Texas Poll: Clinton By 6

By Big Tent Democrat

Note, this post has been corrected.

The latest PPP Texas poll has Clinton ahead 50-44, due to huge Latino advantage for Clinton.

I'll be updating this post with other Texas polling. As blogged earlier, Zogby has Obama up 3. Ras has it 48-47 Obama. Public Strategies has a 46-46 tie.

The world's greatest pollster, SUSA has Obama's lead in Texas slipping from 50-46 to 49-48:

Obama's momentum now slowed, and possibly stalled, according to SurveyUSA's final pre-Primary poll. . . . Now, Obama leads by 6/10ths of 1 point, effectively tied, and completely consistent with either candidate winning tomorrow by a narrow margin.

< The Last TV Ads | Rezko Trial: Obama As Defense Witness? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    weird crosstabs (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:28:21 AM EST
    If the PPP polls winds up being right, it will mostly likely be by accident.

    I mean, they are giving Clinton 50%, based on 53% support for women, and 47% from men... which looks like they think the electorate will be fairly evenly split by gender.

    And, 47% of men?   Sorry, that looks like an outlier to me.  

    But if we adjust for more women voting overall, and Clinton getting a lower proportion of the male vote, the poll might turn out to be close after all! ;)

    Agreed (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:33:14 AM EST
    Did you see the swing in white men? I never have understood these PPP polls, even the one that nailed Wisconsin.

    We all know that ... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:42:05 AM EST
    white men are secretly all crushy over Hillary.  Even Republicans.  Push them on it in person.  

    They blush, shift their feet, then says something like, "Yeah, she's got a nice smile."  Then they walk away mumbling some of their candidate's talking points.


    In Wisconsin (none / 0) (#59)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:27:01 PM EST
    PPP's crosstabs said voters saw Iraq as the #1 issue.  I don't think that has been true in any state so far, so I have no clue how they came up with that result.  Certainly the exit polls said no such thing.

    better (none / 0) (#31)
    by joei on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:41:43 AM EST
    way to look is by race breakdown

    most of the polls are splitting the race composition as -- AA 20%, Hispanics 30%, White 45%

    but according to the texas pop. census, for every 1 AA there are 3 Hispanics.

    IMHO, the clinton strategy is to surprise the historical hispanic turnout... imagine if 40% of them turnout instead of the usual


    cencus numbers... (none / 0) (#49)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:06:35 PM EST
    ... are different than registered voter numbers or likely voter numbers.

    ugh... (none / 0) (#51)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:08:02 PM EST
    ... it would help if I could spell.

    Census, not Cencus.


    agree (none / 0) (#53)
    by joei on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:16:15 PM EST

    the point i am making is that the hispanics turnout is historically on the low end. and there are lot more hispanics vs. aa no matter how you look at it, specially in texas.

    i am just going by some anecdotal evidence from clinton campaign, they brought in the same guy who mobilized the vote in souther california paying big bucks. then the who is who of hispanic leadership has decended into texas lately if you noticed.

    if you turnout more hispanics, you have two advantages -- upping clinton support and weighing down the obama supporter (AA)



    didn't someone say (none / 0) (#56)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:19:17 PM EST
    that the Hispanic vote will be disenfranchised to a certain degree because of delegate count?

    Going Back to Cali (again) (none / 0) (#72)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:59:04 PM EST
    But that seemed to be part of the motivation in California.  The hispanic community wanted to show they could be the difference in an election, they wanted to flex their political muscle.  Not a bad strategy for an emerging electoral block.  I think the Asian Americans wanted to do the same thing and did, to a lesser extent.

    If California hadn't been part of Super Tuesday, I think more attention would've been paid that Clinton lost both the white and African American vote and still won the primary.  That's huge in terms of what it could portend for the future of electoral politics in this country.


    Clinton won white vote in CA (none / 0) (#83)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:26:11 PM EST
    Clinton won the white vote in California 46%-45% -- basically, it was a tie.

    Clinton's margin was based on big turnout in the Hispanic community, and big margins in both the Hispanic and Asian communities.


    Thanks for Correction (none / 0) (#86)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:30:16 PM EST
    SUSA in texas (none / 0) (#79)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:19:24 PM EST
    Well, if SUSA is any indication, the message is getting out to Hispanics.

    Two weeks ago, the demographic profile was White 47%, Black 21%, Hispanic 28%.  Its latest poll has it as White 48%, Black 17%, Hispanic 32%.

    My guess is that the early poll percentages were based on a continuing pattern of disproportionately high turnout among African Americans.. but now it looks like all groups are going to be turning out in big numbers, but especially Hispanics, and the relative proportion of the AA vote is falling.   And because there has been so much early voting that they can use to compare against the data from 2 weeks ago, they made the adjustment in the demographics.


    That's What Happened In California (none / 0) (#64)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:47:59 PM EST
    The polls were wrong because they underestimated the number of hispanics.  They normally make up 12-16% of primary voters and surged to almost 30% this year.  If she can replicate that in Texas, she should have a good night Tuesday.  That's a big "if" though.

    Hillary should stay in all th way to the (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by DemBillC on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:33:30 AM EST
    convention. Obama has zero chance against McCain once people actually learn about his positions on the issues and look past his smooth talking persona.

    Interesting SUSA Crosstabs (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:07:10 PM EST
    Not only is Clinton up a bit among early voters, but not nearly the insurrmountable lead she built in California, but the gender split in the poll could favor her - SUSA predicts a 53-47 gender split (women - men).  It looks like SUSA has men and women evenly divided with Obama's advantage among men about the same as Clinton's advantage with women.* Now maybe I'm wrong, but haven't we seen larger splits than that this election season?

    * I understand why women prefer Clinton, as with African Americans and Obama, I presume it's that they are enthused by the prospect of the first woman president.  Why men flock to Obama to the same degree makes me wonder - are they, too, enthused about the prospect of finally electing a man to the Oval Office?

    Is this a real poll? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by katiebird on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:38:30 PM EST

    Sort of (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:40:47 PM EST
    Not one to take to the bank but the fellow tries hard.

    Oof (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by IVR Polls on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:00:32 PM EST
    Damned with faint praise

    heh (none / 0) (#183)
    by IVR Polls on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:07:47 AM EST

    So.. if Hillary wins TX and OH, who (4.42 / 7) (#8)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:17:34 AM EST
    will call on Obama to drop out?

    Seriously... (1.00 / 2) (#18)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:28:42 AM EST
    ... stop saying this.  It is just foolish.

    Clinton and Obama are in two VERY different situations, and if you can't see the difference, I am not sure what to tell you.

    Barack Obama will be leading in the pledged delates after tomorrow,regardless of what happens.  And he will be probably (or at least very possible) be leading in the overall popular vote.  


    It was just a joke ... (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:35:06 AM EST
    those Obama supporters can get a bit "tetchy."



    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:37:48 AM EST
    ... he (and others) has been repeating this same talking point for several days.  

    So Mr Obama will be the President (none / 0) (#26)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:38:46 AM EST
    of the delegates not the People : )

    and not Florida or Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    they are in the "sin bin"...what the Brits call the penalty box.  Love it.  

    a reminder... (none / 0) (#38)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:47:18 AM EST
    that Mr Ickes himself, as part of the RNC, voted to put MI and FL in the sin bin.

    He also (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:39:45 AM EST
    has a significant lead in popular vote.

