Who Wants A Candidate To Drop Out? 22% Say Clinton, 22% Say Obama

Now we are getting . . . nowhere:

Twenty-two percent (22%) of Democratic voters nationwide say that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. However, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that an identical numberó22%--say that Barack Obama should drop out.

A solid majority of Democrats, 62%, arenít ready for either candidate to leave the race.

Time to let this issue go until Pennsylvania at least.

< Taking The Bait On Wright | Why We Need A Unity Ticket >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    But, but, but!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:39:22 AM EST

    Actually, I just have to point out (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:49:36 AM EST
    the freakout at dkos over this. (See the comments.)

    My favorite comment: (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:55:11 AM EST
    Is the one that says the poll demonstrates the ignorance of the polled. LOL, That's one way to look at it, but I suspect what he really meant was the ignorance of 22% of those polled.

    My favorite is this one: (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Shawn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:18:14 PM EST
    I guess this proves activism is still fringe... (0 / 0)
    It's amazing that more americans don't see the necessity of rallying behind the presumptive nominee.

    No comment.


    Echo chamber effect (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by tree on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:20:34 PM EST
    Here are a couple I found (4.00 / 4) (#79)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:29:41 PM EST
    Obama supporters know he is going to win - there's no reason to be reactive. On the other hand, HRC supporters can only react.

    I'm convinced this is only bluster. If Hillary supporters didn't support Obama, they would be acting like sore loser babies. Obama supporters sitting out the election because of Hillary stealing the election by overturning the popular will would be justified and appropriate. There's no tolerance here for stolen elections. Our objection is a matter of principle.

    Obama supporters always give a principled reason for not voting for Hillary -- namely that he's won the delegate race and if he doesn't win, the race will have been stolen from him. Hillary supporters always give some b-s answer about him not being "qualified." Let me interpret that answer ... Obama is black and these people are racists.

    Eegads..... this one has everyone fired up.


    oh (none / 0) (#105)
    by sas on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:30:43 PM EST

    Hillary voters = sore losers, babies

    obama voters = justified

    a truism only an obama supporter could see


    I can hear their brain cells sizzling from here (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:56:09 AM EST
    This one would equally freak them out (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:31:14 PM EST
    Per Gallup

    If McCain vs Obama, 28% of Clinton voters would go for McCain.

    If McCain vs Hillary, 19% of Obama voters would go for McCain.

    (and that's not factoring the write-in voters)



    I think this speaks volumes... (none / 0) (#92)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:06:40 PM EST
    about Hillary's unfortunate "experience" arguments.  SHe has convinced many of her supporters that McCain would be better than Obama.  

    I don't think so (none / 0) (#99)
    by stillife on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:48:05 PM EST
    I live in NYC and I know quite a few Hillary supporters who've been saying they'd go for McCain over Hillary.  Many (but not all) are Jewish.  My son's best friend (Jewish) says if Obama gets the nomination, "I guess I'll be voting for the grumpy old guy!"  

    This pre-dates Hillary's supposed "endorsement" of McCain's experience.  Fact of the matter is, many Dem voters are dubious about Obama's lack of experience and the  relationship with Rev. Wright.  

    Whether or not you like McCain, it's inarguable that both he and Hillary have more experience than Obama.

    Myself, I'd be hard-pressed to pull the lever (yeah, we still have those old-fashioned voting machines in NYC) for a Republican, but I'm not inclined to vote for Obama either.


    Comparing this junk (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:29:58 PM EST
    from pro-Obama blogs to Obama's 20 year relationship with a nutjob and hatemonger does you little good.  It just makes you look like a desperate shill.

    McCain is experienced but he says terribly inacurate and wrong-headed things all the time.  Cheney is REALLY experienced, and that is a big part of his problem.  Experience is a non-issue for me.  I wonder what the percentage breakdown is between people who believed like your friends before Hillary started talking experience, and after.  Maybe she is just saying what everyone was already thinking, but I can't imagine that all of those people were suspicious of Obama at the beginning.

    I don't know how they felt at the beginning (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by stillife on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:06:52 PM EST
    but I know how I felt.  I watched every single d**n debate and I was awed by Hillary's command of the facts and performance under pressure. Those are the qualities I want in my President. Obama, OTOH, was fairly underwhelming in the debates.  

    After 8 years of Republican rule, I want a fighter in the White House.  The more the media, the Blogger Boyz and the Obama campaign attack Hillary, the more convinced I become that she is that person.  She's a living example of grace under fire.

