home

SUSA KY Poll: Clinton By 36

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:27:30 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Meanwhile, back at the polls, SUSA's KY Poll says Clinton by 36:

Hillary Clinton decisively defeats Barack Obama, 63% to 27%. In three SurveyUSA tracking polls over the past 30 days, there is no movement in the contest. Obama gains a little bit of ground in Greater Louisville, but loses an equivalent amount in other portions of the state.

Whites (90% of the vote) 67-23 Clinton. African Americans (8% of the vote) 71-15 Obama.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Obama Does The [W]Right Thing | Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SUSA KY Poll: Clinton By 36 | 148 comments (148 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    susa again (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:32:00 PM EST
    underestimates obama's support among african americans. although i do think breaking with wright might chip away at it. if so, and susa's numbers become more realistic, this race has turned upside down. a week from today, we'll know...

    Turned upside down? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:37:47 PM EST
    In three SurveyUSA tracking polls over the past 30 days, there is no movement in the contest.

    And even if it's true that SUSA underestimates African American support, how big of a factor can that be in Kentucky?

    [ Parent ]

    Not a factor at all (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:41:06 PM EST
    Give Obama an extra percent or 2 if you like.

    [ Parent ]
    funny, lol (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Lil on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:49:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    rhetorical question :) (none / 0) (#18)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:51:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    talking about the overall race (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    it's a given that clinton wins huge in ky and wv.

    [ Parent ]
    the tide has been turning for over a month (none / 0) (#56)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:31:14 PM EST
    Obama is the one who has to turn things around now.

    [ Parent ]
    he's far enough ahead (none / 0) (#58)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:35:05 PM EST
    both in pledged delegates and the popular vote that he really only needs run out the clock. clinton needs a genuine surprise or two. if she wins indiana by a larger margin than she loses north carolina, that would be a major story.

    [ Parent ]
    If he "runs out the clock" (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:44:15 PM EST
    winning nothing but NC by a much narrower margin than earlier thought, the clock will go into overtime.  The SDs won't be able to ignore that.

    What they do about it is another story. But it will make them very unhappy.

    [ Parent ]

    but that would be exactly the type (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:52:30 PM EST
    of game-chnger clinton needs. come close in nc, and get a solid win in indiana, and everyone will be talking. of course, some will just scream even louder that clinton has to get out of the race!

    [ Parent ]
    I'd guess (none / 0) (#109)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:14:05 PM EST
    that a clean win in Indiana wouldn't sufficiently trump a close loss in NC - the narrative would be that they split the contests.  If Clinton goes into the convention 7-3 in recent states it's pretty different than 9-1 for non-sabermetricians...

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#136)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:46:37 PM EST
    But there is a significant possibility that even if everything goes Clinton's way, enough SDs will stick with Obama to give him the nomination.

    Meanwhile, Bill Richardson is on Softballs predicting that a wave of SDs are about to endorse Obama. He's sad that the Clinton's are angry at him, but he had to endorse Obama "for the good of the country." No questions from Tweety about what happens if Obama keeps losing.

    Tweety has just asked if the term "Judas" shows that the Clinton's view of themselve is too "high...like divine right."  

    Concluding the interview of not-Judas, Tweety goes to a commercial with: "Is tonight the end of Wright's rule?"  Do you think he's burning incense and sacrificing a goat in the Green Room?

    [ Parent ]

    So Richardson Is Going Against The Will of NM (none / 0) (#145)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:57:40 PM EST
    voters?  And that is okay?  He is an A$$.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama wins on a tie (none / 0) (#82)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:48:16 PM EST
    His supporters will freak out more if he loses when tied.  Maybe Clinton offers him the VP spot and he goes for the 16 years in the WH instead of 8 - otherwise probably better for the party to chose him given my claim.

    [ Parent ]
    He is tied now. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:50:03 PM EST
    He won't be by the end of June.

