LATimes GE Poll: Clinton Beats McCain By 9, Obama Wins By 6


Although Democrats are tangled in a fractious primary contest, both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama probably would win the White House against presumptive GOP nominee John McCain if the election were held now, according to a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll.

Arizona Sen. McCain remains competitive, but the poll identified one important vulnerability: Voters ranked him lowest among the three candidates on who could best handle the nation's economy -- by far the most pressing concern for the public irrespective of party, gender or income. Of the three main candidates, New York Sen. Clinton inspired the most confidence on the economy. In a hypothetical matchup, the poll gave Illinois Sen. Obama 46% to McCain's 40%, with 9% undecided. Clinton led McCain 47% to 38%, with 11% undecided.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Obama's Problem With Older Voters | WV Poll: Clinton By 38 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, first of all (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:13:36 AM EST
    It's a national poll and therefore irrelevant. But secondly, does anyone believe that McCain isn't breaking 45%? I don't.

    There are (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Leisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:33:19 AM EST
    many other polls looking at the electoral map where McCain loses to Hillary but he beats Obama.

    That is what should be looked at, in my opinion.


    electoral-vote.com (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:37:07 AM EST
    shows a depressing picture for Obama. Still, I don't love many of the polls they use, and I especially don't like how out of date many of them are.

    I hope SurveyUSA does more of its 50-state polls.


    On electoral-vote.com (none / 0) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    If you mouse over each state, you'll see which polls they're using, including the date.

    Leisa...right on the money (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:59:53 AM EST
    but it seems that these facts seem to be glossed over whereever obama is involved...especially by our supposed party leaders.

    McCain would easily break 45% (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:02:20 AM EST
    this has to be pretty much wrong.

    These polls (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:15:23 AM EST
    are probably reflecting mostly where the attention in the press is, which is still on the Democrats.  I have never agreed that the long primary was bad for the party.  The less time he gets, the better.

    However, it's fascinating that the constant chatter about how it's over for Clinton isn't being reflected in the poll.

    Why is she still ahead?  :)

    Because its never about (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:18:45 AM EST
    the votes or the potential voters.  It's about the pundits.  

    because (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:24:06 AM EST
    her campaign has done an incredible job at staying on point. Discipline is critical in these campaigns. Nearly 50% of americans STILL believe Saddam had something to do with 9-11, thank you Karl Rove. Her campaign is a mature one that knows how to stay on message and grind it out. Obama needs some of that brain power behind him and I don't think he has that. Rove wrote an open on "messaging" and he was exactly right. Obama has been shifting on message to try and tailor for the audience he is speaking to, HIllary knows better.

    I have to disagree with this (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by flashback on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:29:59 AM EST
    I'm new here, so you'll probably have some questions about my bias.  I voted for Obama in the CA primary, and I even sent him $25.  I'm 38, White, college-educated, and married with 3 kids.


    First of all, when Rove writes one of his essays on how Democrats should win elections, Democrats should probably take that with grain of salt.  Preferably, a grain of salt the size of, say,.... Africa.  More on that here

    Secondly, I think Hillary has shown a great capacity  to "shift" her message depending on the needs of the campaign.  How much time did she spend telling the people of New Hampshire how she learned to shoot?

    For me, and I hope for all of us, the most important thing is to beat McCain in the general.  One of the reasons I think so many of us have supported Obama is because we know that there is a certain segment of the US population, pretty close to 50%, probably, that thinks Hillary Clinton is a horrible, horrible person, and would rather get kicked in the junk than see her in the White House again.  So when people like me saw a disorganized, broke, unmotivated Republican party, we were looking for a Democratic alternative that wouldn't change the dynamic of the race.  And lets face it, nothing will galvanize the Republican base more than having Hillary Clinton to run against.  That's not Hillary's fault, but it is her problem.


    Wow, this is so last month's talking point (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:35:14 AM EST
    shorter flashback (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:38:03 AM EST
    Misogyny si.
    Racism no.

