home

Can Clinton Win The Popular Vote?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:41:55 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Ben Smith of Politico thinks it will be very difficult for Hillary Clinton to catch Barack Obama in a universally accepted popular vote count in the Democratic Presidential nomination contest since Florida and Michigan will not revote (So do I). Since neither Obama nor Clinton will have the necessary number of delegates to capture the nomination without Super Delegate support, the popular vote contest, though unofficial, becomes significant. Smith cites Bill Clinton:

"If Sen. Obama wins the popular vote then the choice will be easier. But if Hillary wins the popular vote but can't quite catch up with the delegate votes, then you have to just ask yourself, 'Which is more important, and who is more likely to win in November?'” former President Bill Clinton told ABC earlier this week.

Indeed. Now, as I said, like Smith, I think it becomes extremely difficult, to say the least, for Clinton to catch Obama without Florida and Michigan counting. Smith's analysis seems reasonable to me regarding the upcoming states. But here's the rub - it is just Smith's analysis. It is frankly absurd to hear people, like NBC and the Left blogs, say Clinton should drop out because WE think she can not catch up. Who are we to decide what the voters will do? The voters get to decide. Not the pundits. Not NBC. Not the Left blogs.

But contempt for the voters, of Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania and beyond is the new watchword for Obama supporters - from NBC on down. It is quite unseemly imo.

Note: comments closed.

< Friday Open Thread | Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Can Clinton Win The Popular Vote? | 269 comments (269 topical)
    PA is a very important state for her (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:45:36 AM EST
    Not only are there lots of voters to turn out, but a big margin will likely be supporting Hillary.

    And you were very nice not to highlight (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:47:21 AM EST
    "It would be a particularly poisonous Pyhrric victory if she gets the nomination after losing the delegate count and the popular vote," said Dan Gerstein, a political consultant who said he supports Obama.


    [ Parent ]
    Also (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by badger on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:33:56 AM EST
    Dan Gerstein is Lieberman's political consultant, and Lieberman has already endorsed -- McCain.


    [ Parent ]
    Dan Gerstein, Lieberman supporter and very much (none / 0) (#170)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:22:44 PM EST
    against Lamont.

    That Gerstein.

    [ Parent ]

    If she just smokes Obama (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:05:31 AM EST
    In Pennsylvania and West Virginia what is a super delegate to do?  I checked in at orange today.  It's almost a waste of time doing that though anymore.  Hillary has lost!  Hillary has lost!  My God, Good Lord this thing is far from over....especially now.  If she smokes Obama in Pennsylvania and West Virginia might there not be changes of all sorts of heart about Michigan and Florida and will their be time to do something about it.  If Obama keeps free falling in the polls or can't come back after will changes of heart and closed doors open next week?  Democrats in Florida say that their revote options haven't been fully visited yet.

    [ Parent ]
    I stopped going to Orangetown a month ago (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by pluege on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    The Great Orange Satan's (per Atrios) roost is a lost cause - they've made it all personal. So much so that they've created mental barriers to all contrary notions and the still many unknowns that could result in a Clinton nomination. But they are so invested in Obamamania and 'my way or the highwayism' over there that they are likely to work against Clinton in the general election (as they do now in their demonizing of Clinton) if she wins - they certainly won't be supporting her in any meaningful way.

    The denizens of Orangeville have demonstrated infatuation with themselves and their hardened notions of Obama as the only legitimate democratic nominee, rather than the ONLY truly important result of keeping a republican out of the White House.

    [ Parent ]

    It becomes impossible (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:46:23 AM EST
    For Obama to be considered a legitimate winner of the primary contest without MI and FL counting.
    I think if the pop vote is even close (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:48:11 AM EST
    that becomes a relevant point. Given the size of those two states, I think 500,000 votes counts as close.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:50:17 AM EST
    And as we go into these next primaries, if Clinton gets the momentum, then it's going to mean a lot.  The perception of being a winner will carry the day.  To have such wide margins (if polling holds) in less homogenous states is telling.

    [ Parent ]
    Buyers remorse (none / 0) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:52:26 AM EST
    How will that be measured with current gaffes?  

    [ Parent ]
    For my money not at all (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:43:41 AM EST
    Ditching MI and FL still looms as a catastrophic blunder.

    If the credentials committee, controlled by Obama people, disallows seating MI and FL (AS VOTED) and it comes down to a floor fight; what will superdelegates do if polls continue to favor Hillary (especially if Hillary wins big in PA and WV)?

    I'm assuming that superdelegates are also allowed to vote in these matters.

    The popular vote is problematic it seems to me.  Since Obama received so much of his support from independents and crossovers, Hillary actually will have a lead in popular votes among Democrats only.

