'll win in Nov. with either of them.

    What should have been a primary for every Democrat to be proud of has turned into a messy nightmare.


    Frankly... (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:10:22 PM EST
    I hope she fights.  I hope they get it that it's not gonna be a cake walk to beat McCain.  I don't want to lose cause HIllary just let them push on us this artificial candidacy.  The more Obama is out there, the less he is liked, the Axelrod story is falling apart.  I don't want Hillary to drop out then we are stuck.  

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:12:30 PM EST
    it is now a guaranteed train wreck.

    I do not know what I will say if Clinton wins PA by 20. Which she might at this rate.

    That is hard to ignore.


    how about (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:14:00 PM EST
    by 28?

    expectations game Howdy! (none / 0) (#61)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    Let's just wait for the voters BTD (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:25:23 PM EST
    It saves us all from calling this race earlier than it needs to be and looking foolish.

    I was just looking at the comment section in response to an AOL poll regarding Wright and Obama and they were running about 80% negative for Obama.  It's not going away this time.


    *nodding* (none / 0) (#103)
    by Rainsong on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:38:04 PM EST

    Clinton does seem to be doing it,  "backwards, and in high heels".

    Maybe just me, but I was very impressed with how she got the Ohio voters out on bad roads in foul weather in flood and ice to vote for her in a primary.

    Defies all reason, but she is popular with millions of Americans. She must have some personal charm of her own.  

    But the Democratic Party have been complicit in damaging her. Does anybody know what she did to earn the Party's ex-communication? Is it political or personal, or both?


    If there is a floor fight (none / 0) (#84)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    it would guarantee full live media coverage like they used to and a chance for the whole country to see Hillary hold up.  It should be quite exciting.  

    Unless they have new DNC rules at conventions, I understand that delegates are only pledged for the first balloting.  If there is no winner, then they are free to vote for any candidate.  This should make for a riveting TV reality drama!

    Bringing up race is a risky thing for the Obama campaign (The speech, John Kerry, Claire McCaskill comments)  The rev. Wright's words are not going away ever! and Since Obama would not 'disown' him, unfortunately guarantees that it is there for all to see.

    For me personally, I cannot see any American, no matter how disgusted one might be about things as they are now, ever going to the extent of saying, 'God damn America,' and then have several in the congregation applaud.  Imagine condemning every American, guilty or not! That is so terrible. Talk about 'using the Lord's name in vain!.


    They don't exist in Obamaworld (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by dianem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:05:46 PM EST
    In Obamaworld, Obama is so far ahead that Clinton doesn't have a chance, his speech was so effective that even dedicated Republicans are considering voting for him, and the right-wing is going to crash and burn this fall as they futily attempt to burst the Obama bubble using their nasty campaign techniques.  

    Ostriches and holes in the ground (none / 0) (#43)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:23:45 PM EST
    the theme of the Obama supporters this March.

    28 (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:02:47 PM EST

    looking BLEAK for Obama in Appalachia (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:21:52 PM EST
    Those numbers are in Huckabee territory. (yes pun intended)

    It is bleak for him in Appalachia. (none / 0) (#49)
    by liminal on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    There was one previous poll by a WVa outfit that showed a 48-24 lead, back in February.  Fortunately, at least, both Clinton and Obama are campaigning in WV - two stops each for them in the past two days.  

    Not only (none / 0) (#97)
    by sas on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:40:40 PM EST
    will he get pounded in PA and WV, he is going to have BIG problems in Kentucky.

    Further, he is now ahead by 1 in North Carolina.

    At this point, I do not see him winning Indiana either.

    I do see him winning in SD and Oregon.

    I think Hillary will definitely overtake him in the popular vote.

    I would not want to be a superdelegate.


    I would sure like to be a fly in the mind (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by zyx on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:17:41 PM EST
    of a lot of superdelegates this week.

    you would have plenty of room (none / 0) (#70)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:54:17 PM EST
    to buzz around.

    if I could be in their brain (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:16:27 PM EST
    I would rather be one of those things Ricardo Montalban picked out of the tank in that StarTrek movie that could wrap myself around their alligator brain and bend them to my will.