    I guess I'm just a pragmatist at heart.  I was truly impressed when I went to see Hillary speak at Town Hall in NYC, and she said that every day she tries to get something done, to advance some issue that's important to her, no matter how small.  Speeches are great.  I understand that many people (including my husband, who isn't a citizen and can't vote - too bad!) feel that Obama's "inspirational" message will get this country out of the mess we're in now.  

    I want a candidate who can walk the walk, not just talk the talk.  


    I was (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:14:45 PM EST
    surprised when I found I was supporting Clinton. Six months ago I did a frigging spreadsheet on issues and spent a couple of weeks slogging through congress.org and recording the votes.  I found out the positions and who was on the campaigns and watched all the debates.  I took notes on the debates, who actually answered and how they answered and who was closest on some of the positions I want movement on.  The woman can debate.  I'm tired of hearing my support is low knowledge.

    *ditto* (none / 0) (#110)
    by Rainsong on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:46:40 AM EST
    I dont know that I call it "experience" any more - to me its "competence".

    Hillary has some negatives and faults, but she also has 35+ years of proven positives to her credit, that outweigh the screw-ups by a fairly large margin.

    Just check her wikipedia entry (thin and incomplete as wikipedia often is) for a resume that is a lifetime's worth of solid achievements, from way before she even met Bill.

    Obama has a thin record, but I dont hold that against him as 'lack of experience'.

    But its because that thin record has a sizeable percentage of negatives, absences, and is littered with shady friends and associates that demonstrate lack of 'competence', as well as lack of 'judgement' to me.


    Me Too (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:23:13 AM EST
    I live in NYC too, and am Jewish. I voted for HRC by a hair, and have no problems voting for Obama. Allmost all of my friends voted for Obama and all of my Jewish friends voted for him and are Obama supporters. So I guess we hang out in different circles.

    I bet! can you say apoplexic over there? (none / 0) (#9)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:52:01 AM EST
    After listening to MCain (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by talkingpoint on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:42:22 AM EST
     I am convinced that Hillary is the only candidate that have a chance against this man. Howard Dean is on the path of destroying the democratic party and our only hope.

    Yeah McCain was just on (3.66 / 3) (#15)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:54:49 AM EST
    I thought he did ok.  Bad news for the Dems.

    McCain is ok (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:56:57 AM EST
    and that's why he will likely win the Presidency regardless of what our side does at this point.

    R U INSANE? (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by po on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:12:10 PM EST
    McCain is "ok"?!?  100 years in Iraq.  Wants to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".  Admittedly doesn't know much about the economy.  Can't distinguish between Sunni and Shia, Iraq and Iran.  Will nominate "strict constructionists" to the US Supreme Court to appease his "friends" on the right.

    McCain is NOT alright; he's not ok and he's nothing anyone who pretends to support either Clinton or Obama should be wanting or even threatening to vote for.  But then, I just read that about 28% of Clinton's supporters would rather vote for him that Obama (compared with about 18% of Obama's supporters).  Telling.  Very, very telling indeed.

    Let's see how "Ok" you feel he is say in 2010.


    No it's true (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:16:09 PM EST
    Check out his favorability ratings across the wide spectrum of voters.  They are through the roof.  And his unfavorables are as much as 20% lower than either of our candidates.

    Fact is, he is seen as "ok" with most of the electorate which is the problem for us.


    Skex, I hope you're right (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:38:16 PM EST
    "he appears to be campaigning as a centrist but his actual agenda and rhetoric suggests that he's likely to govern left."

    This is exactly what I will be hoping for and banking on when I pull the lever for him. Basically, I hope that the part of him I hear that I like is the real one and how he will really govern  - not the one that says other things that seem completely counterfactual. Just like I hope that he really doesn't believe in Wright's message, but instead believes in the 'postracial' society he sometimes talks about. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, and hope.


    the stay at home 'vote' (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:11:17 PM EST
    doesn't seem to have been factored in. the not vote for pres but will vote down ticket vote hasn't been factored in. nor has the write in vote.

    these are 3 options I have seen bounce around in blog comments along with the McCain 'option'.

    While this may only be a small percentage (but who knows?), can Obama really pull in enough new voters to make up the percentage he's going to need? Especially after the GOP gets done with him . . .