    That SHOULD count for something unless the party leadership wants to screw the rank-and-file faithful including the low level grunt foot soldiers that do so much of the crap work on campaigns.

    The way the party leadership has a talent for shooting itself in the foot, nothing would surprise me.

    [ Parent ]

    MI and Fla votes should be in popular vote tally (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by debcoop on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:03:54 PM EST
    The delegates may not be seated but the voters voted.  In Michigan assign Obama the uncommitted number which is probably 10% more than he deserves as Edwards was still running and some of that is his.  But between Fla and Mi that adds almost 4i0,000 which cuts down his popular vote lead to 300,000. Add in Washington state count the much larger primary instead of the caucus...which is arguable but that cuts his lead by another 60,000 votes and then his lead is about 250,000 votes.

    She could get that number out of Pennsylvania.  She can still lead in the popular vote.

    Obama can't deny revotes to assign delegates and not seat the delegates and not count their voters. this is a case that can be made to the media and the superdelegates.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, that gets at the real fallacy (none / 0) (#186)
    by frankly0 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:33:20 PM EST
    underlying this Politico article: the refusal to consider the previous votes in FL and MI to the popular vote total.

    Yet the Clinton case there is going to be strong, most obviously in FL. Even in MI, there are, I believe, exit polls that can be used to disentangle the "uncommitted" vote into the portions for Obama and Edwards. Flawed, of course, but far less flawed than ignoring it altogether.

    The fact that Hillary sought to get revotes in FL and MI and Obama passive aggressively sabotaged the efforts will confer a far greater sense of legitimacy on those votes as being fair to include.

    And what I strongly suspect too is that at the time when reckoning the entire popular vote will become important, polls in MI and FL will back up strongly the sort of results found in those original contests. It's hard to see how the Wright effect won't damage Obama's numbers badly in FL and MI.

    With the FL and MI results included, it should not be hard for Hillary to win the popular vote, most especially in this post-Wright segment of the campaign.

    Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama lose every primary from here on out, with the exception of Oregon. I can even see him losing NC, where he should have enjoyed major advantages.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, it's interesting. My husband got a (none / 0) (#253)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:14:06 PM EST
    push poll here in NC from the Obama camp the other day. He was on the fence between Hillary and Obama and the push poll made him so angry that he asked the guy who was calling, "who are you working for?" and the fellow said he didn't know.   My husband told him he was an idiot to do such a thing and not even know who he was working for and told him that he had been on the fence but that now he would NEVER vote for Obama.

    I've tried to press him on what the guy said, but I haven't been able to worm the details out of him. He just gets outraged all over again.  I'll let you know when I find out.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow. Must have been bad. Please do (none / 0) (#259)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:33:35 PM EST
    tell more, if he tells you.

    [ Parent ]
    Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    The scenario you describe in your second graf is exactly the one I worry about.  There's more than one way for this race to become too close to call.  The votes and delegates can be very close, with all the momentum behind Clinton.

    I think it's clear by their actions that the D(ean)NC favors Obama.  Just their proclamation that they wouldn't pay for a revote was very telling.  I think they've bought into this bizarre myth that Clinton would be attacked more viciously than Obama in the GE, so they're looking for any way they can to avoid that scenario.

    I say this in all sincerity: I desperately want to be wrong, but I have this growing, nagging feeling that a year or so from now, after Obama's been ripped to pieces by the right wing attack machine, that this "we can't let Clinton run because the Republicans don't like her" decision will be seen as an even bigger strategic blunder than the MI+FL train wreck.


    [ Parent ]

    Considering the going price for SDs (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:51:29 AM EST
    He still has money and can do some more shopping.  But remember he does not take lobbyist money.  

    Clinton's updated total to superdelegates, who include Democratic members of Congress, Democratic National Committee members, former party leaders and state governors, is $236,100 for 2005-2008, compared to Obama's $710,900
    Shopping for SDS

    more bait (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:58:27 AM EST
    worms are looking peeked.

    [ Parent ]
    Surprisingly, answers you seek (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:58:45 AM EST
    are in the link.

    [ Parent ]
    Okay (none / 0) (#40)
    by tek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:14:32 AM EST
    this is new to me.  They have to BUY SDs?  Yup, best democracy money can buy!

    This election is showing some really disturbing stuff about our political system.

    [ Parent ]

    Jeebus this has been an expensive primary. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:52:04 AM EST
    For everyone.

    I just hope we don't run Democratic coffers dry before the convention. This long, torturous episode is only the warm-up, after all. We still have to take on the real bad guys when we're done.

