Ohio, Hillary, the Rural Vote and November

I wrote so many posts last week like this one about Ohio and the rural vote, both from a historical perspective and for this year. I feel vindicated -- here's a new AP article today that explains how well Hillary did in the Ohio rural vote, how it was her intentional strategy, how John Kerry failed to go after it or win it, and more.

Bottom line: The Dems can take Ohio in November. But not without that rural vote, which went astonishingly for Hillary.

Decades have passed since Ohio last saw a competitive Democratic primary, and the interest showed in a record turnout of 48 percent of registered voters.

Clinton still garnered more interest than Kerry in his primary four years ago. Where she won 81 percent of the vote in Scioto County, Kerry got 55 percent in his 2004 primary. Where she got 80 percent of the vote in Jackson County, Kerry got 64 percent. Where Clinton got 78 percent of the vote in Lawrence County, Kerry got 59 percent.

This is what Hillary did in her New York Senate races. Howard Wolfson says it's been her strategy in all the primary races. [More...]

Clinton's primary strategy is modeled on her New York campaign, where she went to rural areas of the state considered Republican strongholds, said Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson.

"It's the way that we've run this set of primary contests, and it is the way we would certainly run in a general election," he said.

I have doubts a Clinton-Obama ticket (or vice versa) wins Ohio in November. Would Strickland reconsider his statement last week that he doesn't want it?

Update: Bill Clinton in Mississippi today was pushing the "Hillary would pick Obama" theme.

< Rasmussen Updates Electoral College Map | Actor Esai Morales Cleared of Rape Allegations >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    the rural voters are so important (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:02:54 PM EST
    One reason I was supporting Edwards was his strength among rural and small-town voters. When our candidate can keep down Republican margins in those groups, so many more states are in play, as Man from Middletown showed:


    You are so right that Kerry utterly failed to go after these voters. Not only that, but MoveOn and America Coming Together's strategy in many states was just to focus on identifying Kerry supporters in heavily Democratic areas. There was no effort to increase our numbers in more Republican areas.

    I was/am totally on board with you (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:03:15 PM EST
    I listen to some of these pundits and how they can't believe things, like spending 16 minutes on something as silly as healthcare in the debate, and I wonder if they know anything about the real world.  They are so out of touch with reality, and I will be honest here: when Kerry got the nom, I supported him with my time, money and energy but just about every time he opened his mouth, he alienated some key group of dems.  You could see Edwards just cringe when he did it.  Clinton is bringing these dems back into the party.  They are sick of the elitists running the show (from Dean with his NASCAR comment to Obama with his shock over the price of arugula) and they have flocked back to Clinton because she understands their needs.  

    I think the dem party has lost touch with all the policies and rhetoric about core values and who they are really fighting for.  These issues are no longer esoteric.  We need real help, not lofty ideals.  Clinton speaks to that.

    with the exception of dean, (none / 0) (#45)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:04:28 PM EST
    who i actually don't consider pretentious or elitist at all, i totally agree with you.  i'm really sick of yuppie elitists running the show.  and i say that as a yuppie!  :)

    i have always liked dean, but i have (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:25:43 PM EST
    to tell you his tone deaf attitude about florida and michigan leaves me angry at him.

    kathy, (none / 0) (#156)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:40:34 AM EST
    the reason these "pundits" are so easily bored with discussions of issues like health care is because, well, that's not something they, of the well paid punditocracy have to worry about.

    no, they're more concerned with telling you who's "authentic", and a "straight shootin'" "maverick" kind of guy. someone you want to sit down and have a beer with and talk about important stuff, like baseball or nascar.

    the poor dears just can't contain their irritation when candidates insist on boring them to tears by answering questions from actual voters, people not of their class.

    could their be a dumber collection of people telling you who to vote for? i think not!


    Once upon a time (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:04:53 PM EST
    after Nevada, when Obama made a big issue out of winning more delegates, he made the argument that it showed he had superior ability to win in the rural areas where Dems need to improve.

    I noticed after Missouri we didn't hear that talking point any more.

    And AAs may have maxed now for him (none / 0) (#95)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:48:05 PM EST
    as was pointed out in a recent pollsters' chat, owing to their terrific turnout already.  Yet a lot of pollsters are still using standard models predicting much more turnout of AAs then may be possible.

    It wasn't said, but it seems to me that also may be so of some other standard polling categories -- all may have more potential to increase than AAs, as none have reached their level of turnout, but still . . . this may be a reason why standard polling models for the GE could be as screwy as they have proved for the primaries.


    their turn out in LA (none / 0) (#113)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:20:59 PM EST
    was actually lower this time than the last (not presidential, but based on the mayoral race, which was very heated)

    12% of the population, right?


    TX percentage was lower than 2004 (none / 0) (#116)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:23:57 PM EST
    as well.  

    i had an interesting experience today. (none / 0) (#139)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:28:13 PM EST
    my housekeeper is a wonderful hispanic lady. i also consider her a friend. we talk politics some. today i showed her the pew hispanic poll with hillary the leader. she told me some of the hispanic radio stations are claiming obama is the leader. i was rather surprised to say the least.

    This is a pretty silly article (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:04:58 PM EST
    I don't understand how you can compare Kerry percentages in a general election with Clinton percentages in a primary.

    check out these maps (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:19:39 PM EST
    showing how much better Strickland did in Ohio in 2006 compared to Kerry in 2004. Strickland gets the rural vote, like Hillary, while Obama gets the big city northern Ohio vote like Kerry.

    I'm just wondering if that means anything.


    Why do you think Obama would be a bad VP choice? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:23:42 PM EST
    Tonight on the news, a pundit said that a Clinton/Obama ticket might be "too much change."  Which, other than cracking me up, made me wonder: aa's, women and Latinos are the core of the dem party.  How powerful would that voting bloc be against McCain?