    And (none / 0) (#85)
    by tek on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:24:54 PM EST
    the focus shifts back to her.

    What Demons are you talking about?? (none / 0) (#88)
    by D Jessup on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:37:18 PM EST
    Most people don't think about demons, they wake up get their kids off to school, go to work, eat, watch TV and go to Bed.  They don't have time to worry about these so called Demons.

    Oh, it's just SO telling (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:18:42 PM EST
    Most of us remember back when Obama said "I have no doubt I will get all of her supporters in November, the question is whether she will get all of mine."  At that point, the notion that all of Clinton's supporters would vote Democrat in November no matter what was considered an argument in favor of Obama.

    Now that actual poll results show that relatively fewer of Clinton's supporters are willing to support the ticket if Clinton is not the nominee, now it's a "telling" commentary on the disloyalty of Clinton supporters.

    I find this really hilarious.  If Clinton's supporters will vote Dem no matter what, then we can take them for granted and there's no need to nominate her.  And if her supporters won't vote Dem no matter what, then that means they're disloyal and we can make perjorative comments about them!  Either way it's presented as good news for Obama!


    We are not disloyal (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by talkingpoint on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:46:02 PM EST
     we are rather fedup with the democratic party.

    Agreed, the Dems have been disloyal (none / 0) (#102)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:24:13 PM EST
    to a lot of us, for a lot of reasons, talkingpoint.

    No organization is entitled to unfailing loyalty.  If it fails, as the Dem Party has done, it's done.


    Heh indeed (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:19:51 PM EST
    sorry folks it aint that easy (none / 0) (#52)
    by po on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:31:18 PM EST
    to dismiss this little statistic.  apparently a sizable number of Hillary's supporters would rather vote for an idiot who will continue, and likely expand, all of the bad that Bush has given us rather than Obama.  Heh.  Whatever.  

    Hillary supporters taken for granted.  Give me a break.  She and the party took us all for granted.  Thought we'd just bow before the Clinton legacy and the right that is the Clinton's to get back in the WH and do what was left unfinished.  But then she and a lot of others found out that they were wrong.  So what would it take for you poor little Hillary supporters to feel like you weren't being taken for granted -- since being a democrat with positions so similar to Clinton's is insufficient?  

    What can be done, apparently nothing, because the glee of taking your marbles and not going home, but rather, going over to the other side of the class with the bullies and play with them is more important that having a Democrat in the WH.  Well, if McCain gets elected let none of us here whisper an unkind word about what will befall this nation come the McCain presidency.  You think Obama's bad . . . just wait.


    Apparently Obama believed that of (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:38:12 PM EST
    his voters.

    what an absurd comment from you.


    believed what? (none / 0) (#68)
    by po on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:54:26 PM EST
    I made a few comments above, so I'm not certain what you're coming at.  Since I only have the pleasure of living in my own head, I tend to only speak for myself so whatever you think I think Obama believed -- maybe I agree, maybe I don't, maybe (most likely) I don't care.  

    Besides, I don't pretend to speak for Obama (so please don't use any of my words against him in the guilt by  association phase of the campaign we've entered), so I have no idea what he believed or believes, any more than you can with anyone else.  Here, however, Hillary supporters are all knowing about what motivates the other side and supposed Obama supporters apparently feel guilty and beat up on him whenever they get the chance.  But, hey, it's good for the party, right?  Yeah, right.


    This part (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:58:36 PM EST
    ".  apparently a sizable number of Hillary's supporters would rather vote for an idiot who will continue, and likely expand, all of the bad that Bush has given us rather than Obama.  Heh.  Whatever.  "

    I still don't get your point (none / 0) (#71)
    by po on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    What would it take? (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM EST
    Not trashing the character of a good person and good Democrat is what it would take.

    The idea that people can sit there and portray Hillary Clinton as a calculating b*tch who will say anything and do anything to be elected, and expect all her supporters to line up with the guy who trashed her "because their positions are similar," is presumptuous in the extreme.

    If Obama really has this thing locked up, as so many of his supporters want to believe, it's not too late to start running as a uniter instead of a divider.  What's more important - trashing Hillary Clinton's character or getting her supporters in the GE?


    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by tek on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:28:05 PM EST
    was going for the Republicans and Independents by trashing Hillary.  He thought he could reel them in with the Hate Hillary strategy.  I'm sure he thought all the Dems would vote for whoever, probably thought he'd get us with his great charisma.  He miscalculated, that's all.  Now he's lost a lot of Democrats.