    HP (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:52:06 AM EST
    As this is the second time you've brought this up, I think it's important to remember a couple of things:

    1.  He outspent her 2 and 3 to one in OH and TX and still lost.

    2.  There comes a point where money does not matter.  McCain certainly showed us that.

    and let's throw this in, too: she's still raising money.  She pulled in millions after her wins and keeps going strong.

    HP (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:57:45 AM EST
    you probably know this, but it bears repeating:

    90% of Obama's donations were from people giving $1,000 or more.

    I think Clinton's ability to win core democrats by wide margins over Obama will be looked at as well.

    [ Parent ]

    Correction (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by kid oakland on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:09:31 AM EST
    via Ambinder March 8th:

    By the numbers, Sen. Barack Obama announced today that he has raised more than $54 million for the primaries from a stunning 727,972 contributors -- fully 385,101 of whom were new. $45 million was raised online; 90% of the donations were $100 or smaller; 50% was $25 or smaller. The campaign says that a third of the new donors also participated in some sort of volunteer activity for the campaign.

    Do you have a link for your claim?

    [ Parent ]

    Both could be true (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:49:42 PM EST
    Actually, both claims could be true, and in this case I think they are.  Didn't Olbermann talk about this weeks ago?

    Say, for example, a candidate got 1,000 contributions.  900 for $10 each, for a total of $9,000, and 100 for $2,300 each, for a total of $230,000, grand total of all contributions is $239,000.

    90%(900/1000) of the donors gave $10.

    Over 96% (230,000/239,000) of the money came from people giving $2,300.

    It all depends on whether you're counting dollars or acts of giving.


    [ Parent ]

    Numeracy! (none / 0) (#266)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:48:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Did you see factcheck.org on this? (nt) (none / 0) (#271)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:47:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Why? He's spending $1.5 million a day (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:57:48 AM EST
    and having to do so for an even longer haul has to raise concerns as to a ceiling on small-donor funds.

    So why do you see it as favorable in SDs' minds?  You keep repeating stats but don't give analysis.

    [ Parent ]

    $1.5 million (none / 0) (#53)
    by 1jane on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:22:52 AM EST
    Why is he spending 1.5 million per month? He landed in Portland,OR last night. Obama's advance team arrived Monday. They opened a downtown Portland office, found four locations across the state for his speeches. The locations have to be paid for, sound systems, large screens for overflow crowds, transportation, paying the traveling staffers housing, flights, phone bills. It's been interesting to be in on the arrangements. Obama speaks tomorrow morning in my neck of the woods in Oregon. Secret Service, press credentials, the oh so popular ticket to the event..the tickets are being scalped!!! Live feeds, rope lines, rental cars, drivers,..thousands of emails begging for tickets. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
     

    [ Parent ]
    save the commercials for kos! thanks (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:31:48 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Fingers in your ears (none / 0) (#82)
    by 1jane on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:38:27 AM EST
    I'd report the smae info if it were any other candidate. Cover your eyes.

    [ Parent ]
    i don't have to jane. obama is losing (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:41:48 AM EST
    and the shame of it is he and many of his supporters don't care. identity politics limited to the few doesn't win. you can count out the blue collar dems, the latino vote, the older voter. what do you have left? the answer is not much! tata, you have a nice day.

    [ Parent ]
    I belive you should define what you mean by (none / 0) (#156)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:13:20 PM EST
    Obama "losing". I am curious how you arrived at that conclusion.

    [ Parent ]
    frankly i am curious that you are curious. (none / 0) (#178)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:27:04 PM EST
    obama won't be winning the general election. do you honestly believe he will? this whole thing is a major loss for the democratic party.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, I believe he will. But I am not asking (none / 0) (#193)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:39:01 PM EST
    your opinion. You made a statement as if it is a fact. Again,how you are defining Obama "losing"?

    [ Parent ]
    well believe all you will i am surprised (none / 0) (#246)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:57:47 PM EST
    that you keep asking like you don't know. go to the polls. duh!

    [ Parent ]
    Your eloquence has convinced me! (none / 0) (#263)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:45:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    and your sarcasm does not depress me. (none / 0) (#267)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:48:47 PM EST
    but heck, it's a free country, and every vote should count.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm calling BS on your comment above (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by tree on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:58:18 AM EST
    I've never seen you report anything here that didn't look like it was blastfaxed from Obama Central.


    [ Parent ]
    oh, and by the way (none / 0) (#134)
    by tree on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:01:27 PM EST
    He's spending 1.5m PER DAY, not per month. And he's not getting a very good return on his money lately.

    [ Parent ]
    It really is a lot of money (none / 0) (#218)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    to be spending in a state like Oregon, which he was expected to win anyway...

    [ Parent ]
    No, 1jane, now don't misquote me and (none / 0) (#225)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:01:07 PM EST
    Associated Press in the service of your master.