    I'm an unreconstructed trekkie! (none / 0) (#88)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:08:30 PM EST
    The star trek episodes are my model for the post-racial/sexist generation.  The characters were there doing  their jobs without regard to those things.

    But the fact that most of the SD's have not declared their support for either candidate, could be an indication that they are seriously examining the electability factor, in light of the problems that have arisen for Sen. Obama i.e. Powers, Canadian/Nafta, Rev. Wright, Michigan/Florida.  

    Reminds me of Will Rogers saying:  "I do not belong to any organized political party--I'm a democrat."


    Sqeemish (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:19:57 PM EST
    Why are people so squeemish when it comes to democracy and politics?  It's not pretty, it's not fair, it's not clear cut and it's not obvious.  If you want to truly work at democracy you have to live with the messy bits.  You make rules, they don't work until they are tested.  Let them fight it out.  

    With Obama as the candidate, it's a landslide (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:21:40 PM EST
    for McCain. SurveyUSA has McCain beating him in Minnesota and tying in Mass. Clinton wins in both head to heads.

    If the current Obama numbers hold to the GE, he will lose by well over 100 electoral votes.

    The writing is on the wall, imo (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:40:25 PM EST
    Our best shot in November may be Clinton/Obama ticket.  Best way to minimize defections to McCain and the most experienced/un-swiftboatable person at the helm.

    Un-swiftboatable I said.


    Not anymore (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:21:22 PM EST
    Too much water under the bridge.  The same issues against Obama will be used against the two of them in the GE. Obama himself has expressed disinterest, if not downright disdain of the idea.

    The AA community has always been a democratic party constituency.  If Barack does not want to be VP, that will not be taken against Hillary. By the time the GE comes along, the democrats will mostly coalesce behind Hillary.


    Obama will get the nom (none / 0) (#102)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:36:15 PM EST
    I don't see any way in which the superdeez don't give the nom to Obama.  He will have the dels, he will have the popular vote (barring some huge shifts in the remaining states), he has the media.  The media has tried to beat down the electability arguments.

    i believe they agreed under duress. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:32:46 PM EST
    Besides, wasn't it not so long ago that BHO and HRC both agreed that FL and MI delegates wouldn't count.

    it's not like it was their idea to begin with, it was the DNC's, an idea that looks less than inspired as the days go on. in fact, the "rule" wasn't even applied across the board. rather, it was applied only selectively.

    ah yes, revenge, "a dish best served cold."

    I am serving them the dish they have been spreading for months now.

    getting a little petty here, aren't we boys? in truth, i've never been swayed by sen. obama's campaign, this time. i thought (and still think) that he'd have been well advised to wait, make his bones in the senate with a solid legislative record, and then be the democratic standard bearer in 2016.

    i looked forward, with great relish, to having two outstanding democratic candidates to support for the next 16 years. oh well, the best laid plans and all that.

    let me take my flight of fancy even further. mark warner, former gov. of va, and set to run for (and most likely win) the sen. seat of john warner (retiring) was, in my mind, the perfect running mate for obama in 2016. i could just see those two kicking butt and taking names! with warner on board, va would actually vote for a democrat for president! oh happy day!

    alas, i fear such is not to be. not only are sen. obama's prospects diminishing by the hour for this election cycle, i am truly concerned about his long-term viability; what else is going to come popping out of his past, to be used as a cudgel by the republican/right-wingnut smear machine?

    while i do not believe he was ready this time around, the last thing i want is him permanently damaged, that would be a tragic loss for the party and country.

    Amen cp. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    while i do not believe he was ready this time around, the last thing i want is him permanently damaged, that would be a tragic loss for the party and country.

    I'm a hardcore Clinton supporter but I take no joy in seeing Obama brought down this way. I want him to be President next time, just not this time.


    Agreed: (none / 0) (#89)
    by nemo52 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:15:47 PM EST
    Unlike BTD, I think Obama is a weaker candidate than Clinton in the General, and I think he'll go down big.  But I take no pleasure in the thought.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#98)
    by sas on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:46:00 PM EST
    next time would be better.  Right now he is doing amatuerish things.  Today he used the words that his grandmother was a "typical white person" - bad, bad, choice of words.