    OK (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by sas on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:38:21 PM EST
    He's going after the Indies and Repug's vote, and to do that he has to trash Hillary.

    So, he has no character, because a person of character would not say what he doesn't believe, to get some votes.

    Also, he chose to do that - so now he has to lie in that bed.  
    "You reap what you sow."


    the calculating part (none / 0) (#70)
    by po on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    is the media's creation and flows from her experience meme (i.e. the Clinton years and triangulation which was not D and not R, but let's do what needs to be done to get things done) which her camp is playing into with the "kitchen sink" strategy.  I haven't heard him use those words about her.  [insert surrogate argument retort here]

    After saying all the things she's saying about him, if she pulls this out she's likely still expecting his supporters to support her, no?  That's the way this game is supposed to be played, right people?  

    The Republicans at least have the golden rule:  thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow republican.  The democrats apparently eat their own.  


    The statistic says the same thing about Obama (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by tree on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:06:40 PM EST
    supporters.To use your quote, with adjustments, apparently a sizable number of Obama's supporters would rather vote for an idiot who will continue, and likely expand, all of the bad that Bush has given us rather than Clinton.

    And Obama has gone on record saying that not all his supporters would vote for Clinton. In fact, that is what BTD is referring to when he calls into question your particular spin on this.


    glad you know what BTD is thinking (none / 0) (#77)
    by po on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:20:05 PM EST
    I generally don't speak for others.  The spin, at least mine on this subject, is about 1/3 of Hillary's supporters won't vote for Obama (versus about 1/5 of his supporters who won't vote for her).  Since, at this moment in time, she's got to do a lot of tearing down to get a lead (popular vote / delegate lead / whatever) to get to be taken seriously by the superdelegates as possibly being the candidate, it's likely "her" voters (i.e. those supposed Democrats who voted for her in the state primaries and causcuses) that will become an issues come GE time.  Besides, Obama is an unpatriotic, hate-America politician whose primary support is from voters living in small, insignificant states that don't matter to Democrats in a GE, so why should any of you Hillary lovers care if his voters will vote for you candidate anyway.

    For some one who claims repeatedly (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by tree on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:33:36 PM EST
    that you don't speak for others, you do an awful lot of posting on what you think Clinton supporters will think and do. Give up that little talking point. You  claim to know what others are thinking when it suits your purpose, which is just a feeble attempt to slam people who support a candidate that you don't.

    I'm not insane (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:35:30 PM EST
    I'm not even a Republican.  I won't vote for McCain.  But you know that old chestnut, "which candidate would you most rather have a beer with"?  I would probably most rather have a beer with McCain of the top 3.

    I 'spect a lot of people think of him that way.  Do I vote on the beer test?  No.  Do some people vote that way?  I suspect that they do--I'm not really sure.


    He did ok (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:33:11 PM EST
    He DID ok.  His SPEECH was ok.  The media liked it, he got good coverage and positive feedback.  If the media prefers him over Obama it is a problem.

    Stop rating me (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:36:00 PM EST
    down because you disagree with me.  I used no foul language nor was my post lengthy.  I see McCain getting positive coverage by the media as a problem.  You may think that the media will stay on Obama's side I don't.  You may disagree but my opinion is not offensive.

    McCain is a sick man, I'm serious (none / 0) (#93)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:08:06 PM EST
    with the cancer and the PST from his POW days.

    Ah now that's the answer to my question! (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by katiebird on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:42:40 AM EST
    This is the first election I can remember when anyone has suggested that candidates should quit when they're still basically tied.

    It's interesting to see that even THAT opinion is tied up.

    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:45:29 AM EST
    Just more evidence for the realization that I came to a month or so ago.

    There's a core of Clinton support that has gone unreported during this cycle.

    computer tallies in no way paints the whole (none / 0) (#20)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:57:36 AM EST
    picture. Hubby is R and he'd write in Hillary's name before he votes for Obama.

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by Rainsong on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:39:23 AM EST

    Unreported, quiet, silent ones. I suspect there must be a sizeable chunk of otherwie loyal democrat voters who just dont trust or like the man, but are unwilling to say anything. Like good manners like my grandma would say "if you can't say anything nice, then dont say anything at all" :)

    Also reminds me of talking with old family friends of my folks from Ohio over the Easter weekend. Workingclass types, lifelong yellow dog dems, would vote for an ashtray, as long as it was dressed in a Democrat logo etc.  

