home

How Obama Could Lose PA and the Nomination

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:41:42 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

However unlikely, it's still possible Obama could lose PA and the nomination. If nominated, he could lose the election. Here's how, by a senior editor at The New Republic. It begins:

Some liberal commentators have downplayed the effect of Barack Obama's recent fundraising speech in San Francisco. But that's wishful thinking. Along with the revelations about Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright, his remarks in San Francisco will haunt him not only in the upcoming primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia, but also in the general election against John McCain, assuming he gets the Democratic nomination.

Go read the rest, and let us know what you think.

(Comments now Closed)

< Obama to Spend Millions on PA Ads Over Next Four Days | Slate's Proposed Springsteen Ad For Hillary >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    How Obama Could Lose PA and the Nomination | 263 comments (263 topical)
    Acceptable Democrat (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:46:40 PM EST
    THe example in the piece of Bob Casey winning because he was the "acceptable Democrat" I think is misguided.  The 2006 Senate race was much more about Santorum having become the "unacceptable Republican".

    As a Pennsylvanian, I completely agree. [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:08:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    As a former Pennsylvanian... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:56:18 PM EST
    I feel I know a little about Pennsylvania.  Wish I'd stayed registered to vote there...

    [ Parent ]
    DaveO in SF (none / 0) (#92)
    by athyrio on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:18:50 PM EST
    What is your prediction since you used to live in Pennsylvania? How do you think Tuesday will go?

    [ Parent ]
    Having lived most of my adult life (none / 0) (#100)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:36:12 PM EST
    in PA, having travelled around, having lived in Philly and out...I think it goes to Clinton no question.  Probably by at least Ohio margins.  Interesting though that in what some pundits have hailed as Ohio all over again both candidates have run strikingly different campaigns from their Ohio campaigns, which were heavily NAFTA oriented.  

    [ Parent ]
    Amen to that DaveOinSF (4.75 / 4) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:13:16 PM EST
    Rick Santorum came across as completely off his meds and his supporters left him and dry.

    My problem with Casey is that it is a well-known fact his dad has a real problem with The Clintons and after saying he would not endorse a candidate, turned right around and endorsed Obama, on the say-so (supposedly) of his children.
    I prefer politicians that think for themselves.

    If PA turns out like MA, Sen. Clinton can phone it in.  Kerry, Kennedy and Gov. Patrick had Obama's back and he still could not win the state.

    [ Parent ]

    Not from PA, but there was a strong (none / 0) (#121)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:07:36 PM EST
    anti-Santorum push in the Animal Welfare circles because of his proposed PAWS legislation. AKC, Breed Clubs, etc were actively against it/him. We were happy to see him go. Too bad it wasn't to a pro-choice Dem though.

    [ Parent ]
    We didn't have a big choice ourselves (none / 0) (#216)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:15:18 AM EST
    We had a sitting Republican who was totally off the wall and we had the one guy who has name recognition and we knew could knock Santorum out. We took Casey. He is ok, but Specter is a lot more liberal than Bob. That is why Specter wins so easily.

    [ Parent ]
    I would have made the same choice (none / 0) (#223)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:38:59 AM EST
    but it just would have been sweeter if he had been pro-choice ;)

    I wouldn't have know much about him except for the PAWS legislation. That made many outside of PA pay more attention to him, believe it or not. Durbin had also signed on to it, but gain back positives with his actions during the pet food recall.

    [ Parent ]

    It is amazing (5.00 / 15) (#4)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:50:36 PM EST
    how many well-educated, normally pragmatic, dems are blinded to these facts.  Talk about being out of touch with the rest of America!  I think the reasons stated in this piece are the very reasons the super d's are hesitant to fall in line behind Obama.  I think many of them are waiting for these contests to play out, and to see how Obama holds up under scrutiny.  What we saw on ABC was just a glimmer of the kind of scrutiny an Obama ge candidacy would have to endure.  The press may be with him now, but if it comes down to O and McCain, then we know who gets the donuts with the sprinkles on top.  Dems should know better than to fall for this.

    I heard a great line on HBO's John Adams the other night: A mob is still a mob, even when it's with you.

    Yeah, the old fogies have seen the (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:53:33 PM EST
    Dems walk of the cliff in their choice of nominee too many times.


    [ Parent ]
    So, nominating a candidate with ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Tortmaster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:15:03 PM EST
    ... a 54% national unfavorability rating would not be "walking off the cliff"?

    This guy, along with his buddies Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove and Mark Levin, want HRC to win the nomination. They want her to win for a reason.  

    [ Parent ]

    you have it EXACTLY backward (5.00 / 10) (#40)
    by angie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:23:10 PM EST
    the GOP is chomping at the bit to go against Obama because HRC's negatives aren't going to go up against McCain -- in the GE, everyone is going to remember that McCain is old as dirt, that the economy is in the toilet and the war in Iraq needs to end.  That is going to drive McCain's negatives up higher then HRC's and she wins in November.  However, if McCain is up against such an easy target as Obama, McCain's age, the economy & ending the war is going to pale in comparison to Ayers, Wright, and "bittergate." By election day, Obama's negatives are going to be higher then McCain's, and McCain wins.  