    Depends on which count you make (none / 0) (#30)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:41:42 AM EST
    a) with or without non-Democrats
    b) with or without Fl and MI
    c) None of the Above   : ))))

    actually, all of the above (none / 0) (#37)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:46:46 AM EST
    even if you count Michigan, in which Obama was not even on the ballot.  Why that is suppose to be an accurate measure escapes me.

    Except for A cause I always doubt those (none / 0) (#45)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:55:03 AM EST
    exit polls : )))))

    Florida Resident.. (none / 0) (#93)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:44:30 PM EST
    ...he's ahead by 600,000 with Florida included.

    Here's what I want Clinton supporters to say.  You can cut and paste it if you'd like:

    "If Obama is ahead in pledged delegates and popular vote (including Florida, excluding Michigan) in June, superdelegates should vote for Hillary because the people have chosen wrongly."

    I will say this:  If Clinton is ahead in pledged delegates and popular vote (including Florida, excluding Michigan, although really, we shouldn't be talking about popular vote at all because that's not how nominations are won, but I'll give it to you) at the end of this process, she should be the nominee.

    Fair enough?


    Tetchy??? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:37:51 AM EST
    That is so descriptive.  

    Well, all this talk about Texas ... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    made me want to talk like a cowboy in some old movie:

    "Them thar Obama folks are a might tetchy, ain't they?"


    They do seem to take Life a wee bit (none / 0) (#47)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:58:16 AM EST
    too seriously don't they now.

    Yeah, and it seems ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:48:50 PM EST
    over at Dkos spirits are down, evidenced by this diary.

    I would say (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:51:09 PM EST
    that is probably a good thing.

    Yes, I think ... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:14:13 PM EST
    they're keenly aware that if Hillary does pull off wins in TX and OH, they're left with some pretty unsexy arguments for Obama.

    The good arguments are starting to slip away.

    Polls are no longer giving him the huge advantage over McCain.  Rezko and NAFTAgate stories are tarnishing his squeaky clean image.  The SNL bits are revealing media bias.  And there's a high likelihood of more to come.  

    His status as February fad may have been blown away by the winds of March.

    So they're left with an argument about math.  That's not a fun argument to make.  And if they also lose PA too, they realize they may have to argue against do-overs in MI and FL. An anti-democracy argument which won't play well.

    So, yes, their grimness today is good.  We'll see what tomorrow brings.


    And then he'll come back to take Mississippi... (none / 0) (#80)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:22:01 PM EST
    decisively and whatever delegates Wyoming has.  He then makes Pennsylvania close (42-58) and then almost certainly run the table on the remaining states, especially North Carolina, taking back whatever he's lost to Clinton (after Mississippi and Wyom he wins back the 15-20 he loses tomorrow) and adding to his current cushion of 100.

    So, barring a complete Obama implosion, it's hard to see how Clinton, no matter what happens over the rest of this campaign, comes closer than 100 pledged delegates by June.  More likely it will be a 125-150 Obama lead. The remaining superdelegates can split down the middle, and Obama still takes it.

    I don't discount Clinton completely, but the delegate math is just so incredibly hard to surmount at this point.


    And the popular vote... (none / 0) (#81)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:23:41 PM EST
    ...he'll still very likely be ahead in the popular vote, too, even with Florida counted, when this thing is over.

    So, just imagine this:  Hillary is behind in pledged delegates, behind in the popular vote - why on earth do you think that superdelegates will just flock to her given that situation?  They might, but it's highly unlikely.


    Because if she wins TX and OH then she will have (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:28:36 PM EST
    swept the big states, the states needed for the GE win.  BO has a lot of small states that will always be RED.  NY, NJ, CA, FL, MI, TX, OH will go BLUE in the general if Hillary is the nominee.

    But wait... what about the people?? (none / 0) (#89)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    So, it's the states that she wins that matter, not the fact that she may still be behind in pledged delegates and in the popular vote.  Hmmm...

    This is, unfortunately, perhaps, not how the primary system works.  Of course, superdelegates can override the popular vote and pledged delegates, but that is highly unlikely - that's not what they were designed to do.

    But perhaps you should propose a change to the primary system: make a list of the only states that matter, and just dispense with all that voting in the other states.


    Actually it is... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:46:55 PM EST
    ...what they were designed to do - vote for the candidate they feel has the best chance to win the election - whether the "popular" vote likes it or not.  They were put in place against "renegade" candidates and are supposed to exercise judgemtn INDEPENDENT of the popular / delegate vote.

    No, not really... (none / 0) (#100)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:53:46 PM EST
    Obama is no renegade candidate.  He's built a powerful campaign and is playing fairly and squarely.  

    So, basically you're saying - and please, repeat this:  you believe that if Obama is ahead in the popular vote AND in pledged delegates the superdelegates ought to overturn that democratic decision because the majority of the voters are just not really equipped to make the right decision.

    But anyway, this won't happen.  The superdelegates will go with the leader of the pledged delegates, who in all likelihood will also be leading the popular vote.


    One thing many people are not taking into account, (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:57:15 PM EST
    and that is that a LOT of BO's wins were the result of crossover republicans.  They skewed the results.  This is a Democratic nomination process and the SD's should take that into account when making their choice.  I want Democrats to decide the Democratic nominee.  The majority of the crossover voters will not be there in the GE.  They will once again vote republican.

    An irrelevant point... (none / 0) (#105)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:03:32 PM EST
    ...Obama won those contests fair and square based on the rules according to which they are run.  The fact that Republicans or Indys voted for him is a non-factor.

    Hillary also won, I'm sure, independents and Republicans, maybe not as many, BUT - how are we to know?  Exit polls?  Please.

    You may not like these primaries and caucuses (I hate them), but you can't go revising the rules midway through because you don't like the results.


    I didn't say anything about revising the rules. I (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:11:47 PM EST
    am saying that the SD's should take the facts into consideration.  They are representing the Democratic party.  Why should they endorse someone who does not have the support of the core of the party?  Read the post again.  

    I don't know all the math but I believe that if (none / 0) (#91)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:40:24 PM EST
    the SD's vote along with the popular vote/congressinal districts for their state then Hillary will have the vast majority of the SD's.  That added to her regular delegate count should give her the majority.

    Texas?! (none / 0) (#108)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:09:32 PM EST
    Texas will go blue if Hillary is the nominee? That's delusional.

    And you live in what state? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:12:29 PM EST
    There is the math, and then there is (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:29:01 PM EST
    the vetting yet to do . . . as the Rezko trial drags on for months. And let's hope that Farrakhan doesn't speak up again. And who knows what the GOP may have -- that I hope will be quickly dissed, but it all means that there are more factors than the math. Our last Dem president didn't have the math in his favor until June, and that was after some disclosures that came later than this. . . .

    Just a wild guess, but (none / 0) (#112)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:15:27 PM EST
    I imagine they'd do it because she is the best Democratic candidate.

    It's that experience thing, dontcha know. So much more reliable and useful than charisma when you're picking the person for the most important job in the world.

    This is why superdelegates were created - to intervene in the rare case when the voting public is about to make a very very bad decision based on emotions instead of reason.


    How incredibly and repugnantly condescending... (none / 0) (#117)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:28:42 PM EST
    ...of you to suggest that Obama supporters, like myself, lack the capacity to use our reason.  I would never say that about a Clinton supporter.

    It's so disgusting and speaks volumes, I would say, about you - not all Clinton voters.

    I respect Clinton and her supporters.  I think she'd be a fine president.  For a variety of reasons, I think Obama would be a better one.  How dare you say we're not rational thinking people.  