    They dont usually pay attention to the media narrative anyway, and have rarely bothered to vote in the primaries, especially in bad weather.

    But they had such national interest this year on their primaries, they participated this year.  I was surprised when they indicated their strong dislike of Obama and said they wouldn't vote for him if he did end up the nominee.

    When asked what it was, the 5 adult family members all said something along the lines of

    spoiled, whining, lazy, rich kid, who has never done a hard day's work in his life, (they really focussed on the "lazy" meme)

    can't give a straight answer to any question (has to give a prepared 45 minute speech of boring waffle several days later - like handing in a college paper)

    and he "lives in a mansion, that he bought cheap through his long-time slumlord friend Rezco" and when he campaigned in Ohio, he stuck to major venues in the city, and many couldn't afford the bus-fare, let alone the obscene ticket-prices to one of his rallies.

    And they really liked Hillary, because she does the personal thing. They were impressed with how she got up at the crack of dawn in frozen Ohio, to meet-and-greet factory workers at the assembly lines at the dawn shift-changes .. (man, thats a cold state..Brrr...) Apparently, the whole family, and most of their neighbourhood were happy to brave the icy roads in foul weather to vote for her in their primary - most years they wouldn't bother for just a primary. But they wouldn't have made the effort for Obama, and I suspect they won't make the effort for him in the fall either.


    Holy MOTHER OF GOD, please watch this (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:49:19 AM EST
    Please watch this video BTD.

    Please watch this video everyone else at TalkLeft.

    This is Chris Matthews' masterpiece of Obama lust:


    Look at that video!!!!!!!!!!!!

    tweety's gone wild birdie on us. (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:59:49 AM EST
    His numbers show what we all know, that nobody watches him anymore. He's way too weird these days.

    I mean he does a soft step with Ellen Degeneres and Msnbc plays it 6 times in 2 hours.


    turn to Obama and smile..... (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by vicndabx on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:12:43 PM EST
    remember that tidbit?

    Wow (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:53:33 AM EST
    Simply incredible.

    can you imagine what it's like off camera? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:01:40 PM EST
    This is what MSNBC "journalists" say in front of a national TV audience.  Now imagine how they talk about the Clintons amongst themselves.

    They will probably ignore this poll that says only 22% want Clinton to drop out and they will definitely never mention that 22% want Obama to drop out.  That's just blasphemy, you know.


    The astonishing thing (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:20:36 PM EST
    is that Matthews has no comprehension of the fact that HE and his ilk were the ones who made the Clinton Administration into a soap opera.

    Presenting the Richardson endorsement as some sort of watershed moment in American politics is just so laughable.  Just because one person in a McDonald's found it to be a magic moment, that doesn't mean the electorate was singularly transfixed.  Yet Chris Matthews believes himself to be the voice of the people.


    And Richardson's answer (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:59:13 AM EST
    He's a special guy, I haven't figured it out but it's very good.

    Well OK then.  America at it's best, tweety.


    The question was: (none / 0) (#27)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:07:10 PM EST
    "Governor, why is it important to have Barack Obama be our next President?"

    That's not just a soft ball, it's tee-ball.


    Billy Mays is more subtle (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:18:46 PM EST
    I know.

    Look at the ratings (none / 0) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:01:07 PM EST
    and the comments.  The Obama supporters are eating it up.  I just find it odd.

    Holy mother of God (none / 0) (#49)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:28:55 PM EST
    I did.

    White jacket time for Chris, if he fancies himself a journalist.  I can't believe that crap.  His network should be ashamed.

    My son, who is a j-major and home for spring break, will wander in here in a while.  I can't wait to show that to him.


    LOL, yes that is the journalistic equivalent of... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:38:13 PM EST
    ..What Not to Wear.

    News pundits: the other super delegates (none / 0) (#113)
    by tandem5 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:35:51 PM EST
    boy they get a large say in this election!

    The best stat is (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:53:19 AM EST
    6% of Dems want both of them to drop out.

    Gravelanche... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:54:53 AM EST
    LOL (none / 0) (#83)
    by Daryl24 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:00:47 PM EST
    So the numbers bare it out. Neither one has been successful at wooing that Biden-Gravel coalition.

    Hilarious (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:54:26 AM EST
    Apparently 78% of the Democratic Party consists of Clinton-supporting dead-enders who don't understand THE MATH.