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by flashback on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:28:55 PM EST
    Boy, good thing we don't have any of those mean, nasty Obama supporters insulting people, lowering the discourse and alienating fellow democrats, huh?

    Like I said, I'm new here, so I'll just apologize for bringing something up that has already been discussed.

    For the record, I've been calling myself a feminist with pride for decades, so I'm not sure where you're going with the "misogyny si" stuff.


    Get out of your time machine (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by davnee on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:26:33 PM EST
    and please come forward to the now.  When this all started, yes, HRC had a Republican problem.  I'm not saying it has disappeared, but it sure has been tamped down.  She's won a ton of respect among her traditional detractors over the course of this campaign.  Did you see her command performance on O'Reilly?  She's also managed to find the perfect pitch for an election campaign for this season by running on the economy.  

    And a respectable chunk of Republican women will vote for her.  I know.  I've canvassed them.  I had one woman run out the front door and chase me down and ask why I didn't ring her doorbell.  Was it because she was a Republican?  I said yes that was probably why she was not on my list.  She asked if I would talk to her about Hillary anyway.  She wanted to vote for her and she just needed to ask a few questions and get a few things straight first.  I know that's anecdotal, but I've got lots of other similar anecdotes.  

    But HRC doesn't need the Republican vote to win, though it helps.  What she needs are indie and working class men to accept her.  And guess what, they are starting to in large numbers.  She's increasingly winning white males in the swing groups.  She's deeply carved right into this base of Obama's voters and taken them away.  I attribute that to her growing reputation for toughness, which in turn reinforces her claims of experience that were before pooh-poohed as girl experience, and her ability to competently and enthusiastically forward a specific bread and butter agenda.  The best thing that could have happened to her was to get kicked down in this campaign, because it gave her the chance to truly redefine herself in the public eye.  The HRC of 2008 is not the same as the HRC of 2007.  It'd be such a shame (for the Dems) if she didn't get to run on her new found electoral strength.


    The Republican male base, yes. (none / 0) (#116)
    by ahazydelirium on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:35:53 AM EST
    But I've been hearing stories of Republican women crossing over.

    Obama has a glass jaw (none / 0) (#134)
    by dianem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:07:26 PM EST
    His negatives are low because he is not that familiar to the public, unlike Clinton who has been in the public eye for nearly 30 years.  When he gets hit, he goes down. In a few weeks, his campaign changes their message and his negatives go back down again. So... what happens when the right hits him right before the election?  Clinton will galvanize Republicans, but that doesn't mean that they won't come out against Obama as well. By the time the election comes around they will think that he is the most liberal candidate ever, will take their guns away, make abortions mandatory, and turn our nation into to a Muslim theocracy.

    McCain is older than Methusalah, but he is a good campaigner and a hard worker. He has immersed himself in issues for the past 200 years (well, it seems that way). Obama does not do well when people try to pin him down on issue positions. I would like to think that Americans will perceive McCain as weak, because of his age and poor health, but a strong and very conservative VP will inspire Republicans to vote for him in the hope that he will drop dead and turn the reins over to a "true" conservative.

    In short (I know... too late), Obama is not going to be as popular at the election time as he is now. He will inspire the right to vote for him, even as he (and various 527's) inspire people to vote against Obama.


    guns (none / 0) (#147)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:01:20 PM EST
    is not really a shift in messaging. It is not a platform merely a cog in the wheel. Hillary has maintained for months that she is the candidate who is "ready now". Which I am not sure I agree with as none of the candidates have addressed the deficit in any great detail, a clearly defined exit strategy from Iraq and defense spending that has been out of control for 3 decades. I would have to disagree with Hillary staying on message, and strongly disagree with the Rove slap. Say what you want about Rove, but he took the worst president in modern history and got him reelected, that is beyond impressive.

    Economy (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Athena on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:18:11 AM EST
    Regardless of their choice for president, voters judged Hillary Clinton the most capable of the three candidates in handling economic policies.

