home

SV PA Poll: Clinton Beats McCain, Obama Loses

By Big Tent Democrat

More polling data to support Hillary Clinton's big contested state electability theory:

If the election for President were held today and the choices were John McCain, the Republican, and Hillary Clinton, the Democrat for whom would you vote?

Hillary Clinton 45%
John McCain 42%
Undecided 13%

If the election for President were held today and the choices were John McCain, the Republican, and Barack Obama, the Democrat for whom would you vote?

John McCain 48%
Barack Obama 41%
Undecided 11%

This is a poll that shows Obama within 5 points of Clinton in the primary. It is thus a relatively favorable poll for Obama. Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. These are states where Clinton has a clear general election advantage. This is getting impossible to deny it seems to me. Of course Obama can win Pennsylvania, Ohio and perhaps Michigan. Florida I believe is not within Obama's reach. Of course, Obama can win Virginia, Colorado, etc. whereas Clinton can not. There are two distinct and valid electability arguments now. That seems impossible to deny. Here is the RCP average if you want more evidence.

< Elizabeth Edwards Prefers Hillary's Health Care Plan to Obama's | Double Standards Again >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Don't expect the media (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:45:00 AM EST
    to talk about this even one bit!!

    We will lose the GE if Obama is our Nominee.. the writing is on the wall.. and no one dare read it!!

    I fear you are correct (none / 0) (#7)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:55:32 AM EST
    at times, but I am just not overly concerned I believe Clinton will pull the Party out of this mess. And after Wright Ohio is out of his reach there were riots in Ohio in the 70's related to Black Nationalist movement and that history and those fears are being resurrected unfortunately.

    Parent
    I wish it were more talked about (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:26:30 AM EST
    though I don't know how to go about starting such a conversation because it would seem like Dems were sabotaging their own prospects by starting that dialogue.

    Parent
    On the contrary, (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:32:28 AM EST
    I don't think it would damage our prospects to rationally discuss the disadvantages Democrats have with white men. As the post below shows, they have not voted for Democrats for President since Lyndon Johnson.

    What I think successful progressive Democrats, like Governor Schweitzer in Montana, have done, is to frame the issues correctly so that white men understand that the Republicans are actually harming their interests. For example, Schweitzer ran on an environmental ticket - he said that if we don't clean things up, Montanans won't be able to hunt and fish any more.

    He currently enjoys about a 70% approval rating.

    Parent

    Schweitzer (none / 0) (#148)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:25:11 PM EST
    always manages to be on the common-sense side of any issue, which makes Democrats in general look smarter and more competent. He is one of the best pols I've ever seen at working a crowd, too, has a really deft, light touch. The eventual nominee should get his help as much as possible in the Western states.

    Parent
    that's the problem (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:37:34 AM EST
    When Hillary bring's up things that could be an issue to Obama, that is considered sabotaging dems prospect

    But when Obama brings up things that could be an issue for Hillary --- 'The Sage has spoken!!'

    Parent

    Too true (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:55:58 AM EST
    Hillary supporters also seem to feel similar to how I feel about constantly attacking Obama on his weak points.  I'm still not a registered Democrat again yet but is it some sort of concern for the party in general that stills fingers and tongues from forming more of an Obama hatefest to compare with the Hillary hatefest?  Is it a type of maturity?

    Parent
    The only thing I disagree with (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:48:50 AM EST
    is that Obama can win Ohio. I'm not sure that by the time the Republicans finish Swiftboating him, he can pull it out there.

    But yes, this is what HRC supporters have been saying all along. She is, bottom line, more electable against McCain.

    I'm with you on that madamab! (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Arcadianwind on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:42:50 AM EST
    If you look at Ohio or even Texas or Florida for that matter, you will see that Hillary won across the expanse of these states, not just NE, SW, or central regions. Obama's wins appear only in heavily urbanized areas. and he doesn't get all of them either. The rural vote, and even the suburban vote, he does not get (in these regions)in any numbers. In Ohio, for instance, In many of the 83 counties he lost in, the margin was not by 8 or 10%, it was 30 or 40 points.

    I think it is clear that Obama does not stack-up well at all against McCain in Ohio, WV, PA, TN or Florida. These are pretty much must win states. Some say it's about race, but it's really more about other factors in the demographics.

    A big part of the puzzle is this:
    In the heartland, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Missouri, people are generally a more moderated bunch than the rest of the country. They are less inclined to buy into hype or charisma or fads that  may enrapture elsewhere in America. Smoke and mirrors won't get it done here.

    I have lived and worked here in Ohio for many years. I work in WV and PA as well, and I know the people here, rich, poor, and everywhere in between. Obama cannot win here, ever, or in FL or TN or even MI, that's just the way it is. Game over man.... It's perplexing that the SDs can't seem to figure this out.

    Parent

    Same for MO (none / 0) (#129)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:50:32 AM EST
    I believe the same was true for MO - Hillary won most of the counties, but Obama slightly nudged past her in the urban areas - even with McCaskill's endorsement.

    Parent
    Yes, he got only 5 (none / 0) (#158)
    by Arcadianwind on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:35:29 PM EST
    counties in MO, out of what about 100 counties. And in a lot of those, he didn't even get 30%. Same picture as in TN.

    Parent
    One of the most bewildering things to me (none / 0) (#131)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:55:50 AM EST
    is the behavior of the DNC and SD's. The big guns like Kerry and Kennedy should not have declared their support for Obama so early, since I would think their first concern would be to, you know, WIN THE ELECTION!!! As SD's in a close race, it should be their first priority to determine who has the electoral edge in November.

    I don't see how else to define their jobs.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#134)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:00:21 PM EST
    Even with the SD's who came out early for Clinton.  They should not declare until the end, although upon reflection, maybe they come out when their states are about to vote.

    Parent
    Obama could win MI maybe, (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:53:15 AM EST
    but there is no way he wins OH, PA and definitely not FL.

    Depends (none / 0) (#12)
    by ajain on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:00:59 AM EST
    If the repubs use his blocking votes in MI in ads it might be a problem.

    Parent
    Hence (none / 0) (#16)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:02:11 AM EST
    the maybe. :) I'm giving him a little leeway.

    Parent
    Hillary's advantage (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:00:10 AM EST
    Clinton Leads 50 - 41 Among Pennsylvania Democrats; Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Whites Give Clinton Lead In Key November Matchups: --- PENNSYLVANIA Democrats: Clinton 50 - Obama 41; FLORIDA: Clinton 44 - McCain 42; McCain 46 - Obama 37; OHIO: Clinton 48 - McCain 39; Obama 43 - McCain 42

    Advantage - Hillary:

    New York Sen. Hillary Clinton holds a 50 - 41 percent lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama among likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters and runs better against Arizona Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican nominee in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

    This compares to a 53 - 41 percent lead in a March 18 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. In general election match ups of the three largest and most important swing states in the Electoral College, the survey finds.

        * Florida: Clinton 44 percent - McCain 42 percent; McCain beats Obama 46 - 37 percent;
        * Ohio: Clinton beats McCain 48 - 39 percent; Obama gets 43 percent to McCain's 42 percent;
        * Pennsylvania: Clinton tops McCain 48 - 40 percent; Obama leads McCain 43 - 39 percent.

    The primary vote between Obama and Clinton splits sharply along racial lines, with her advantage coming from stronger support in every contest from white voters. For example, Clinton leads 59 - 34 percent among white Pennsylvania likely primary voters, while Obama leads 73 - 11 percent among black Democrats.

    "When it comes to November, Sen. Hillary Clinton's strength is a big edge over Sen. Barack Obama among white voters, who have not given a majority of their votes to a Democratic presidential nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute."

    More than a third of voters in the three states think Obama's race is an advantage, more than twice the number who think it is a disadvantage. By contrast, roughly a quarter of voters say Clinton's gender is an advantage, and about the same number think it is a disadvantage.

    "Former Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro's assertion that Obama's race has helped his candidacy finds some support among the electorate," said Brown.

    "At least for now, Sen. Clinton's argument that she is the better general election candidate in these key battleground states appears to have some validity," said Brown. "In this survey, her strength among white voters is why she runs better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Obama.