    Has anyone run worst case scenarios?  Such as what would happen if Clinton ran without Obama and the aa vote stayed home (don't see them voting for McCain) or if Obama won and the Latino vote stayed home?

    I feel horrible even bringing it up.


    You can be damn sure (none / 0) (#62)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:38:31 PM EST
    the Rs are looking at every single eventuality, those you named and those you didn't, and planning a strategy for each possibility.

    Dems?  Dunno.  Maybe too busy with the 50-state strategy?  Let's hope not...


    it seems to me sometimes the (none / 0) (#140)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:30:16 PM EST
    best way to describe the dems is when in doubt, run around scream and shout. i can't describe how disgusted i am with democratic leadership not only in congress but in the campaign as well.

    Heh. (none / 0) (#155)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:38:24 AM EST
    When I was a kid the saying went:

    When in anger or in doubt
    run in circles, scream and shot!

    Your mileage may vary...


    smile! (none / 0) (#158)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:36:36 AM EST
    Run the numbers (none / 0) (#68)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:03:15 PM EST
    I can try.  Does anyone have a decent site for exit polls?  I have some data I gathered regarding college grads for some of the states etc.  I am looking at MD for example.  It has 29% AA and is number 5 for college grads.  If I had some exit poll numbers I could extrapolate, I can run some different scenarios.

    You can get data on college grads (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:41:50 PM EST
    and much more quite easily from the quick facts at census.gov for states.  Or just type the name of the state and the word census into google.  And voila.:-)

    And pollster.com (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:43:12 PM EST
    has put up some exit poll data in recent days. . . .

    Thanks (none / 0) (#92)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:47:17 PM EST
    I have census.gov.  I needed the pollster.  Thanks.  Does anyone have any estimates that want to run?  I'll probably do some worst case and see what it looks like.

    Another person who counts added votes as prerequis (none / 0) (#78)
    by downtownted on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:35:44 PM EST
    These are the states that went for Kerry in 2004. Review them thoughtfully. Decide which Mrs. Clinton will lose/or not. Decide which Mr. Obama will lose/or not.  Will either lose any states if the other is not her/his running mate.

    If they both hold all, then they only need Ohio, or a combination of others with a similar electoral total, to win. If they don't get Ohio, let us know where and how the Dems will get those additional electoral votes. Reflect carefully on where those votes will come from

    Rank         States  
    #1       California:
    #2       New York:
    #3       Illinois:
    #4       Pennsylvania:
    #5       Michigan:
    #6       New Jersey:
    #7       Massachusetts:
    #8       Washington:
    #9       Wisconsin:
    #10       Maryland:
    #11       Minnesota:
    #12       Connecticut:
    #13       Oregon:
    #14       Maine:
    #15       Hawaii:
    #16       New Hampshire:
    #17       Rhode Island:
    #18       Delaware:
    #19       District of Columbia:
    #20       Vermont:


    Also, the article IS comparing primary votes (none / 0) (#38)
    by liminal on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:52:07 PM EST
    The AP article IS citing primary numbers.  Kerry won Scioto county in the Democratic primary in 2004 with 55% of the vote.  He lost the general election in Scioto county with 46% of the vote.  

    The Clinton campaign definitely focused on rural Ohio.  Both Bill and Hillary Clinton made campaign swings through the area.  Trust me, voters in the rural areas will remember the attention come November if Hillary Clinton is at the top of the ticket - especially if either/both Clintons do another tour through the area to shore up support.


    Although Obama Narrowly Won MO (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:08:36 PM EST
    (less than 10,000 votes), he lost all the rural counties to Clinton. In fact the only counties Obama won here were the traditional Democratic counties.

    I wonder how this ties into (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:13:14 PM EST
    BTD's "racism is the scourge of the south" post about demographics in Miss.  Large cities are always far less conservative than small towns.  It's why the freaks (and I say that as one myself) from the small towns move to the big cities: they want to live where they feel like they belong.  They tend to be far, far more liberal because of this.

    If our states were made up of large cities, this would be good for Obama.  There are (I think) only ten cities in America that have more than 1mm people in them.  NY is #1 with around 8mm.


    Just so. (none / 0) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:14:36 PM EST
    NY is #1

    I couldn't have put it better myself.


    Feh (none / 0) (#16)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:19:08 PM EST
    maybe in your heart!

    And I just reread what I wrote and hope BTD doesn't take offense over my quotation marks, but I still don't agree that this is a southern problem, rather, it's an American problem (inasmuch as he ever pays attention to anything I write NYAH!)


    Why, yes, and I so love census.gov (none / 0) (#29)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:37:26 PM EST
    as there are 10 cities (with recent updates) with more than 1 million population.

    Interestingly, it looks like 5 of those cities are in states that have gone for Clinton.  And only 1 of those cities is in a state that went for Obama -- his own Chicago.

    So, as cities are more for Obama, but still that wasn't enough to win those Clinton states, the rural strategy may be astute.


    No Question That Racism Plays A Part (none / 0) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:57:57 PM EST
    but at a guess, I also think you are dealing with an older less diverse population who values hard work and prefers more direct talk rather than fancy rhetoric (MO reference). Also, Obama supporters in the media who talk about how Obama supporters are far more educated and part of the "Creative Class" etc. can not be helping in garnering votes in the rural areas or among the working class. IMO this is coming across as very elitist. The very thing that the Republicans have been using for decades against the Dems among these demographics.

    Agree. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by liminal on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:14:58 PM EST
    I'm sure that racism is part of it.  I think that unease about perceived "foreignness" might be a bigger part of the vote difference than racism.   That said, you're right.  Those rural counties have an older, poorer population.  A number of them include smaller rust belt style cities that have been in a permanent recession to varying degrees since the 1970s and 1980s, with a brief respite in the 1990s.  So the demographics put those counties pretty firmly into Clinton's column.  I also think that voters in those areas are less likely to object to the idea of dynasties - the family is important, as is the familiar.  There's a reason Shelly Moore Capito (R WV-02) emphasizes her middle name.  Her daddy was a former WVa governor.  It doesn't matter that he was jailed for accepting bribes.  The family name helps her more than it hurts her.