    [ Parent ]
    What you (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by sas on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:43:43 PM EST
    state is not the case.

    The Republican internal polls show that Barack O"bama would be more easily beatable at this time, after clinggate, and Wright.  The Repugs do not want Hillary,  They see losing the election to her, even tho it would be close.
    The want Barack to be the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    With Obama at 51% unfavorable... (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:51:22 PM EST
    I'm not sure you have a point.

    I must be stupid because I simply couldn't care who Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove and Mark Levin (how did Levin make this list anyway?) want to win. Sheesh...

    Seriously though...with Obama lagging in unfavorably by only a few points and given the fact he has yet to be in the sights of the right wing attack machine, I have every confidence that he can match Hillary in the unfavorable category.

    [ Parent ]

    I predict her numbers will get better (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:11:36 PM EST
    when Obama's camp isn't pumping out daily negatives about her. It's one thing coming from the Republicans, expected and something to fight against. It's another thing when it's coming from within the party with the intention of making her unelectable.

    [ Parent ]
    Limbaugh, Hannity, Rove (none / 0) (#132)
    by flashman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:23:54 PM EST
    This is who they want chosing our candidate.  Screw 'em!

    [ Parent ]
    I think you mistake the reason ... (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:56:00 PM EST
    ... why those RW spokesmen invest so much time attacking Hillary. It's because they fear her.

    If she were an opponent of little consequence, they would not spend nearly as much time focusing on her. I'm sure they disagree even more vehemently with the views of (say) Dennis Kucinich or Barney Frank (for example), but how much time do they devote to attacking them?  

    The degree of anger they exhibit for Hillary is a very good measure of the level of respect they have for her as an opponent. Someone like Kucinich or Frank may be their worst nightmare as POTUS, but Hillary as President is an unpleasant (in their eyes) possibility that they know could easily become a reality.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think we know who the GOP wants (none / 0) (#199)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:40:48 PM EST
    to win.  Different people have different takes on this.  However, if Obama wins the nomination the contrast between McCain and Obama will be striking.  Obama is young, inexperienced, vague, and a little ethereal.Its that hope and unity thing.  McCain is gruff, experienced and noted as a "no-nonsense guy". He is a war hero and a known commodity.  These will be the memes.  large swathes of Americans outside of the liberal coasts will have to choose between these two scenarios.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:53:55 PM EST
    ...with your analysis, although I don't know what the proper conclusion is.  

     The truth seems (to me) to be that we have one relatively predictable candidate in Senator Clinton.  She would probably win the GE, although I don't agree that it would be an easy win or an enduring one for Democrats.  On the other hand, Senators McCain and Obama will be stark contrasts.  We are also talking about an election year where the popular "meme" as one would have it is inhosbitable to the status quo.  The polls have proved themselves unpredictable.  And Senator McCain has his own problems with independents, ironically.  

     I still believe this is unknown territory.  At a national level, the consensus appears to be "change."  What that constitutes is of course a matter of debate, but ultimately I would bet on the Democratic nominee, whoever she or he may be.  

    [ Parent ]

    The GOP view (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:20:42 PM EST
    I've heard two well-connected Republicans in two days, Mike Huckabee last night and Todd Harris (strategist type) today, say that when the primaries started, GOPers were rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of running against Hillary in the general, but that the opinion has changed around and they now think Obama is much more easily beatable both because of the "bitter/cling" remarks, Wright, Ayers et al.  The strategist type was positively gleeful at having been handed the opportunity to whack him as an elitist on a silver platter by Obama himself.

    [ Parent ]
    That's just great (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:47:28 PM EST
    and you expect them to say that their likely oppenent in November is unbeatable? If Obama's and Hillary's roles were reversed they'd be spouting the same garbage about Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    I think the point is... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:53:39 PM EST
    who cares which the Republicans would rather face?

    I thought the Democrats get to pick their candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't let them fool you (1.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:01:49 PM EST
    they want Hillary but they can't have her. Why did they not attack Hillary on Tuzla if they want to help Obama? Here is a former war hero who could've gone to town on Tuzla but he certainly doesn't want to damage her in the dem primaries. Isn't that obvious? And to suggest that Hillary somehow has less baggage than Obama is laughable. Just because Obama has not attacked her on these issues I think is giving Clinton supporters a false sense of security. If she were the nominee she would be eviscerated.

    [ Parent ]
    shame on me... (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:07:41 PM EST
    for thinking that you actually were capable of getting even a little beyond Obamabot.

    Did you want to just pile on some more negative nonsense against Hillary or are you done?

    Obama has spent the entire primary trying to eviscerate her so in my thinking, I fail to see a difference between Obama and anything the Republicans would do.

    But I suppose that is his right...to run a campaign any way he sees fit. I wish the media wasn't so anti-Clintons but hey, not much hope there.

    [ Parent ]

    I have yet to see the Obama commercials (none / 0) (#134)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:24:40 PM EST
    on Tuzla, nor has the candidate mentioned it himself. Keep in mind, Hillary attacked Obama directly on Wright when even McCain wouldn't go there. And of course she jumped all over bittergate.