    It's freaky what a little bad press (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:51:15 PM EST
    can do to a candidate in American. And I don't understand because I guess I've always had a tad of the political junky to me and I've looked behind the curtains and tried to understand everything back there.  I have larger issues with Obama that the press hasn't even touched but voters are swayed because his minister/friend has said some freaky things.  I can never run for office with the friends I have ;)

    this Wright problem went beyond the press (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:42:26 PM EST
    the videos just spoke for themselves.  All someone has to do is watch them or hear them on the radio and come to their own conclusions.

    The MSM actually tried not to play the worst clips for the first 2 days (except for FOX)

    The problem for Obama is that this is still not going away because of several subsequent statements from him and his surrogates and the fact he didn't disavow the pastor, etc.


    Joe Scarborought ... (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:58:57 PM EST
    on Morning Joe was talking about how tough Hillary Clinton is.  He noted that he like her because of this, he respects toughness.

    Then he went on to say, noting that many wouldn't like the comparison, that the two toughest people in American politics are Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney.

    He said if it was 3:00 AM and the nukes were coming, he'd put Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney in situation room in the White House.  And he'd sleep like a baby.

    It's this perception, widely held but rarely stated, that accounts for Hillary's lead in PA.  And it's why if Hillary is the nominee she will beat John McCain.

    It's also why a lot of Dems don't like her. And it's why her negatives cut both ways.  Even people who personally dislike her will still vote for her, because what they dislike about her is the very thing many of them want in a president.

    or maybe (4.00 / 1) (#3)
    by po on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    they'll just say another day, another poll; let's see what happens when the votes are cast as primary day is still some time in the future.  Counting chickens -- it's what got someone in this pesky situation in the first place.

    You think? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    Counting the votes is such a novel idea. Obama supporters seem to be against that one.

    OR have you missed that?


    Must have (3.00 / 1) (#13)
    by po on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:05:48 PM EST
    FL and MI votes were counted.  Presently, their delegates will not be seated.  My understanding is that it is the national Democratic Party that has problems with FL and MI.  Last I check BHO was just a candidate for the nomination, not the dictator of the party. Besides, wasn't it not so long ago that BHO and HRC both agreed that FL and MI delegates wouldn't count.  So if that was (once) both their positions, what's your point?

    you are unfamiliar with the (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:08:22 PM EST
    facts on MI and FL.

    But also unfamiliar with the incessant call for Hillary Clinton to drop out immediately, before all the votes are counted.

    Please provide some frankness next time.

    I enjoy a good discussion, but with folks who play fair.


    it was never the candidates' position that the (none / 0) (#73)
    by plf1953 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:06:09 PM EST
    votes or delegates wouldn't count.

    They all merely pledged not to campaign in MI and FL.

    Here is the actual pledge for the umteenth time:

    THEREFORE, I _____, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
    I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

    This is it ... nothing more nothing less.

    Please educate yourself about this and stop spreading or insinuating falsehoods.


    Those are impressive leads for Senator Clinton. (4.00 / 1) (#30)
    by clio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:16:06 PM EST
    And if this ABC panty sniffer and this AP smear generate the amount of sympathy for Senator Clinton that I think they will, those leads will continue to grow.

    Is it at all possible that ABC and AP meant to help Senator Clinton?
    .......blushes.  answers self......
    They're not smart enough.

    Contessa Brewer on MSNBC (none / 0) (#48)
    by magisterludi on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:30:56 PM EST
    was despicable today. Absolutely slanderous and hateful when it came to anything Clinton. I hope her preacher grand-daddy is proud of his little harpy.

    I swear, there are times when I believe Jack Welch, GE honcho and ultimate MSNBC biggianthead and big fat McCainite, has paid handsome bonuses to all the talking morons he employs so as to ultimately throw the election to his own private warmonger.


    Ah, we in her previous market (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:37:19 PM EST
    know the Contessa.  Still up to her ol' tricks, I see . . . in every way, no doubt.  Not a journalist.

    Rove Aide Now On Board As Well (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:40:01 PM EST
    Today, MSNBC brought on former White House political director Sara Taylor to talk about how right-wing groups plan to attack Sen. Barak Obama (D-IL) over his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Taylor was a top aide to Karl Rove and intimately involved in both the U.S. Attorney scandal and the politicization of federal agencies. The White House had originally blocked her from testifying to Congress, which had issued a subpoena for her appearance.

    think progress


    Rasmussen (3.00 / 1) (#17)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:07:36 PM EST
    Has Hillary down 10% vs McCain.  Her numbers there are dropping more that Obama's.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:13:26 PM EST
    that is one poll and hardly a salve for Obama.