    [ Parent ]
    Obam has to turn around the voting trend (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:47:42 PM EST
    If you think he can just run out the clock with the trend in this direction, his electability aura will be (is?) in shambles.

    [ Parent ]
    that won't matter (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:51:06 PM EST
    if he prevails in both popular vote and pledged delegates, i do not see the superdelegates overturning it. i think clinton has to have a credible popular vote argument, and even then obama's supporters will scream.

    [ Parent ]
    I know this is the CW (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:53:21 PM EST
    but I am not at all sure its true.
    the elected supers are one thing.  the others are a wild card.  they were invented to prevent this from happening.

    [ Parent ]
    i don't see them overturning (none / 0) (#102)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:02:10 PM EST
    someone who is leading in both metrics. it could happen, but i'd be stunned, and i think it could be very damaging to the party.

    [ Parent ]
    Are we counting FL and MI in this total? (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:53:55 PM EST
    Because if not, HRC supporters will scream.

    Very, very loudly.

    [ Parent ]

    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:00:36 PM EST
    HRC is ahead in popular vote if you count MI and FL.

    [ Parent ]
    of course (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:00:53 PM EST
    everyone has their own take on fl and mi, so people will scream, no matter what. but i do think clinton has to outperform expectations to create the media buzz that she's on a roll, and that obama's sinking. again- if she wins indiana by a larger margin than she loses nc, that would be a huge story, and all the talk will be that obama's in serious trouble. it's very much a battle of perceptions.

    [ Parent ]
    I owe you a beverage. (none / 0) (#103)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:04:34 PM EST
    You posted it faster.  :)

    [ Parent ]
    one more time (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:59:48 PM EST
    If Obama doesn't turn around the current voting trend, he will NOT be ahead in popular votes by the time the clock runs out.

    Counting Florida and Michigan (and yes I do count them) he is not even ahead right now.  He could win big in NC and get the lead back, but then he has to worry about Kentucky, West Virginia, Puerto Rico in particular.

    Hillary will be ahead in popular vote if Obama just runs out the clock under the current dynamic is the bottome line.

    [ Parent ]

    counting fl and mi is problematic (none / 0) (#104)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    i think there's a credible case for fl, but mi is too screwed up, no matter whose fault it is. but again- it will be about perceptions. if the same margins hold in the upcoming states, i think obama succeeds. if clinton outperforms expectations, she not onlt gets the popular vote to render michigan irrelevant, she also has a clear media storyline.

    [ Parent ]
    Michigan is problematic (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:49:48 PM EST
    because Obama, not being on the ballot, got zero votes.  You have to give Obama some portion of the "uncommitted" vote to make it tenable, and how do you decide, other than giving him all of it -- even though Edwards would have gotten a big portion if everyone had been on the ballot.

    Florida is not problematic.  Everyone was on the ballot, under identical conditions. The fact the delegates may not be seated doesn't change the fact that she won the popular vote big.

    [ Parent ]

    I know it's problematic (none / 0) (#108)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:10:50 PM EST
    But only for those who care about what the media thinks is fair.  Look can we just agree that best care scenario is for Clinton to pull out some more surprises but you need to give up on the notion that Obama gets to just run out the clock and survive this.  He certainly didn't seem to think he could do that today, did he?

    [ Parent ]
    look (none / 0) (#129)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:06:19 PM EST
    i'm no fan of obama, but i understand the dynamics. clinton does need something dramatic. of course obama's worried, because this could be exactly what he doesn't need. but we won't know until more states vote. if he still wins big in nc, and hangs on to mt, sd, and or, the headlines show a continuing split, with his previously won advantage holding. she needs to disrupt that storyline.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree (none / 0) (#118)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:20:10 PM EST
    MI is not "too screwed up" to count.  There are ways to resolve it with the current vote totals that, with candidate and DNC support, would be seen as fair to both candidates.  One way is to allocate some portion of uncommitted votes to Obama, if not all.  