    "Roughly one in five Democrats in the three states say they will vote for McCain against Obama, but less than 10 percent say they would vote for McCain over Clinton. Among white Democrats, 23 percent defect to McCain in a matchup with Obama, but only 11 percent defect when Clinton is the Democratic candidate." Pennsylvania

    Among Pennsylvania Democrats, Clinton leads 54 - 37 percent with women, and ties Obama 46 - 46 percent with men. Obama leads 51 - 42 percent among voters under 45 years old, while Clinton leads 54 - 37 percent among voters over 45.

    By a 48 - 42 percent margin, Pennsylvania registered voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton. Obama gets a 49 - 31 percent favorability and McCain gets 47 - 31 percent.

    "Sen. Clinton's imaginary snipers, Rev. Wright, Geraldine Ferraro, these events have taken only a small toll on Sen. Clinton's lead in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

    "Her strength is her clear advantage among white voters - blue collar whites, less educated whites, economically hurting whites, that group known famously as Reagan Democrats in the Keystone State. Obama is marshalling all his forces, but despite his eloquent dialogue on the race issue, Pennsylvania Democrats are unmoved. So Far."

    The economy is the most important issue in their vote, 46 percent of voters say, followed by 23 percent who list the war in Iraq and 14 percent who cite health care.

    Looking at the most important quality in a candidate, 30 percent want a strong leader and 26 percent want someone who is trustworthy.

    Being black is an advantage for Obama, 32 percent say, while 15 percent say it's a disadvantage and 47 percent say it makes no difference.

    Being a woman is an advantage for Clinton, 26 percent say, with 25 percent saying it's a disadvantage and 45 percent saying it makes no difference.
    Florida

    In a general election match-up, McCain trails Clinton 44 - 42, too close to call, but handily defeats Obama 46 - 37 percent.

    "The difference between Clinton and Obama in Florida is the white vote," said Brown. "She gets 38 percent to 50 percent for McCain, but Obama loses to the Arizona senator 54 - 27 among white voters. If Obama does get the nomination, how he fares with whites will be crucial to his chances."

    The economy is the most important issue to Florida voters, 44 percent of voters say, followed by 19 percent who list the war in Iraq and 14 percent who cite health care.

    Twenty-nine percent say a strong leader is the most important characteristic they seek in a president, while 27 percent say trustworthiness.

    Being black is an advantage for Obama, 35 percent say, while 15 percent say it's a disadvantage and 44 percent say it makes no difference.

    Being a woman is an advantage for Clinton, 24 percent say, with 25 percent saying it's a disadvantage and 47 percent saying it makes no difference. Ohio

    Clinton's 48 - 39 percent lead over McCain puts her clearly out in front after several months of see-saw, too-close-to-call results.

    Men split with 43 percent for McCain and 42 percent for Clinton, but women go with her 53 - 35 percent.

    In an Obama-McCain matchup in Ohio, women back Obama 44 - 40 percent as men split, with 44 percent for McCain and 42 percent for Obama.

    Despite Clinton's edge in the match-ups, she is not as well thought of overall as her two competitors. Ohio voters split 47 - 45 percent in their opinion of Clinton. By a 45 - 37 percent margin, voters have a favorable opinion of Obama. McCain gets a 42 - 33 percent favorability.

    "The favorability data indicate that her lead may be in part due to higher name recognition. This is not a good omen as the other candidates become better known," said Brown.

    The economy is the most important issue in their vote, 44 percent of voters say, followed by 22 percent who list the war in Iraq and 17 percent who cite health care.

    "The economic concerns of voters make Ohio a tougher challenge for McCain than has traditionally been the case for Republicans, who have never won the White House without carrying Ohio," Brown said. "But Obama's weakness among white men is an indication that he has not yet closed the sale among the lunch bucket brigade."

    Ohio voters split in the most important quality they want in a candidate, with 28 percent looking for someone trustworthy and 27 percent looking for a strong leader.

    Being black is an advantage for Obama, 36 percent say, while 14 percent say it's a disadvantage and 45 percent say it makes no difference.

    Being a woman is an advantage for Clinton, 24 percent say, with 27 percent saying it's a disadvantage and 46 percent saying it makes no difference.


    Ignoring of course... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:02:03 AM EST
    that Obama as nominee puts a few states that are considered blue into play for McCain such as Massachusetts. By having to divert time, energy and money into states like MA means less for other states.

    I have stated several times that I expect that in a general election, that Obama would get trounced to the point of making McGovern seem competitive.

    I completely (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:03:22 AM EST
    agree. I think he would get trounced. Easily. And states like NY?  We have NYC, but the rest of the state? Pretty conservative.  

    Parent
    I wonder about NY also (none / 0) (#106)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:56:51 AM EST
    The rest of the state is a concern that I see. Also, depending on what else they release on Wright, certain demographics in NYC might be turned off to Obama.

    There seems to be an assumption that all the blue states will stay blue for Obama, but with Mass looking the way it does along with looking at past election maps . . .  I'm not going to 'assume' anything.

    Parent

    That is my view as well, (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:06:06 AM EST
    and I live in NY. For a blue state, we elect a lot of Republicans.

    Parent
    Indeed. (none / 0) (#27)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:10:56 AM EST
    And this Spitzer mess will not help. Even in NYC...our mayor was a Republican when he was twice elected. We elect a lot of Republicans. And even NYC is not as liberal as everyone thinks.

    Parent
    I know, I know. (none / 0) (#46)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:21:51 AM EST
    We seem to be reliably blue only when we vote for President.

    I hope it happens again this year.

    Parent

    I had to laugh when I first moved here (none / 0) (#111)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:59:56 AM EST
    from CA. My dad (repub) would always make cracks about the 'bleeding heart liberals' here. I got to point out that more of our elected officials were Republican than in CA, lol!~  ;)

    Parent
    VA & CO? Past Success is Best Indicator... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:11:16 AM EST
    ...of future success and what success has Obama really ever had?

    I agree that he is polling well in those states and I don't dismiss that, but Obama is a political neophyte that has only ##ONE## general election victory to point to: Beating clown opponent Alan Keyes in Illinois.

    In the primaries, outside of Wisconsin, Obama has never shown an ability to reach beyond his base and appeal to the broad electorate. Therefore, I don't really know that there is any actual evidence at the ballot box to believe that Obama can win in those red states.

    Clinton on the other hand, has a track record she can point to: Not only being apart of Team Clinton in '92 and '96 and racking up the broadest electoral support since Johnson in '68, but she has demonstrated in two statewide Senate elections and in the primaries that she can appeal to a broad electorate.

    Obama, on the other hand, even running during a time with Obamamania reigning supreme and Clinton's negatives well defined daily by the MSM, has not been able to pick up a significant victory other than Wisconsin that demonstrates his electability in the general. What will happen when Obama's negatives, such as his somewhat extreme views on gun control, get defined?  

    No way does he win Virginia (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by kenosharick on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:16:18 AM EST
    That is a fantasy. Why are most people incl. the media pretending rev. wright never happened and will not be an issue? Thinking red states like Va and Co. will go blue with non-stop wright/obama comercials is naive. This mess will probably end any chance in Ohio,Penn,Fla,Iowa,Wi,Mo.and any Southern state.

    Do you notice (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:17:33 AM EST
    that Obama's numbers are pretty consistent across the PA polls, but Hillary's vary? I wonder why.

    Also, I don't think Obama has a great shot at VA, but if it exists, it's only marginally stronger than Hillary's.

    I don't understand how a Democrat is supposed to win an election losing PA AND FL.

    I assume (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    you are alluding to a Bradley Effect.

    Parent
    It's a possibility (none / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:32:24 AM EST
    but I can't prove it, so I don't really want to make that claim.

    the SUSA result points to that, frankly.

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:38:15 AM EST
    We may have seen it in Ohio as well.

    SUSA may have licked that problem. that could explain why they have been so much better in the big contested states. You know, the Sirota Race Chasm states. Of course, it is hard on sirota's theory to have to deal with the fact that the Bradley Effect predates Hillary Clinton's campaign by 30 years.

    Parent

    What's scary is when you extrapolate (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:44:00 AM EST
    to the general election.