    I hope you are not suggesting that Obama has been as negative toward Hillary as she has been toward him. If so, the evidence does not support it. I'm not saying that Obama is a saint. He is a politician like the rest of them. Maybe his political calculation is that negative campaign won't work for him, particulary in this cycle. Maybe he's betting that he can stay mostly positive and win. His instincts have been on the mark so far. On the other hand, Hillary's negatives go up in proportion to the number of dirty dishes in her kitchen sink. And supers tend to flock to Obama the more negative Hillary gets.

    [ Parent ]

    just because you say it... (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:35:17 PM EST
    doesn't make it true.

    Obama has surely been the equal of negative, not always from his own lips but from his campaigns daily press briefers, to be sure.

    Obama resorts to ridicule (Annie Oakley, knife digging, bird flipping) and outright negative attacks, the debate the other night, the debate in South Carolina...

    His entire campaign has used the predicate of eviscerating Bill and Hillary which is why he disses the 90's presidency of Bill. Each time he tries to be subtle (invoking the politics of Reagan and GHWB but ignoring Bill's accomplishments).

    The simple truth is that their campaign is splitting the party apart because they have to ruin the Clinton legacy to get the nomination...so sad.

    He has every right to be as negative as he wishes. I am just not blinded to the negativity.

    [ Parent ]

    Bird flipping? (none / 0) (#167)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:47:57 PM EST
    And you expect to be taken seriously?

    Obama has been reactive. He has tried to push back when attacked. But he has shown restraint. Again, not that Obama is an angel. Being positive and hopeful is his shtick.  Also, he has been the frontrunner for a couple of months. Frontrunners generally do not go negative.


    [ Parent ]

    No now (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by facta non verba on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:53:50 PM EST
    and not in the past. Ask Alice Palmer and the four others he knocked off the ballot in 1996. And in his run for the Senate, David Alexrod knocked out two opponents with scandals and innuendo. Result he got Alan Keyes as the loyal and insane opposition.

    Look at his tactics in Nevada, in California, in Texas. The real Barack Obama is far different from the image that David Alexrod is selling.

    This is an ad campaign where as Andre Aggassi use to say "image is everything."

    [ Parent ]

    Uh, reactive? (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by IzikLA on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:17:56 AM EST
    Is that what he was in the SC debate when he was the first to slam for Hillary for being on the board at walmart?  I think not.  Although the media was quick to pounce on her for her slumlord comment that came as a retaliation, we all seem to easily forget and assume it is Hillary that goes into attack mode first.

    And you are right, positive and hopeful is only his schtick.  He does not practice what he preaches I am afraid to say.

    [ Parent ]

    They've both been negative (5.00 / 5) (#162)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:44:14 PM EST
    She's just more up front about it.  Sometimes I think the reason people don't see the negativity in Obama's campaign is because he plays the victim card whenever she criticises him, so he can shame her for playing the "old politics", cristylize his supporters' disdain for her, turn the attention away from the criticism she made about him, and build up the old "she'll do anything to win" meme all at once.

    [ Parent ]
    Look, Tuzla and Jeremiah Wright are (none / 0) (#202)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:44:53 PM EST
    NOT the same.  You lack proportion on this.

    [ Parent ]
    In her element (none / 0) (#224)
    by nellre on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:39:42 AM EST
    Obama said HRC was in her element at the debate that's been so soundly criticized.

    The Obama followers are deaf to how negative Obama has been. He's more subtle, granted. That way he can have his cake and eat it too. But he can't have this voter!


    [ Parent ]

    You will learn (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Leisa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:57:53 PM EST
    that there is more in the kitchen than a sink.  

    Clinton learned her lesson about the Tuzla story.  
    She even apologized...  hmm imagine that, apologizing.

    [ Parent ]

    I think the reason they're no longer attacking (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:22:52 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is because she's currently in second place, so number one they don't expect her to be the nominee, and number two, a long Democratic primary helps them. If the situation was reversed and Barack was in second but running a vigorous campaign against her, I'm pretty sure they'd be holding their fire on him as well; I don't think it has much to do with which they consider to be the easier to run against in the general election. And even if it did, why would they have any better insight into which candidate would be the easier to run against than we do?

    [ Parent ]
    Ha ha ha (none / 0) (#83)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:06:19 PM EST
    That was good snark - Friday Funnies, right?

    [ Parent ]
    See, this is what undermines Obamabots' (4.33 / 6) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:08:18 PM EST
    arguments here and elsewhere, the inability (or refusal) to address what's actually been said.  Nobody used the word, or even suggested, "unbeatable."  You just made that up yourself.

    And if you actually followed these things, you'd know that similar GOP types have been saying all along, right up until pretty recently, that they'd rather run against Hillary than Obama.

    So your argument fails on its own.

    But that's OK.  If he gets the nomination, you will find out.  Going to be quite an education for all you newbies to politics.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't let your advocacy blind you (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:37:46 PM EST
    I can cite a ton of quotes from GOP operatives saying they feared Obama much more than Hillary. In fact, I can cite quotes from the same types saying that in what should be a Democratic year, Hillary will galvanize much of the electorate against her and probably ensure a GOP victory. Rush Limbaugh said they would be "doomed" if Obama is the nominee.