    Hardly a salve for anyone (4.00 / 1) (#27)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:13:58 PM EST
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:16:38 PM EST
    But it is cherrypicking on your part.

    I doubt you seriously believe that at this time Obama is the stronger GE candidate in PA.

    Your Obama argument has to be Colorado, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mxico, Iowa, etc.

    There is no doubt that right now Clinton is the stronger candidate in PA, OH, MI and FL. At least no doubt to me.


    Except Clinton won New Mexico and Nevada (none / 0) (#47)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:30:47 PM EST
    say what?  Will Obama win them in a general and Clinton not?  Doesn't seem likely to me.

    Says more about McCain's chances than anything (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:15:21 PM EST
    I don't see her numbers dropping more (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:18:52 PM EST
    with any significance.  A week ago, both Clinton and Obama were at 44 there, and now she's at 41 and he's at 42.  There is a wider gap between Clinton and McCain, but that's different from what you cite.

    I really wish Romney had won. I'm getting (4.50 / 2) (#19)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:09:52 PM EST
    worried that with all our fighting, McCain will come out looking like the reasonable grown-up.

    dont look now (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:13:15 PM EST
    but he is already doing it.
    and thanks to our catfight he is sliding on all kinds of silly mistakes that go right to the heart of his "ready on day one" thing.

    It's certainly trending that way. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:21:21 PM EST
    It doesn't do us any good as a party to have Obama win if white women desert him in droves. Likewise, having Hillary as the nominee is pointless if the Starbucks crowd and AAs won't vote for her. Sure, one group of supporters gets to cheer and gloat and the other gets to wail and gnash their teeth, but we all end up kissing the Supreme Court goodbye.

    And democrats just don't hate McCain the way they do many Republicans. I don't think he's scary enough to unite the party all by his lonesome.

    Ah well. As the sage once said: "I'm not a member of any organized political party; I'm a Democrat."


    The only hope is Clinton/Obama. (4.66 / 3) (#42)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    can't be (none / 0) (#62)
    by po on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:42:33 PM EST
    ain't you heard, he ain't ready and his pastor says bad things that he must, since he's part of the congregation, believe 110%.  Tearing him down means you can't bring him up.  Soooooorrrrrry.

    Actually (none / 0) (#67)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:51:09 PM EST
    It is true, he probably can't be VP with this hanging around him. No one is tearing him down, it is what it is.

    Also he has flatly ruled out being VP, remember? He is probably way too experienced for that.


    Then we're in trouble. (none / 0) (#69)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:52:27 PM EST
    Just look at the comments on this blog, where BTD and Jeralyn do their level best to keep things civil. Then imagine what the rhetoric must be like in the campaigns themselves. Now imagine trying to integrate them.

    Besides, the gains to both candidates are minimal. If Obama really wants to be President, he's far better off wishing Hillary well and then going off to be Governor or something else for a few years and then coming back fresh. The office of VP is not a particularly good stepping stone to the top...and it would probably be even worse if you had to share the media spotlight with Bill. And Hillary doesn't really gain that much either...the 'creative' crowd knows that Obama as VP won't be in a position to deliver any of the change they crave, and while it might help lure AAs back into the fold, it might also have a serious backlash effect if it's perceived as a 'back of the bus' maneuver.

    I know that a joint ticket is BTD's answer, but I'm having a hard time seeing it right now.


    I'm curious as to whether BTD still (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:02:59 PM EST
    thinks a jt. ticket is the answer.  A lost has changed since he proffered that viewpoint.

    Rush is openly taking credit (4.00 / 1) (#26)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:13:37 PM EST
    for the Texas primary win now...Probably not true, but feasible using certain exit polls.  Operatation Chaos.

    if Rushkins can take credit (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:16:32 PM EST
    for that I think Kos should be given credit for Obamas "win" in Michigan.
    he had quite a campaign going.

    Romney will probably be VP (4.00 / 1) (#34)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:17:00 PM EST
    4 years seeing these two on our TV is looking very probable.