    I guess all of those professors and academics and other highly educated professionals who constitute a good portion of Obama's coalition are all just incredibly unreasonable people too politically immature to make a decision.  Thank goodness we have superdelegates to save us from our poor judgement.

    Gross, just gross...


    sar75: (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:45:24 PM EST
    I completely agree with you that no one should:  a) attack Obama supporters (or anyone else), b) suggest that their votes are based in stupidity, or c) impugn their sincere votes in any other fashion. I also agree with you that superdelegates should not overturn the results and that whomever wins the popular vote and pledged delegates should win the nomination.

    May I please quibble with you on one issue, however? Having a PhD and being an academic who is surrounded by other PhDs and academics, I can tell you that their reasons for supporting Obama are often not very rational (at least from what they say to me). There are an awful lot of them that are voting out of irrational Hillary hate and sexism, I'm sorry to say. At least, that is what they talk about around my academic institution. So, I just caution against the kind of talk that suggests that Obama's voters are really really smart cuz they're academic elites or something.

    Believe me, PhDs and academics often fall into irrational arguments just like everyone else (whether they support Obama or Clinton). Giving up cherished beliefs is hard for everyone.



    That's fine... (none / 0) (#125)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:54:46 PM EST
    ...but to dismiss Obama voters as irrational - and say that superdelegates need to rescue them from their poor judgement, is condescending and insulting to the extreme.

    I do, however, tend to think that academic elites tend to constitute, on balance, a more rational, tolerant, and informed demographic than most others.


    Seriously, are you saying (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:16:49 PM EST
    that Obama's "base" - his largest voting bloc - is academic elites, and that academic elites have some sort of lock on rationality?

    Have you spent much time in academe?

    Are you aware at all of his true demographics?


    I did not say that... (none / 0) (#136)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:18:42 PM EST
    ...I included "educated professionals" in addition to academic elites.

    Please, read my posts more carefully.


    I not only read, I cut and pasted. (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:29:44 PM EST
    all of those professors and academics and other highly educated professionals who constitute a good portion of Obama's coalition

    How big is a good portion, that you think all Obama supporters should be considered equally as "rational" as the highly educated ones?

    Is higher education a guarantee of rationality? I would think not.

    OTOH, are highly educated people who like Hillary NOT rational? OR do you think there are just fewer of them?

    There's a fascinating potential discussion of classism here.


    Good portion... (none / 0) (#141)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:52:09 PM EST
    ...is relative, BUT yes, I would say that highly educated professionals (MA, MBA, JDs, MSs, Phd, etc) do constitute a sizeable chunk of Obama's.  This has been conventional wisdom since day one.

    You accused me of saying that professors and academics alone constituted a "good portion" of Obama's coalition.  I added "highly educated professionals," which is a much larger group.

    I also never said that it was a guarantee of rationalism, although I would argue that people who are highly educated tend also to be more informed and tend to prize "reason" more than those who are not - as a generalization, I'm comfortable with that.

    Moreover, I simply cited them as an example.  I thinking working-class folks and non-college educated people who vote for Obama are similarly using their reason.

    You continue to skirt the issue, which was your blanket suggestion that Obama voters are committing a huge mistake because they do not think rationally, but with make their decisions based on emotion.  That is incredibly insulting, and you still won't own up to that fact.


    Conventional wisdom quite often is neither. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:07:21 PM EST
    You want me to own up to the fact you're insulted?

    You got it.

    Always happy to oblige a rational academic elite.;-)


    I was hoping... (none / 0) (#157)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:12:45 PM EST
    ...you would own up to the fact that you insulted me - and millions of others who are voting for the candidate they think is the best - and maybe apologize.  Just say:

    "You're right, Obama supporters are voting for the candidate they think is the best.  I think Clinton is better, but I'm sorry for suggesting that they're making a bad bad decision because they can't think rationally, but are guided by their emotions. That was unfair, and not at all in the spirit of civil debate."



    I'm afraid you're just goignt o have to learn (none / 0) (#165)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:58:48 PM EST
    to live with disappointment.

    That makes me very sad... (none / 0) (#166)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:20:04 PM EST
    I probably will, especially after tomorrow night. :)

    I do hope you'll think twice about making such rude comments about millions of people who, like you, believe strongly in their candidate.


    It wasn't a rude comment. (none / 0) (#171)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:03:21 PM EST
    No matter how many times you say it was.

    In fact (none / 0) (#172)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:16:14 PM EST
    this seems to be a pattern with you.

    You say something wrong or questionable, and when anyone corrects you, you repeat it even though you've been proven wrong.

    You've done it at least three different times, on three different issues, in this thread alone.

    You also like to create statements and require someone else to own them.

    It's not my place to decide, but frankly I think  your behavior is more than a little troll-like. You're relatively new here, but it seems by now you would have figured out that that's not how this blog operates.


    You said... (none / 0) (#173)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:36:26 PM EST
    ...that Obama voters are making a bad bad decision because they are guided by their emotion, not their reason.

    That is insulting, condescending, and rude.

    It would be just as rude if I said the same about Clinton supporters.  But I wouldn't, because, alas, I don't think that, nor would I be so rude and condescending as to suggest such a thing.


    STOP misrepresenting what I wrote (none / 0) (#182)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:54:35 PM EST
    THIS is what I wrote:

    This is why superdelegates were created - to intervene in the rare case when the voting public is about to make a very very bad decision based on emotions instead of reason.

    You have taken this relatively innocuous statement - which happens to be true - and you have insulted ME over it, calling it rude, condescending, repugnant, etc.

    If anyone owes an apology, it's you to me.


    As for being troll-like... (none / 0) (#174)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:38:23 PM EST
    ...I have, time and again, complimented Hillary Clinton, said I would vote for her in the general election, and refused to attack Clinton supporters.

    Please don't lecture me on civility. Remember, you're the one who dismissed Obama supporters as misguided fools who vote according to their emotions, not reason.  


    It could be hormones! (none / 0) (#150)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:44:03 PM EST
    This study found that male scientists had higher levels of female hormones, which may lead to their superior reasoning abilities.

    So maybe Obama supporters relative level of rationality comes down to how many "girl cooties" they have.

    I don't know why, but as a man I find that thought quite refreshing.  Kind of throws a monkey wrench into a lot of tired old sexist arguments.


    I'll buy that... (none / 0) (#151)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:49:23 PM EST

    I'm done here... (none / 0) (#137)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:23:28 PM EST
    ...I'm going to go back to my irrational ways.  Good thing that there exists a safeguard that might rescue the Party from the bad bad decision of millions of other people like me.

    Academe is a sexist bastion (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:10:32 PM EST
    almost beyond belief -- the same medieval processes (seriously, faculty ranks, etc., come from centuries ago) that correctly can ensure academic freedom also make too many academics too free to get away with actions that would get them out the door on the first day in the corporate world these days. The byzantine processes can prove beyond the ability of many an agency, lawyer, or court to get into, around, or through to effect real change. And academics can keep teaching into their 70s and even beyond, so it is taking far longer to see even some generational change -- not that all of the younger men (and some women) get it, but many at least have learned to be more careful. It's just that many in academe have the ability to make sexist decisions sound oh-so-rational and tolerant.

    My, we are tetchy today. (none / 0) (#124)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:53:07 PM EST
    There, there. It's OK. I'm a Hillary supporter. I'm used to being called names. Don't give it another thought.


    You might want to grow an extra layer of hide if he does win the nom, though, because it's going to be much much worse than that little love note.


    So... (none / 0) (#126)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:59:58 PM EST
    ...you can't concede how condescending your comment was?  Do you really think that all of these Obama voters are just fools who are only thinking with their hearts, not with their heads, and need to be rescued through an undemocratic process?