    There is no doubt the MI results are valid, i.e. HRC got this many votes "uncommitted" got this many, Kucinich got this many, etc.  The only issue, as far as counting the popular vote, is how to count the uncommitted voters. As an HRC supporter, I'll listen to HRC - up to a point. If she says she'll count 100% of uncommitted for Obama, 'nuff said for me. If she says 0% for Obama, I'll see her point, but I doubt I'll agree with the strategy (while in my heart applauding her position).  But MI voters have to be counted in some way.  Saying "it's too screwed up" to fix results in a Republican win in Nov.

    As far as delegates, there is no issue. The MI Dem Party is now doing what it promised back in January would happen, sending uncommmitted delegates to the convention. The MI Dem party clearly told voters in January that voting uncommitted means that you will be sending an uncommitted delegate to the convention.  Thus, there are this many delegates for HRC, there are this many uncommitted, and there are this many for Kucinich, etc.

    The MI dem party is proceeding with electing its delegates. The county conventions were April 19. There will be MI delegates at the convention, and they will be allocated according to the Jan 29th vote. Whether the DNC seats them is another matter.

    [ Parent ]

    it seems to me (none / 0) (#132)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:10:27 PM EST
    that obama will not agree to anything, as long as the race is contested. and the dnc doesn't seem inclined to lead. the key, then, is whether the vast majority of the party will accept mi, as is, and there's no way that will happen.

    [ Parent ]
    turkana, (none / 0) (#122)
    by sancho on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:26:39 PM EST
    are you saying the dem leadership is ok going with a clearly damaged candidate? b/c that's where i see your logic and this race heading, if i understand you correctly. obama cannot recover from wright. and people have to know that most of his delegates are empty ones--from red state caucuses. the wright flap gives them an excuse to do the right thing, as spike lee would say.

    [ Parent ]
    i'm saying (none / 0) (#130)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:08:13 PM EST
    that if obama wins the pledged delegates and the popular vote, the superdelegates will not overturn it, even if they see it as a losing bet, for november. because the alternative could be much worse- not just a loss in november, but a party torn apart.

    [ Parent ]
    Then We Don't Need SD's, As They Are Supposed (none / 0) (#146)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:00:07 AM EST
    to be the leaders, not the followers and are to consider who can actually win the election.

    [ Parent ]
    they're supposed to consider many things (none / 0) (#154)
    by Turkana on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:49:10 AM EST
    and i'm sure they will.

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't Dean say someone would have to (none / 0) (#115)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:19:12 PM EST
    drop out in June? Wouldn't that change things for supporters since neither may have enough to win?

    [ Parent ]
    I agree and have been thinking about that (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by kempis on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:29:54 PM EST
    Thanks to his running the board in February, Obama has already been riding out a structural delegate lead. Clinton has won the major primaries since March 4. Obamamomentum seems to have sprung a leak for a number of reasons, and matters appear to be getting worse for him, not better.

    Now instead of Obama having momentum and closing in on Hillary's leads in upcoming contests, the reverse is happening. And just as Obama scored victories by huge margins in Southern states with large AA populations earlier, Hillary is about to rack up some large-margin wins in WV and KY.

    It's almost a total reversal: Hillary has momentum and, in at least a couple of states, a large demographic advantage. She may finish with a May that looks a lot like Obama's February. Then what?

    If the DNC hands the nomination to Obama on that slight, caucus-driven, delegate-edge when he's shown that he's out-of-steam in April and May, it's going to be a controversial nomination. It would make much more sense to give it to the candidate with the most popular votes, the momentum, and the better performance in head-to-head polls against McCain. If that's not Obama, that will not set any better with Hillary's supporters than Hillary's being the nominee will please Obama's. (But I do trust Hillary to make good on her pledge to do what she can to encourage her supporters to vote for Obama. I'm not so sure I get the same vibe from him. After all, he's assured us that his supporters won't vote for her. Not that he's practicing the old politics of division or anything....)