    What some of your are interpreting as GOP glee at the prospect of facing Obama is nothing more than the actual GOP general election campaign against Obama. They have not been running against Hillary. In fact, they have mostly ignored Hillary since the math became inexorable in Obama's favor.


    [ Parent ]

    Oh, they did say that (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:06:58 PM EST
    quite a while ago.  The point of my comment, if you'd bothered to read it, is that they've changed their minds post-Wright, post-"bitter/cling," and since they've realized he's a complete putz at dealing with criticism.  Exhibit A, the ABC debate.

    I do not trust these people and I do not discount the possibility that they're funnin' us, but these two particular sources I take more seriously than others, like Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove or that twisted moron Dick Morris.

    Obama is just a sitting duck for these people, as you are likely to find out.


    [ Parent ]

    Oh, Tiparillo (none / 0) (#182)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:08:59 PM EST
    On this site, unlike the Obama sites you're used to, we don't troll rate people just because we disagree with them.  Hard for you, I know.

    [ Parent ]
    I think you're wrong (none / 0) (#187)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:22:20 PM EST
    I think they've just started to wage the campaign against him in earnest. You're telling me that they believe that Hillary, who has been checkmated at every turn by a guy nobody had heard about until a couple of years ago, that she would be more difficult to defeat? Hillary who did not plan well, who ran a horrible campaign? Hillary who still has not come up with a viable campaign theme or vision or even campaign slogan? Hillary who has not managed money well? Hillary who has had multiple staff shake ups and drama?

    I assure you, they fear Obama. And by the way, that debate did a couple of things. It brought all that garbage out in the open and the network was vilified for it. The vilification has been so intense that no one will dare mention Wright, Ayers, flag pins or any other such nonsense in the GE. Moreover, the reaction from the Obama grassroots has sent shockwaves through both the GOP and the MSM. They're now beginning to understand the massive tsunami movement they're dealing with.


    [ Parent ]

    Do you honestly think the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:33:29 PM EST
    will give a whit about your vilification?  If so, then you are delusional.  The media will play it to the hilt as well when it's brought out by McCain and the GOP hit machine.  Dude, nobody fears Obama.  :-)

    [ Parent ]
    McCain may have more skelatons than even (none / 0) (#204)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:47:07 PM EST
    HRC. It's a two way street. And let's not even get started on his wife. The man has about 40 years of very dirty laundry and scandals. Even his age will cost him votes. Yes, many people think he's too old, especially older people who know what it is to be old. Hate to say it, but he is short (knock another 5% off). He is seemingly decrepit physically. He has a combover. He is not an attractive man. To point these things out is not to be shallow. Elections are won and lost on height alone. And with all these disadvantages he has chosen to run on the record of one of the most unpopular presidents in history. Contrast that to the sharp, young, vigorous, witty, likeable and good looking Obama.

    Instead of debating whether Obama can win, you ought to be debating the size of Obama's landslide.


    [ Parent ]

    Having fun tonight are you? (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:41:46 AM EST
    It is always fun for Obamabots to come over here when there is no one to argue with anymore. Heh. But as to your thought that Obama is young, nice looking,I guess, (Althought I thought John was hot) etc., that is a problem. No one really knows who he is. McCain, warts and all, people know who he is. He might not be the Maverick anymore, but people know he knows Washington and has a long life of experience. They know he was in Viet Nam and in captivity and tortured. They know he is strong. The country is in deep Bandini right now. The worse it has been in my lifetime. It scares me because we are on the brink of turning it around or going down the tubes. So who would you prefer to operate? The Pre-Med student or the Doctor? McCain will be hard to beat but he will tackle BHO with his experience. When he said that empty suit comment in his win speech, you saw what was coming and you saw who he was thinking he was going to be running against. It was not the other Doctor.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh my... (none / 0) (#266)
    by Fredster on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:38:06 AM EST
    He is seemingly decrepit physically.

    primarily due to the torture he endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese.   Think: War Hero.  You will hear a lot of it during the general election.  Americans love war heroes, a la Eisenhower, JFK, Washington.  

    [ Parent ]

    Cite away (none / 0) (#164)
    by kmblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:46:11 PM EST
    but keep the links to TL standards.

    [ Parent ]
    I would think that you ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Tortmaster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:23:09 PM EST
    ... would want to think up ways for Hillary to win rather than claiming, impossibly, that the Republicans fear her more than Obama.

    I would stick to her strengths rather than make arguments that nobody will believe.

    If I were pro-Hillary, I'd be over at Republican websites getting them to vote for her in the upcoming primaries.

    I'd keep talking about Michigan and Florida or how HRC wins the important states. I would not suggest that the Republicans aren't helping Hillary, because they obviously are. It's a credibility thing.  

    [ Parent ]

    Credibility. that's really rich (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:39:45 PM EST
    coming from the Obama side.  HaHa

    [ Parent ]
    The way for her to win is to (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:45:42 PM EST
    count all the votes and NOT to listen to people who are telling her to quit before the race is over.  The most important thing she needs to do is stay positive by blocking out all the crap from MSNBC, DKOS, and HUFFPOST. And I am sure she does that already!