    Neil Oxman, Pennsylvania genius said yesterday

    Nobody has ever spent 2.2 million in this state: not Rendell, not Specter, not Casey, not Santorum, not Bush, not Kerry[.]

    And yet he's still behind McCain.

    Parent

    Pushing Leaners? (none / 0) (#107)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:57:27 AM EST
    That's what SUSA does and others don't.  

    Parent
    We May Also Be Seeing (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by The Maven on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:25:09 AM EST
    in the results of this poll, the effects of the "Dem for a Day" voters who will show up (and have been doing so in earlier primaries and caucuses) to vote for Obama in the Democratic contest, and then go back to voting for McCain in November.

    I'm not really at all sure just how prevalent this actually is, but it would at least help to explain why this particular poll shows Clinton with a fairly small 5% lead over Obama among Democrats, yet there is a 10% swing as between the two for the general election versus McCain.  I'd also very much like to know how Strategic Vision screened for Dems in their questions -- was it merely people who said they planned (or might decide) to vote in the primary on the 22nd, or was the screening tighter than that?  (And, yes, I know that Pennsylvania is nominally a "closed" primary, but changing one's registration a few weeks before the primary, with the ability to change it right back immediately afterward, is pretty darn close to "open".)

    My Electoral Vote gut tells me: (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:41:38 AM EST
    Obama might swing CO, but that's it for new states.  I'm not at all sold on IA or VA post-Wright and NC is a pipe dream.  But in trade for that reward of CO Obama will require resources being put into some supposedly safe states like MA and NJ.  Not good.  

    And he'll be looking uphill at McCain in all the traditional swing states.  And I think Post-Wright MO is impossible, and post-vote-gate FL is impossible and MI is darn tough.

    Clinton can probably swing AR.  So that nearly equals the EV's of Obama's CO pickup.  But true she won't expand the map in any other way.  And she may require the expenditure of resources in OR and WA, so that's not good for her.

    But she will be roughly on par with or even looking downhill at McCain in all the traditional swing states.  That is good.

    To me the Clinton map is a more winnable map.  Particularly post-Wright.  I think Obama has peaked, and his shot at reconstructing our party alignment is not going to materialize.

    We'll just have to wait and see what PA tells us about the evolving demographics of these candidate's coalitions to know more.

    NW (none / 0) (#96)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:52:32 AM EST
    Both Obama and Clinton will have to expend resources in Oregon.  I'm less sure about Washington, but the idea that Oregon is some solidly blue liberal bastion is just wrong - we nearly lost it in 2000 (thanks, Ralph!) and it was closer than most think in 2004.  Outside of Portland and Eugene, much of Oregon is pretty conservative.  Obama won't get a walk either.

    Parent
    Thanks for the insight (none / 0) (#117)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:18:45 AM EST
    I confess I know little about the particular politics of the Northwest, though I do know better than to just mindlessly lump OR and WA together as total birds of a feather.  Which, of course, I just did above!

    Parent
    I'm curious as to why (4.00 / 2) (#4)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:52:07 AM EST
    Obama doesn't do well in Florida.  I've only lived here for a couple of years and am just beginning to learn the politics. It is such a diverse state, and has several huge universities, so I would have thought he would have some kind of an edge here to offset the retirees.

    I know it is hard to leave the FL primary mess out of the answer, but does anyone have any ideas about why he does not do better here?


    I'd be curious (none / 0) (#6)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:54:00 AM EST
    to know why that is as well.

    Parent
    Leaving the primary mess out (none / 0) (#18)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:02:59 AM EST
    Higher percentage of older people and latinos. As far as I know, Obama doesn't do as well as Clinton with either group.

    Also, keep in mind, north Florida Democrats like Edwards. They aren't that happy with either Clinton or Obama which would further exacerbate the problems.

    JMO as a Floridian.

    Parent

    Thanks - that makes sense. (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:17:42 AM EST
    Also the Cuban-American vote seems to be very conservative here, which will help McCain.

    Parent
    x (none / 0) (#52)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:24:43 AM EST
    Maybe also lots of former NY'ers and Midwesterners who moved down there after retirement?

    Parent
    One obvious answer (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:03:05 AM EST
    If I can answer my own question...I grew up in Illinois, lived in California for 12 years, and then Colorado for 14 before moving here.  Though I knew intellectually that racial tensions were alive and well in the country, I had never lived anyplace where it was as openly expressed in daily conversation until I got here.

    In fact it was moving here and seeing the extent of this that convinced me Obama was not electable in the first place.

    Parent

    I disagree with this (none / 0) (#22)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:05:57 AM EST
    The idea you are perpetuating is that Obama cannot get elected because of his race. That might be the case in some places, but overall, it discredits Hillary's votes as racist one and that is not the case. People are voting for her because they think she is better. NOT because they are racists. It gives the impression that we'd all vote for Obama if we weren't secretly racists.  And that is just insulting to HRC, her voters, and Obama himself.

    Parent
    I know it is just some places (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:13:47 AM EST
    but one of those places may be Florida.

    I'm not trying to discredit Hillary's voters, or McCain's in the GE.  They are not secrect racists at all. I'm a staunch Hillary supporter myself.  I know the vast majority of voters are not picking candidates along racial lines. The ones that are deserve insulting, and there may be enough of them in certain states to make a difference.  That's all I'm saying.  Just being realistic.

    Parent

    And that was 59% of an even tinier (none / 0) (#40)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:17:59 AM EST
    sample. So your numbers are skewed. Very few people were racially motivated. And of those very few 59% went for HRC.  So that's one aspect.  My problem with the argument is that he is not electable because people are racists in certain places.  He is not electable because he is not a good candidate to these voters and people prefer HRC. Simply, they think she is a better candidate.

    Parent
    Arguably, race has helped Obama (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:25:52 AM EST
    more than anything else. He's been pulling ~85% of the black vote. In Democratic primaries, that can be pretty substantial.

    In the general election, Democrats will almost always get that, so Obama has to demonstrate his appeal to other groups. That he's losing white Democrats 2:1 is not a good sign for November.

    Parent

    Which Means Ferraro Was Right (none / 0) (#156)
    by Folkwolf101 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:20:51 PM EST
    After all, Ferraro was only answering a point black question with a point blank answer, saying only what everyone already had been considering: that given his lack of experience, lack of original speeches, lack of foreign policy understanding, given all of his lacks, and meanwhile the media continuously talking up his bi-racial ethnicity, how can anyone call Ferraro a racist for simply stating the obvious. Obama is a good candidate, might very well make a great president, but he has most certainly been helped along by his race, particularly earlier on when he seemed to be non-angry black man always speaking about how much he loves all the Red and Blue states of the United States of America, all the way until Reverend Wright had to blow Obma's cover.

    Parent
    I may be overreacting (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:22:45 AM EST
    to what I have seen here.  I hope you are right. I liked the image of my country that I had before I moved here much better.

    Parent
    Race is also helping (none / 0) (#54)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:25:21 AM EST
    Obama since AA's are voting for him 9 to 1. I think 90% of the Black vote helps Obama a lot more than 10% of white people that vote for HRC. Don't you think? So even if we take race into account, race plays to his advantage much more than to hers.  

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:42:52 AM EST
    So is it only a metric in Ohio? If so, why? You obviously just figured out that Ohio is singular in that that was one of the few times Clinton beat Obama on that question.

    BTW, I think you are right - race DID hurt Obama in Ohio. And it likely will in PA and MI.

    Not sure why you are arguing this. do you see this as a good argument for Obama's electability?

    Parent

    In which case your argument (none / 0) (#110)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:59:53 AM EST
    that race helps Clinton and hurts Obama you can only come up with one state, one time.  So apparently you are indeed only picking what helps your candidate.

    Parent
    Ahem (none / 0) (#55)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:25:26 AM EST
    It's indisputable that race is helping Clinton and hurting Obama.  

    Based on one (exit) poll it's indisputable?  Exit polls have been known to be wrong.  I've never seen stats from other states.  And, it is still a sample process - this wasn't on the ballot.

    Also, AA vote.

    Indisputable?

    Parent

    Worse than that (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:27:33 AM EST
    Exit polls show that if the answer to THAT question is the metric, Obama has been the one INDISPUTABLY helped.