    Please (2.00 / 1) (#1)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:56:24 PM EST
    Obama's supporters have never said that any states don't count (other than FL and MI, which don't).  We argue that overall pledged delegate and vote totals should determine the nominee.

    Nor have any Clinton supporters (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    said no states count.

    Did you protest when that lie was spread around? How about the lie spread around that Clinton was disenfranchising voters in Nevada and Texas?

    I am serving them the dish they have been spreading for months now.

    Those who stood silent against such smears have no standing to protest now.


    Well, (4.00 / 1) (#11)
    by HeadScratcher on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    Some Clinton supporters do say that Obama's red state wins don't mean anything....

    Well, Clinton can win West Virginia in a (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:07:21 PM EST
    general election. Obama isn't going to win Utah (or Colorado for that matter) in a general election.

    Yep, WV loves a miner's (grand)daughter (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:42:14 PM EST
    as the song sort of goes.  Remember, Clinton's grandpa in Pennsylvania, nearby, was a miner.  And remember the recent mining disasters?  In West Virginia.  It's still a massive industry there -- and one that they know others can't understand unless they've been part of the mining clan.  They are tight.

    They do not say it does not count (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:10:14 PM EST
    MOST say Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan count MORE than WY, MS, UT and ID.

    And strictly by the numbers, this is an unassailable fact.

    Do you see the difference between not counting and counting LESS? I know you do. I know THEY do. They are being disingenuous.


    That is not at all the point (none / 0) (#46)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:29:15 PM EST
    Clinton supporters have been making.  They have been arguing that Obama's lead in votes and delegates is not a legitimate lead because he hasn't won the states they consider important.

    I have never heard such argument made (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:40:17 PM EST
    That's not the point being made (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by KevinInNYC on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:49:10 PM EST
    The point being made is that the race is tremendously close, but one candidate has shown far more success in the swing states and swing demographic groups.    Clinton is the candidate of the two who seems to be building the coalition needed to win in November, more so than the one needed to win the Democratic primary.   It's a conundrum, to be sure.  

    But I think the argument that the more Barack gets out there, the more people like him, has been laid to rest. Would he have won the Texas primary if it had been held one week earlier?  Would the Ohio margin have been much closer, if held one week earlier?   Polling in both states and early voting totals in Texas indicate yes.

    Now, two weeks after Ohio/Texas/RI/VT, which was the same gap of time between the Potomac primaries and the March mini-Super Tuesday, we see the state polls in PA swinging in Hillary's direction again, after voters in that state seemed to be giving Obama a careful look and considering supporting him.  

    Will it move back in his direction again? Maybe, we still have a few weeks.  Maybe Hillary will implode with her own demographics.   But with the next four primaries being PA, IN, NC and WV, and it looking like Hillary will win three of those by big margins and possibly win NC as well, April and May could be very, very good for Hillary.  I don't think a lead in pledged delegates and popular vote our out of her reach, even without Michigan and Florida.  


    ...with the exception of WI (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by smott on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:42:03 PM EST
    ....I think HRC has been way, way more stable with her demographics...

    She seems less risky in every way right now.

    Man I wish BO had waited 4-8 years.



    Which, (none / 0) (#53)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:37:08 PM EST
    Even if that IS the argument Clinton supporters have been making, that is a far cry from claiming "states don't count".  A quote that I have seen no attribution for but which has appeared with alarming frequency on some other blogs.

    "The states they consider important" (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    is an intriguing phrase, as I thought that the larger states with more EC votes were more important for that very reason.

    Which states do you consider important, then, in winning the EC?


    Many Obama supporters... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by dianem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    ...have been claiming that it was impossible for Clinton to take the remaining states with enough of a margin to win the primary, arguing that she should just drop out and spare everybody the conflict of going to the convention. They are, essentially, saying that the opinions of the remaining states don't matter, that Clinton should just give up and let them go, Obama has it sealed up.

    Clinton supporters have been saying that she should go the distance, giving every state a chance to vote, regardless of whether she was statistically likely to win or not.

    I'm not saying that there wasn't a grain of truth in what the Obama supporter's said - Clinton is still a longshot right now. But those states have a right to have their votes counted, even if it would be more convenient for Obama if Clinton dropped out now.