    On top of that, Clinton campaigned in the area.  For people who feel forgotten and neglected, that kind of attention is pretty important. Obama's only campaign stop in southern Ohio was on campus at Ohio University in Athens - another one of those "blue pockets" in big red Ohio, which the Democrats always win.


    "Low information voter" (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by ineedalife on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:44:30 PM EST
    That is the one that really burns me up. Can they be any more insulting and disrespectful?

    They should consider these people "enough information voters". Most people are not political junkies and have lives to live. They know that a politician will not be perfect. They just have to get the measure of the man or woman. Once done they move on. If you can't reach them in that period, it is your fault, not theirs.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:37:26 PM EST
    It's like what Clinton said during one of the debates: lobbyists are people, too.  Now, before y'all get all het up, let me get you even more het up: it's like Walmart.  I totally agree that their employment practices are deplorable.  I'd just as soon insist the sky was green as say that they were not; however, as far back as 2003 (I have more current statistics that show it holds but can't find them online) 84% of all households in America shop at Walmart-from the very rich to the very poor.  It's a second home to rural voters in some towns (or third, behind church) Walmart gives them more selection, more access and it saves them money in the process (or at least gives them that perception, but that's not the discussion we're having).  It's really easy being a latte dem to say that Walmart is evil and bemoan the loss of the mom and pop store, but the average consumer adores Walmart and it has one of the highest brand loyalties in America.  

    Now, what does this have to do with Ohio?  Think of Ohio as a big Walmart.  Obama is bashing them and decrying Clinton's being on their board while Clinton is saying, "Yeah, I was on the board.  And guess what?  There's nothing wrong with shopping there."  This is why she appeals to rural voters.  She understands that a huge chunk of America shops at Walmart.  I guarantee you she bought some pantsuits there back in the early days.


    LOL Pantsuits (none / 0) (#85)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:41:05 PM EST
    This is true. Walmart is the bugaboo of people who can afford to shop elsewhere. Otherwise, it's a necessity.

    Low information (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:39:13 PM EST
    is exactly what Obama relies on, truth be told. The more you look at the candidates, the more you realize which one has the better policies for average americans. That's why O doesn't talk specifics.

    He is a bumper sticker candidate (none / 0) (#157)
    by ineedalife on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:20:28 AM EST
    I agree. Alot of his support is due to the fact that he is the only one not involved in the war decision.

    I completely agree it's elitist and wrong. (none / 0) (#75)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:24:11 PM EST
    I don't think it'll swing the south red, either (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:46:25 PM EST
    what I think it'll do is appeal to rural voters, like Jeralyn was talking about.

    The democratic party finally has someone who speaks to core democrats, and the elitists can't handle it.

    The reason Bill Clinton won was because he could straddle the line-he could talk to the elites in their own language and he could talk to the rest of the world in theirs.  The man is absolutely brilliant at this, and anyone who is paying attention knows that HRC is as well.


    That's what was so wrong with Kerry (none / 0) (#101)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:01:55 PM EST
    He held no appeal to rural voters.  His wind surfing really helped him with the blue collar dems as well.  I wouldn't really expect Obama to fare any better.

    joe sixpack gave bush the election. (none / 0) (#145)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:42:42 PM EST
    and joe won't vote for obama in my opnion.

    Clinton will Outperform (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by 1jane on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:10:09 PM EST
    in Alabama, Arkansas,Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and West Virginia. Strickland would be a great running mate!

    Outperforming in New York. . . (none / 0) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:22:25 PM EST
    and $20 will get the Democratic candidate eleven and a half rides on the subway.

    The same with Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

    The other states are considerably more interesting although I have to say I'm not sure that I'm convinced by the clarity of your argument and the depth of your citations.


    I am a bit stunned myself (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:24:59 PM EST
    as 1jane does not generally paint such rosy pictures for Clinton...

    kathy, you keep taking the (none / 0) (#54)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:17:40 PM EST
    words right out of my mouth.  is 1jane actually coming around?

    Maybe not quite eleven and a half. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:45:27 PM EST
    They just instituted a fare hike -- I don't think $20 will get you that far this week.

    That's with the fare hike. (none / 0) (#93)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:47:36 PM EST
    Before it was 12 rides -- $24 on the card if you paid $20.  Now it's $23 for $20.  Base fare still $2.00.

    PS: (none / 0) (#96)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:48:15 PM EST
    Still a good value as subway systems go.

    Ugh (none / 0) (#102)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:02:24 PM EST
    I think that counts as 4 rides on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit). I wish we had the NY Subway.

    BART is nice. . . (none / 0) (#106)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:05:09 PM EST
    definitely one of the top amateur mass transit systems in the country.

    How (none / 0) (#82)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:38:39 PM EST
    I look at Alabama.  Clinton had less votes than Obama.  The Dems less than the Reps in Alabama.  Arkansas seems possible as Clinton's vote equaled the Reps.  Louisiana is Obamas.  Tennessee the Reps can keep with a 15% increase in turnout.

    That is one thing that (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:28:57 PM EST
    the Obama;s fired adviser said in her BBC interview I can agree with, Ohio is obsessed with Senator Clinton.  But even to my surprise they love Bill Clinton too and the attacks on her through him by Obama rallied Ohioans to her. Ohio had good years during Bill Clintons Presidency and some really bad ones since and it appears most voters believe she has that kind of competence and talent to help Ohio with a Green Economy and Green Jobs. Understand we are talking affection, and her supporting crew no slouches Gov. Strickland, State Senator Majority leader Miller, and Rep. Tubbs-Jones.  