    It is a foolish argument made by Obama supporters unfamiliar with the data. Matt Yglesias was the first to make this foolish argument, not having a clue about the data.

    Parent

    So.... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:38:37 AM EST
    someone owes Geraldine Ferraro an apology?  :)

    Parent
    I know the data (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:41:00 AM EST
    I have stopped treating you with respect because you never have given it to this blog. you have had to be suspended for many consecutive days because of it.

    I know the exit polls may be out of your reach, but they are not for me or the readers of this blog.

    BTW, you DO know that your comment is mere assertion also. the difference here is I have earned some credibility with the readers. You have earned your discredit as well.

    Parent

    Moopsy was previously banned as JJE (none / 0) (#103)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:55:50 AM EST
    Time to leave now Moopsy.

    Parent
    This is absurd (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:25:59 AM EST
    have you looked at the poll findings in others states for that very same question. Matt Yglesias made a fool of himself making that argument. I am not surprised to see you repeat it here.

    It is one made by people who are unfamiliar with the exit polls.

    Parent

    I'm not so sure (none / 0) (#78)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:35:38 AM EST
    I went to school in Indiana and was shocked at the racism I encountered...even from dems.  This is coming from a Georgian.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that SOME people are voting for Clinton because of Obama's race and his scary, shouting pastor.  Arguing that MOST people are voting for Clinton because she's white is absurd.

    Parent
    If you must go down this road (none / 0) (#94)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:50:26 AM EST
    at least acknowledge also that Obama's skewed support in the black community is because he  is black. It is not necessarily reverse discrimination as it is a matter of ethnic pride.

    Parent
    In the context of the GE (none / 0) (#115)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:10:48 AM EST
    Most progrssives I have read have taken it as an article of faith for years that the Republicans exploit racial tensions to their advantage (the Southern Strategy extends to other states too) and that has contributed to their victories, even when the Dem candidates were white. I think it is unrealistic at best to ignore that possibility when we have a black candidate.

    Parent
    The Focus on Race (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:30:31 PM EST
    by some Obama supporters in describing why Clinton is winning does seem odd.  I mean, if Obama can't win a democratic primary against a woman because of racism, how's he going to carry the same states in a general election where the voters will be whiter, the additional whites will be Republicans, and his opponent will be a white man, eliminating any benefit he might be getting from sexism?  

    Now, personally, although I believe race is a factor, I'm unconvinced it's the deciding factors in these primaries.   I think there are other reasons working class and rural voters go with Clinton.  Indeed, she won many of these same groups over Edwards.  And I don't know that Obama couldn't win them over in November (although not if his supporters spend the next two months calling them racists).  But I still find it odd to hear Obama supporters making the argument at all because it's basically an argument against Obama's electability in these states in November.

    Parent

    This is interesting to me (none / 0) (#109)
    by Lena on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:59:30 AM EST
    (about racial tensions being expressed in daily conversations in Fla.)

    I live in Alachua County (University of Florida), and this is a reliable island of blue in the midst of a sea of red in North Florida (Leon County, home of Florida State University, on the Georgia/Florida border, also is a reliably blue county, with a 30% AA population).

    Anyway, our county went for Obama. The rest of the state (luckily!) overrode us and went for HRC. I attribute Obama's win here to the University population as well as the AA population. Everyone I know went for HRC though, including my professor sister, professor friend, mother, spouse, etc.

    Our county obviously isn't reflective of the rest of the state, but Florida is extremely diverse, factoring in the old people (most of whom are transplants from not just the NE but the midwest. The midwestern old people tend to be Republican), the Hispanic population, the Cuban population, the oldtime Florida crackers (whom ruffian seems to be referring to?), the pockets of African Americans both within cities and rurally...

    There's a lot going on here. And as to being racist, I can honestly say that none of my friends who went HRC did so out of racist motivations.

    I wonder if any of the pollsters are exploring the effects of sexism on HRC's numbers? Seems to me that however many voters BO loses because of racism, HRC also loses out of sexism.

    Parent

    I see it mostly in snide remarks (none / 0) (#119)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:21:37 AM EST
    about people at work, to the effect that they must be affirmative action employees, remakrs about clothes and hairstyles, and other rude racial jokes, the type of stuff I did expect to find in a professional environment.  These are well educated engineers.

    Honestly, it does really disillusion me, and I hope Obama can change some minds if he is elected.

    Parent

    It is only a few people (none / 0) (#123)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:27:22 AM EST
    I don't want to give the impression that it is widespread.  It is just that I did not expect it at all!

    Parent
    How could you not expect it? (none / 0) (#132)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:57:03 AM EST
    I grew up in Florida and lived there exclusively until I was 27 years old. I am shocked that you didn't expect it./

    Florida has a little of everything, including old fashioned racists. However, I think the reasons Hillary does better there are numerous and the least of those is race.

    Parent

    The democratic areas of the state (none / 0) (#47)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:22:15 AM EST
    include large populations of older, retired and/or Hispanic voters.

    In the primaries, at least, these are HRC demographics. Whether or not those Demographics automatically go to McCain (or even a number sufficient to give him the state) is an open question.  
    The Democratic areas of the state include, Miami-Dade County (notwithstanding its large Cuban population), Broward, Palm Beach, The I-4 corridor, Tiny Alachua.

    Off the top of my head the largest demographics-
    Miami-Dade: Democratic voters include Jewish, AA, Haitan and non-Cuban Hispanic (mainly PR).
    Broward:   Jewish, AA
    Palm Beach:  Jewish, AA,
    I-4 corridor: Puerto Rican
    Alachua:  UF.

    This is off the top of my head (I live in Palm Beach), others may know the actual numbers and I may be wrong.

     

    Parent

    It's an interesting place (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:32:10 AM EST
    no doubt about that. Thanks for the breakdown.  I live in Orlando, which has a good cross-section of all demographics, so it is hard to get a feel for what else is out there statewide. Central Florida has Orlando has a lot of aerospace industry, which skews Republican, but also a huge service industry.  

    I really am concerned that Obama will give up on FL altogether and not even try to win it in November.  That is why I'm trying to get a feel for his chances.

    Parent

    Should he be the nominee (none / 0) (#80)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:37:48 AM EST
    I doubt he will give up on Florida even if he doesn't think he can win it. He has plenty of money, better to force McCain to spend his resources in the state as well rather than cede it completely. Its a big and expensive state.  Obama has the resources to do that.

    I expect Hillary to find the resources as well, should she be the nominee to force McCain to spread his resources thin.  

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:52:02 AM EST
    I'd rather have Hillary, but if Obama is the nominee I would at least like to get a chance to go to one of his rallies.  That was something I looked forward to moving here from Colorado, where they rarely campaign in the GE. (This year could be different there though)

    Parent
    At this point all I want is for (none / 0) (#113)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:05:58 AM EST
    the winner and loser to unite (even if they hate each other) and to unite their supporters.  I don't want to see Kennedy 1980 fiasco (and I supported Ted in the primaries and failed to do my part to support Carter in the GE. Never again).

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#105)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:56:37 AM EST
    Doesn't Florida have a lot of NY transplants?  Beneficial to Clinton.  

    (In fact, wasn't that a reason why Guiliani thought FL would be his "firewall"?  The results of that plan still crack me up.  Anyone who thinks HRC has run a bad campaign need only look to Rudy to see what a really bad campaign looks like.)

    Parent

    Yes and I blame Penn (none / 0) (#114)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:10:01 AM EST
    Swampland reminds us what a disaster Penn was for Gore in the primaries and that Gore canned him.

    Parent
    Mark Penn has been a Huge Disaster (none / 0) (#157)
    by Folkwolf101 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:26:09 PM EST
    Penn charges so much money, told Hillary never mind any of the small states, lost track of the finances, never thought to use any of the internet until it was getting Obama so much money, and was too interested in his company's future to worry about staying loyal to Hillary, re Columbia.  What a complete jerk.

    Parent
    Don't forget the large Haitian and Jamaican (none / 0) (#138)
    by FLVoter on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:25:24 PM EST
    population in Lauderhill and the ever increasing Hispanic (Lots of Cubans and South Americans) population moving into Pembroke Pines and Weston.  And of course the large gay and lesbian population in Wilton Manors. I think these also influence the vote in Broward County.