    That underlying sentiment bodes well for her to do even better in November than she polls now.  

    and realpolitics (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:20:21 AM EST
    has several polls and of the 10 or so posted, Usatoday and foxnews are the only two polls that have mccain ahead. McCain is a weak candidate and has surged in the polls only because we have not addressed his weaknesses, only our own. I am not worried in the least bit today. Unless of course Obama doesn't campaign hard enough or spend 5 hours a night reviewing his weak debate performances. He needs to step that up considerably. Reminds me of the nixon kennedy debates. Those that listened on the radio had nixon winning, those that watched it on tv had kennedy winning. Being pretty for the tv ain't enough these days

    Much too soon for these (none / 0) (#88)
    by brodie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:12:30 AM EST
    nat'l polls to have any meaning.  The fall campaign hasn't been engaged yet, and the public discussion is still focused on some unfinished business regarding our two contenders.  McC is merrily flying under the radar right now with little scrutiny, but this won't last much longer.

    And there won't be any "pretty" faces in the upcoming fall debates, given O's funny ears, but he can boast of a strong confident voice (when he isn't uh-ing and ah-ing his audience to sleep).

    He isn't in Kennedy's league on the substance either (though Hillary is), nor is he quite the quick-witted, nimble debater JFK was (the equal, at the very least, of the supposedly superior debater Nixon).

    Fortunately for our side in this one, we won't need someone of Kennedy's considerable debating skills and movie star good looks to get the better of the iron-poor blood, mediocre mind McCain.

    O merely needs to show up sober and remind folks that McC is a Republican seeking to give us four more years of Bush economics and 100 more years of US military involvement in Iraq.

    Game over.

    Though I predict O will nearly snatch defeat from the jaws of overwhelming victory, much as Jimmy Carter did in 76.


    If all the Dem nominee (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by vigkat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:55:45 AM EST
    has to do is "show up sober and remind folks that McC is a Republican seeking to give us four more years of Bush economics and 100 more years of US military involvement in Iraq," then why does it matter SO much whether that nominee is Obama or Clinton?  And why has it been necessary to bring both the Clintons to their knees and mortally wound them in this campaign?  If that is all it takes?

    Not quite (none / 0) (#148)
    by dianem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:02:38 PM EST
    The public has to believe that McCain is all that, and he has a solid reputation as a moderate and the love of the media. Most people absorb political information slowly, over decades, not months. Look how long it took them to figure out that Bush was a complete idiot (I know insults aren't allowed - but as far as I'm concerned, this is a simple fact). Scandals get through fast - changes in perception very slowly. It's going to be tough to re-label McCain as a conservative in the mind's of the general public.

    Clinton is fighting (none / 0) (#149)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:03:28 PM EST
    her own war, and I don't know that Obama is crippling her. I would say the media has been for years. She is unelectable because of it. Not for anything she has done but the media has been creating content for decades, what is new?

    One thing that is missing (none / 0) (#178)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:17:29 PM EST
    is true content.  Obama doesn't make sense.  He never does.  That is why when he debates, he leaves people cold.

    Now, McCain is no Bill Clinton in terms of framing issues.  

    But he's understandable.

    And he knows his positions.

    When he snaps out a line, it truly has power.

    In short, I wouldn't underestimate him.  People just don't relate to Obama.  McCain has a shot here precisely because he can talk.


    I have said similar (none / 0) (#180)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:10:20 PM EST
    but would not agree that he does not make sense, rather hyperbolic at times and says "uh" far too much for my liking, but Kennedy was a poor debater and turned out ok. Bush was a poor debater and he won and turned out pretty awful. Debate style doesn't determine efficacy of policy or a president. Good people with opposing ideas make the best administrations and I think Obama will have that. Whether or not he is capable of deference to their knoweledge and to what degree will be the main issue. I don't think Hillary is deferential nor do I think Hillary would surround herself with as many opposing thinkers which is why I think she as the front leader last year and could not close out a freshman senator with little experience. media darling or no, they ran a crappy campaign early and middle and an ok campaign in the stretch. Not impressed at all with her in that regard. I do however think she is more politically capable because of the capital she has built over the years, but that can be overrated sometimes.

    why (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:22:35 AM EST
    does anyone think obama would be better than mccain  for the economy?