    Obama spends $1.5 million a DAY and still hasn't walked away with this.  It costs him that much to still be in essentially a tie with Clinton.

    That is another reason I see that Obama cannot win the GE.  Spending ungodly amounts, more than ever before, and with all the free "media darling" blitz he gets, and yet she spends only two-thirds a month and still has more Dems, still has polls trending her way, still hasn't made the major gaffes he has done. . . .  Nope, he can't do it in the GE.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup, where's the diary at Orange (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:25:46 AM EST
    screaming GET OUT NOW OBAMA, YOU'RE DRAINING THE G.E. DEMOCRATIC COFFERS DRY!

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe that will (none / 0) (#39)
    by tek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:13:06 AM EST
    taper off.  One of our friends told us a month ago he was sending Obama $500 a month!

    Don't think Obama's base is working class people.

    [ Parent ]

    Not so fast (none / 0) (#54)
    by dannyinla on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:23:43 AM EST
    He outspent her 2 and 3 to one in OH and TX and still lost.

    Obama lost TX?

    As long as we're still going by delegate counts, Obama won TX.

    [ Parent ]

    silly post, especially in light of diary title (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:36:06 AM EST
    we are discussing popular vote here

    [ Parent ]
    Discuss all you want (none / 0) (#241)
    by dannyinla on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:39:28 PM EST
    HRC has a plan to win the popular vote. Good for her.

    But silly Obama won the silly TX delegate count... and that's still what matters, Silly.

    [ Parent ]

    which is really gonna help him in the GE (none / 0) (#254)
    by otherlisa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:17:52 PM EST
    See, these are exactly the kinds of arguments that make us tear our hair out. That Obama can "win" a weirdly rigged caucus process that defies the will of the voters, reflected by the results of the popular vote, does not give me a lot of confidence that he will do well in the fall.

    [ Parent ]
    if you are trying to factor in those so (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:28:29 PM EST
    called caucuses, then please recount. obama lost texas.

    [ Parent ]
    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by nemo52 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:52:13 AM EST
    Do you still think Obama is the stronger candidate in the GE?  I have always thought Hillary might have an edge, but now I am even less sure that Obama could carry the general.

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:00:20 AM EST
    Obama had the edge when his Unity theme was intact.

    Now Unity! is beginning to fray around the edges and we won't know until April 23 how much that will cost Obama in soft supporters.

    I remember SupderDuper Tuesday and March 4 when everyone was sure those dates would be when we would Know.  Now it's looking like it's April 22.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yes now that (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Jgarza on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:20:05 AM EST
    the Rush Limbaugh crowd hates him, he is finished.  He was really depending on those votes.

    [ Parent ]
    oh, irony (none / 0) (#96)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:43:22 AM EST
    Obama benefitted tremendously from the crossover, Hillary-hating Republican vote in MANY of the early primaries.  Sean Hannity had a "stop Hillary express" and in places like Wisconsin the Republicans went for Obama overwhelmingly.

    They are never going to vote for him in a General election.  Independents maybe.  On Hillary's side, some Independent an Republican women might vote for her indeed, but she better not count on them.

    [ Parent ]

    Peggy Noonan (none / 0) (#144)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:07:40 PM EST
    likes Obama....Her most recent article in the Wall Street Journal was very complimentary of "The Speech" and was just shy of an outright endorsement....

    Obama will recover--he wasn't the one saying those things.....He has done nothing wrong...  

    [ Parent ]

    Sadly (none / 0) (#158)
    by spit on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:13:53 PM EST
    whether one has, in fact, done anything wrong is often of little relevance in politics.

    I think it's going to take another week or so for the numbers to settle into something recognizable.

    [ Parent ]

    you do know who Noonan is, don't you? (none / 0) (#199)
    by magisterludi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:41:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Reagan's speech writer (none / 0) (#242)
    by delandjim on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:41:26 PM EST
    You mean she was Reagan's speech writer.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course (none / 0) (#245)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:50:54 PM EST
    I disliked her for many years although I have always thought she was a gifted writer who used concrete images very well..... And very short sentences....

    She took a turn after Bush's inaugural speech in 2005--she said there was too much God in the speech.  She opposes the war in Iraq.  

    Her current column has not any of the old-Noonan heavy judgmentalism.  She genuinely likes Obama.  I am truly surprised...and not sure what to make of it....