    Parent
    We visited the panhandle (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    on Saturday.  You live in a very interesting state ;)  I met another native Coloradoan who had retired there but she is very unhappy tring to adjust to the social structure so they have decided not to after four years and they are moving back.

    Parent
    I want to go back someday also (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:35:04 AM EST
    Can't take this humidity!

    I'm going up to the panhandle for my niece's FSU graduation in a couple of weeks.  I haven't been up there yet, but I hear it is quite conservative.  I probably would not do well there either.

    Parent

    As a Florida Resident who moved here from (none / 0) (#99)
    by FLVoter on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:53:54 AM EST
    in 1992 and a Cuban-American I believe the answer to the question of why Clinton does well here is simple.  The Economy.  The Florida economy is doing terribly.  Property taxes are high, insurance costs are high, and all the while salaries are low.  The housing market is distressed. Tons of foreclosures. In Broward County alone population declined by 35,000.00.   As to the Cuban American vote to Sen. McCain, based on anecdotal evidence from my family members (also Cuban-Americans), the love affair with the republican party may be over. There has been no positive change in Cuba under the republicans. That has not gone unnoticed. My family, though they are registered republicans (except me), LOVE Sen. Clinton and trust her to handle the economy.  

    Parent
    Would they also vote for Obama (none / 0) (#121)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:24:20 AM EST
    over McCain? Hope so, though I agree Clinton is the better choice among the Dems.

    Parent
    I do not think that Floridians would vote for (none / 0) (#135)
    by FLVoter on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:03:33 PM EST
    Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain based on my conversations with my neighbors and family members.  My neighbors and family members do not see Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain as being strong on the economy.  Since Florida is close in national voting between Dems and Repubs, with Repubs favored, I think you need to have a strong candidate on the economy to sway republicans. If the economy is equal for both candidates, Sen. McCain takes it. Of course the wild card here is if Sen. McCain chooses our Gov. as VP.  If that happens, Florida will be republican.

    Parent
    BTD -- Obama can't win Virginia (4.00 / 1) (#128)
    by scorbs on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:47:07 AM EST
    I'd dispute your thought that Obama can win Virginia and Colorado.  I thought I saw a Rasmussen Poll (which aren't the most accurate) that showed McCain beat Obama by almost eight or so points.  I think Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida are out of his reach.  Clinton can win Arkansas and Tennessee to broaden her possibilities.  She's simply more electable.

    Ahh yes (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Jgarza on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:02:15 AM EST
    one Cherry picked polls is the truth, lets every one run and retroactively switch our votes.  

    No, actually... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:13:23 AM EST
    Every recent poll in Realclearpolitics poll summary had Clinton beating McCain in PA, while Obama loses. And this is at a time when Obama has supersaturated the PA airwaves and mailboxes the last two months and McCain hasn't spent a dime.

    Parent
    One? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:14:14 AM EST
    Do you really believe that? Do you really believe Obama runs stronger than Clinton in Ohio, PA, FL and MI? Well, that is your perogative.

    I suggest you look at the RCP averages.

    Parent

    No, no, no, and no (none / 0) (#91)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    I don't think Obama runs stronger than Clinton in any of the states you mentioned.  I do think he beats McCain in 3 of the 4 states.  I also don't put a whole lot of stock in GE polls when we still have a hotly contested race on the dem side.  Way too early.

    Parent
    Please check your facts (none / 0) (#74)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:33:07 AM EST
    Before pressing post. There have been at least three polls that have show this recently. You may not like what the results are, but that doesn't mean they are cherry picked.

    Parent
    What are the two valid electability arguments? (none / 0) (#3)
    by digdugboy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:50:25 AM EST


    Two arguments (none / 0) (#9)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:56:45 AM EST
    Clinton wins via the traditional "blue state" coalition combined with swing midwest states and florida - essentially the Gore/Kerry game plan.

    Obama wins with blue states plus picking up Virginia and some western mountain states (like Colorado or Nevada) that offset potentially losing some of those Gore/Kerry swing states.  

    BTD and others have hypothosized that that potentially makes Obama's strategy higher reward if he can hold the line on all the Gore states and then pick up some ground elsewhere.  Of course, it is also higher risk if he doesn't pick up that new ground and loses some of the states we carried or nearly carried the last two elections.  

    Parent

    It's funny (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:01:46 AM EST
    but because HRC is supposed to be so divisive I find it curious that she is in fact, more appealing in redder states. OH voted for Bush 2x and they would definitely be in her column. PA, MI, FL are swings and definitely lean her way.  I think if she chose Bayh as VP even Indiana would have a chance of turning Dem.  For a few SW states, Obama isn't really turning any Republican states Democrat.  SC, MI, UT, ID etc WILL NOT go blue.

    Parent
    Bayh? Good grief. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:18:06 AM EST
    More likely he'd be a liability in every state BUT Indiana.

    Well, OK, that may be a bit strong but he is a thoroughly unappealing candidate in my view.  Adds nothing to the ticket.

    Parent

    Hillary's best choice (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:20:25 AM EST
    besides Obama, which at this point is unlikely, is Wesley Clark IMHO. Bayh is a Democratic Dan Quayle.

    Parent
    Well I personally don't (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:23:42 AM EST
    think he's a possibility, just theorizing. I think she will choose Wes Clark if she's the nom.  

    Parent
    It's laughable that a solid smart (none / 0) (#93)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:49:50 AM EST
    Dem like Bayh would be compared to an embarrassing nitwit like Quayle who nearly, and should have, cost Poppy the 88 election.  Fortunately for him, he got an opponent who refused to fight (and thanks again to Mario Cuomo for his outstanding advice to Mike to just ignore the incoming).

    Bayh may not be Mr Electricity and he's probably more moderate than liberal in his votes, I'll concede that, but it's possible he could put IN in play on a HRC/Bayh ticket.  He could also help her shore up some weaknesses she has generally in the MW, places like IA and WI which we need to keep in the Dem column.

    He's also an experienced pol who knows how to win, and Dems should think carefully before putting someone inexperienced on the ticket. We will have no margin for error in the fall.  

    Parent

    Hillary has shown herself (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:19:31 AM EST
    to be an excellent "closer."

    Obama can't seem to win anything that's "almost" his.

    Parent

    Excellent observation (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:30:39 AM EST
    It is something that has been bothering me but I failed to clearly identify, just a gut feeling thing watching this race progress and never put it into words.

    Parent
    Which is a problem because he's spent (none / 0) (#81)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:37:59 AM EST
    so much more than her. He's saturating PA with ads, but I don't think it's going to work. I compared the ad blitz the 2 are doing and he is still missing 'the elements' to pull her voters in. As scary as McCain is to us, he isn't to all voters and he does have the ability to reach into some of her voters. Things like experience matter to them.

    Parent
    And Obama's problem is... (none / 0) (#44)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:20:41 AM EST
    That if he loses even one of those states (likely), he has to pick up about five more to make up for the EVs....

    Parent
    Leaving out those southern (none / 0) (#45)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:21:51 AM EST
    states he has won that will vote republican, he is a possibility in VA and CO. That does NOT make up for MI, FL, OH, PA. And they WILL go Clinton in the GE.

    Parent
    Do you think (none / 0) (#62)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    she actually would lose VA and Obama win it?  I'm asking because there was strong Democratic turnout here for the primary, and while Obama won, we have a  very popular Dem ex-Governor who's running for Senate - maybe that will bring the Dems out regardless?

    Parent
    Don't agree with you (none / 0) (#8)
    by frankly0 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:55:42 AM EST
    that Obama could win Virginia. McCain is a military hero, and would appeal greatly in VA, in my view. VA's just too conservative on balance, and Obama is too easily depictable as a far left liberal.

    Colorado I could see Obama winning.

    That's it. That's all the Obama could bring to the table that would distinguish him electorally from Hillary.

    And it's not going to come within light years of compensating for his weaknesses in OH, PA, MI, and FL.

    What about (none / 0) (#13)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:01:07 AM EST
    the AA vote in VA? I think that is why people think Obama will win there.