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by phat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:27:30 AM EST
    because he's not a lunatic.

    And he's not a Republican.

    If the economy does not improve substantially the Republicans aren't able to change the story of the election substantially, it'll be hard for McCain to win no matter who the nominee is.

    It doesn't much matter which of the 2 Democrats would actually be better for the economy.


    because he's a democrat (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:31:52 AM EST
    so why do we know dems are great stewards of the economy?

    Because the national debt is now (none / 0) (#19)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:36:21 AM EST
    counted in the trillions?  We're headed into the worst "recession" in decades?

    One thing Bush did was to entirely blow up the myth that Republicans are good for American economics.

    That we have him to thank.  :)

    That's one of the chief reasons McCain is not my guy.  He's got too many conservatives who still believe that myth to feed.


    I know the republican situation (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:40:04 AM EST
    Why do we know for sure Democrats can do better?

    Don't we have some empirical proof?  Can't we point to a specific situation where a Democrat was in charge and the economy was good?

    And what would you say about a candidate who thought that economy sucked?


    It doesn't matter (none / 0) (#31)
    by phat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:41:46 AM EST
    Economy is one of the best historical predictors of Presidential elections.

    Just Clinton (none / 0) (#34)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:43:49 AM EST
    who left a surplus and a firm economy.  (Yes, I know...that was luck, in part...it was headed into a dip.)

    The biggest issue for any president is to redirect resources to maximize growth while not spending excessively.

    That takes fiscal discipline.


    Check out my post above, Edgar08. (none / 0) (#36)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:46:19 AM EST
    It is empirical fact that Democrats are always better on the economy.

    What about Carter? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:57:54 AM EST
    It's not a given.

    carter (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:05:40 AM EST
    inherited a 66 billion dollar deficit, OPEC limited the sale of oil and job creation seemed impossible due to the deficit. He should have spent to create jobs but the OPEC crisis tied his hands nice and tight. He was a poor president, but this next president is going to get the same playing cards. Record deficit, housing crisis, expensive war, Oil too high and inflation perhaps even a risk of stagflation. Most of the time the shortsighted policy of the previous creates an untenable position for presidents. This next four years will be tricky unless we can get out of Iraq quickly.

    Is there a president (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:07:39 AM EST
    In recent memory who inherited a deficit and turned the economy around creating surplusses?

    But you know.  Presidents have no control over the economy so, whatever.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:24:38 AM EST
    Edgar.  It usually is just that they are a scapegoat.

    I'm fiscally conservative, which is why I'm also a Clinton Democrat.

    I agree with Greenspan that Bill was the best president and the most disciplined about the budget and the economy.  I happen to believe that's due to long training, which Hillary also has, from governing a poor state.

    They hit Arkansas raring to make changes.  Raised the car tax?  Got beat!  LOL*  They had to do mea culpas, promise to straighten up their thinking, and rewon.  That taught them a real lesson.

    Arnie went through exactly the same thing in CA.

    Experience matters.


    bill clinton did (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:11:07 AM EST
    but it is not relevant unless there is another information technology revolution. Are you being coy or are you really that daft on economic issues?

    Listen (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:16:53 AM EST
    I'm serious.

    If performance is a product of circumstance, then tell me how Obama will change our economic destiny?

    I'm no daft or whatever.  You can't have it both ways.

    Discredit Clinton's performance as a product of circumstance and then turnaround and say any other president will transcend circumstance.

    So.  You set the ground rules.  Is performance a product of circumstance?  It seems to me what Clinton inherited in 1992 was pretty damn crappy.