    [ Parent ]

    She adored Reagan (none / 0) (#247)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:59:30 PM EST
    So I'm not sure what to make of her judgement, except to say that she apparently likes someone who can wow a crowd.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah. well , come to think of it, Reagan (none / 0) (#255)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:21:22 PM EST
    and Obama have a lot in common.  Both of them pretend to be above the fray and use their "affable" personalities to make people think they are "one of them."   Can't you see Obama waving to the cameras as he walks past the reporters onto the waiting helicopter with a big smile on his face, while saying nothing of consequence?

    No wonder Peggy Noonan likes Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Been at dk too long. (none / 0) (#262)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:45:02 PM EST
    Or I would have come right out and said that Obama reminds of Reagan and not in a good way, either.

    At dk, I'd word that thought very carefully.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah. Well, that's why I no longer go to DK. (none / 0) (#265)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:47:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Unity nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by pluege on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:06:47 PM EST
    I don't get the "unity" thing at all. I see it as a political-media domain invention that has zero impact on the actual election outcome. I don't see any average voters giving a rat's ass about it or craving civility. Quite the contrary, some grouse about negative advertising and incivility, but most seem to love the infotainment.

    And while Obama's unity shtick may be OK for getting republicans to vote for him in democratic primaries, it ain't gonna mean squat in the general election where nearly 100% of republicans will voe republican, not crossover.

    [ Parent ]

    Unity means (none / 0) (#251)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:08:34 PM EST
    I'm everything to everybody!

    Which is utter baloney of course, but his memes of Hope and Unity are are intentionally vague and feel goody.  I have nothing against the ideals, but I don't like emotional much.  Every politican should be able to appeal to emotions, but they need a LOT more than that.

    [ Parent ]

    New Faux poll on Wright and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    It's from Faux, but it's still telling: 72 percent of Americans know about Wright's comments.  57 percent do not believe Obama shares Wright's views -- but 24 percent believe he does share Wright's views and have doubts about Obama because of them.

    Especially crucial for Obama is loss of Independents.  One in five Independents (20 percent) and one in six Democrats (17 percent) think Obama shares Wright's controversial and unpatriotic views. Whites (25 percent) are more likely than blacks (15 percent) to think so.

    Over a third of all voters(35 percent) and a quarter of Democrats (26 percent) and independents (27 percent) say Obama's relationship with Wright has caused them to have doubts about Obama.  

    The racial split:  40 percent of whites and 2 percent of blacks have doubts about Obama because of Wright.

    "It's unclear how much damage, if any, the situation will do to Obama's standing in his head-to-head race with Hillary Clinton, as Democrats so far are still almost evenly divided in their preference: 40 percent say they want Clinton to be the nominee and 38 percent want Obama. In February, the vote preference was tied at 44 percent each," says the Fox pollster.

    [ Parent ]

    Half of the (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:58:06 AM EST
    10 primaries are closed... PA, Guam, OR, KY, SD which she has a better chance of getting the poplular vote.

    The rest are NC, WV, IN, MT and Puerto Rico.

    WV looks good for her right now.

    That makes 6 of the next 10 she may do well in pop vote.

    If the ecomony keeps tanking.. she just might pull it off.

    We (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by tek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:11:23 AM EST
    are living in KY this semester.  We stopped in at a Cracker Barrel last weekend and I was wearing my Hillary button.  Very favorable reception!  Her bus had stopped at that restaurant the day before, people were really excited.

    Surprised me a little,but I hope it's a sign that she has support in these southern states.

    [ Parent ]

    Since we were not suppose to be in play in PA (none / 0) (#85)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:40:17 AM EST
    When the Obamamania group & NBC was saying that Hillary should drop out before Texas and Ohio, I was thinking. Fine, being in Penna is no fun when first Edwards, and then Hillary. Like we are totally disenfrancised here too. And then, lo and behold, our vote matters. And the excitement is building too. Saw the first political signs out yesterday. All Hillary and I was thinking, I have to order them and did last night. And 2 gold tone pins too.

    [ Parent ]
    shouldn't surprise you (none / 0) (#256)
    by delandjim on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:23:00 PM EST
    I don't thin KY being for Hillary is surprising. It borders Ohio, Tenn., & W.V. which did and should go heavily Hillary. Strong Appalachia contingent.

    [ Parent ]
    What do you mean.... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:14:55 AM EST
    "IF the economy keeps tanking?"  "IF?"

    [ Parent ]
    I hope (none / 0) (#61)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:29:29 AM EST
    she starts hammering on the Economy!!

    I have no doubt the economy is tanking... but I'm not sure how fast the downhill momentum is at the time. At some point they will not be able to lower the interest rate ... thenwe are in BIG trouble.

    [ Parent ]

    The bad economy is going to be great for HRC (none / 0) (#155)
    by pluege on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:13:15 PM EST
     - at least to get elected. It gives her all kinds of opportunity to remind voters of the "Clinton Economy" of the 90s.