    In the end, we'll discover whether the Dems really want to win. If they choose to give the nomination to a candidate who seems to be hitting some serious electability snags, they must be interested in something else.

    [ Parent ]

    What Clinton needs. . . (none / 0) (#106)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:07:29 PM EST
    is for a few delegates (super or otherwise) to switch their support from Obama to her.  Right now the narrative -- accurate, in my view -- is that she can't make up the deficit in either popular or pledged delegates by the end of campaign season.  She needs to start racking up additional delegates now, not when Obama has won by all the "democratic" measurements.

    [ Parent ]
    Well I think she can win the popular vote (none / 0) (#110)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:14:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Maybe. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:18:00 PM EST
    Her odds of doing so are improving a little.

    [ Parent ]
    I was thinking about that too (none / 0) (#117)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:19:46 PM EST
    Is it still overturning whatever metric you use to determine the will of the people, if the SDs declare prior to the final primary?

    No one is yelling for the SDs to hold off until all the voting is over before deciding in order to have the metric complete. Rather each SD declaration has been greeted with joy by one side or the other. And while people talk about the SDs overturning the will of the people, its always talked about in the sense of a future event.

    [ Parent ]

    Dem Establishment Is Leaning Obama Regardless (none / 0) (#113)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:18:10 PM EST
    if she captures PV or is more electable.

    Per Charles Cook:

    One of the most salient arguments made these days by superdelegates is the fear of what would happen to the party if Obama were to be spurned.

    Even if they wanted to nominate Clinton, the fear of damage to the party is sufficient to argue against it. Between the newbies -- the young and new voters who are so enthusiastic for Obama -- and the black community -- who ironically were somewhat late to join the Obama bandwagon after his Iowa win -- the fallout from a spurning of Obama would be profound. correntewure

    This has been CW for a while. Definitely tunnel vision by not looking at the polls showing how many Clinton supporters will vote for McCain or stay home. You know how it is. Those pesky women will just get over it.

    [ Parent ]

    So they don't give a crap about her supporters? (none / 0) (#119)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:21:36 PM EST
    When did this become all about Obama and his supporters? She may have more votes than him, and doesn't she actually have more dems voting for her than he does?

    [ Parent ]
    No, they don't care about HRC supporters (none / 0) (#121)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:25:55 PM EST
    And it's maddening to me. Maddening, I tell you!

    [ Parent ]
    A woman scorned . . . . (none / 0) (#124)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:31:20 PM EST
    now what percentage of the Dem voting populaton is women? And then we have our Repub crossover women also . . .

    Here's hoping we all don't get hormonal at once  {GRIN}

    [ Parent ]

    You Sure Are Brave... :) (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:01:31 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No movement? (none / 0) (#33)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:14:32 PM EST
    How is that possible?

    No one can win by 36 points.

    I'm guessing that Obama hasn't campaigned at all there. Polls always tighten when the election draws nearer.

    [ Parent ]

    Look at the Border Counties around KY (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by thomphool on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:18:57 PM EST
    and the rest of Appalachia, where the demographic profiles are similar.  The margins Clinton has put up there are in that range, if not bigger.  If you take out urban bases from many results, these are the sort of margins Clinton has put up.  The demographics of the state make this absolutely possible.  Obama won by 51% in the District of Columbia.  The favorable demographics of Kentucky and WV for Clinton is almost on the same level that the demographics of DC were favorable to Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow. (none / 0) (#44)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:21:44 PM EST
    Thanks for the informative explanation. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    What AA voters in Kentucky? (none / 0) (#24)
    by stefystef on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:02:38 PM EST
    How large is the AA population in Kentucky?  It may not be significant enough to put Obama over.