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the advice... (3.66 / 3) (#141)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:33:09 PM EST
    ...your post is so amusing in so many ways. As for going to Republican sites, most of us have sworn off  DK.

    [ Parent ]
    You live in your own world (none / 0) (#183)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:10:03 PM EST
    You will find out.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:54:11 PM EST
    after the debate and Obama's misteps lately, I think it's looking more likely that Obama won't be the nominee unless the party has decided that they aren't going to win this election no matter what. He's given voters so many reasons not to vote for him in the general election that I just don't see how he wins against McCain. Also, voters have the comfort of the Dems controlling congress and the senate. Some people like divided government and since the 2006 elections I have believed that it would be much harder for us to win in Nov.

    Ga6th (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:00:20 PM EST
    Another GA here, but 5th district, who could not agree with you more.  It is gobsmacking how out of touch the party echelon is on Obama's electability problems.  Ayers and Rezko make it very tricky, but Wright alone will sink Obama.  Though I speak as as an agnostic, I am not so deluded as to not understand that religion is the universal language of the dominant American culture.  Wright is absolute poison.

    Clinton must win the nomination or we all will lose.

    [ Parent ]

    In am in Ga. also (grad school) and (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by kenosharick on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:43:03 PM EST
    I agree as well. No way Obama wins my home state of Wis. now-these scandals have ended it. These superdelegates are committing political suicide rather than preventing it as they were meant to. Every day I am seeing supers announce for Barack, and I am stunned-what are they thinking? The media seems oblivious as well. I am really hoping that Penn helps prevent a disaster. BTW- shouldn't these many scandals hurt him in NC as well?

    [ Parent ]
    No, won't hurt him (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:56:20 PM EST
    in NC.  Demographics favor him.  35% AA.  With that kind of demographic he should have taken Clinton 15 pts or more. He is projecting to win NC by 8 pts which is 88% of the AA vote to 37% of the white vote.  For the GE, he will need Clinton's voters.

    [ Parent ]
    i think your numbers are wildly wrong. (none / 0) (#105)
    by cpinva on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:50:12 PM EST
    according to the 2000 census, AA's constitute 21% of NC's population. perhaps that % has increased in the intervening 7 years, but i doubt it's by 14 points.

    yes, the AA population of NC favors obama in the primary, but not by nearly as much as you would have us believe.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps 35% of registered dems are aa? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:54:51 PM EST
    It seemed high to me (GA was 30%, I think) but you never know.

    Still, I don't think NC will be a resounding victory, especially when Clinton cleans up in PA and the media tide subtly shifts.  

    I think attacking ABC was the stupidest thing to come out of the blogosphere.  Nothing makes those guys circle their wagons like one of their own being attacked.  And this is Charlie Gibson we're talking about, folks.  You don't bash Chuck.

    [ Parent ]

    Kathy's (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:17:57 PM EST
    probably right. In SC 50% of Democrats are African-American but not 50% of the total population.

    [ Parent ]
    Census (none / 0) (#122)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:08:13 PM EST
    numbers 22%, I forgot to note on my spreadsheet where the dem registration number came from.  Flipped the AA to 25% (little higher for turnout) that means for him to get his 8 pt win he would get 44% of the white vote?  

    [ Parent ]
    not all will lose, SDs are voting their benefits (5.00 / 1) (#269)
    by boredmpa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:57:59 AM EST
    I have to assume some people are looking at possible state and federal reps/senators and downticket changes if obama brings out more folks in some districts.   I mean it's obvious to me that the unions went obama because of the movement glow and the coattail riding (even if he doesn't win they've brought in young people and exposed them to unions at rallies).

    I think SDs may be calculating/hoping for local benefits even if we lose the presidency.

    [ Parent ]

    The New Republic? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Citizen Rat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:57:58 PM EST
    First of all, Obama will lose PA. The only issue is by how much and how that margin will be spun. Nobody is predicting an Obama victory in PA. There is not that much Kool-Aid in the world.

    But TNR has seen its circulation go down, down, down...and down. And there is a good reason for that.

    TNR has always been the magazine of the moderate wing of the Neo-Cons. In fact, on foreign policy, it has been almost (not quite) but almost on the same page as all the Neo-Con organs.

    And it has always been bitterly, unalterably, inexorably opposed to any kind of progressive politics (at least as long as I have read it) starting with supporting death squads and contras in Central America.

    Ah yes (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:02:00 PM EST
    Sam Nunn is a thoughtful, intelligent dem for supporting Obama.

    TNR is a right-wing shill machine for raising valid questions about Obama's electability.

    [ Parent ]

    Definitely Not A Fan Of TNR, BUT... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:20:20 PM EST
    They have some valid points that should be considered.  And honest, objective voters will do just that, others will try to tear them a new one, but they have nothing to gain by posting this.  It could very well be the scenario coming down the pike.

    [ Parent ]
    Sam Nunn is not my guy (1.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Citizen Rat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:26:35 PM EST
    I have never called Sam Nunn a thouhgtful Democrat. On the other hand, Sam isn't going Zell or Lieberman on me. So I can deal with him.