    Bill Clinton for VP? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:37:45 PM EST
    Haha. To quote Jeff Goldblum (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:39:57 PM EST
    in Jurassic Park . . . just because we can do it doesn't mean we should do it.

    Not that Bill is a dinosaur, by any means -- and he is proving that daily, without the darn media on his back.  


    Since you mentioned it, Here's the clip (none / 0) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:44:24 PM EST
    of the BBC interview.  My favorite question was the first one:



    Am I the only one (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:56:34 PM EST
    wondering what the F, using her words, Senator Obama is doing having an unpaid adviser represent the United States position on an Iraq withdrawal to the foreign Press at all?  This seems ludicrous to me...

    Ya had to just provide that link again and I just had to watch again and my tempers up again..anyway moving on....


    yes please move on (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:41:10 PM EST
    from that topic on this thread

    MSNBC's take on todays votes (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by gish720 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:33:01 PM EST
    Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson and Gene Robinson are on MSNBC right this minute bashing the hell out of Hillary.  Chris said the she's like the evil big rancher and sooner or later Shane will show up and run her out of town.  It's beyond ridiculous.  I feel like a card carrying masochist watching this drivel.  Now Jim Warren of the Chicago Tribune is on...more trash talkin' and advice to Obama on how to beat the bit**.

    Strickland percentages vs Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by DaytonDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:33:03 PM EST
    I love Ted (my mother and he went to the same tiny high school, different years) but you have to take into account when looking at the rural areas a few things. One Scioto county is where Ted was born and it is part of his old congressional district. Two Ted is an ordained minister. Three he is against gun control. Those all add up to gaining rural votes here plus 2006 was a great year to be a Dem here. Taft was at historic lows in the polls and the gop was in complete shambles.
    Having said all that he is a great progressive in many areas and is a great campaigner and I believe would join the ticket if asked regardless of previous denials of interest.

    Bill Clinton today (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:37:28 PM EST
    Unity (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:53:03 PM EST
    They are pushing the ultimate unity theme.  Just as Carville was pushing the funding for the re-votes, they stick to the joint ticket.  Everyone votes for everyone's favorite.  I think it is good politics.  It makes him look as if he doesn't want to get along.  Takes him off message.

    whoa. it could work. but my guess is (none / 0) (#49)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:12:13 PM EST
    obama would never go for it unless he heads the ticket.  which is really arrogant and self-serving considering his deficit of integrity throughout this campaign.  if he proves me wrong i'll gladly eat my hat.

    Obama (none / 0) (#74)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:18:08 PM EST
    is winning. If you are losing and offer the winner to be VP, then you are arrogant.

    Or its a strategy (none / 0) (#99)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:56:19 PM EST
    I mean Obama is acting like he has already won, which is a strategy too. Is he arrogant? I don't think so.

    is this about (none / 0) (#53)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:17:22 PM EST
    influencing super delegates?

    Well you are right its the ticket the Republicans (none / 0) (#70)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:08:24 PM EST
    Even a Clinton-Strickland ticket would give the press a FIRST WOMAN NOMINEE! DEMOCRATS PICK METHODIST MINISTER FOR VICE PRESIDENT! narrative that looks positively multicultural i

    I don't really know... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:01:46 PM EST
    ... if it possible for Hillary to change minds on a national scale the way she has in New York. But here, she really has won over a lot of fairly conservative upstate voters that nobody thought she could appeal to when she entered into NY politics.

    Could you expand on that? (none / 0) (#61)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:33:54 PM EST
    I've heard this a lot about her Senate campaign.  If you have any anecdotes or links I'd love to read them...of course I could research myself :(

    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:40:03 PM EST
    ... she performed surprisingly well in her initial Senate campaign against Rick Lazio, mostly because she outworked him. It was expected that Hillary would carry the city, and Lazio would carry the suburbs, but she clobbered him in upstate New York.

    Since she's had the job, she has shown a great deal of attention to detail to local issues, which has cemented her popularity (I think most people expected her to act like an "at-large Senator", but she hasn't). She's also won over some groups that had previously been skeptical to her, like veterans, by listening to their concerns.


    if the media were to act like a real media, (none / 0) (#141)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:33:18 PM EST
    yeah she could.

    Urban Arkansas is an oxymoron (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by DaleA on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:26:15 PM EST
    Hillary and Bill built their careers on appealing to rural voters. It is something that comes quite naturally to her. When I lived in Arkansas, in a rural area, people would always point out how much better life was for them thanks to Miz Clinton. She reformed education, bringing better opportunities to rural schools. Her work in bringing high quality health care to every county in Arkansas was first rate. Always wonder why the skills and lessons she learned in working with country issues are totally forgotten when discussing her.

    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:01:52 PM EST
    quote on the "dream ticket" and how HRC is capturing rural, Reagan dems (snagged from Taylor Marsh):

    "I know that she has always been open to it, because she believes that if you can unite the energy and the new people that he's brought in and the people in these vast swaths of small town and rural America that she's carried overwhelmingly, if you had those two things together she thinks it'd be hard to beat. I mean you look at the, you look at the, you look at the map of Texas and the map in Ohio. And the map in Missouri or -- well Arkansas's not a good case because they know her and she won every place there. But you look at most of these places, he would win the urban areas and the upscale voters, and she wins the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president. If you put those two things together, you'd have an almost unstoppable force." - William Jefferson Clinton

    Jeez he's such a great politician! (none / 0) (#103)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:04:03 PM EST
    I bet an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#104)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:04:36 PM EST
    $20 that Hillary would choose Obama as running mate.

    Her answer: Hillary would get CREAMED if Obama was her running mate.