    The upcoming contests don't favor him (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by KevinInNYC on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:55:25 PM EST
    So of course, they want her to drop out.  Quite frankly, Hillary was hoping for a knockout win on Super Tuesday for the same reason: the rest of the states in February did not favor her, and the momentum narrative would threaten (and did threaten) her chances on 3/4.

    Now, big wins in PA, followed by a big win in IN and tight race/maybe victory in NC, then another big win in WV, could start the following narrative that Obama wants to avoid: The Wright controversy has mortally wounded him with all voting blocs except AA's, which gave him a win/kept him close/couldn't pull him over the finish line in NC, but led to big losses in PA, IN, WV.    Though I'm sure he'll do quite well in the Guam caucus, I don't think that will be enough to pull him through.

    I could see a big win, however, in Oregon for him, if he's able to rebuild his coalition, so that could help him make the case that the other April/May states favored Hill demographically, but he can win swing states like MO, OR, IA and WI, which Dems need to win in the fall.


    ...if we know anything about the Clintons... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by smott on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:42:54 PM EST
    ...it's that they do not throw in the towel.

    She's staying and she's fighting.


    She earned the right to stay in with OH & TX (none / 0) (#104)
    by Rainsong on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:21:08 PM EST
    Clinton supporters have been saying that she should go the distance, giving every state a chance to vote, regardless of whether she was statistically likely to win or not.

    I suspect Obama was expected to take out Clinton early in the primaries, and given an edge in momentum with a string of small wins, and strong MSM support, to take him through OH & TX, so he could be unofficially crowned alongside McCain.

    It didn't go according to the plan. Clinton's wins in OH & TX were also politically impressive campaigning, a quality slam-dunk regardless of the delegate count. She earned the right to stay in.

    Quantitative counts are one measure, but in my view, qualitative measures of electability should be as important, and arguably, even more important, measures of GE electability. It does matter which states, which demographics, which campaign tactics appeal etc.

    The Dem primary system of allocating delegates is heavily skewed, weighted heavily towards small states, red states and caucuses. That doesn't mean they should, (or inevitably will), count equally in the weighing up of a decision.

    If they received a fair-share of delegates relative to other big states, they probably would be lucky to have one or two lonely figures at the back of the hall.

    For all I know, that biased weighting is partly designed to reward the efforts of those small cadres of loyal, hard-working, Democrat partisans living in unwinnable states and regions. Crappy job, but they do it, they man the hustings in solid red territory every election, got to give em something back for that :)  

    Rewarding them with more than a fair-share of tickets to Denver for their delegates,  and 'butts-on-seats' for the Convention, is one way of doing it.

    And the Convention also hopefully looks at other things in addition to just the Presidential candidates in an election year, eg general Party policies, platforms and principles, downticket elections etc, and those smaller delegations can have valuable input into all of that stuff.


    Dum spiro, spero! (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Doc Rock on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:57:03 PM EST

    You sure do enjoy (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:22:12 PM EST
    poking sticks at Obama supporters, BTD.

    Not enjoyable (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:38:17 PM EST
    But believe necessary. I have found their behavior execrable for the most part.

    Yes (none / 0) (#90)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:16:43 PM EST
    because Obama supporters are inherently different than Hillary supporters.

    Why is it necessary to poke sticks at the 4 or 5 Obama supporters that read this blog?  


    You should rephrase (none / 0) (#56)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:38:35 PM EST
    BTD sure enjoys poking sticks at Obama supporters who abandon logic or put him above the party.

    Which may get tiresome for all concerned, concentrated as it is.  Too bad it's not a blogosphere-wide effort.


    O/T sure is interesting that Sen. Edwards will (none / 0) (#50)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:32:21 PM EST
    appear on the Tonight Show tonite...Wonder if he will endorse anyone??

    Hey may drop some hints, but (none / 0) (#52)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:36:32 PM EST
    An endorsement of that caliber would most likely come in a joint rally with the candidate of his choice with a big press conference and balloons, etc. :)

    Edwards Surrogate on Fox (none / 0) (#63)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:43:38 PM EST
    Someone from the Edwards camp was just on.  Not positive on Clinton's opportunity to get the nom.