    However, I don't think Hillary would be a sure loser in VA, either. McCain has been very unimpressive on military matters lately, whereas HRC has been shining in the Armed Services Committee hearings.

    Parent

    The combination of AA vote and also.... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:07:41 AM EST
    ...much of Northern VA has the demographics that favor Obama. But it's a big state and a significant number of African American vote in the middle of the state is military and has gone Republican in the past so....it's not a sure deal. Keane is popular, though and he endorsed Obama.

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#25)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:09:58 AM EST
    I think it's a close call for either candidate, but not a sure defeat.

    It looks like Mark Warner (D) may be the next Senator from Virginia, giving it two Democratic Senators for the first time in a long time. :-)

    Parent

    CO has lots of defense companies (none / 0) (#63)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:29:31 AM EST
    CO goes to McCain because of his position with the military and defense contracts.  It's not just CEOs that support these type of candidates, but regular working people know who butters their bread and are therefore very supportive of active military engagement in the world.  Losing a job, especially in an economic downturn is not pleasant, so voting Democratic in CO is very unlikely because Dems are seen as pacifists.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#102)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:55:35 AM EST
    At the very least, I think Clinton has just as much a chance at winning it as Obama does, for that reason. She is more popular among defense workers.

    Parent
    Not to mention (none / 0) (#112)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:04:19 AM EST
    CO also has Focus on the Family.  They are headquartered there and are HUGE - they have their own zip code.  Some very evangelical Christians in Boulder (remember that's where the Air Force Academy is and there were all those problems with forced proselytizing there).  Has Dobson made up with McCain yet?

    Parent
    for the geographically challenged... (none / 0) (#160)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:13:17 PM EST
    Air Force Academy and Focus on the Family are in Colorado Springs.

    I don't think Hillary can win CO from polls that I've seen but Obama at this point does do better.

    Parent

    How reliable can any of this data be at this point (none / 0) (#11)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:00:25 AM EST
    And I ask that as serious question. I don't deny that it might very well be dead on.

    However, it seems to be that for all 3 candidates the picture just can't be reliable this early in the game.

    So much could happen, positive or negative (mostly negative) between now and the general election.

    We of course have to make our decisions with the information we have now, but I'm not even convinced that these numbers would stay the same after a nominee is selected. I would expect either Clinton or Obama to get a significant bounce after becomming the nominee.

    Also, hopefully McCain will get more scrutiny after Clinton and Obama finish tearing each other down and rally behind each other.

    I agree that the picture as it stands is clear, but I'm dubious about how stable a picture it will be going forward.

    Demography has indeed been destiny so far for the Democrats though so that may continue.

     

    Arguably, it will get worse for Obama... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:17:38 AM EST
    ...and to a lesser degree Clinton. Obama has saturated PA with advertising that last two months, outspending Clinton five-to-one, while McCain hasn't spent a dime in the state yet.

    Parent
    Obama's incredible ad costs also (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:38:10 AM EST
    may factor into smart super-delegates' thinking, frankly.  He has had to outspend Clinton by 2:1 to even 5:1 in some states -- so imagine how much Dems would have to outspend McCain to win the general election.  

    Obama's record fundraising has gotten him to this point, but can it continue -- and even increase, as it may have to do in a general election -- for more than six more months, and especially in an increasingly downturning economy?  

    We know the DNC is not doing well economically, with worries about even covering costs of the convention.  Does that not include reserves it has set aside for the general election, though?  I have seen no discussion of this, of projected costs of each candidate's general election campaign, but if I'm wondering about it, I suspect super-delegates are thinking about it, too.

    Parent

    Yes... he kind of reminds me of Steve Forbes... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:45:33 AM EST
    ...there is a limit to how much advertising can do and Obama has reached his limit and been unable to win the big states.

    Parent
    McCain will get a boost (none / 0) (#21)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:05:39 AM EST
    once the dem nominee is clear.. then they will go after THAT person in a fashion that we all no pretty well. Get ready for 527's especially if Obama wins, 'cause he will be more negatively effected than Clinton by the right wing attack (Hillary not only survived the right wing attacks but all to my amusements.. the left wing nut crackers!)

    Parent
    IMO not very reliable (none / 0) (#26)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:10:33 AM EST
    Lots will change. I personally think people should not take these polls seriously at this point. As you said, a lot will change between now and November.

    Parent
    How reliable could it be? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:15:18 AM EST
    Let me ask you this, how reliable were the state by state polls at this juncture in 2004? Take a look for yourself.

    Parent
    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:56:18 PM EST
    It COULD be quite accurate I don't deny it at all. I'm more than willing to be convinced that these pictures will be solid going foreward.

    I'm just suggesting that dramatic changes could easily occur. And I firmly believe that until the primary is over the picture is obscured (though certainly not completely distorted).

    That's sort of a catch 22 in the arguments to the supers in my view: that the race may distort the data that they need to evaluate electability.

    If people are actually sticking to their guns when they say "I'm not going to vote for Clinton/Obama if my favorite candidate isn't the one selected" wouldn't that data be reflected in head to head polls?

    I dunno maybe it isn't, but it sure seems like it would be. And some of those people might also change their minds if some of the tensions in the party get resolved.

    All speculation on my part of course. Wishfull thinking perhaps. I want the one who emerges victorious to get a boost.

    Parent

    I don't think... (none / 0) (#161)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:15:54 PM EST
    that the 'Swift Boat' ads started until a couple of weeks after the convention.

    And the wind surfing ads...

    What do you expect to happen if Obama is the nominee...Swift Boating 'Wright style'

    Ugh...shoot me now

    Parent

    Only two? (none / 0) (#32)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:14:02 AM EST
    There are two distinct and valid electability arguments now.

    I could probably manage 35 or 40 all by myself!

    The basic electoral math comes down to this -- both Democrats have strikes against them in the general election.  Obama is black, Clinton is Clinton.  McCain, however, is a nasty little Bush-loving, war-continuing Republican economy-destroyer.  Will prejudice trump sanity?  It's happened before.

    Yeah, I'd say it could (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:30:49 AM EST
    and probably will.

    Parent
    If the poll shows (none / 0) (#61)
    by indy33 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:27:34 AM EST
    Obama within 5 points of Clinton in the Pennsylvania primary then that may be the number thats most important. I think he is going to have a real hard time keeping this Clinton lead in the single digits but if he does and then turns around and wins NC and loses Indiana by a small margin or wins, then this is over and all electability arguments will be too! She must defeat Obama by double digits in Penn to even give her a shot at the electability argument. She started at plus 18 to 20 points so anything too much lower than that is a deal breaker in my view. I know my view is that of a cultist, Obamaphile who only likes him because of my seething hatred for Hillary(snarkalicious), but this seems to be right. When are we going to get the post about Mark Penns still doing everything that he was before just not the title going to come like Ambinders because this man may single handedly sink Clinton and she refuses to get rid of him and his conflict of interests!

    Is there a rule on the internet (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:30:13 AM EST
    that people who write annoying things must do so incompetently?

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:29:43 AM EST
    So we can not discuss anything but what you deem important? I know the subject is tough for Obama supporters to come to grips with. But we are not deterred.

    Keep your comments on topic please.

    Parent

    I said "may be" more important (none / 0) (#124)
    by indy33 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:28:18 AM EST
    You are completly right in saying that these issues are a problem for Obama in the general election. I hope he can bridge that gap and pull out at least a couple of these states. I just stated that if Hillary only wins Penn. by 5 then these stats may be useless. I get the electability argument that Hillary is shooting for but it seems shallow when you cant win your own parties primary outrightly. Why do you always assume Im so self-righteous. I guess thats what you have to go on, but its not the case. By me coming here and discussing these issues I am inherently giving your argument validity and importance. I do get frustrated when people get ridiculed, called names and deleted when they offer good arguments and disagree. This was the case on the Penn thread, and I wasnt even involved. Sorry I am off topic but Begala, and many others have called for a COMPLETE firing and that has not happened yet. Hopefully soon. I wont say anymore about Penn, it bothers me just typing his name!  

    Parent
    Oh don't worry (none / 0) (#70)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:32:17 AM EST
    she'll beat him by double digits in PA. ;)

    Parent
    Yes actually (none / 0) (#122)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:26:14 AM EST
    She most likely will, $20 million notwithstanding.