    That is the logic of your argument.

    I've said time and again here that I like Hillary and think she'd be a fine president.  I do find the numerous excuses for her failures thus far and continued justifications for her superiority as a candidate rather weak. If she's the better candidate, why has Obama done better so far.  Oh, I forgot - it's because his supporters are idiots. Doh!


    Please calm down. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:13:22 PM EST
    I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth.

    I don't need someone to explain my own logic to me.

    No, my comment was not condescending - no more so than the one upthread about the "renegade" candidate. You really need to get a grip.

    I too like Hillary and think she'd be the BEST president. However, being her supporter online these days teaches one a valuable lesson, one you could stand to consider: not everyone sees the obvious (to you) superiority of your candidate. Obama supporters seem to have a hard time with this, but Hillary supporters are used to it because we have dealt with the public and media and RW demonization for so long.


    No, I won't... (none / 0) (#135)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:17:10 PM EST
    ...you said, rather blithely, that Obama supporters were unable to make a rational decision, but only according to their emotions, and are now, luckily, going to be rescued by an undemocratic process (which is in the rules, as much as I hate them).

    That is what you said.  You dismissed 11 million voters in one careless remark, and now can't own up to it.


    Wow (none / 0) (#154)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:03:01 PM EST
    Is this a good example of the superior rationality of elite academics?

    Obama is up 600,000 (none / 0) (#82)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:25:56 PM EST
    ...with Florida included. You can't include Michigan, where he wasn't on the ballot, in the popular vote total.

    Without Florida, he's up 1,000,000.


    We certainly can include Michigan (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:30:49 PM EST
    even if you may not choose to do so. Verbs matter, and so do voters. Voters voted, and it was up to candidates to be on the ballot or not. For any candidate to argue against counting all the votes . . . well, you've heard it before, and it has no impact on you. But those voters may think otherwise.

    Obama was NOT on the ballot... (none / 0) (#90)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:38:52 PM EST
    ...he was adhering to the DNC rules.  It just can't be included in the popular vote total.  If so, then you need to give the 49% (or whatever) that didn't vote for Clinton to Obama.  

    Please - I'm willing to give you Florida, where they were both on the ballot, but including Michigan (I feel sorry for the voters there, but that was the rule - however unfair) is grasping.


    Your facts are incorrrect (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:41:43 PM EST
    Without taking a position on whether Michican should count, Sen. Obama did not take his name off the ballot to adhere to DNC rules. The rules did not require him to remove his name from the ballot. He did it on his own. We call that unilateral disarmament, not usually a strong move in politics.

    You are correct. Thanks for not letting this meme (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:46:33 PM EST
    go any further today.

    Why he did it... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:51:25 PM EST
    Obama's purpose in taking his name off the ballot was simple -- he wanted to keep Iowa and NH voters happy.

    I mean, he didn't take his name off the Florida ballot, because that was after IA and NH, and voters in those two states didn't care what happened after they got the attention they crave.

    (and just FYI, the exit poll from michigan showed that had everyones names been on the ballot, Clinton would have gotten 46% to Obama's 35% (IIRC)


    The above ... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:57:57 PM EST
    shows just how dull Obama supporters will sound if they lose OH and TX.

    All the high rhetoric gone.  It's all about math.  And the American public collectively goes to sleep.

    Meanwhile, Clinton has all the good news stories.  Comeback kid, staff shake-up worked, security argument worked, and so on.

    And Obama has vetting and math.

    Of course, all this requires Clinton to win OH and TX, and that hasn't happened yet.

    But if it does ...


    No, Robot... (none / 0) (#107)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    ... will you please now make this statement:

    "If Obama ends up with more pledged delegates and more popular votes when the voting is finished, Hillary should still get the nomination."

    That's all I want you to say.

    It is about the delegates.  This is how nominations are won - one primary and caucus at a time.  The candidate who wins the most delegates wins the nomination. Of course, another candidate can overturn those results with superdelegates.  In order to make that argument, which is perfectly within the rules of the current system, you have to say "The voters have spoken through a democratic process within a system of rules, however flawed it may be.  Those voters have made the wrong decision, and thus superdelegates should overturn it."

    Go on, be intellectually honest and say those things.  Until then, let the voting go on, let the delegates be won, and lets see how this thing works out.  

    And remember, I have NEVER called for Clinton to withdraw.  Never.  I think if the math becomes too difficult, she should, for the good of the party.  But she has every right to fight on until the bitter end.  


    WRONG WRONG WRONG (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:56:26 PM EST
    It is about the delegates.  This is how nominations are won - one primary and caucus at a time.  The candidate who wins the most delegates wins the nomination.

    Nominations are wom by the candidate who gets a super-majority (approx. 60%)of the delegates available in caucuses and primaries.  "The most", if it doesn't achieve the magic number (right now, its 2025) is absolutely meaningless -- the candidates have failed to reach the threshhold and the decision is up to the judgement of the superdelegates.

    If someone gets to 2025, the superdelegates can't stop the nomination, even if they unanimously oppose it.

    Upthread, someone took offense at the (implied) suggestion that Obama supporters are just plain stupid.  All I can say to that is just look at how many Obama supporters actually argue that having the most delegates entitles Obama to the nomination -- then come back and tell us how smart every Obama supporter is.


    You're splitting hairs... (none / 0) (#144)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:10:37 PM EST
    ...and basically confirming what I said.  Nominations are won by those who win the most delegates.  Your post does nothing to negate that.

    So, if Obama wins the most delegates (and that includes superdelegates), he wins.  If he wins the most pledged delegates and the popular vote, even if he is not at 2025, the superdelegates will almost put him over the top.

    Of course, they could overturn the results of the voting - no doubt.

    But in general, it's a fair statement to say - for shorthand - that the candidate with the most delegates (and again, that includes superdelegates) wins the nomination.


    WRONG 2.0 (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:28:23 PM EST
    But in general, it's a fair statement to say - for shorthand - that the candidate with the most delegates (and again, that includes superdelegates) wins the nomination.

    that's a ridiculous thing to say.  Its shorthand for "I don't know any history of the Democratic nomination process, and I'm completely unaware that this is the very first time that the nomination has not been locked up with pledged delegates since the inception of the 'superdelegates' system."

    You can't just make up "general rules" because they are favorable to your candidate.

    Here's a smarter general rule -- the candidate that has won the "electoral college" vote  (excluding those states which Kerry lost by more than 10%) gets the nomination.

    Your general rule is the equivalent of declaring victory in a game of chess because you have 7 of my pieces and I have 5 of yours.  It doesn't matter that you took five pawns, a knight and a bishop, and I have you Queen, both castles, a bishop, and a pawn.  You've got seven pieces, and you think you should be declared the winner.


    You're still splitting hairs.. (none / 0) (#149)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:38:33 PM EST
    ...and making a technical point.  The candidate with the most pledged delegates +  superdelegates, i.e. the most delegates, will get the nomination.  Yes, that number has to go to 2025.

    BUT in practice we all know that if Obama or Clinton has the most pledged delegates (and has won the popular vote) that the superdelegates, rather than risking a brokered convention, will flock to one or the other.

    What you don't want to admit is that, again, in practice, this is a race for the most delegates, and the candidate with the most delegates, even if that number doesn't reach 2025, will most legitimately claim the nomination.