    [ Parent ]
    Less than 10% (none / 0) (#42)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:21:35 PM EST
    Wikipedia

    [ Parent ]
    8% of the primary vote (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:21:38 PM EST
    not enough to matter much.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama Better Hope He Wins Indiana (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:32:29 PM EST
    Because things get worse for him in WV and KY.  Although I believe he is up in OR.

    he's been up 10 (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:17:24 PM EST
    but bill clinton has been visiting some smaller cities, and we've yet to see any polls since that and since the latest wright episode. i would not be surprised if that lead has been halved.

    [ Parent ]
    Yesterday's SUSA Indiana poll (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:30:50 PM EST
    had Clinton up by 9. No way Obama wins there, IMHO.

    LINK

    [ Parent ]

    i saw that (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:36:23 PM EST
    but if she makes oregon competitive, that's another big momentum swing.

    [ Parent ]
    wasn't she down (none / 0) (#134)
    by ccpup on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:27:42 PM EST
    only 9 or 10 points in OR?  I don't remember the exact Poll or when it was taken, but I don't recall seeing an insurmountable lead by Obama.

    But I could be wrong.  It has been one of those days for me.  (sigh)

    [ Parent ]

    I am so glad (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:20:53 PM EST
    that HRC did not drop out the way the entire universe seemed to be screaming that she should.

    What if Obama were our nominee for sure, and all this Wright nonsense came out?

    [shudder]

    Honestly, I cannot believe Obama has even come close to gaining the nomination. He has very little experience and personal baggage that could fill a 747.

    [ Parent ]

    The irony (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:25:01 PM EST
    is that he expedited his run for prez because he worried that later he'd have "baggage".

    No wonder!  Obama is a baggage "magnet". None of it is his fault, of course.

    [ Parent ]

    IACF! (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:26:43 PM EST
    Seriously, is that why he says he ran now?

    If he'd waited, he might have been able to throw some of that baggage overboard without the repercussions he's seeing now.

    [ Parent ]

    Michelle said that he won't run again (none / 0) (#139)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:03:49 PM EST
    because "in six years we will be different people, and we might have lost touch with the ordinary people." Seriously, she said that.

    [ Parent ]
    She couldn't have said that (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by stefystef on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:25:27 PM EST
    Obama is only 46 years old.  He could run again, easy.  The only reason he wouldn't is because he is too prissy to try again.

    I hope that's not true because it proves that he is a self-absorbed narcissist.

    [ Parent ]

    It wasn't Michelle.. It was Obama.. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:40:36 PM EST
    I was misremembering who said it. He said in Iowa..in December of last year. Here is the link to one of the stories about it. "Obama hints he won't run a second time"

    In the story it says..

    It's now or perhaps never, Obama and his wife, Michelle, concluded, because, "We still remember what it's like to be normal," he told a crowd here six days before Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses
     
    And
    "My wife and I were talking the other day, and she said, 'We're not doing this again,' " Obama said. "Those of you who have met my wife or heard my wife, you know she doesn't mince words. I mean, she's a tough cookie."

    Obama said their stance has less to do with the grueling campaign schedule that separates the family for large swaths of time, and more with the couple's belief that eight years from now, they wouldn't be the "same people."


    That is the one I was remembering and why I thought Michelle said it. Oooops, my bad. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought it was because of (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:37:35 PM EST
    "the fierce urgency of now."

    [ Parent ]
    pfft (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:44:02 PM EST
    now the urgency just got a bit fiercer.

    [ Parent ]
    I Am Disappointed In OR....sorry but it had to be (none / 0) (#148)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:03:38 AM EST
    said.  I think they are making a huge mistake.  obama has no record, what has he done about the environment (one of their favorite issues)?  I don't get it.

    [ Parent ]
    I said it before elsewhere... (none / 0) (#151)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:01:40 AM EST

    ...if Berkeley, California were a state, it'd be Oregon.  It's like the Vermont of the West, kind of.  Lots of commie, crunchy lefties {snark} mixed in with the cowboys.

    [ Parent ]
    HRC (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:39:12 PM EST
    Just watching Hillary with the board of the Indy Star.  The political cartoonist asked her if she could ask a question of Obama, what would it be, and she said it would be "Why won't you debate me?"