    Who was it? (none / 0) (#86)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:06:34 PM EST
    Someone officially representing Edwards?

    It was someone (none / 0) (#91)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:42:32 PM EST
    from his campaign.  Baunburn or something.  I forgot to write it down.  

    he should accept the VP (none / 0) (#64)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:45:15 PM EST
    if he continues to downward trend, after Penn.It should make things clearer for the nomination. And Hillary should do the same.
    Blame the nature of the 50 state strategy both sides are in the current pickle, which includes the gaming of the caucuses. Obama did take the advantages  -- of naive groups of citizens, well done.

    But the 50 state strategy ran into a buzz saw.

    Its now about the superdelegates and the convention.
    Neither side wants to give in nor should they.

    Its about the numbers to the end and let the games continue.  McCain is done, like Bob Dole, talk about negs. He's got the whole carreer in the senate to prop up both Dems.

    Nope, he's poison on the ticket now (nt) (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:43:41 PM EST
    Yup. (none / 0) (#85)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:59:44 PM EST
    Now she shouldn't even want him on the ticket. he's a downright liability.

    ...didn't Pelosi (none / 0) (#82)
    by smott on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:44:45 PM EST
    ...quash the joint ticket?? Just like impeachment was off the table?

    The latest round of SUSA state-by-states (none / 0) (#75)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:18:09 PM EST
    gives some relief.

    Not from (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:07:16 PM EST
    what I saw. SUSA MASS puts Obama and McCain tied. That is bad. Especially when Hillary is beating McCain by 13%.

    got a link? (none / 0) (#83)
    by smott on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:47:32 PM EST

    since these (none / 0) (#93)
    by myed2x on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:25:25 PM EST
    are not large primary states, they obviously don't matter or reflect the popular vote... ;)