    Which begs the question: If Obama would sink Hillary as VP, what would he do at the top of the ticket?


    it's like my question to those folks (none / 0) (#107)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:09:51 PM EST
    who say Clinton should just go back to the senate and take the majority leader post.  When I ask, "why can't Obama do the same?" it's always some variation of, "he doesn't have enough experience."



    Hillary said Obama (none / 0) (#108)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:12:00 PM EST
    was incompetent. So she'd choose Obama to get him out of the way for her nomination? Or because she wants the incompetent black man on her ticket? And being the leader in pledged delegates Obama suddenly wants to give her the Presidential nomination because?

    Hillary destroyed any chance of having Obama as a running mate, either on top or bottom, with her campaign over the last couple of weeks.


    No, the other way around. . . (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:18:50 PM EST
    Clinton claims Obama isn't sufficiently experienced -- and four to eight years in the White House would certainly count as experience.

    It's Obama who claims that Clinton is incompetent -- that is, lacking a sufficient degree of judgment to be President.


    She said he wasn't ready (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:19:43 PM EST
    He's the one who said she was incompetent.  And that her husband had ruined the dem party.  And that she lied and misled people and would stoop to anything to get the nomination and that she was desperate.

    Every day (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:26:47 PM EST
    a new made-up quote from Hillary.

    sorry, Steve... (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:37:42 PM EST
    that's actually tomorrow's quote.  Today's quote is from Obama:

    While I have consistently opposed torture, in the course of this primary campaign Hillary Clinton has flip-flopped from her past position of tolerating torture.

    Setting aside that it's untrue (natch) this is from the guy who won't take a stand against Blackwater?  The same one who said he'd review mercenary groups fighting our wars when he got the presidency?

    As opposed to Clinton, of course, who said they would be completely eradicated.


    Untrue and Hillary was endorsed (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:41:36 PM EST
    by Gen Antonio Taguba, who investigated Abu Ghraib, specifically because of her staunch opposition to torture.

    That business with Blackwater is also enlightening as to who is gonna get it done.


    RalphB (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:15:45 PM EST
    of course it's untrue!  You wouldn't want the quote of the day to be something positive.  That would defeat the purpose and unfortunately, Clinton's campaign is running too well right now to give some gaffes that might help.

    Thanks! For a moment I thought we might (none / 0) (#133)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:20:47 PM EST
    be entering the reality-based community again.  :-)

    No chance (none / 0) (#134)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:46:42 PM EST
    though if you watched SNL tonight...hahaha!  I don't think Obama's call to Lorne Michaels worked.

    Now Kathy (none / 0) (#135)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:00:53 PM EST
    he did not really say that!  Don't fib.

    No reality must interfere :-) (none / 0) (#136)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:05:49 PM EST
    lose the election is my answer. (none / 0) (#142)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:33:58 PM EST
    correction? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:55:58 PM EST
    I don't think a Clinton-Obama ticket (or vice versa) wins Ohio in November.

    you mean you DO think it wins, i hope.

    Not sure (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:02:06 PM EST
    I changed it to I have doubts. I was thinking that a Clinton-Strickland ticket would be stronger because he's from Ohio. He's an avid Hillary supporter.

    FDR lost Ohio because an Ohioan was the VP on the Republican side. He's one of two Democrats in the last century (JFK being the other) to win the presidency without winning Ohio.

    So Ohio is an important state. I was thinking Hillary-Strickland has a better shot of beating McCain than Hillary-Obama, but it's just a thought.

    Obama on top of the ticket seems like Ohio would be a lost cause since he did so poorly in the rural vote.

    Oof. (none / 0) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:10:15 PM EST
    Obama on top of the ticket seems like Ohio would be a lost cause since he did so poorly in the rural vote.

    There are two distinct fallacies in this argument.

    The first is that Clinton will win Ohio because she "won the rural vote".  She didn't. She won the Democratic rural vote.  Without knowing what percentage of the total rural vote that is it means nothing.  Much like Obama's blowout victories in places like Idaho do not mean he's poised to win the state in November.

    The second is that Obama lost the rural vote.  I don't know the specifics of Ohio, but in most states the second place Dem is outpolling the leading Republican in the primaries.  Democratic voters in one state or another -- or one part of a state or another -- may prefer Clinton to Obama or vice versa.  But that in an of itself tells you very little about how the entire electorate will feel about a race between a Republican and a Democrat.

    I suspect there are real arguments that one could make about weakness on Obama's part outside the cities of Ohio, but they're not pretty arguments.  They're more along the lines of what BTD recounted about Mississippi demographics.

    Either Dem should have a real chance in Ohio this year given the meltdown of the Republican party and McCain's (hopefully to be oft-broadcast) remarks about his weakness on economic matters.

    That said, a popular in-state politician on the ticket can only help chances.  Unfortunately, you only get to play that card once and there are other places where it might come in handy.


    My concern is (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:14:15 PM EST
    Obama is perceived as strong on the economy on Wall Street, not so much on Main Street.

    Sometimes we fool ourselves because we get caught up in assuming things like Obama would crush McCain on the economy.  Of course Obama has a hundred times McCain's smarts and knowledge, but this takes us back to Bush and Gore.


    If the Dem candidate. . . (none / 0) (#15)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:16:26 PM EST
    pushes hard using McCain's own words in rust belt states I don't think it's a matter of beating him on the economy so much as letting him beat himself.  If played properly by our side (and if McCain doesn't come up with some really clever counter) the election could turn on that single comment.

    Which? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:09:52 PM EST
    "The jobs aren't coming back"?

    The folks back home in Michigan aren't quite sure whether that bit of straight talk helped him or hurt him, to be honest.


    No, the. . . (none / 0) (#80)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:37:21 PM EST
    "I really don't know much about the economy" remark.