    Now, Hillary's just gone Zell. That's a deal breaker.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary has gone Zell?? (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:59:29 PM EST
    That's as rabid as Obama supporters claiming John Edwards is a "warmonger."
    After Obama entered the Senate, he turned right and began voting to fund the war after promises on the campaign trail a few months earlier that he'd vote against funding it.
    Obama on the Iraq War - really is a fairy tale.

    [ Parent ]
    you don't know what you are talking about (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:42:30 PM EST
    As a long time subscriber I can tell you that I'm actually appalled at all the shilling the TNR is doing for Obama -- go read their blogs, and articles in their archives. If they are neo-cons they wouldn't be doing that now, would they?

    The only article against him -- that I can recall of late -- has been Sean Wilenz's article on how Obama's campaign used race before SC and since.
    But I doubt that will change the MSM behavior or other Obama supporters'.

    And yes, I read National Review too.. and can tell the difference.

    Equating people (esp. Democrats) who supported/support the war w/ Neo-con policy reflexively -- is naive.

    [ Parent ]

    So You've Demonstrated (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:36:40 PM EST
    that you know almost nothing about The New Republic and especially the individuals who contribute.

    "TNR has always been the magazine of the moderate wing of the Neo-Cons"

    Always? Do you know how long TNR has been around.  For many decades before there were neocons. For many years it was the premier liberal political magazine. It's slipped over a period of time, especially the last few years, due to absolutely deranged owners.

    But that doesn't mean that everything in the magazine is crap.  On foreign policy they've been off the mark for some time but the magazine still has some good articles about domestic matters.

    John Judis, the author of the cited article is no con; neo, paleo or otherwise. He's one of the sharper people around.

    You would be rewarded and may even learn something about the way stuff works in public life by reading his very good "Paradox of American Democracy."  Although written in 1991 (as I recall) it could best be described as Civics 401.  I believe Judis says something like that in the preface.  He's right, but it may even be Civics 501.

    When discussing The New Republic it's best to understand that there are a number of contributors and almost always something of value.

    [ Parent ]

    You're telling me (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:39:38 PM EST
    You should see what is lurking around at TPM, Kos, Huff, Ameriblog, wow.  All those anti feminist, anti Democrat, anti giving everyone the right to vote, anti universal healthcare, anti all kinds of things I thought no one was anti.  Wow, scary things you find on the internet.  

    [ Parent ]
    A recent artticle by Judis on the (5.00 / 0) (#212)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:03:36 AM EST
    problems Obama faces in the general election was excellent. It was a measured and well researched  piece and was not reasurring to the Democrats who want to win in November.

    [ Parent ]
    Ed Schultz (none / 0) (#160)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:41:08 PM EST
    wannabe, ex sports guy, just like KO, found religion, panders this way, panders that way, but man, found the anti Hillary thing, that just turned him on to talk against a Democrat and a woman.  That just got him all Rush and everything.  

    [ Parent ]
    Schultz, another former Republican (none / 0) (#265)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:36:23 AM EST
    you can take the guy out of the party but increasingly thise former Rs, you can't take the party out the guy.

    [ Parent ]
    Dick Morris is a joke (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:00:42 PM EST
    I don't think he has credibility with anyone.

    Dick Morris created the Hillary hate Virus... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:15:47 PM EST
    ...that causes Hillary Derangement Syndrome (HDS).  

    [ Parent ]
    Dick (none / 0) (#64)
    by sas on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:49:22 PM EST
    Morris is deep in debt.  The only reliable source of income for him is to be a daily Hillary basher.

    [ Parent ]
    He's insane! (none / 0) (#94)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:21:54 PM EST
    I knew he had turned on the Clintons, but my God!  When asked a question about Obama, he'll turn the answer back to Hillary, so he can bash her.  It's so ridiculously obvious.  He's wasted as a Fox commentator.  He really ought to apply for a job at MSNBC.

    [ Parent ]
    Even O' Reilly (none / 0) (#129)
    by Leisa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:20:05 PM EST
    has rolled his eyes when Dick Morris talks.

    [ Parent ]
    At this stage... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:03:34 PM EST
    pundits and polls in PA are irrelevant because the real poll is all that matters and it's only a few days away.

    I think that Judis is fairly accurate but it all depends upon how much Hillary wins PA by...and if she wins in double figures after 6 weeks of nothing but PA and being outspent at least 4:1, there could only be 1 conclusion...Obama can't win.

    But it does come down to how much Hillary wins by...if it's only 5-9 points, it won't be a decisive blow to Obama.