    You know, BTD is arguing that delegates don't matter in Texas, but the popular vote does.  I'd agree - for the post-election narrative that may be more important.  But when it comes time to figuring out who is going to be the nominee, the candidate with the most pledged + superdelegates will win.

    Now, please tell me that you hope that the Clinton, if she is behind in pledged delegates and popular vote, will become the nominee nonetheless, overturning the democratic process (however flawed).


    Please stop saying that (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:54:41 PM EST
    Nominations are NOT WON by whoever has the most delegates, they are won by the candidate THAT HAS THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF DELEGATES.

    Why is this so complicated? I know it may not be what you would like, but those are the rules.

    If you are trying to say that the candidate with the most delegates has the best SHOT at securing the nomination, then that would be a whole other discussion.

    But you keep saying the same inaccurate thing over and over.


    I'll keep saying it... (none / 0) (#158)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:16:09 PM EST
    ...because in practice, that is what will happen, and you know it.

    Of course I know that 2025 are required, and that gets the nomination. That number, of course, also represents the MOST delegates.  But in this situation, the candidate with the most delegates will get the nomination, as the superdelegates will not overturn the democratic process.


    Can you please... (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:27:49 PM EST
    ...respond to questions, and not just repeat the same thing over and over.

    I do not know that is what will happen. No one knows what will happen. We all know what we wish would happen.

    And please stop repeating campaign lines. It is NOT overturning the democratic process. Because if it is then so are caucuses. And so are allowing republicans to vote across. Understand I am NOT saying these things, I am trying to point out that what you say isn't fact just because you say it.

    I think we all want to have intelligent conversations here. I have no issue with disagreement. But I have an issue with just "shilling" for either campaign.

    I'll ask again: please stop.


    It is overturning a democratic process... (none / 0) (#167)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:25:55 PM EST
    ...but those are the rules.  I've said in other posts, I accept them.  I just find it difficult to believe that a Clinton or Obama supporter would find not be disgusted by such a turn of events.

    I've also said that I dislike caucuses.  BUT the difference is that as bad as they are, both candidates are on a level playing field, more or less. They may undemocratic, but they are undemocratic for both candidates.

    Overturning the pledged delegate and popular vote winner  is undemocratic on a much greater scale.

    Finally, I have not shilled for any campaign.  I have simply stated an opinion.  I would accept whatever the rules may deliver, but I don't have to like it.  I would be equally disgusted if Clinton won the pledged delegates and popular vote and had it overturned by superdelegates.  Can you say that about Obama?


    Just remember that the pleged delegate and (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:36:33 PM EST
    popular winner are often different candidates.  So in your book which one takes precedence?  That's the problem with the caucus system in a nutshell.  In my opinion, the popular vote winner should get the larger marjority of delegates.  And it would be nice if all states operated within the same system.  But that's not the case.  So what is it?  And I'm talking about on an individual state by state basis.  Who should a state's superdelegates vote for?  The popular vote winner or the delegate winner (knowing that the caucus system is flawed)?

    I wouldn't be (none / 0) (#179)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:20:55 PM EST
    If the reverse was true, and Sen Obama could beat McCain better.

    And please... (none / 0) (#145)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:12:39 PM EST
    ...all I ask of any Clinton supporter is to say the following:

    "If Obama wins the most pledged delegates, I hope that superdelegates deny him the nomination."

    That's perfectly within the rules of the system, but I would never say that about Clinton.  If Clinton wins the most pledged delegates, I think she should win the nomination.


    I will say this (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:57:41 PM EST
    "If Obama has the most delegates, but Hillary has won all the major and swing states, and looks like she is better at the electoral math for general election, I hope the superdelegates deny him the nomination so we can win the election in Nov."

    Close enough?


    Fair enough.. (none / 0) (#169)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:54:13 PM EST
    ..it's intellectually honest.  You choose a result that overturns the votes of the people in order to get a better candidate for the general election.  Fine. Blatantly undemocratic, but realistic and rational.

    Of course, by this logic, why have a campaign for the nomination in the first place? Why not just allow the party elite to select the most electable candidate.  In that case, we'd probably be voting for a Mark Warner in the fall.


    Again, because (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:20:04 PM EST
    Neither candidate has won, so your whole argument about "overturning results" is smoke. If Sen Obama had won the number of delegates necessary, then I'd be in full agreement with you. But he has not. Yet you keep arguing as if he has and something is being taken away.

    By the rules: neither won has and probably can win. Start from there and let's have a fun conversation.


    OK! (none / 0) (#113)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:17:23 PM EST
    "If Obama ends up with more pledged delegates and more popular votes when the voting is finished, Hillary should still get the nomination."

    So say I.


    Fantastic!!! (none / 0) (#120)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:36:03 PM EST
    ...that is intellectually honest and I applaud it.  Of course, it's highly undemocratic and shows little regard for the rules of the (in my opinion highly flawed) system, but still, it's honest.

    Logically, of course, you should now say that the entire nomination was useless.  I mean, what's the point?  We should disband the entire process and just allow 795 party elites to determine the nominee.

    That is, of course, the logical consequence of your thinking on this.


    "Highly undemocratic" perhaps (none / 0) (#127)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:02:15 PM EST
    But completely Big-D Democratic, the way it is set up now, with the firewall of superdelegates keeping a check on renegade candidates and emotional voters.

    Not to mention the caucuses disenfranchising voters - also very undemocratic.

    So I'd say, if the caucuses favor Obama, but the SDs favor Clinton, we've got a wash, and a fair nomination.

    If you don't like it, you can change it for next time - both caucuses and SDs.



    I said in a post below... (none / 0) (#139)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:29:06 PM EST
    ...that I will accept a superdelegate decision.  I won't be happy with it, but those are the rules.

    I would NEVER argue that the superdelegates should not vote how they'd like, even though I would pressure them to vote how I think they should - for the candidate who won the most pledged delegates.

    I have also stated on this board time and again (in agreement with BTD and others) just how awful I think the caucuses are.  But that the system we've got, and Obama has played better by those rules.  AND he has done just fine in primaries as well.

    That said, there is a big difference in degree here:  both Obama and Clinton knew the rules for the caucuses and primaries.  The playing field was level, and it included voters.  It is much more undemocratic for superdelegates to negate pledged delegate and possibly popular vote majorities than for Clinton to lose on a level playing field caucuses.


    You might want to check (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:10:32 PM EST
    and make sure Obama understands the rules don't traditionally include intimidating, threatening, and blackmailing Africa-American superdelegates.

    I'm not sure he understands that.


    I don't know what it will be .. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:28:54 PM EST
    about in a few weeks.  

    I was making an observation on how Obama supporters would sound if events that haven't happened yet happened.

    That's all I was talking about.

    Just a bit of election eve fun.

    And, funnily enough, a bunch of Obama supporters obliged and spoke just as I said they would.

    So I commented on that.



    well, to be fair (none / 0) (#119)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:35:28 PM EST
    IIRC, he couldn't remove his name from the Florida ballot because the Florida rules didn't allow it.

    Sorry - I concede that point (none / 0) (#96)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:49:23 PM EST
    ...but it still doesn't mean these votes or delegates should count. No way, no how.  

    Florida, fine, if you must, even though, again, that's not how this game was set up.

    Look, I don't like the system in its current form.  I don't like caucuses.  But there was a system and both candidates had to play by it as best the could.  And it's not about the popular vote (even though, with these states included, Obama has a good chance of winning that as well).  It's about gaining delegates.  And the one who has the most pledged delegates should win.

    Of course, if Clinton can convince enough superdelegates to go over to her side, I will hate it, but accept it.  I doubt, though, that superdelegates will overturn the pledged delegates and, likely, popular vote as well.