    I think we need (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:32:15 PM EST
    to have a serious discussion about this:
    [T]here are real arguments that one could make about weakness on Obama's part outside the cities of Ohio, but they're not pretty arguments.  They're more along the lines of what BTD recounted about Mississippi demographics.

    My concerns about Obama as a GE candidate are rooted here.


    You start. (none / 0) (#90)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:45:45 PM EST
    Seriously, the issue is very difficult to discuss even at the best of times -- and now is not the best of times in the left-o-sphere.

    Obama is close to the perfect African American candidate and the notion that he can't win and ought not to be nominated for that reason is very disturbing to me and to lots of other people.  Although I like to think of myself as a political realist I'm not sure I wouldn't rather lose than deny someone of Obama's talents the nomination because I'm afraid too many people will vote against the black guy.

    In addition to the white anti-black vote that you are alluding to here, the other 10,000 pound donkey in the room is the hispanic vote.  I'd bet there's a spread of at least 25% between what Clinton would get and what Obama would get against McCain -- maybe 75% of the vote for Clinton and 50% for Obama.

    Of course, you have to offset that with the increased turnout among African Americans that Obama is likely to produce.  There are states -- some not currently considered to be swing states -- in which African Americans could be what, maybe a third of the vote?


    I don't want it to be true (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:50:40 PM EST
    But I think the wilder effect is real.

    The SUSA projection from last week showed Obama with a very narrow margin in. . .Virginia. Frankly, I have a bridge to sell you.


    AAs may have just about maxed (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:13:59 PM EST
    per some pollster, because of their terrific turnout.  An interesting point.  Their potential numbers are not infinite.  

    None of the standard models from past years apply -- but some pollsters still are applying them.  And that may be why so many have proved wrong . . . and could continue to be so for the GE.

    Essentially, 2004 was just so four years ago.


    Another Factor To Consider Is What Have (none / 0) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:47:25 PM EST
    the Dems done to insure that African Americans will be able to vote if they turn out in record numbers. Republicans have successfully been able to suppress AA votes by not providing adequate polling places and equipment in their areas. Lines have been backed up for hours and many people couldn't  stay to vote.

    Not saying that this should be used as a reason for Obama not to be the candidate but if the Dems are using increased turnout in AA votes as a criteria for winning, they better have done the work to make sure that they can actually vote in record numbers.


    Dosn't disturb me one bit... (none / 0) (#127)
    by CentristDemocrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:56:57 PM EST
    The notion that whites wouldn't vote for Obama dosn't disturb me one bit. I find it intresting that people find it disturbing that whites or any other ethnicity wouldn't vote for Obama becuase of color, yet no one finds it distburbing that African Americans mindlessly vote for Obama on exactly that reason.

    People have a right to their opinion, and quite frankly, if a non-trivial proportion of Whites in various states don't have comfort with a "black" president, it's not less relevent as some of the reasons to support him (which I find equally as absur), such as "remedying white guilt," "justice," "great orotarial," "change" etc.

    If we are to accept that a large drove of people have these feeble-minded and substance-dearth ratioanle, we should accept the flip side of the coin as well.

    It's foolish to not take that factor into account, assuming you actually want to win... and not be a bleeding hard ideologue.... Then again, we nominated McGovern, so I don't put anything above or below the Democrats....


    You only have been here two days (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:02:19 PM EST
    so does it occur to you that you just might be  misstating -- i.e., ignoring -- much discussion here?

    Because you are.  Maybe lurk a bit for a while.


    I don't think "Centrist" means. . . (none / 0) (#129)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:04:07 PM EST
    what I think you think it means.

    then educate me wise one (none / 0) (#131)
    by CentristDemocrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:12:32 PM EST
    What does it mean then?

    and don't always assume it is racist. (none / 0) (#143)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:39:41 PM EST
    they may fear his economic, health, and foreign policy positions. when i watched his now departed fp advisor, i couldn't help but think she would be good in some position to help people but not foreign policy in the wh.

    margins (none / 0) (#18)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:21:41 PM EST
    The margin by which Clinton won the rural vote in Ohio is what is significant.  Kerry did so poorly that, if she holds onto all those voters in November, Ohio will be blue in November.

    Not at all. (none / 0) (#22)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:24:34 PM EST
    that's my point.

    If she won 100% of the primary vote in those rural areas -- heck, 110% (as they count votes in Ohio) it doesn't matter if those areas are four to one Republican.

    Nor does it necessarily mean that the people who voted for her prefer McCain to Obama.


    The Economy (none / 0) (#63)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:39:31 PM EST
    I do think that what helps her in these areas in the GE against McCain is what helped her against Obama: she's stronger on the economy.

    I think that's her strong suit. . . (none / 0) (#84)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:39:44 PM EST
    at the moment, and since the economy appears poised to go over the cliff at any moment it's just possible that it might help her out a bit in the remaining contests.

    Which isn't to say that Obama isn't talking precisely the same game she's talking.  But if she can gin up memories of the previous Clinton economy it might help her.


    Right, the primary is not the general. (none / 0) (#36)
    by s5 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:45:06 PM EST
    It's pretty amazing that a Democrat keeps winning in every single primary so far. I guess that means we have it all locked up in November!

    So True... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Simplicissimus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:51:56 PM EST
    Maybe someone should let McCain know that he needn't bother with the "big states" since Hillary has got them all locked up.  

    true and important (none / 0) (#47)
    by neilario on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:08:38 PM EST
    i was on open left and it was this huge spreadsheet and data with the assumptions that the states would vote exactly as they did in the primary. and i was thinking what a load of crap.

    and of course all of that is before B gets hammered by the repubs in an election and his unfavorables go sky high. like - why are you wasting your time... it is unknowable.  so stop with the massive charts...