    If she does manage to get elected and have to actually deal with the problem....that could be another story.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, they inherited very similar problems from (none / 0) (#260)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:35:24 PM EST
    Reagan. Clinton got the then Democratic congress to raise taxes. Not one Republican voted for it.  But that started a whole era of prosperity, helped along, of course, by the Tech revolution. The budget was in a huge deficit in Reagan's term of office and even in GHW Bush's (he was drummed out of office for raising them too -much to his credit). But it  became a huge surplus by the time  Bill left office. The current situation is much worse, but at least the Clintons  have experience dealing with it.

    i've lived through lots of Presidencies and, although Republicans were fiscally responsible up through Nixon, since Reagan they've stripped the treasury every time they get into office and give the $ to their rich friends and the corporations. Then they complain, "there's no money, no money" for the government to do anything for people.

    It's always the Democrats who provide the true "trickle down" effect, by raising needed taxes to adequately fund the government rather than running up huge deficits and supporting social programs that help the poor and middle class.

    [ Parent ]

    I (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:58:14 AM EST
     believe that it is nearly impossible for Hillary to catch Obama. But not statistically impossible. Every political junkie knows that a week is a lifetime in politics. Just look at what the past week has wrought. And when did progressives stop believing in allowing people to vote? Oh yeh, when they decided that Obama was the One.

    And even if/when Obama wins the nomination, which I believe he will because the media and the Democratic Party leadership want him to I believe the Democratic Party will be divided past curing. He can seat the FL and MI delegates til the cows come home AFTER he wins the nomination. Then it will mean nothing. And voters will neither forgive nor forget.

    Oh yes, beware the evil McCain. But people don't loathe McCain the way they loathed Bush. And many don't think he will be like a 3rd term for Bush.

    I don't see anyway that this election turns out anything but ugly for the Dems. Disenfranchising voters, is no way to convince people that the Republicans are the only ones with a culture of corruption.

     

    Agree totally (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by tek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:18:33 AM EST
    This is the end of the Democratic Party as we know it. Really, I'm beginning to question that they deserve the support of people who want democracy.  These things are always ugly, but maybe there is now hope of another viable party.  I was thinking yesterday looking at all the Rev. Wright stuff, one thing that is wrong with our system is that we only have two perspectives on everything, unlike other First World nations.  There's no room for analyzing complexities and nuances because one party stakes out a position aimed at pulling in votes and then the other party must adopt the opposite position. Disturbing.  

    [ Parent ]
    Don't worry (none / 0) (#107)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:49:05 AM EST
    I suspect this primary season may be the beginning of the end for the Republican Party, too.

    Social conservatives are not pleased. Since they can't seem to hijack a party so easily anymore, they might splinter off. A whole new Christian Coalition!

    Who knows. Perhaps this season of "change" will underdo the whole two party system. That would be pleasant.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#116)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:52:42 AM EST
    More parties would be good if they are viable. However, it that is the case, the electoral system would have to be replaced at the very same time and that is no easy feat.

    Otherwise, nobody is going to get to the magic number of EVs and it will go into the House every time.

    [ Parent ]

    True (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:58:12 AM EST
    but I wouldn't mind seeing that go either.

    [ Parent ]
    They didn't loathe Bush when they were (none / 0) (#58)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:28:12 AM EST
    voting for him. The loathing comes after

    [ Parent ]
    Average voter (none / 0) (#77)
    by 1jane on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:36:07 AM EST
    The average voter won't remember MI or FL. The Dems I meet with are focused on one thing...NOVEMBER. The apathy regarding FL and MI is overwhelming. The average Dem just wants this primary stuff to end and move on. My county Dem organization has already planned a victory party on Nov. 4th. We just want a Dem candidate to take back our country. The longer this contest between the Dem candidates go on the stronger the John McCain campaign gets. November! November! November!

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Daryl24 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:50:21 AM EST
    But I'm concerned how the voters in MI and Fl might feel about it. I don't know how many would vote for McCain because of this but why would any political party take that chance going into a general election?  

    [ Parent ]
    I'm an average voter (none / 0) (#112)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:51:20 AM EST
    Many voters that are very involved this year are average voters.  Lots of average voters have computers and know much more about the election process than ever.

    That just felt like 'low knowledge' to me.

    [ Parent ]

    The average voter nationwide? (none / 0) (#125)
    by standingup on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    Or the average voter in Michigan and Florida?  I don't think it will matter whether or not the average person in other states recall the primaries but if there is a close race in November, the Dem nominee will really need one or both of those states to win the election.  