    But it's absolutely unfair to call on Obama to withdraw if he loses PA when he will still almost certainly be ahead in popular vote and pledged delegates!  That's insane!


    how the game was set up... (none / 0) (#102)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:57:25 PM EST
    the game was set up with the expectation that both delegations would be seated -- because the expectation was that someone would get a lock on the nomination.  

    Basically, Michigan and Florida were told that their attempt to gain a more important role in the primary caucus was not acceptable, and the punishment would be that their delegates couldn't provide the margin of victory that got a candidate to the "magic number" in pledged primary/caucus delegates.  

    Now that it looks like nobody is gonna get to the magic number, the longer these delegates are not seated, the more damage is being done to the Dems prospects in those two states in November.  And the Dems need Michigan, and really really want Florida.


    Why not? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:21:58 PM EST
    Both side made calculations, played by the rules. Sen Obama took early advantage in Iowa by taking his name off and looking good, Sen Clinton may take late advantage by getting more delegates.

    You may not like it, but neither is doing anything against the rules.


    Not Obama Rules here. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:57:43 PM EST
    Truth matters here, and there were no rules requiring that a candidate remove his name from the ballot in one state (but not the other, Florida, so -- so much for your DNC rules) to curry favor with states voting sooner. It just was more bone-headed judgment on his part. As such, it does not justify disenfranchising voters.

    Wow, the Big Orange (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:00:00 PM EST
    is looking sort of Lite Apricot today. I haven't been back in a while, so I can't remember when I saw the wreck list with so few non-campaign diaries.

    Um, I meant so few campaign diaries (nt) (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    Clinton wins blue states with Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Prabhata on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:38:08 AM EST
    Obama wins mostly red states with cross over Republicans and independents.

    A candidate must work with her/his base first because those are the ones who will stick with the candidate in the end.


    Clinton wins blue states (none / 0) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:07:48 PM EST
    but Obama says I will vote for him if he gets the nom?  Does anyone know what percent is not going to switch to Obama?  I seem to remember there was a slight uptick in those that stated they would not.  When I look at the numbers, it doesn't seem to take much of a loss of Clinton supporters, a small shift in independents and a small increase in Republican turnout for McCain to get this.  The same is true of Clinton.  Sorry if this discussion has already taken place, I'm new.

    It's not foolish at all. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Polkan on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:41:58 AM EST
    To become a nominee you must win the FIXED amount of delegates. Neither Obama nor Clinton will have that number. They must then reach that amount via superdelegates. That's the only way to break their current tie.

    Popular vote, pledged delegates, number of states won, size of states won is nothing but spin that will be used by both of them to make an argument to the superdelegates.

    The rules are the rules, so the original poster is totally spot on, ironically or not.


    Don't agree (none / 0) (#39)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:49:33 AM EST
    IF (and its a big if) he loses TX and OH, and loses PA I think there may be basis to start calling for him to drop out.

    I suspect that it will not come from Clinton (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:53:31 AM EST
    or her camp, for the same reason that the Obama camp really ought not have been pushing for her to quit. Let more people vote, both are running historic campaigns, neither ought to be seen as pushing out the other historic candidate, etc. Let the white guy, McCain, do it. :-)

    Cream (none / 0) (#60)
    by auntmo on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:27:20 PM EST
    I  think  as  soon  as  Kennedy and  Kerry come out publicly  in  favor  of  Clinton  due  to  Obama  rules  re  their  state,   that  THEY  should  call  for   Obama  to drop out.   :)

    Why should he drop out after Pennsylvania? (none / 0) (#87)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:30:27 PM EST
    ...when he's going to be ahead, still, in popular vote and pledged delegates, AND may have several strong states ahead of him.

    It's amazing.  He's up by 1,000,000 votes, 100 pledged delegates, eating away at Clinton's superdelegate lead, and cut a 20 point lead in Texas to nothing in 2 weeks and 20+ point lead in Ohio to 7-10 in the same time.  Why are you not calling for Clinton to drop out?

    I have never said that Clinton should drop out (although if she loses Texas, well, the math, the math...) before it was clear who should be the nominee.  Given Obama's current lead, it won't be clear until after May 6 when North Carolina, my state, incidentally, and the 10th largest in the country, votes.


    700,000 votes (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:49:40 PM EST
    if you include Florida.

    This revote talk is getting intriguing.

    I may write it up if there is still a race after Tuesday.

    I'm thinking Clinton may want revotes in Florida and Michigan.


    I'm happy to include Florida... (none / 0) (#109)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:10:55 PM EST
    ...but not Michigan.

    I'm perfectly willing to let those states vote again, too.


    But do you think Obama will want revotes? (none / 0) (#114)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:18:56 PM EST
    Here's my problem with revotes (none / 0) (#130)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:10:22 PM EST
    (even though I'd accept them)

    At the beginning of this campaign season, it should have been clear to all of the candidates what the playing field looked like.  Whether we like it or not, whether the DNC was right or wrong, whether it was hypocritical or not, Michigan and Florida were denied their delegates.  No, it's not fair.  The caucuses are probably not "fair" either. The superdelegates are not "fair".  The whole system is rotten. BTD, with whom I often disagree, is absolutely right about how awful the system is.

    BUT: it's the system that all candidates agreed to play by. Some have played by it better than others. Now, as it's delivering results that are unfavorable to one candidate, that candidate wants to change the rules. That seems unfortunate.

    I, for one, will be incensed if Obama wins the pledged delegates (forget about the popular vote - according to the rules, it's irrelevant, even though I think he will likely win it as well, excluding Michigan) but loses the nomination because of superdelegates.  I will argue that it was unfair and undemocratic. It will, though, be a disaster for the Democratic Party.

    BUT: I will accept it.  Them's the rules, as awful as they are. I won't demand that superdelegates vote for the winner of the pledged delegates (although I'd ask them to). If they don't, that's their choice.  

    What I don't understand is why Clinton supporters would not want the winner of the pledged delegates - and likely popular vote - to win the nomination?


    Probably (none / 0) (#159)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:20:06 PM EST
    What I don't understand is why Clinton supporters would not want the winner of the pledged delegates - and likely popular vote - to win the nomination?

    because we don't think he is the best and/or most electable candidate for the GE.

    It's nice that you could be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee.

    What I think you are underestimating is the degree (extreme) to which Clinton supporters don't like Obama. He hasn't courted us. He hsn't convinced us. We are immune to his "charm." We like substance instead.

    We are the Democratic base. He's playing to independents and Republicans, but not to us. He takes us for granted. He should stop doing that.


    Awww.. (none / 0) (#163)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:30:31 PM EST
    But hey, that's a rational response, and I'll respect it, although I still find it troubling that you'd just overturn the democratic process because you think the majority made a mistake.

    I am a committed Democrat myself, and I think he will do a better job at pursuing the issues I'm most concerned about.

    I also think - and I have just as much evidence as you - that he'll be a better GE candidate, and precisely for some of the reasons you mention. He appeals to independents.

    I'm not thinking with my heart here, I'm coming to conclusions based on a rational analysis of the evidence in conjunction with my personal biases.  That's fair, and that's what a lot of Obama supporters do.