    BO will die in the GE election process. and i think he will drag down a hrc/bo ticket.


    nope i think she meant doubts (none / 0) (#7)
    by neilario on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:06:39 PM EST
    i agree about the reality of a shared ticket. i think it would be harder for her with him... and i think he is baggage. but i do think that her campaign wins big now by being very positive abut it. it makes them look as though they are the adults and pragmatists. i think he meant it today when he said no way ... and i think in the GE he would compromise alot of areas that she could win  [ repub areas etc...]

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:08:34 PM EST
    I think that her hinting at this ticket also reminds people that she has more experience, because they can see her in the top slot with him playing the junior, but when they switch it, the image doesn't match up.

    good point kathy i agree (none / 0) (#21)
    by neilario on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:24:01 PM EST
    it also just sounds more adult too. (none / 0) (#144)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:40:49 PM EST
    unless it's a brokered convention (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:25:58 PM EST
    I don't see how they can be forced to accept each other. Neither one is the ideal ticket partner for the other.

    I think Strickland or Jim Webb would be better for Hillary on the ticket than Obama. Obama's support is among liberal and urban Dems and African Americans. They would vote for Hillary over McCain in a general election. It's not necessary for him to be on the ticket to gain their vote.

    It is necessary for the Dem. ticket to get big states like Ohio and the others. I think Hillary can do that with the right VP candidate.

    I've never supported a Hillary-Obama or Obama-Hillary ticket. It's Big Tent that keeps writing he thinks it's inevitable. I think there are more winning combinations.

    Would Prefer Clark Over Webb (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:06:19 PM EST
    for Hillary. Would not like to see someone who has voted with Bush on FISA in the VP slot and IIRC he was not that great at campaigning. Without Allen imploding, I doubt that Webb would have won the election.

    Although a combined ticket would normally not be the best, I have to agree with BTD that Obama would probably be necessary as Hillary's running mate if we don't want some of the AA community to sit the election out. If Obama is the nominee, I think Hillary would be better off staying in the Senate.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:13:10 PM EST
    ...I think Hillary would have to choose Obama, and I think he'd take it. For Obama, I think Richardson makes the most sense, but Wes Clark would also be a good choice.

    Richardson? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by SarahinCA on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:21:51 PM EST
    Why do people like him so much?  He's a sexist and arrogant with malignant foot-in-mouth disease.

    I haven't seen that from him... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:27:21 PM EST
    ... but I don't live in the Southwest, so I could be missing it. He has an obviously appealling resume, but a lot of candidates are less appealing in the flesh than on paper. I mostly see him as the guy who looks the best at the starting line, although a full evaluation might change that.

    Richardson Would Be A Mistake (none / 0) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:32:09 PM EST
    For all of his resume, he was a total bomb during his short campaign for president. His debate performances and some of his interviews were a complete disaster.

    yup, i really like clark. (none / 0) (#146)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:44:08 PM EST
    webb has much to say for him, but he has taken some positions in the senate with which i don't agree.

    Am I the only female Democrat who doesn't (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:08:44 PM EST
    love Jim Webb? I like his fighting spirit but I don't always like what he's fighting for. And during his election, did anyone else notice that his wife was totally ignored (by him). Even on election night, he totally ignored her while others were on he podium congratulating him.

    I'm very glad he won but he doesn't give me warm feelings as a VP. It would help the male vote though. I just can't see him with a strong female boss.


    No Definitely Not The Only One n/t (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:15:54 PM EST
    i agree! (none / 0) (#147)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:44:29 PM EST
    Agree. Both candidates need (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:38:27 PM EST
    a military fave on the ticket to fight McCain.

    Seems to me (none / 0) (#39)
    by zyx on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:53:31 PM EST
    that Wes Clark would be a good VP for Clinton.

    Don't they get along really well?  And I think he has a lot of vote-getting appeal.

    I like him pretty well myself.


    well, i'll say it. he is also an (none / 0) (#148)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:45:13 PM EST
    attractive candidate. sigh!

    Love Clark! (none / 0) (#153)
    by otherlisa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:30:58 AM EST
    He's been great on Iraq, on Iran, he has the military credentials (obviously), and for my money, I thought he, not Obama, gave the best speech at the '04 convention.

    Plus I once saw him almost make Sean Hannity's head explode.


    yup, he handles himself very well (none / 0) (#154)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:41:04 AM EST
    interviews. he also gave o'reilly a few headaches too.

    They do not compliment each other, (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:40:37 PM EST
    how do you kiss and make up after being called a racist monster willing to stoop to any act to win, I could not but she probably is big enough to move past that, but Senator Clinton and Strickland are too similar he can help her bring in Ohio not on the Ticket some diversity up there would be great a young up and coming Hispanic, Jewish Leader maybe not Richardson.

    I don't particularly favor (none / 0) (#40)
    by stillife on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:54:44 PM EST
    a Clinton/Obama ticket, but it's politics.  Candidates make heinous accusations against each other and then kiss and make up for the sake of expediency.  My preferred ticket is Clinton/Clark.  I don't think Clinton needs a Jewish or Latino running mate; she's quite popular with those groups already.

    Big problem for Dems is that Bill (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:22:38 PM EST
    Clinton, one of the best things going for the Dems, now cannot campaign for Obama, if he would get the nomination.  Obama himself has compromised Bill Clinton as a racist -- not only so wrong but also so dumb for any Dem to do.  

    And the media loved it.  Hmmm, why?  What's in it for them -- or their masters?


    maybe their masters are repubs with (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:46:07 PM EST
    a long history of clinton hatred.

    Bingo. (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:08:51 AM EST
    and the people who are doing it are those far leftist democrats who couldn't enact all their crazy programs and wanted to isolate the nation in terms of trade in the 90s.

    I don't see (none / 0) (#44)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:02:03 PM EST
    how it could turn out other than a brokered convention as it seems obvious that neither will win on first ballot

    Well, do remember that (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:24:40 PM EST
    the "pledged delegates" are only that, not bound.  Not by the rules redone decades ago -- by Obama's good buddy Ted Kennedy.