    I [heart] her. It's official - I have a girl-crush on her.

    I tell you (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:41:40 PM EST
    that refusal to debate is not going to help him.  Unfortunately, I know what some of the questions would be, but he'll get them in a debate with McCain if he's the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe every state newspaper (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:46:17 PM EST
    Including Kentucky, should ask for a debate now.

    [ Parent ]
    No, it won't (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:26:47 PM EST
    but debating Hillary again would hurt him worse. He can't hold a candle to her, and he knows it.  He is making the right call for himself.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, I know he won't (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:42:19 PM EST
    But it sure helps Hillary if newspapers take up the call too. Then it really looks like he's ducking a debate.  He's already bowed out of NC and ignored Indiana.  Makes him look weak.

    [ Parent ]
    She has suggested a moderator-less (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:39:04 PM EST
    debate.  I suppose that none of the networks would televise it if one of their own wasn't allowed to ask really stoopid questions, though.

    [ Parent ]
    Me, too--only with me it's more (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by kempis on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:07:55 PM EST
    a middle-aged-lady crush. :)

    Thanks for that link. Great interview, and it reinforces my conviction that Hillary would make a great president.

    I see that Obama did an interview with the IndyStar's board, too, but unfortunately the link is dead. I was curious to compare them.

    [ Parent ]

    Hey - I'm 39 (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:50:19 PM EST
    and if I think I can have a girl-crush, then so can you!  :)

    [ Parent ]
    Holy Moly. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:43:13 PM EST
    If Hill wins Indiana, comes in close (single digit) or wins NC and then goes on to blow him out in KY, Obama is toast.

    I have my strawberry jam ready!

    Not fair! (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by katiebird on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:50:04 PM EST
    I'm sitting here trying to stay away from the candy machine and you're talking strawberry jam.  

    (ummm)

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary is (none / 0) (#152)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:03:40 AM EST

    hot buttered toast with apple jelly for me.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps this long campaign only served (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:08:33 PM EST
    to convince people that Hillary is the real post-partisan leader:  a combination of Captains Kirk, Piccard, and Janeway,  and logicons, Spock, and Seven of nine .  I just LOVE the Star Trek society that is obviously past gender, religion  and racial issues; even species.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:17:10 PM EST
    Jeri Ryan will campaign for Hillary?

    [ Parent ]
    Well, that will get (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:23:13 PM EST
    the "fans of Seven of Nine" votes. Every micro-constituency counts!

    LOL

    [ Parent ]

    It'd make my head (none / 0) (#153)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:06:24 AM EST

    explode.

    Not saying which one.  

    YEOW.

    That was nasty.  But come on.  This is SEVEN OF NINE we're talking about here.  I would kill just to touch that outfit (Isn't it at the Smithsonian?  Or was it one of the ones auctioned off in the huge ST auction a couple of years ago?).

    Clinton has always reminded me of Janeway, my favorite Captain.

    [ Parent ]

    Hah, (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by abfabdem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:29:56 PM EST
    we might not have had Obama as an Illinois senator if Ms. Ryan's ex-husband had not been revealed to be a perv!  

    [ Parent ]
    I assume you know (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:46:47 PM EST
    that Jeri Ryan's ex-husband was supposed to be Obama's GOP opponent...until she filed papers in their divorce proceeding accusing him of trying to take her to sex clubs.

    And thus was born Allan Keyes, GOP candidate for Senate from Illinois.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:50:59 PM EST
    That's why I said it! I would love the irony ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Feel the Keyesmentum!!! (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:52:57 PM EST
    I love that guy. You want to see flat-out fruitcakey wackazoid, you go listen to some Alan Keyes.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeri Ryan would be ok to campaign (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:18:11 PM EST
    after all she divorced her husband for precisely that reason; and then it will come out that Axelrod had something to do with the outing of the divorce papers.