    But unlike you, I won't tear Hillary or her supporters down.  I've said it once and I'll say it a thousand times.  I think she'd be a fine president and she'll get my time and money if she wins. I hope Clinton supporters would do the same for Obama, because as they both admit, they are very close on policy. I think anybody who claims they're a good democrat who wants progress on health care, on Iraq, on the environment, and a thousand other issues and wouldn't vote for the democratic nominee, whether it's Clinton or Obama, is betraying their own values.  And all too often I've heard on both sides that people won't vote for Obama or Clinton, but will stay home or vote for McCain. THAT is irrational behavior.


    Ever heard of the tyranny of the majority? (none / 0) (#164)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:57:02 PM EST
    The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a minority's interest as to be comparable in cruelty to "tyrannical" despots.


    Why do Obama supporters... (none / 0) (#175)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:46:54 PM EST
    ...deserve the label "tyranny of the majority"?  Your recourse to this shows just how low you'll sink.  

    Face it: you don't like Obama, and would be happy to see his lead (if he has won) in both delegate count and popular vote overturned simply because you don't agree with him or his policies.  That's fine, and you've admitted to as much.  I find that pretty awful, but that's just me.  I would NEVER wish to see Clinton's leads overturned, and would be disgusted if they were.

    But then again, I'm just another duped, irrational Obama supporter voting with my heart, not my head... I'm so glad that there's a minority of people who know better to save me from my bad bad decisions... thank you.


    Specially if (none / 0) (#116)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:24:03 PM EST
    They are both primaries...and open only to democrats.



    Funny, but (none / 0) (#128)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:06:19 PM EST
    Obama supporters are saying they'd welcome a contested revote.

    I kind of doubt if that would be the same thing Obama would want  - he does not do that well when people are truly enfranchised, in primaries. I'm betting he'd say "no do-overs!"


    He's won plenty of primaries... (none / 0) (#132)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:12:33 PM EST
    ...what on earth are you talking about? He wins primaries and caucuses.  Why?  Because that's how the system works.

    Would you be happier if he just said, "These caucuses, they're seriously flawed, we're not going to play for them?"


    umm... (none / 0) (#138)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:26:44 PM EST
    he does not do that well when people are truly enfranchised, in primaries.
    Umm... you do know that Obama has won more primaries than Clinton has won, right?

    oops (none / 0) (#160)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:22:29 PM EST
    yeah, he caught up when I wasn't paying attention.

    What's the breakdown (none / 0) (#177)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:17:11 PM EST
    of his primaries, open or closed? (I forget.)

    I don't remember. (none / 0) (#180)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:35:28 PM EST
    We all looked at a week or two ago, so if someone wanted to look back, they would find it.  

    Or someone go look at it again, but I don't have the energy to do it right now.  :)


    Okay, no prob -- (none / 0) (#181)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:41:07 PM EST
    I was at about the same energy level and with a meeting any minute then, just thought you might know (as you have a lot stored in your head or hard drive, whichever, it seems). An energy bar and some caffeine now, and I ought to be able to get up and go for it. . . .

    Nobody (none / 0) (#10)
    by AF on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:21:03 AM EST
    Because he will still be ahead in pledged delegates.

    Zogby (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:09:55 AM EST
    People who endorse candidates, shouldn't be allowed to Poll their races.

    Did Zogby endorse somebody? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:16:29 AM EST
    He's for Zogby. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:20:14 AM EST
    On Cnn (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:21:50 AM EST
    They said he had.  They did this special on Huessien and interviewed him.  i'll try and find some more sourcing.

    It's his brother (none / 0) (#14)
    by Shawn on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:23:54 AM EST
    James Zogby. He's an Obama superdelegate.

    Ohh (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:37:33 AM EST
    thanks for the clarification!

    Where does this poll fit? (none / 0) (#2)
    by katiebird on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:12:18 AM EST
    I was just looking at this: PPP_Texas_Release_030308.pdf

    So I thought she was pulling ahead....

    It is the latest (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    I relied on RCP foolishly for the latest poll. I have corrected my post.

    I'm ALWAYS missreading things (none / 0) (#13)
    by katiebird on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:22:22 AM EST
    So, I really wasn't sure.  I hope you don't think I was being snarky.  

    No (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:25:10 AM EST
    Please correct my errors.

    yours is the latest... (none / 0) (#7)
    by joei on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:16:32 AM EST
    she is ahead.

    my sixth sense (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:15:10 AM EST
    tells me she is going to pull Texas out.
    which means exactly nothing.
    but thats what it tells me.
    it has lied before.

    Hillary Should Fight On (none / 0) (#4)
    by bob h on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    with a win in Ohio and even a narrow popular loss in Texas.

    If a close campaign extending beyond March 4 is such an awful, enervating thing for the Party, then why were contests extending all the way to June scheduled in the first place?

    Hillary said (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by plf1953 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:21:57 AM EST
    as much in the 60 Minutes interview last night.

    Is there a point where you say it's not in the interest of the party to continue this?" Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

    "No," she replied, laughing. "No. You know, I am going to win. And I am going to go on."

    "You seem to be saying that as long as you think you have a chance to win, that you're going to stay in it, even if it goes to the convention?" Kroft asked.

    "Well, I don't think that will happen. But, you know, my husband didn't wrap up the nomination until June," she replied.

    Go Hillary!


    Rush nation (none / 0) (#16)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:27:12 AM EST
    say keep it up.

    Keep fighting, go to court, drive away the independents, go, go, go.

    The more the better.  

    If for no other reason then politcal theatre keep fighting!


    Drive away the independents (none / 0) (#57)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:22:04 PM EST
    I think that both candidates have been very mild.  I may misunderstand, but are you saying that Clinton will go to court?  I have read articles that Obama used lawyers to bump candidates off the ballot in Illinois and his comment with regard to Nader entering the race, that Nader should have his paperwork in order, indicates to me Obama is as likely to use the court system as Clinton.  

    Turnout sampling (none / 0) (#28)
    by dwightkschrute on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:40:07 AM EST
    Today Mark Penn said internal numbers show the "red phone" ad has made a difference with "millions" of voters. However, in previous Texas elections the Hispanic turnout has traditionally been lower that expected. Apparently the early voting numbers so far in 08 has been consistent with this too. So the polls are tough to count on. That being said, things still seem to point to Clinton winning Texas by 3-4%.

    I was on that call (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:42:47 AM EST
    Your description is inaccurate.

    As for Latinos being underrepresented in early voting, do you have a link? I have not seen that. I was waiting for SUSA who said half the turnout in Texas will be early voting.


    some indications (none / 0) (#48)
    by dwightkschrute on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:05:51 PM EST
    Here's a report from Houston, and a chart showing county by county early turnout increases and percentage of Latino population in those areas.

    That is a pretty unconvincing argument (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:10:41 PM EST
    SUSA TX today, 49-48 Obama... (none / 0) (#35)
    by mike in dc on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:45:16 AM EST
    ...sorry, no link again.  I think he'll hang on to win it.  The 2 minute ad will probably firm up his support.  
    I do hope he wins TX and VT at least tomorrow.  Otherwise, this thing won't be over until at least April, and the takeaway will be that negative campaigning still works.  

    Errr? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:53:09 AM EST
    If he loses both this is going way past March. Also I have seen a lot more negative information from the Obama campaign than the Hillary one. So if it was working then Sen Obama would clean sweep tomorrow (between the money advantage, the momentum/MSM stories and the attacks he makes).

    If she wins OH/TX I see it as a triumph of experience/practical reality vs oratory of hope without a defined or explained plan how it will work.


    Good news for Obama? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:51:07 AM EST
    I dunno, this confirms the rend that Obama's lead in Texas has slipped away no?

    SUSA had him up 4.