    Hilary just might be the nominee (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Saul on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:07:21 PM EST
    As I watch the contest go down to the finish line, every day we learn more and more about Obama.  Recently there is something in the wind that tells my gut instincts  that if Obama becomes the nominee he could not honestly win the GE. I see a lot of Obamas's luster diminished as compared to how it was when he began his campaign.   I think as time goes on this will become more evident.   The Wright incident, his wife's remarks, and this current Bitter fiasco and now the Ayers underground scandal all will have a negative effect in the GE.  First impressions on controversial issues are hard to shake off no matter how you try to explain them off.  Moreover no telling what we will learn on from the Rezko trial that involves Obama. I do not agree with everything that Hilary has done or said in this campaign, however  I  feel that Hilary can be a better candidate to win the GE.  She will do better in winning those critical states.  The GE is all about electoral votes.  If you can't win the big states all the charisma in the world won't help you.  The super delegates just might have to choose down the line on who really is more electable.  The Gallup polls dropped considerably in the last 2 days in favor of Hilary. Only 3 points difference when it was 11 just the other day.  Time is on Hilary's side since time is bringing out more and more things we do not know about Obama.  

    It's because Obama is following WS rules (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:09:13 PM EST
    In baseball every manager will keep throwing their best pitchers on as little rest as possible even if they wear them out thinking:  nothing matters if we don't at least get to the World Series.

    Obama is doing anything and everything to get to the GE, not thinking about how he is damaging his campaign by doing so.

    But what is most surprising is that neither he, nor his supporters, understand that burning up goodwill with half of dem voters isn't the real problem...the real problem in every single election is the swing voters and swing voters pay attn to the things that the Obama camp thinks are trivial or capable of being swept away by a speech; things like flags, and pledges, and condescension, and playing both sides of the political fences.

    He's burning out his bullpen (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:24:28 PM EST
    The Dem party AND swings. He'll be walking to the mound with rookies he pulled in from triple A.

    [ Parent ]
    This should have been 1964; it's becoming 1972 (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by tdraicer on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:11:26 PM EST
    What Judis is saying is not only true but obviously true-but I'm not sure it matters since the party leadership seems to be in a suicidal frame of mind (not for the first time).

    Obama can win in November ONLY if the GOP is so damaged any Dem could win. Possible, but it is extremely risky to bet the next four years on it.

    But I'm frankly starting to think Pelosi or Dean don't really want to win-they are much more important figures with a Republican in the White House than they would be with a Democrat.

    wow (5.00 / 9) (#30)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:12:43 PM EST
    that's so true.  Pelosi and Dean are going to be in BIG trouble if Clinton and crew get back in the White House.  They're going to have to finally act on something.

    [ Parent ]
    Kathy (5.00 / 5) (#179)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:04:35 PM EST
    That's nothing compared to the tide that will drown Donna Brazile.  

    She's literally the poster child for Democratic foolishness over the past few years.

    You're right that the Speaker and Majority Leader are less prominent when their party holds the White House.  

    I believe they think they'll remain prominent with someone as weak as Obama in the White House.

    They'd definitely drop a notch or more with Hillary in the White House.

    Kerry's remark that Universal Health Care is a non-starter and Dodd's (D-Insurance Industry)early Obama endorsement tell me that in the Senate they're scared as hell about being put on the spot. With Hillary in the White House and the public clamoring for UHC, these people will sweat bullets.  They'll be caught between their constituents and their principle sponsors.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is not the new McGovern (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:59:33 PM EST
    Obama may be a lot of things, but he is not the new McGovern.  He is the new Dukakis.

    [ Parent ]
    Dukakis won Mass, not sure he can ;) (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:26:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It is very likely they (none / 0) (#81)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:01:31 PM EST
    don't want the White House right now.  They will not be able to resolve the Iraq war, we are still in Afghanistan with not enought troops to deal with it, there is a messy economy over which the govt has limited recourse, they will be unable to do any tax increases to support any changes in programs with the economy the way it is, etc.  The economy will even out over time and the Dems can continue to blame our bogged down military on the Repubs.  eh....

    [ Parent ]
    I sometimes think so, too -- holding it in 2012 (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:06:36 PM EST
    for Obama, for the reasons you give that then will not be the Dems' mess to fix -- and figuring that McCain can only do one term.

    I think that is very dangerous thinking for Dems, as McCain will pick a younger VP who will have a semi-incumbency to take it for the GOP again.

    [ Parent ]

    that's exactly what the TL kid said (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:47:09 PM EST
    at dinner tonight. (He is not a fan of Obama, thinks he's fluff and no substance). His point: No dem can fix Bush's mess in 4 years, it might be better if a Republican got stuck with it.

    [ Parent ]
    all in all (none / 0) (#197)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:38:02 PM EST
    I'd rather a dem tried to fix it and failed...but between O and McCain?  I think it is a crapshoot that either will better or worse for the country.  I think Clinton could actually do enough in four years to warrant a second term while I think the other two would be certain one term admins.

    [ Parent ]
    And Judis didn't even mention (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Coldblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:47:21 PM EST
    the fourth branch, which will be an active participant in influencing the outcome.

    ding! ding! ding! (none / 0) (#211)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:03:16 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Relax HRC Supporters - He's Toast in PA (5.00 / 7) (#89)
    by cdalygo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:13:20 PM EST
    I just cruised around and caught her response to debate on local PA station. (Yes, a Fox station. But given the Obama network at NBC who cares at this point.)

    She laid out the truth. If he and his supporters can't handle 90 minute debate, how will he and they handle pressure in white house. Before the Obama folks cue up with "she lied" when she said he could president , remember the crap he spewed about her yesterday and in his robo-calls.  