    [ Parent ]
    But, but, but (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:38:34 PM EST
    I thought the Clintons were responsible for all such things. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    not liking my party's tribalism n/t (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:43:40 PM EST


    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:49:42 PM EST
    Whoever wins this is going to have a heck of time bridging the gap.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess it'll all depend (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:58:26 PM EST
    on how badly people want a dem in the White House.  

    I do.  How about you?

    [ Parent ]

    I want a Dem in the WH (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:39:47 PM EST
    so badly, that if Obama wins the nomination, I'll vote for him.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I'm afraid you would be getting a (none / 0) (#141)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:15:59 PM EST
    Republican either way --whether it is Obama or McCain.  I would personally prefer to have a real Republican for the next four years, taking the blame for the terrible economy and the problems in Iraq, than have some stumbling novice Democrat in there, whose "baggage" fills up every news cycle and whose economic advisor wants to privatize Social Security while his boss puts more Alitos on the Supreme Court because he doesn't care about ideology.  We could then kiss the White House goodbye for another 20 years and it would be all our own fault.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary addressed this today (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:01:34 PM EST
    It's near the end of the video, but it's well worth the watch.

    LINK

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the link (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:12:07 PM EST
    I enjoyed watching it.

    [ Parent ]
    The Obama campaign (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:19:58 PM EST
    Has some responsibility for this you know.

    Hell.  I'll say not all, but there's a reason why this is happening.


    [ Parent ]

    I know. In fact, duh. So what? n/t (none / 0) (#66)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:39:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    not liking it either (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:58:59 PM EST
    in fact, despairing of it.

    but i do like that you're a fan of rilke.

    [ Parent ]

    The ideal (none / 0) (#72)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:43:31 PM EST
    alles, was uns anrührt, dich und mich,
    nimmt uns zusammen wie ein Bogenstrich,
    die aus zwei Saiten eine Stimme zieht.

    - the different parts of the party should speak together in harmony even though differently, like a double-stopped chord.  Th reality is more like a tug-of-war, and the horsehair won't hold out.

    [ Parent ]

    beautifully said (none / 0) (#140)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:15:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    on the subject of polls, my daughter who (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:08:09 PM EST
    lives in South Dakota got a poll call yesterday so they are starting to poll there now I guess...Here in Montana we are under water with Obama commercials, some of while are showing Republican endorsements which seems strange to me..

    I didn't know you were in MT (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:11:25 PM EST
    Lucky duck, it is pretty Red up there though.

    [ Parent ]
    Blood red and likely to stay that way sadly (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:19:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You folks in Montana (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:42:58 PM EST
    voted for Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer. How red could you really be?

    I firmly believe that it's all about framing your positions so that people understand how they will benefit from what you're proposing.

    The Republicans are much better at selling their ideas than we are.

    Of course, they are usually lying about their ideas. LOL

    [ Parent ]

    We also have two Dem Senators (none / 0) (#138)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:03:01 PM EST
    and almost all of the major state offices are held by Dems. Montana was mostly blue for a long, long time--we just had a bad patch from 1988-2004 :)

    [ Parent ]
    How charming... (none / 0) (#70)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:42:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    So obama Has Had Several Wins In Red (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:08:32 AM EST
    States and his followers think he could win them in the GE?  Ludicrous.  And while I am thinking of it, what is the consensus on The Bradley Effect?

    [ Parent ]
    Meanwhile a strong endorsement (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:27:00 PM EST
    for HRC by Skelton (MO) and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

    Skelton Is Definitely Voting Based On (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:46:46 PM EST
    constituents preferences along with respect for Clinton. Conservative Dem in a conservative county. Firmly entrenched in seat but can't help think that an endorsement of Obama would definitely be frowned upon.

    [ Parent ]
    McCaskill is one of Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:47:38 PM EST
    biggest boosters.  You almost get the impression she's running for VP.

    Go figure.