    Here's a link (none / 0) (#44)
    by Shawn on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:54:10 AM EST
    Crosstabs have her ahead with those that already voted.

    And it confirms ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:56:04 AM EST
    my instinct that Obama camp saw this slip in their internals on Friday.  Based on no evidence, other than the sort of tortured need to attack, and grimness of the campaign on Friday.

    Politics is often more about instinct than facts.


    That's improvement for Clinton (none / 0) (#41)
    by Shawn on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:51:51 AM EST
    She was down four in their last poll. So the trend is in her favor in the bulk of these polls.

    do we know when (none / 0) (#54)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:18:22 PM EST
    the filings with the FEC will be released showing money raised in Feb?  I'm curious that with this sort of  kind of bad polling news (and I say it that way because who can trust polls) no one is talking about the money Obama raised.

    No. (none / 0) (#66)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:49:01 PM EST
    They are not due until March 20th.

    March 20 (none / 0) (#67)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:49:53 PM EST
    According to the FEC website, reports are not due until the 20th day of the following month.

    The power of lowering expectations (none / 0) (#55)
    by 1jane on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:18:41 PM EST
    Yesterday a national House Party for Obama was held across the country. Having never attended an Obama House Party I went to one of several held in my state. First one of our Congressman who is the state co-chair of the Obama campaign phoned into all of the house parties. He gave the usual short speech and hung up. We were then told about upcoming events, phone banking and more. Everyone introduced themselves, (about 30 in attendance.
    I did learn that just about every person at the party had been phonebanking in Ohio and Texas.Our state is a long way from either state. I met one woman who'd called 1800 people and another who called 1500 people. I didn't see or hear any lunatics or groupies. I did hear very serious determined voters. Not one word of criticism of Mrs. Clinton was uttered. Some voters told stories of Republicans flipping their registration to vote for Obama. People spoke about the anniversary of 5 years in Iraq coming up and a peace rally. They scheduled organizational meetings and answered questions. The group was leaderless with all folks on equal footing.  

    If the polls reflect anything, a big IF, it is that Obama is in his favorite place to be; in the come from behind position.  

    Good comment (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:26:10 PM EST
    That is good to hear.

    Yes (none / 0) (#71)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:55:14 PM EST
    It's always healthy to get away from the internets.  :-)

    Looks like the picture is of movement (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:42:50 PM EST
    toward Hillary on all counts.

    Will this put the nails in Zogby's coffin? Has that not already happened?

    Ohio is wear he is hanging way out (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:47:46 PM EST
    You know Zogby (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Shawn on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:54:04 PM EST
    He'll probably have a sudden and mysterious "Clinton surge" in his final Ohio tracking.

    what a difference a week of scrutiny (none / 0) (#62)
    by thereyougo on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:47:07 PM EST
    and negative press on Obama makes. Compared to Hillary's onslaught from day one of neg coverage, she's still standing and moving ahead.

    She's a toughy! Most would've melted under the intense heat. For Obama it looks like it.

    Feel the love !

    If Hillary wins in Ohio and (none / 0) (#75)
    by Joike on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    Texas, it will be a testament to her resiliency, her determination and her ability.  Not to mention that of her staff, which has roundly criticized in the last month.

    It would then be Obama's turn to show the same characteristics since the race will be that much closer.

    Whatever happens, you have to give her credit for digging in and campaigning effectively over the last couple of weeks.

    The eventual victor will have definately earned the nomination.

    From several of my nuttier posts on TalkLeft.... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Oje on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:49:47 PM EST
    I was convinced that the polls over the past week have been weighted to favor Obama. The key demographic in their predictions is the percentage of voters above and below 45. Nearly every poll has predicted that 50% of voters will be under the age of 50. This never happens, in fact it is typically the reverse: the over 45 segment is more than 60% of the primary electorate.

    In today's SUSA from Ohio, the under 45 is at 46%. In Texas, under 45 is still 50% (down one point). Also, early (actual) voters in Texas still favors Clinton, so it is their likely voter model that gives Obama the lead. My sense is that Clinton has always had a 5-10 point lead in Texas, 10-15 point lead in Ohio. There just are not enough young voters, relative to older voters, to bear out these demographic predictions.

    If I can treat this as a poll thread.... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Oje on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:08:06 PM EST
    The other poll I have found frustrating is Gallup's tracking poll. After they came out with those widely disparate results last Monday in their tracking and USA Today polls, Gallup claimed there was nothing to see, move along.

    Surprise, surprise, Gallup's tracking poll suddenly looked an awful lot like their USA Today poll in the days after Frank Newport's blog. This just sort of worked themselves out at Gallup, supposedly, since they had no explanation for the differences and did not indicate any changes to their tracking methodology (to my knowledge, and which undermines the value of a tracking poll in any case).

    Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, on the other hand, which did not have to answer for widely disparate polls, continued on the same trend lines we have seen for the past 3 weeks. Obama had a midweek bounce (as he has had each of the past three weeks) but today, Clinton holds a slight lead over Obama again.

    The race does not seem over in the slightest. Vote Texas and Ohio!


    You're probably right ... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:14:00 PM EST
    but giving them the benefit of the doubt, I think they're trying to factor in the rise of young voters Obama has brought to the process.

    And I think a polling organization always looks better showing a race tight, and one candidate wins by a large margin.  Than showing one candidate winning by a large margin, and the other candidate wins.

    If that makes any sense.


    The Gallup daily tracking (none / 0) (#129)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:10:01 PM EST
    shows a Sunday national swing back in Clinton's favor.  

    Gallup Daily Tracking

    Sorry, (none / 0) (#131)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:11:05 PM EST
    I didn't mean she was winning the 3-day tracking, just that due to Sunday her numbers are ticking back up.

    Stanley Fish in the NY Times (none / 0) (#143)
    by jpete on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:01:56 PM EST
    is NOT my favorite commentator, but I think he makes an interesting point today.  Putting in my - not his- words he is saying that the country will really want someone who is flexible enough to respond to changing circs in Iraq.  He thinks Obama looks too rigid.

    The crucial point is that McCain hasn't just gone along with Bush.

    He thinks McCain will play this if he runs against Obama and Iraq will end up helping the Repubs.   I'm doubtful, but I'm not sure.  I think McC could look much more thoughtful than Obama.  Which is one reason why I'm worried that if HRC loses tomorrow, we'll have another republican president.  

    This just cannot be possible! Ed Schultz just said (none / 0) (#148)
    by vicsan on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:32:49 PM EST
    a few hours ago,  that Mr. Hope is going to SWEEP Ohio AND Texas! ~~~~~rolling eyes~~~~

    I am so sick of listening to the so-called "Progressive" radio programs. Every one of them is trashing Hillary. They're as bad, if not WORSE, than all the RW radio programs. They make me sick. They complain about all the baaaaad things Hillary is doing to the party by saying the things she says about Mr. Hope, but I never hear them say how baaaad Mr. Hope is for saying all the baaaad things he says about Hillary. What the heck is going on here? Do people know something I don't know?

    What is it with John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Caroline Kennedy, Maria Shriver,  Bill Richardson, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, Mike Malloy and all the other so-called "Progressive" that makes them hate the Clinton's like they do? I have always called myself a FAR LEFT LIBERAL (whose always involved in politics) and I sure as heck do NOT see Mr. Hope as a FAR LEFT PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL...not even close!

    What do all those people know that I don't know about Hillary? What is going on behind the scenes?

    I don't know how long this thread will stay open (none / 0) (#161)
    by Shawn on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:23:48 PM EST
    But here's another new poll showing Clinton leading in TX.