    [ Parent ]
    That's the rub (none / 0) (#238)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:33:48 PM EST
    I couldn't agree more.  This is not a national election, but a series of state-level elections, and it would be the biggest surprise in recent political history for the Dems to lose both MI and FL and still somehow win in the the electoral college.

    Assuming nothing changes and there is no revote in either FL or MI, I would not want to be in charge of the GOTV effort for the Dems in those states this fall.

    [ Parent ]

    I just read a column (none / 0) (#244)
    by standingup on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:48:03 PM EST
    in the WSJ urging Dean to strike a bargain to get re-votes in Fl and MI.  He thinks there is still time but I'm not sure if that is true.  If there is a way, I think the best bet for the Dems to win in November is to have a shot at these states.  

    [ Parent ]
    Trust This...in November (none / 0) (#228)
    by TruthSpeaksVolumes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    McCain has Charlie Crist on his short list of VP's

    As an average voter, use your computer to find out if you think that FL will be of NO IMPORTANCE in the GE with a Republican VP going unopposed
    with a disenfranchised FL Dem vote.

    [ Parent ]

    FL and MI (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Foxx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:59:07 AM EST
    must be included in the popular vote count.

    Unfortunately I envision a lot of wrangling over what is the popular vote. Part of why Obama derailed the revotes no doubt. But noone considering the popular vote OBJECTIVELY can exclude those two states. Alas objectivity is hard to come by these days.

    Off Topic : Hillary's Passport also breached (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Paladin on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:00:18 AM EST
    I know it's off topic but perhaps another thread should be started?  It's a developing headline on CNN.

    nahhh... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:32:19 AM EST
    The Clintons had their spies in the State Department breach her records to make it appear the Clintons weren't involved in breaching Obama's passport.
    ;>


    [ Parent ]
    And McCain called (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:41:35 AM EST
    They got his too.  He did not want to be left out. They probably looked at BTD too. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Daryl24 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:45:40 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Contempt. Yep. He'll lose because of it. (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:00:34 AM EST
    It's not just MI and FL.  I have recently heard someone on the news say something to the effect that Clinton's other states lack completeness without MI and FL.  And if that meme is starting to get talked up, it won't be long before the big states realize that they've been swindled by Obama.  Without MI and FL, OUR votes mean diddly squat.  Expect the 24% of the voters in Florida who plan to sit it out in November to spread to other states.  
    We're going to be mad as hell.  

    It will take a miracle (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:01:28 AM EST
    I don't see how it could happen at this point. But the election should continue, nonetheless. You don't quit. If the general election shows that McCain has 55% of the vote while Obama has 45%, I'll bet my house that nobody suggests that Obama should just drop out. That's not the way the system works.

    It's odd that Obama seems to be the candidate who is willing to slander his opponents, disenfranchise voter's, threaten superdelegates, and use legal tecnhicalities to gain electoral votes, but Clinton is the candidate who will "do anything to win".

    He's going to get part of what he wants. He'll be the first black candidate to run for President. But unless McCain implodes, he is unlikely to be the first black President.

    That miracle could (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:40:15 AM EST
    happen. If the Rev ends up like the Dean scream.

    Obama campaign is trying to head that off.. through endorsements and mud slinging. Let's see how it works.

    [ Parent ]

    are they really? (none / 0) (#94)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:43:15 AM EST
    they just sent out a picture of Wright and Clinton last night to keep the story going, it seems.  

    [ Parent ]
    I feel (none / 0) (#117)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:53:46 AM EST
    that was a BIG misstep in the Obama campaign... makes him look like just another pol.

    [ Parent ]
    What makes you (none / 0) (#114)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:52:32 AM EST
    think I said that Hillary is running a clean campaign? Just because I see Sen Obama slinging mud does not automatical exclude the other campaign.

    Change the focus the Clinton is not going to work... Obams is now just another pol slinging mud. He got down in the mud... and now that image of above the politics is gone!

    [ Parent ]

    The poster never said (none / 0) (#118)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:53:58 AM EST
    Hillary was running a clean campaign. S/he simply said that Obama was running a dirty campaign. That doesn't necessarily imply Hillary is doing the opposite (unless you think in terms of binaries, which is always a poor choice).

    The truth is, they've both run campaigns that have used dubious and dirty tactics. (Although, I would argue that it's worse for Obama because he claims to be above it.)

    [ Parent ]

    yeahbut (none / 0) (#133)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:59:09 AM EST
    in order to say something bad about Obama, you must be implicitly bashing Clinton as well.  two sides of the same coin.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton is a politician (none / 0) (#165)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:19:25 PM EST
    She is not pristine. I am, however, unaware of her slandering Obama, disenfranchising voter's, threatening superdelegates. She has used technicalities to get electorates and she (and some of her supporter's) have said mean things about Obama. Her campaign may have used some "dirty" tricks, but not as many as Obama's campaign has accused her of (they seem to think that every bad thing that happens to him is her fault - she is not that all-powerful).