    Oh we (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by sas on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:44:36 PM EST
    know math - we really get the math.

    Do you get the math?

    Neither one will get 2025 before the convention.


    I don't think... (none / 0) (#26)
    by gmo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:06:16 PM EST
    ...that jumping up and down and ranting 'nyah nyah! look at the math!" ever ingratiated anyone to the voting public, least of all the people of FL and MI.   Ditto with calling half the party "dead-enders."

    Just a word of advice: you might want to try something a little less haughty and shrill to inure the rest of us to Obama if he's eventually declared the nominee.


    I think Steve M is being sarcastic here (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by tree on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:18:21 PM EST
    poking fun at the DKOS memes. He's not voicing his own opinion, unless I've read all his other posts wrong. His post was snark.

    Ohhhh... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by gmo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:21:13 PM EST
    ...sorry guys, I'm relatively new here.  I just read the rest of Steve M's posts.  I'm catching on to the snark ;)  

    I hear you (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:23:09 PM EST
    but they're not listening, trust me.

    Apparently, even though Obama supposedly has this thing clinched, the agenda of both Obama supporters and the campaign itself is to utterly destroy Hillary Clinton just because they can, without a thought to how her supporters will view that.  The unity agenda apparently involves uniting the country  around hatred of Hillary.


    Only in the online world (none / 0) (#84)
    by Daryl24 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:06:03 PM EST
    and MSM do I see many people saying that a candidate should quit.

    A lot of excitement, record turnouts, higher TV ratings and keeping McCain out of the spotlight (for the most part) is a bad thing?


    they can prop him up weekend at (none / 0) (#96)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:13:11 PM EST
    Bernie's style, but it won't work.

    He'll give enough fodder for the ads both candidates  would win in a landslide.

    he really is a sick man.


    Yes, the 90s were a sitcom. (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by NJDem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:10:35 PM EST
    It was called:

    "Peace and Prosperity"  I just love that show!

    That clip says it all.  'Watching the two of you up there with your different backgrounds...'  O.k., I think you all know where I was going with that one...

    Back to being on topic--the fact that it's the exact same % is eerie.  Talk about the Dems being split...

    Oh, wait... (none / 0) (#95)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:12:10 PM EST
    You mean the show was called, "Peace and prosperity (unless you live in Rwanda)" right?  I don't hold Hillary accountable for that, but I hold Bill very, very accountable for it.  

    "Inevitablilty" wasn't her strategy (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by NJDem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:36:33 PM EST
    it was how the media played it.

    BC (who just happens to be right most of the time about politics) told her that the primary would be harder than the general.  If she pulls off the nomination, I believe that to be true.

    Just a note about BC's political insights: 2 weeks before the 2000 election, he called Gore and told him that he should focus on Tennessee and BC offered to go to AK for him.  Gore rejected the advice.  I wonder what would have happened if he took it?  

    "The Math" (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by manys on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:37:43 PM EST
    22% is lower than Bush's approval ratings, so what we have here is groups of single-minded idiots. What might be news is the size of the hardcore-idiot faction, but this is a non-story besides. I can't think of anything less interesting (save the Limbaugh cross-voting hoax) than taking note of poll results that expose meaningless corner cases. Let's see a poll result illustrating the percentage of voters who don't care who becomes president because they'll be screwed no matter what.

    Wake me up when the candidate polls touch on the war or the economy.

    More proof, this should go to the end, beyond PA, (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by vicndabx on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:41:18 PM EST
    without anymore talk of who has the nomination locked up, who should drop out, etc.  Once all of the democratic party has had a chance to speak, then FL & MI should be taken into acct by the SD's and a nominee decided.  Anybody have friends in the MSM to get this poll out to the public?

    Clinton is a force (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    to be reckoned with. So is Obama. Clinton has support from millions of Democrats. So does Obama.

    These new poll numbers, and the recent ones that show Dem (or potential Dem) voters preferring McCain over the Dem they don't love, are pretty freaking scary.

    It's official: the GE is the Dems to lose.

    Let the intraparty inquisition end. Neither candidate is perfect. So WHAT? Time for a sit-down. Time for renewed energy and focus. It doesn't matter who has been the more idealistic, or the more divisive. The time now is for pragmatism and resolve. Clinton and Obama both have to prove NOW that the Democratic party is bigger than either of them.