    [ Parent ]

    That Decision Could Come Back And Bite Her (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:00:04 PM EST
    McCaskill not doing great in polls. Moderate and conservative counties all voted Clinton and I'm sure current revelations are not going over at all well. After Wright and Ayers, Obama has two chances to win MO. Slim and none. If Obama is the nominee and loses to McCain, many of her constituents might just hold her endorsement against her.

    [ Parent ]
    I heard she was not too popular (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:01:53 PM EST
    before she came out for Obama. Is that the case?

    [ Parent ]
    She had a tough time getting elected (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:06:07 PM EST
    and in MO she is almost dooming herself by supporting Obama after the recent Obama fallouts.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, That Is The Case (none / 0) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:32:22 PM EST
    SUSA 11/20/07 Approval Ratings (last on I could find) Link

    48% Approve
    47% Disapprove

    She  votes with Republicans on Iraq and FISA and is extremely proud of her bipartisan credentials. She also voted with the Republicans on the Immigration Bill. That one I don't count against her because it was an extremely flawed bill. My take is she would vote against a good immigration bill if it was presented.

    [ Parent ]

    McCaskill pulls a Gore (none / 0) (#120)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:21:47 PM EST
    All due respect to Gore he sat down with his consultants and they all worried too much about Bill's favorability rating and couldn't figure out a way to embrace Bill's job approval rating.

    McCaskill may fret and think she needs to run away from Clinton's favorability rating and embrace Obama, but maybe it's occured to her now that she also ran away from competent government and that she may have misjudged her constituents' priorities on these issues.


    [ Parent ]

    McCaskill's Perkiness Is Working My Nerves... (none / 0) (#150)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:11:06 AM EST
    And what is with her saying she is endorsing obama because her kids talked her into it.  Can't she make an informed decision on her own; or is she trying to be one of those cool, hip mothers whose kids run over her?  I just don't get it.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:34:11 PM EST
    It will be funny if Clinton wins KY by 20, just to watch the blogs go on and on about how she blew a big lead, and the more people see Obama the more they like him.

    And if she wins by 40 (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:38:20 PM EST
    it will be because they're all racist f*cks.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain is cash-starved I believe n/t (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:45:06 PM EST


    McCain is cash starved (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:49:15 PM EST
    but who needs money when you're awash in the love of the media schmundits?

    Do not underestimate McCain. He is dangerous, in every way it is possible to be dangerous.

    [ Parent ]

    Well In KY Clinton Has A Chance To Beat (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:52:08 PM EST
    McCain. OTOH McCain trounces Obama.

    McCain 63%  Obama 29%

    McCain 48%  Clinton 46%

    If Obama is nominated we will see yet another (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:01:17 PM EST
    Democrat go down in defeat as the blue collar voters will move over to McCain...Thats a cold hard fact from where I sit...They will never accept Sen. Obama after this Wright issue...

    Well this is the kind of margin she needs in every (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:56:48 PM EST
    State, all it would take is for all Dems to turn out and push her margins and rip this out of Dean and the SD's hands.

    But,But,But (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Left of center on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:10:18 PM EST
    what about the delegates? Extra snarkiness

    Obama has both KY Dem Congressmen (none / 0) (#6)
    by magster on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    as superdelegate endorsements.  Go figure.

    Weird, but it did not help him (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:03:08 PM EST
    in Mass. to have the governor, both senators and who knows who else.  I always hate to hear commentators say Clinton won Ohio because she had Rendell...well why didn't Obama win MASS then?

    [ Parent ]
    IMO Clinton won Ohio for many reasons people here (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:26:42 PM EST
    were ticked off at the attacks on Bill Clinton, I know suprised me too, as a Racist heard it many times and they were hoping mad, add Hillary campaign swamped the State bugging every voters continuously, Obama commercials did him no favors, of course Strickland, Rep Tubbs Jones and State Senate Leader Miller.  Obama Nafta lie didn't help.

    [ Parent ]