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#77)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:35:11 AM EST
    She was way ahead in PA, yes, but the polls always close up the closer you get to an actual election.  The Obama camp keeps moving the goalposts and the media is spinning it that way - at first she had to win by 10, then she had to win by at least 15, now you're saying she has to win by 18-20.  I don't think so.

    I also respectfully disagree that it eliminates the electability argument.If he loses PA and IN, he may still be the nominee, but it still does not bode well for him in the GE.  If HE could win PA by 15 and garner some momentum into the convention, then maybe I'd agree.

    But I still think if he's the nominee McCain trounces him.

    Parent

    You must have not (none / 0) (#86)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:38:56 AM EST
    seen the poll yesterday that showed her up by 18% from the most reliable pollster thus far. It has been virtually unchanged since last year in PA. She will beat him by at least 15. Count on it.

    Parent
    Im talking about this poll (none / 0) (#126)
    by indy33 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:33:59 AM EST
    Stay on topic right. This poll you are pointing too as just a great thing for Hillary has her only up by 5 in Penn. Yes SUSA has her up by 18 and I think thats more accurate. Can we all agree that if she doesnt get the nomination than her electability arguments against Obama will not matter? Thats all I said. Someone seriously blamed Obama for moving the goal posts. Im sorry but this is hilarious! Hillarys goal posts are sponsered by U-Haul they have moved so much in this election.

    Parent
    Yes I did (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:58:52 AM EST
    That's what's so funny - Obama claims Hillary moves the goal posts (and by extension, can't be trusted as to what she says), but he does it just as well.

    The point is - if he loses PA and still ends up with the nomination, he still doesn't put to bed the "electability" argument. He would still be a weak candidate - honestly - who ever heard of a Democratic nominee who got there by losing all the big states except IL (where he didn't even do well outside the urban areas) and instead who got there by winning Utah and North Dakota and Alaska?  And also got there with almost half the party not liking him and many who say they won't support him in the GE?  Are you saying you wouldn't be worried in a case like that?

    Parent

    Lets see (1.00 / 1) (#140)
    by indy33 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    Have you ever heard of a candidate that didnt win the most pledged delegates, flip-flopped on a pledge to not count two states,raised considerably less money, prob. losing the pop. vote, and by every parameter except super-delegates(which may not be the case soon) is getting beat, winning the nomination? Let me repeat your argument with a little twist. And also got there with almost half the party not liking HER and many who say they wont support HER in the GE. The same arguments you make against Obama can be turned right around on Clinton. All these electability arguments are point less because BOTH Obama and Hillary will have the same hill to climb. Its how they are going to climb it that might be a little different but it is always hard to elect a Democrat to the presidency. My feeling is that this year will be different because this current administration has been sooooo bad that both Obama and Clinton will be fine.

    Parent
    Try being accurate, for once. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:46:59 PM EST
    Hillary gets far more reliable support from Democrats than Obama, in GE polling. This has been consistent for months.
    Obama wouldn't even be in the running if it weren't for the votes of NON-Democrats.

    Parent
    Hey MarkL (none / 0) (#144)
    by indy33 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:59:06 PM EST
    Do you think that people becoming dems or voting for a dem is bad? Do you think that we will need a considerable amount of independents and at least a few repubs to vote for our nominee to win? By the rules agreed upon by both campaigns and the DNC she is losing. Who cares if Dems, Repubs, Indies, Martians are voting for him. This backward thinking and loss of appeal to indies is why we have lost the last two elections. Republicans have only sucked up to their base and havent appealed to indies and thats why we are finally going to smoke them this year. Dont make the same partisan mistake.

    Parent
    Talking of mistakes ... (none / 0) (#145)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:10:33 PM EST
    Republicans have only sucked up to their base and havent appealed to indies and thats why we are finally going to smoke them this year. Dont make the same partisan mistake.

    ... let's not make the opposite mistake of alienating our base while sucking up to indies. That's why, IMO, Clinton is the only Dem candidate who can win this year.


    Parent

    Good Point (none / 0) (#147)
    by indy33 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:21:45 PM EST
    I think both candidates are going to have a unusually harder time uniting the base because of the intense primary but I still beilive that the reason it is so intense is that people want the Republicans out! If you dont like Obama or Hillary, thats understandable, but that doesnt mean you like McCain in my view. It will take some time, but when push comes to shove, the masses will rise up and say no more to this administration and its clones like McCain. I voted for Kerry after I complained and did everything I could to keep him from getting the nomination. Compared to Bush he would have been a fabulous pres.  This year is the same scenario for me. I will vote for Hillary and against McCain any day of the week.

    Parent
    Ditto! but with asterisks (none / 0) (#154)
    by Folkwolf101 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:04:29 PM EST
    May your comments be an ominous warning for all of Obama's and Hillary's supporters. I too am more than willing to support any democratic candidate in the general election, yes, even though I am upset that on paper Hillary's is so obviously the better candidate with much more legislation passed per year average,much more command of the policies, many more original ideas, more proposed solutions, and much more political experience abroad; even though Barack's proposed plans are near identical to Hillary's, solely because he has all but pirated her plans yet without understanding them in detail; and even though I have donated a $1,000 to Hillary's campaion, I will surely and whole-heartedly vote for Obama over McCain, with the same level of donations.  After all, Obama's bi-racial ethnicity has nothing to do with my support for Hillary.  I simply like Hillary's candidacy more than I like Obama's.  The problem is, and I am sure you will agree, the hateful ABC-voters (as in, Anybody-But_Clinton) are so mean-spirited and appallingly gratuitious in their negative campaigning, that they will most certainly turn off a lot of prospective voters--voters who too agree with Geraldine Ferraro (the white elephant in the room being that Obama is winning primarily because of the attention he is getting being Black), and who too are yet just as willing to look past race and vote for Obama.  Obama supporters, listen up:  you need us all.  Obama will likely be the nominee, and he will be up against a full-grown GOP machine.  Obama cannot possibly win the general election without the Democratic party being unified, without Hillary's voters's support, and without White voters continuing to look pass the non-issues of race. In light of the Reverend Wright's bigotry and in light of all the petty race-bating from Obama's staff, white voters have yet proven to remain incredibly tolerant.  But, the culture of enmity from Obama's supporters is turning away a lot of potential Democratic supporters who are now becoming thin-skinned.

    Parent
    Oh, I forgot, (none / 0) (#141)
    by indy33 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:39:09 PM EST
    Wisconsin,Virginia,Missouri,Colorado,Texas(by delegates) are all small states and mean nothing. These arguments are becoming a little offensive to those who live in these small, pointless states like Missouri. If you dont think its impressive that Obama pulled out a win in MO. then you are wrong. He can also carry this state in NOV., mark my words!

    Parent
    Actually he does it more than she does (none / 0) (#153)
    by Folkwolf101 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:53:42 PM EST
    Actually he does it more than she does, and does so much better, especially since the media are working a massive cover up by leaving out all the negatives.  With the frequent exception of the newscasters from FOX News, how often does the media ever dare to say anything remotely critical of Obama? When they do so, they do so only because it has by then become big news, such as the Reverend Wright story. He is almost untouchable now, but will not be so during the general election! When they began raving that his teleprompter speech about race relations was our era's "Ghettysburg Address," they successfully turned a negative Obama event into a positive outcome.  That's when I realized we will lose out in the general election. Obama's sheen and luster cannot possibly last much longer.

    But I digress.  80% of the states he has won were either Republican red states reliably loyal to the GOP or small unruly caucasus that have been reported to be hostile to the elderly trying to vote for Hillary. That's not much of a feather for his cap.

    Parent

    moving goal posts... (none / 0) (#162)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:26:21 PM EST
    Considering that Obama has officially:
    • stated that Super Delegates should be bound by the outcome of the 'popular vote'
    • stated that Super Delegates should be bound by the outcome of 'pleged delegates'
    • stated that Obama should receive a 50/50 split in delegates in a state where 'HE' pulled his name off the ballot
    • stated that he took $60,000, then $150,000, then $250,000 from Rezko...