    Obama Drop Out of Presidential Race (none / 0) (#94)
    by Honest John on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:28:15 PM EST
    I am African American and for some time I have supported Mr. Obama. I can no longer support you Mr. Obama. I call on you Mr. Obama to withdraw your Candidacy for President of the United States of America. Fact Mr. Barrak Husien Obama (your Islamic Muslim name not your original Christian name Barry).  The Law of Attraction states that like attracts like. Your Immoral, unethical and illegal actions speak far louder of the truth of your true character Mr. Obama, than your empty lying words.  Fact Mr. Obama you stand by your pastor for 23 years knowing of his Racist, Gender Biased, Sexist, Marxist, Islamic Radical Extremist and Black Supremacist beliefs.  We the people will not tolerate a President like you Mr. Obama who will force Black Supremacist, Racist, Islamic Radical Extremist, Gender Biased, Sexist, Marxist laws and beliefs on the people of the USA.  Fact you benefitted greatly Mr. Obama from your friendship with Mr. Rezco and others knowing of their illegal and corrupt activities for 20 years.  Fact the Choir Director of your church Mr. Obama was murdered to prevent him and others from coming forward with the truth of who you really are Mr. Obama and your illegal, immoral activities, illegal political favors given and received plus male and female sexual encounters before and during your marriage.  Fact you disrespect women and consider women to be second class citizens or worse. You passed and did not vote on bills that protected women's rights or gave women more rights. Fact Mr. Obama you were on the board of Woods Fund of Chicago for three years with your friend William Ayers the Leader of the Weathermen Terrorist Group who has stated he and his wife should have planted more bombs in the USA and it is still a good idea to bomb the USA again. Fact the Woods Fund of Chicago is for aiding and funding Islamic Muslim Radical Extremist groups.  Fact Mr. Obama you campaigned for your cousin Raila Odinga (Muslim) in Kenya who ran for the office of President in Kenya.  Mr. Odinga is the leader of the Islamic Muslim groups inciting violence among the poor tribes responsible for the murder of Christians, men, women, children and political supporters of the incumbent who won the Presidential Election in Kenya. You had your people going to countries telling the government representatives that your remarks in your speeches were just fluff to get the voters to vote for you and are not to be taken seriously by them Examples:  Nafta gate and your Foreign Policy gate. Mr. Obama you have a sneaky and cunning ability to twist and change the meaning of the words of your opponents so it sounds like they said something totally different from what was actually said.  You change Hillary's real honest accountable words into your lies everyday.  That is really Pathetic Mr. Obama. There are many more illegal immoral and unethical actions you have committed to be leaked out to the public soon.  You Mr. Obama are HOPING these other actions of yours do not become public. You have a hidden agenda of Black Supremacy forcing Islamic Law and Religion on the people of the USA. Your brand of HOPE and CHANGE stinks Mr. Obama.  You invoke the words of JFK and Rev. Martin Luther King or use some inspiring story every time you lie to the American People in your speeches. JFK and Rev. MLK were accountable for their words Mr. Obama. Their actions supported the words they spoke.  Your words Mr. Obama are not backed by your actions. You Mr. Obama are not accountable to your words. You Mr. Obama and Adolf Hitler are two of the greatest manipulative con artists in the history of the world. Mr. Obama do the right action Mr. Obama have the cajones, huevos, the balls, the morals, the ethics, the courage to withdraw and concede your Candidacy for President of the United States of America to Hillary.  Every day you stay in the race to become President you bitterly divide the Democratic Party and the People of the USA.  You make a mockery of our political process and our country. You have no qualifications and very little ethical and moral experience to be President of the USA. You are a disgrace to all African Americans, the Democratic Party and all the people of the USA.  Mr. Obama please do the right action for once in your life. Concede your Candidacy for the position of President of the United States of America to Hillary.  Mr. Obama you are extremely selfish.  Because of your selfishness I know this will be tough for you to do. I know you can do it.  You can be brave withdraw and concede your candidacy for the President of the USA to Hillary. Mr. Obama just in case you choose to show your poor judgment, irresponsibility and remain in the race for President of the USA. People please vote for Hillary Clinton for President.  Hillary is the best candidate with most experience, knowledge, and ability to bring about true and inspiring change that will greatly benefit all Americans.  Hillary will be the President of the people who will restore the Constitution and restore the Checks and Balances to our Government. Hillary will unite Americans, both political parties and international leaders to do what is best for America. Hillary has 30 plus Generals, Admirals, 2 former Secretaries of State and a Colonel who say she is the best to end the Iraq War and win the war in Afghanistan. Hillary will bring home jobs and create new jobs all across America, raise dollar amount of Pell grants for college students, lower interest rates on student loans, solve the housing crisis, solve the k-12 educational problems, create green jobs, lower costs of health care and make sure every American has insurance, and so much more for the American people.  Hillary is more genuine, compassionate, listens to people, is more diplomatic and answers people's questions in a direct manor. Mr. Obama just talks. Mr. Obama doesn't have good listening skills and evades the answers to very important questions and twists the words of Hillary and McCain around so that it sounds like they said totally different things than what they actually said in their speeches and Q&A. Mr. Obama you Mr. McCain's and Hillary's real honest accountable words into you lies. Example: In Texas on the night of primaries and caucuses Obama said that McCain and Hillary had been saying all along the people who told Obama, McCain and Hillary their life stories were using empty words just political rhetoric that has no meaning, no substance and are not important words. What McCain and Hillary said all along was that Obama's words were empty and have no substance to back them up.  Mr. Obama said the people's words are empty have no substance, are not very important words and have no meaning.  Mr. Obama's these words you twisted into lies are your words express your True feelings about the people of the USA. Mr. Obama hates the People of the USA.  Hillary has a whole lot more experience, knowledge, diplomacy skills to unite the people of the USA, both parties, and foreign leaders so that real honest inspirational beneficial change will happen. Vote for Hillary and Democracy and Vote against McCain and the Aristocracy.

    What TalkLeft Proves To Me (none / 0) (#96)
    by facta non verba on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:48:39 PM EST
    is that we can have rational discussions about the race and about Senator Obama in particular.

    I don't think that the speech is likely to regain Senator Obama the momentum he is seeking. About all it can do is find a floor for his level of support. And the news cycle continues to be rather unkind.  

    media and bias, etc (none / 0) (#101)
    by Kyle on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:29:17 PM EST
    again, it's interesting that the media outlets aren't even thinking of touching the Clinton's or McCain's bagage in the same way
    they are doing so to Obama.

    if they want to join Swift Boat Veterans
    and FoxNews no one can stop them.
    that determines who will be president.
    it's not rocket science, people.