    That type of airtime is priceless in a campaign because it catches more people paying attention to things like weather and traffic. It also kicks the hell out of his ads running monotonously on a loop. Thus she doesn't need to waste her money responding back with scripted commercials.

    My money is on the SUSA poll of 14, with an even higher margin due to undecideds breaking her way late (as they have done in every other state).

    But please continue to insult her and us. It only strengthens our resolve to get her the nomination.If we can't pull it off due to the disenfranchisement of key states and media onslaught it aids us in other ways. We are building a coalition that will emerge from the certain debacle in November ready to either retake the Democratic party or start a viable third party.

    Oh and I agree with a poster above. Don't insult McGovern with the comparison. McGovern was a war hero who took a necessary stand against an immoral war back when it hurt to be that brave. Obama is Dukais if he's lucky. Even that comparison is unfair to Dukais, who at least delivered for his home state as governor.

    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:33:34 PM EST
    I've sworn off cable (except food/sports programing) and have been watching local broadcast news. Much different perspective. Still slanted, but not extreme. And Fox adds balance. Heh, I grew up in a Republican household, I know how to 'watch' it  ;) Local news is what many hit first in the AM and when they come home from work.

    I'll be a part of that new coalition if need be.

    [ Parent ]

    Dukakis (none / 0) (#185)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:14:47 PM EST
    was also a Korean War veteran.

    [ Parent ]
    Dems ought to win the presidency this year (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:37:17 PM EST
    in between taking naps but they've managed to once again push through, annoint, and shove down everybody else's throat the guy who is going to lead us to a neck and neck race that he is going to lose in the end again.  Fricken sad........so sad.......how pathetic!

    Obama should wait until 2016 (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:02:24 PM EST
    I actually think he could be a good candidate, his main problem is that he simply does not have the resume to be president.  They like to compare him with Kennedy, but while he may be Kennedy's age, Kennedy was a war hero, pulitzer prize winning author of two best selling books, served six years in U.S. House, eight years in the U.S. Senate, and narrowly lost a bid for the vice presideny in 1956.

    In this vacuum of nonexperience, Obama will continue to be defined by things that may be irrelevent, but will stick, because voters simply do not know him like they know Clinton and McCain. Plus, although it is always dismissed by Obamanation, every imaginable scandal of both Clinton and Obama has already been born, lived its life, and died many years ago. Obama does not have this luxury-- but he would if waited and took another run at it.

    He also needs to (none / 0) (#153)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:36:47 PM EST
    grow some nerve.  Every time things get hard, he runs and hides.  Did it after Wright, did it by refusing debate.

    [ Parent ]
    would you debate more at this point? (none / 0) (#253)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:47:47 AM EST
    the ABC debate wasn't even a debate for god's sake.  

    How many debates have they had?  I haven't looked that up but seems like a lot more than usual.  

    [ Parent ]

    I'll make it quick (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:37:39 PM EST
    The cahones to be president matter.  Obama is afraid to debate Hillary again, he's definitely afraid to be president.

    after the questions on the last few debates... (none / 0) (#180)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:05:25 PM EST
    I don't think ANYONE wants to see another.

    In fact, I would suspect that it will be less than an enthusing prospect for whoever is the Dem nominee to agree to a debate against McCain

    [ Parent ]

    The debate last week (none / 0) (#245)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:29:05 AM EST
     won the 8:00 timeslot.  Yes, indeed people are just beginning to want to see debates.

    (Of course, American Idol won the 9:00 timeslot.)

    [ Parent ]

    The ones who know her best... (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by diogenes on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:19:52 PM EST
    Robert Reich went for Obama, and he knows the Clintons well.  Sam Nunn went for Obama.  You wouldn't know it from this site.  Is Hillary plucking any actual endorsements lately?

    Aside from the 100 Mayors of PA, and their (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Radix on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:48:06 PM EST
    Governor, none that I can think of.

    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention the 3 Supers she just picked up. (5.00 / 3) (#208)
    by Radix on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:52:37 PM EST
    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    [ Parent ]

    You wouldn't know it... (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by IzikLA on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:32:52 AM EST
    And that's why these people keep getting away with all their attacks on things other than the issues.  As long as they can make it seem like Clinton has no support they think the problems with Obama as the nominee will just go away (hello DNC, Pelosi, Dean, etc.).

    [ Parent ]
    Only six superdelegates (5.00 / 1) (#247)
    by echinopsia on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:31:18 AM EST

    Former Pittsburgh mayor, Sophie Masloff
    Bill Burga, a former president of the Ohio AFL-CIO
    California congresswoman, Jackie Speier
    Former New Jersey governor, Jim Florio
    Former New Jersey governor, Brendan Byrne
    Representative Betty Sutton of Ohio


    [ Parent ]

    yes (none / 0) (#214)
    by sas on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:05:52 AM EST
    100 Pa mayors endorsed Clinton the other day...

    say, didn't you hear about that in the MSM?

    MUST HAVE BEEN AN UNINTENTIONAL OVERSIGHT BY THEM

    [ Parent ]

    The youth vote and crossover voters (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Radix on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:29:01 PM EST