    I think the notion that it is Hillary's campaign that is solely invested in moving goal posts is laughable

    Parent
    Obama Spin (none / 0) (#98)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:53:37 AM EST
    I don't have time, but before all these GE polls turned on him, wasn't the Obama campaign spinning these polls to claim Hillary wasn't electable?  Bet they aren't taking that same view of the predictive indicator of these polls now.  I love politics.

    It seems to me the only thing to be taken from these polls - especially the consistency in some of these big swing states - is that Hillary starts off stronger there than Obama.  Doesn't mean he can't win them or she can't lose them, it's a long way to November.  But it does seem that each of their primary strategies - her focus on big states, his on smaller ones - has some effect on their relative support in the GE, when her states are more critical to Dem hopes.  And the vote count thing does seem to be killing him in Florida.  All hail the forty-eight state strategy, baby.

    I know that's a lot of "it seems," but it's April.  Dukakis was beating Bush easily in July.  Unfortunately, the election was in November.

    By "these polls" (none / 0) (#100)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:54:20 AM EST
    I mean the early GE match-up polls generally, not any particular state.

    Parent
    Right you are, Bob (none / 0) (#151)
    by Folkwolf101 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:36:38 PM EST
    Right you are, Bob! Earlier in this nomination process, Barack Obama kept saying that Hillary was not electable, to wit, that all of Hillary's supporters would gladly switch over to him, while many of Barack's supporters would never even consider voting for her.  Ha! Now we know that the reverse is true.  In the latest polls, 14% of Obama's supporters will not vote for anyone but Obama, while closer to 30% feel the same way about Obama, that they will not vote for Obama no matter who he is running against.  This rift has less to do with race than it has to do with experience, command of policies, and the hypocrasy of Obama's character: e.g. 20 years of worship under Rev Wright, lying about his parents meeting in Selma's Civil Rights march, fraudulent emails distorting the records of the other candidates, continuous race-bating, that the media seems to be doing all the work for Obama, and so on.

    Parent
    Right you are, BDB (none / 0) (#152)
    by Folkwolf101 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:38:24 PM EST
    Right you are, BDB! Earlier in this nomination process, Barack Obama kept saying that Hillary was not electable, to wit, that all of Hillary's supporters would gladly switch over to him, while many of Barack's supporters would never even consider voting for her.  Ha! Now we know that the reverse is true.  In the latest polls, 14% of Obama's supporters will not vote for anyone but Obama, while closer to 30% feel the same way about Obama, that they will not vote for Obama no matter who he is running against.  This rift has less to do with race than it has to do with experience, command of policies, and the hypocrasy of Obama's character: e.g. 20 years of worship under Rev Wright, lying about his parents meeting in Selma's Civil Rights march, fraudulent emails distorting the records of the other candidates, continuous race-bating, that the media seems to be doing all the work for Obama, and so on.

    Parent
    Has there been polling (none / 0) (#101)
    by akaEloise on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:54:25 AM EST
    For the "unity ticket"?   I haven't seen it anywhere, and I wonder why not, since it has been such a popular speculation.  Even if the possibility of it happening is slim to none, it would be interesting to find out whether the objections that voters have to one or the other Democrat are ameliorated by the presence of their favorite on the ticket.  

    Well (none / 0) (#116)
    by nell on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:18:40 AM EST
    Pelosi nixed the unity ticket, YET AGAIN

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/04/pelosi_again_poohpoohs_ the_dre.html

    Why she cannot keep her mouth shut, I do not know.

    Parent

    But is Pelosi really "the decider"? (none / 0) (#146)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    Your link was broken, try this one.

    Parent
    Michigan (none / 0) (#108)
    by AF on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:58:47 AM EST
    Where's the evidence Clinton has an electoral advantage in Michigan, let alone a "clear" one that is "impossible to deny"?

    Not in the polls which have Obama doing slightly better than Clinton against McCain.

    The latest poll is from March 25, after the Wright scandal broke, at a time Obama was doing no better in the polls than he is now.

    Well, call me naive (none / 0) (#118)
    by ChrisO on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:19:21 AM EST
    but I believe that once we get to the GE, and McCain is truly being contrasted to the Dem nominee, who will hang the entire Bush record around his neck, either Obama or Hillary will win easily. The matchup polls have very lttle validity at this point, IMO.

    That said, I think Hillary will be more electable. Ironically, her biggest challenge will come from Obama supporters. I think many of them will have trouble letting go of the hate.

    I won't call you naive, (none / 0) (#125)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:32:31 AM EST
    but I will disagree with you, although I used to feel the same way.

    McCain's only perceived strength is national security. Obama has no credibility at all in that area, especially after his recent remarks which Jeralyn mentioned in an earlier post. Unfortunately, now McCain has Wright to hang around Obama's neck.

    The right-wing narrative about Obama is that he is a possibly Muslim, certainly America-hating guy. This could have been defeated before Wright, but now, Wright screaming "God Damn America" will be in the background of every McCain campaign ad. And it will work.

    My opinion only and I am fine with anyone disagreeing.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#130)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:55:16 AM EST
    Hanging the whole Bush Administration around McCain's neck won't be easy without the cooperation of MSM. And since we know that they love them some McCain how apt are we to hear any "straight talk" either from media or McCain.

    And many people just do not hate McCain the way that Bush is hated. They just do not. He's had too many years of adoration from the media. And undoubtedly will continue to get it right up to election day.

    And if the Democratic Party is split then the advantage is to McCain. At least at this point in time. Things could change radically at any moment. So what we're all doing is our own little crystal ball gazing. Although some better informed Swamis do it with  better than others. :)

    Parent

    This also assumes (4.00 / 1) (#136)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:04:52 PM EST
    That the "George and Dick Show" won't do anything, oh say, attack Iran, or something like that around October 20th - too close to really digest what happened, but it will make many people go with the "National Security" guru - and Obama can't hold a candle on this argument.  Hope and change won't win that way.

    Parent
    Not so fast (none / 0) (#150)
    by Folkwolf101 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:06:09 PM EST
    True enough, but the deomocatice party's biggest concern should be the disenfranchising of Hillary's supporters.  HRC's supporters are so upset with the vicious and mysogenist attacks from both Obama and the media, the are taking it personally.  Many of them feel that the election is being stolen from their highly more qualified candidate Hillary that they are vowing not to vote come Novemeber. I know quite a lot of these people; they are so upset with the issue, they would even risk a pro-life candidate who will attempt to reverse Roe V Wade, appoint more conservative judges, and allow a great many more of our brave soldiers to die in Iraq.

    Parent
    Obama wouldn't be able to win (none / 0) (#120)
    by Talktruth on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:24:10 AM EST
    dogcatcher once the Republicans finished with him.  Luckily, it won't come to that.

    Yep, same thing I (none / 0) (#137)
    by Arcadianwind on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    thought from the beginning too. Kinda weird though, how easy it was for them to pull it off. With those caucuses and open primaries, It's almost as if the Dems were an airplane, and the keys were left inside, and a sign on the tail reading: HIJACK THIS--keys inside--and all fueled up--ready to go.

    Only a Clinton/Obama Ticket Will Win (none / 0) (#149)
    by Folkwolf101 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:53:46 PM EST
    Neither Obama nor Hillary can win the general election, unless including the other as VP on the ticket. The nomination has become so competitive that it has brought out the worst in some of its supporters. You need only troll the blogs to see how Obama's supporters are quite relentlessly hateful in their attacks on Hillary; while Hillary's supporters have begun attacking Obama in kind. If the bad blood continues, a huge portion of Hillary's supporters will stay at home or turn GOP, once Obama is nominated. Likewise, with Obama's supporters. Neither candidate can hope to win without the democatic party being unified in Novemember.  As for the best candidate, on paper, on experience, and on demonstrable solutions, Hillary beats both McCain and Obama.

    I agree! (none / 0) (#155)
    by Folkwolf101 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:10:02 PM EST
    I saw that happening from day one. Rove never says anything without something deceitful going on in the background.  He has always been playing poker with the American people.

    it's not rove... (none / 0) (#159)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:07:27 PM EST
    it's the main stream media who has been smoothing the path for Obama in the primary.

    You're giving Rove way too much credit and not giving the credit where it is due.