    That plus no real count yet from caucus states means there is no delegate count yet.

    Repeat:  There is no delegate count yet.  No count from the Democratic Party.  Only counts from the media, and those are only guesses.  And the media haven't done great at guessing in this election.


    I think Strickland or Jim Webb would be better for Hillary on the ticket than Obama. Obama's support is among liberal and urban Dems and African Americans. They would vote for Hillary over McCain in a general election. It's not necessary for him to be on the ticket to gain their vote.

    By and large this may be true, but the devil is in the details I think.  It may depend on how Hillary is able to achieve the nomination.  If she arrives at the convention with a majority of pledged delegates and a majority of the popular vote, I think young voters and African American voters will recognize the legitimacy of her claims without too much bad blood.  
    If, on the other hand, Obama arrives at the convention with the above criteria, then a Hillary nomination secured primarily through super delegate considerations may leave a bad taste in the mouth of many.  
    Now of course such an outcome is perfectly within the rules of the Democratic nomination process, but I'm less sanguine than Jeralyn about the ramifications of a Hillary nomination without her possessing the popular and pledged criteria.  I'm not saying the youth vote or the African American vote stays home in November, but I would expect nothing more than the most tepid support from those constituencies that could be vital in the kind of 50+1 election that faces the Clinton in November (were she to become the nominee).  
    If Clinton must win the nomination while at a disadvantage in pledged and popular dimensions, she better think very hard about how she's gonna heal the wounds that will cause.  
    And of course, the reverse is true as well I think.  Should Obama become the nominee despite being at a disadvantage in pledged and popular marks, I would think he would want to be very careful about how to heal the resulting hard feelings, and reassemble a winning Dem coalition.  


    Clark. (none / 0) (#115)
    by jen on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:23:39 PM EST
    If Hillary's the nominee, I hope she'd pick Wes Clark to be her VP. That would shore up any concerns anyone had about FP credentials, and against McCain, it's perfect. Plus he brings in the south.

    If Webb is Obama's VP (none / 0) (#59)
    by maritza on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:29:57 PM EST
    he can get the rural vote.  Webb will bring back the Reagan Democrats.

    An Obama/Webb ticket can win in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc.

    OT But After Bill Clinton left office (none / 0) (#73)
    by Saul on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:11:24 PM EST
    how high was his ratings.

    highest of any Pres since WW2 (none / 0) (#77)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:31:45 PM EST
    According to wikipedia: "Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating, the highest end-of-presidency rating of any President who came into office after World War II."

    Bad analysis (none / 0) (#76)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:31:31 PM EST
    I see no mention in this blog of Republican crossover votes in Ohio. Estimates from Texas put crossover Republicans in the Democratic primary there at up to 700,000 based on the number of ballots that only had the presidential primary voted and did not vote for the senate race.

    Both Thom Hartmann and Peter B. Collins reported on this last week.

    If you want to ignore the Rush Limbaugh call for Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary to "bloody Obama" for November, then you are ignoring reality in exchange for a dream.

    I believe this would be called a nightmare (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Angel on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:37:09 PM EST
    for you because the facts are that the crossovers went for BO.  

    Wake up, quit dreaming and get a grip on reality.  


    Now exit polls are reliable? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:04:52 PM EST
    In both states there were lots of crossovers. And Limbaugh, Coulter, Laura I, O'Reilly all called for their listeners to cross over to vote for Clinton.

    If you think it's my nightmare believe that it's Rush's wet dream.

    The folks on FOX News were bragging about it on Wednesday morning. And Clinton told FOX and Friends that no Republicans crossed over. Bizarre.

    So now Clinton has big support in rural Ohio. Talk about dreams.


    You seem to like posting that same (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:20:45 PM EST
    thing so are they reliable or not?  Better than some dip radio show.

    Obama leads (none / 0) (#89)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:44:59 PM EST
    Obama has been leading in the Rep vote.  The push by Rush moved it to 52-48 still for Obama.  Even if 700,000 were cross over votes, that leaves 2.1 to 1.4 million Dem voters over Reps.  Need to estimate Texas turnout for the Reps.  Ohio was 2m to 1m Dems over Reps.  Even with crossovers, you're going to need huge Rep turnout.  They need to get motivated.

    McCain is getting BAD blow back from Boeing (none / 0) (#94)
    by maritza on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:47:37 PM EST
    and I predict that this will be a campaign issue.  He was instrumental in awarding the possible Boeing contract for the Airforce to Airbus which is French thus there was loss of American jobs.

    Imagine that as an attack ad.  "McCain lets American jobs go to France".

    Obama/Webb could win with that.

    Let's keep it civil (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:50:57 PM EST
    I just deleted a long comment alleging Hillary's win in Ohio was racially motivated against Obama. We don't accuse people of racism here. The angry comments in response, while justified, have also been deleted.

    Don't even think about going there.

    Please explain (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:56:48 PM EST
    the deletion of my comment referencing the exit polling out of Ohio indicating that of the 20% who said race was a factor, that vote broke 57-43 for Hillary....

    it was the conclusions you drew from the stats (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:27:24 PM EST
    that were unsupported and unacceptable on this site.
    I will email you those parts.

    Jeralyn, there is a diary at Kos tonight (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:00:20 AM EST
    calling your site out by name as racist. I don't think Markos or his admins have the same standards that you do. At least one poster said you as well as your posters are racist. Maybe you should talk to Markos.

    You can delete this but I wanted you to be (none / 0) (#151)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:00:51 AM EST

    "conclusions" (none / 0) (#159)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:40:10 PM EST
    If data indicated that Hillary lost a state because those who cared about the sex of a candidate voted 57-43 for the man, would that also be unacceptable to post?