    Only a united party has any chance of gaining positive media traction against McCain, winning the GE, passing progressive legislation or resolving anything in Iraq. How to achieve internal unity now should be our number one political concern.

    Let the face-saving begin.

    Me? I live in Kansas a state so red (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by katiebird on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:23:10 PM EST
    It's never mattered who I voted for.

    Oh, wait!  That little fact that Gore won the popular vote?  I was one of those votes.

    This year, my vote won't matter for the Electoral race -- it's a given that McCain will win Kansas.

    But, I'm finding it harder and harder to imagine myself actively voting for Obama.  I'm not yet ready to say I WON'T, but I'm thinking about my options.

    Especially the option of writing in Hillary's name.

    If the popular vote is something that matters to Obama (which I doubt) he can earn my vote.  

    I vote in Wis- they are all after me (vote wise) (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by kenosharick on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:04:52 PM EST
    Barack cannot win my homestate now -the wright thing ened it. Dems barely win Wis, Minn.,Iowa (sometimes) ect. Hillary on the other hand would win in a cakewalk.(I know she lost the primary, but would not have if the wright news had already broken)

    DK just digs up the smallest (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:16:56 PM EST
    inconsequential stuff to front page Obama. Now he's talking about even if Hillary wins Penn it will be a loss. Wow, spin spin. I think he hasn't lost the Republican in him.

    He is getting way too obvious. I'd be banned over there if I said so.

    Yup (none / 0) (#7)
    by AF on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:51:20 AM EST
    Time to let the issue go.  Hear that Hillary?

    What was your point? (none / 0) (#25)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:04:08 PM EST
    It was a clip from an article that Clinton is preparing herself for a debate on the issue as party insiders are uncomfortable.

    My point (none / 0) (#28)
    by AF on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:07:13 PM EST
    Is that of the two campaigns, Clinton is doing more to keep this issue alive than Obama.

    The Obama campaign has never called for Hillary to drop out.


    Not so fast (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:11:17 PM EST
    Richardson who is now part of Camp Obama did deliver his "I'm not gonna tell Clinton what to do, she has a right to continue, but I think she's tearing the party apart by continuing line" line.

    That qualifies.


    this needs to stop (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:13:25 PM EST
    camp Obama does NOT equal Obama campaign


    camp Clinton does NOT equal Clinton campaign

    can we stop judging our candidates by their supporters?


    Fine (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:19:30 PM EST
    Richardson is part of the Obama campaign now.

    How? (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:21:09 PM EST
    Is he being Paid?  Look, I wouldn't call Ed Rendell part of the Clinton campaign.  That's my point.

    To be fair (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:26:58 PM EST
    I try not to include low-level staffers either.  And even ignore Mark Penn and Axelrod as much as possible since they both make me really angry.  I guess I should say, I wish we could just judge the candidates themselves, not their surrogates of any level.

    You are being absurd (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:36:00 PM EST
    Richardson was the big message deliverer for Obama this weekend.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#66)
    by CST on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:45:03 PM EST
    My point is, we're not voting for Richardson, we had that chance and said no.  I guess I like to take everyone at face value, and I assume that they are expressing their OWN opinion, even when talking about the candidates.  There are plenty of discrepancies between what various Obama and Clinton supporters say within their own camps, how do you choose which one is right?

    You must be jokling (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:12:24 PM EST
    You are better than this.

    Hillary is keeping alive the issue of whether she should drop out of the race? Seriously, you are better than this.

    I expect this kind of comment from jrarza, not you.


    Apparently... (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:36:41 PM EST
    Apparently, Hillary is keeping alive the issue of whether she should drop out of the race by staying in the race.

    Of the two campaigns (none / 0) (#48)
    by AF on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:28:44 PM EST
    Obviously, the media and other self-appointed experts who think they understand math but don't understand reality are primarily to blame for keeping this ridiculous idea alive.  

    But the fact is that the  Obama camp has never called for Hillary to drop out.  Hillary's suggestion to the contrary is incorrect.  

    (The Obama campaign is borrowing Hillary's failed "inevitability" strategy, which is not the same as calling on the other side to drop out.)

    My guess is that Hillary is mentioning this as part of her campaign against the "Clinton Rules," which has been pretty effective so far.  I don't blame her for it.  But there it is.


    That is absurd (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:35:27 PM EST
    David Plouffe has pushed this consistently for a month.

    They are clearly behind this. Please do not become on of those type of commenters.