    [ Parent ]
    Hah, Clinton's passport breached (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:01:32 AM EST
    People will just accuse her of self-sabotage!

    sorry meant to post in open thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM EST
    delete!

    [ Parent ]
    Funny (none / 0) (#138)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:04:51 PM EST
    Among the little noticed parts of Hillary's agenda is the elimination of contract workers in the Federal government. Which may be why AFSCME supported her from the start.

    The Obama passport snooping was by contract workers.

    Funny or maybe ironic.  Obama has said nothing about the very serious matter of contract workers.  He's even said he'll retain Blackwater's private army.  Hillary says they're out.

    Refresh my memory.  Why is it that so many "liberals" support Obama?

    [ Parent ]

    The fact that passport application review (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:22:56 PM EST
    has been out-sourced to contract workers is quite startling; certainly news to me.  So much for privacy protections.  Sounds like the alert system for computer access was programed for high profile individuals, not the little people.

    [ Parent ]
    That will be the next story (none / 0) (#176)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:26:54 PM EST
    As it should be. Most Americans aren't aware either that most passport applications now go to a contracted party, not federal government workers. That also goes for INS applications too..

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#191)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:37:54 PM EST
    it may not have the connotation you think.  I do contract work in DC (did some work at the Dept of Commerce for a law firm) and I am an American citizen - it's not necessarily being shipped overseas.

    [ Parent ]
    Neither my comment nor the reply to (none / 0) (#194)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    my comment included any reference to information obtained by contract workers "being shipped overseas."  

    [ Parent ]
    I am a contract worker too (none / 0) (#201)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:42:24 PM EST
    But I am telling you that this makes abuse easy and you should know that too. Further, it makes some workers totally unqualified for the job at hand. My husband's green card application was held in limbo for over a year because some contract worker didn't understand tax law. It took an intervention from my congressional office and a call to the head of the INS to get it cleared out. And we were lucky. Others have been in limbo for a lot longer and it has nothing to do with national security.

    I'm just saying, the outsourcing has gotten out of control - whether is leads to incompetence or abuse...the result is the same. Bad government.

    [ Parent ]

    It's a disaster in my state -- privacy breaches (none / 0) (#211)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:50:07 PM EST
    en masse, SS numbers printed on tax forms and other materials through the mails, and contract work costing much more than the workers it replaced.  Plus these workers are not accountable under civil service rules, in the state that pioneered them.  All so that our (Dem) gov can keep his campaign promise to cut lots and lots of state jobs.  

    And all have added to our economic problems, of course, now causing more budget slash-and-burn and less hiring of longterm state employees.  So we may not see for a while what it has meant at the national level, but to see the effect of outsourcing in one state, google "Wisconsin" and apt terms such as "privacy" in recent stories.

    [ Parent ]

    She probably snuck in in the dead of night and (none / 0) (#261)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:42:46 PM EST
    tried to make it appear that someone ELSE had done it. But we all know the depths of evil to which she will descend in order to assuage her bottomless desire for POWER!

    [ Parent ]
    Since when are Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:04:13 AM EST
    afraid of democracy?

    Absurd? (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:04:20 AM EST
    It is frankly absurd to hear people, like NBC and the Left blogs, say Clinton should drop out because WE think she can not catch up.

    I think it is absurd to call that absurd.  We aren't impartial observers.  I want Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race as soon as possible.  Pointing out that Clinton can't win any of the metrics that will be used to decide the nomination is pretty standard fare in Presidential elections.  It puts pressure on Clinton and her supporters to drop out.  That is what is important to me because I believe continuing this nomination process will hurt us in November.  

    I really don't care if South Dakota hasn't voted yet.  This is how the system works.  South Dakotans aren't stupid.  They understand that scheduling a primary or caucus so late in the race means there is a good chance they won't have much of a say in who the nominee is.  

    You really need to look at the big picture and stop looking though the "voice of the voters" keyhole.  There is more at stake than making sure that every state, territory and district of the USA have a say in the nomination.  

    Uhm... (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:09:54 AM EST
    There is more at stake than making sure that every state, territory and district of the USA have a say in the nomination.  

    So, what you're saying is that Clinton needs to stop winning so Obama can take the nomination...for the good of the nation?

    And yet you don't think ignoring MI and FL (and PA and WV and PR and all the other remaining primaries) would be detrimental?

    I wonder if you were calling for Obama to drop out when the delegates and popular vote were against him.

    [ Parent ]

    No, what I am saying is... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:26:04 AM EST