    I really enjoy your participation here.


    David Plouffe (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by AF on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:41:57 PM EST
    Is pushing the math.  He has not drawn the implication that Hillary should drop out.  

    The implication he is drawing, rather, is that voters and super delegates shouldn't vote for her because she can't win.

    But sure, the basic problem is that the media and other bloggers are eating it up and jumping to the ridiculous conclusion that Hillary should drop out.  Hillary's comment about is a minor issue.


    Predictable Media Spin for this poll: (none / 0) (#8)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:51:42 AM EST
    78% of Democrats are not asking for Hillary Clinton to stay in the race.

    Not even possible (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:52:29 AM EST
    62% at least.

    we'll wait for DKos to decide the percent (none / 0) (#13)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:54:15 AM EST
    by the way, please I really need you to watch that video I linked to.  You will enjoy.

    And I promise no more off topic links, but that one could not wait.


    The sad truth is (none / 0) (#64)
    by Neal on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:43:12 PM EST
    the Super Delegate votes seem to be the only ones that will matter.

    Cool Down Period of Silence? (none / 0) (#65)
    by dem08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:44:50 PM EST
    I propose all progressive blogs ignore the Democratic Race and focus on how the Republicans have ruined our great nation.

    My Opinion Only, as Big Tents says of himself:

    The split in Democratic Circles is NOT a good thing, NOT a funny thing, NOT a sign of healthy passionate involvement. Maybe it is funny as Gallows Humor, but I find it depressing.

    It might be that the passion blogs brings to events is too immediate, too saturating, and ultimately will take a Democratic Year and turn it into Three More Alito Justices, probably all minority Judges.

    November is a long way away, but I think there will be Democrats who vote other races but do not vote for anyone for President (or for Ralph Nader), vote for McCain, or stay home.

    The problem is that McCain isn't horrible (none / 0) (#89)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:41:45 PM EST
    McCain may be a lot of things, but he isn't Bush lite, as has been suggested. He has been talking the tough talk lately, but he doesn't have a history of extremism. Although he is not as moderate as his repurtion, his reputation as a moderate that is partially earned. There is a case to be made that McCain would make a better President than Obama. He certainly has a better record of actual accomplishments and a better understanding of international and domestic politics. He also has more experience than Clinton, but Hillary Clinton is not nearly as far behind in these areas as Obama.

    I don't want a Republican administration, just because I don't want a Republican administration. But there are a lot of less partisan American's who don't really care which party is in charge, as long as they are competent. We can't just assume that we can tar every Republican with the "Bush" brush.


    Here in (none / 0) (#108)
    by sas on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:49:59 PM EST
    PA , I"m really wanting to vote this November against my congressperson.  

    I have not decided who to vote FOR in November, but I do know who I am against.


    How about a compromise? (none / 0) (#74)
    by faux facsimile on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:07:34 PM EST
    Democratic voters demand that both candidates drop out for the good of the party. At the Denver convention the surprise candidate will be... the reanimated corpse of Lyndon Johnson! Now there's a guy who knew how to win a campaign. With a little luck, John McSame won't even know what hit him.

    (On a similar note, it's kinda sad to think that the last president to oversee a major long-term decrease in poverty in this country has been dead for 35 years).

    I wouldn't mind it going on to the convention (none / 0) (#75)
    by digdugboy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:07:49 PM EST
    if the Clinton campaign could simply stop elevating McCain over Obama as presidential material. Since the math is so inexorably opposed to a Clinton nomination now, you'd think she could do at least that much.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#87)
    by tek on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:35:12 PM EST
    the least she could do would be to promote Obama.

    Considering the record number (none / 0) (#90)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:03:24 PM EST
    of registration....Link

    State Democratic party officials touted a record-level four million registered Democratic voters in anticipation of the upcoming primary on April 22. The Philadelphia suburbs and the state's central region, including counties where Republicans still outnumber Democrats, had some of the highest proportions of party-switchers.

    That is 4 MILLION!! And NOT just the Rush comment..

    Bill Meck, a resident of a Philadelphia suburb, remarked that after 41 years of voting Republican, he recently registered with the Democratic party. "I wanted to be a part of the choice," said Meck.

    (I still have issues with people changing parties for anything other than ideology)

    However, I DO believe that some Repubs will mess with the Dem primary for both candidates.

    But that is sure alot of popular vote. And that is a good reason for both candidates toremain in the race.