    I will refrain from insulting (none / 0) (#150)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:17:46 PM EST
    you only because you are obviously not stupid, but you do think you are sagacious relative to economics and that is frightening. During the Clinton Presidency the US had the largest growth rate in decades, why? without the information tech boom where would bill clinton and the economy have gone? There were 25,000,000 million jobs created during his presidency. There were 21,000,000 million jobs created during teh Reagan presidency without the aid of an electronic revolution. Reagans jobs were created during tax cuts, Clintons jobs during tax increases. What was the difference? since you are not daft, and have the answers, I will wait for them.

    I credit Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#158)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    For those things.

    And you know what, if Obama's capable of doing the same thing, I'll give him credit for it as well.

    You know.  I spent the first 5 years of this century arguing with republicans about this issue and they said what you are saying.

    Over and over.  "Clinton wasn't good.  He was lucky."  Now I get to hear that from Democrats, too.  No wonder I'm no longer a Democrat.


    objectivity (none / 0) (#159)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:24:07 PM EST
    is an admirable trait amongtst most people, extremists never appreciate it. Since you obfuscate and do not know the answer, I will help. Reagan created jobs through the cold war defense strategy, tons of them and it fueled the economy greatly. The lower taxes he created was a farce relative to creating jobs but it did help defense companies to invest heavily in R&D. Clinton raised taxes and provided grants and access to money for companies to invest in R&D. It worked, although he was not responsible for the job creation. What he was was a good steward of the monies and did not spend it just because we had it. He let it become a surplus which Bush II slaughtered. The internet was started in the late 60's, by RAND and it took 30 years to get it to its explosive spot. What either Obama or Hillary need to do is invest in R&D, raise taxes and invest in infrastructure whilst the private sector builds a platform of products that are capable of being desired en masse, in particular, green products and services.

    Do you think (none / 0) (#161)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:31:41 PM EST
    Presidents are responsible for job creation?

    depends (none / 0) (#166)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:40:53 PM EST
    Not in the private sector no, they can influence via tax credits and incentives. But they can influence and press congress for funding for infrastructure or defense in the REagan era, to stimulate job creation. Increases in federal spending to states creates jobs. Imagine 12 billion a month going to states right now for infrastructure. Your question is rhetorical inasmuch that a president creates the vision and sells it to the public forcing the house and senate to fund that agenda. We have heard for decades that americans want a "smaller gov't" but who is the largest employer in the world? During lean times, gov't expansion is a necessity, during periods of growth (especially explosive) you fund ideas not employees. Again, Bush pissed on our rainy day fund and the only reason we are discussing the economy is because of his policy. John McCain likes the policy and John McCain is wrong

    OK (none / 0) (#167)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:43:22 PM EST
    Who created more jobs?

    Ronald Reagan? or Bill Clinton?


    semantics edgar (none / 0) (#170)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:49:39 PM EST
    not to be rude, but Reagan was repsonsible for more job creation. There were more jobs created under Clinton but it was a different economy. Reagan in the defense sector and Clintons was in IT which largely goes to Microsoft and Apple etc. The reason Reagan is ranked higher than Clinton is because he created jobs in an economy that had no business creating jobs. His obsession with defense and ending the cold war manufactured jobs. Bill did not "manufacture" jobs. Bill was a great president because he built a surplus and healed serious wounds caused by Reagan. Bill did not "overextend" like Reagan did, he knew there would be a time when the nation would need that money and despite having every senator knocking on his door for a handout in their state, he said "no". Had Bush saved that money, and used it now as unemployment is rising to create jobs in infrastructure, we would all be seeing the magic of bills brilliance. In ten or 15 years, Bill will move into the teens for presidential rankings, he could have been moved up sooner had he not been followed by such an awful administration.

    OK then (none / 0) (#172)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:55:24 PM EST
    Semantically speaking, I totally disagree.

    You see jobs created as a direct function of military policy.

    We can disagree on that.

    But all this means is that short of doing what Reagan did, Obama will be creating no jobs.

    Which is something he should be honest and objective about with the voters.  Don't you think?


    ridiculous (none / 0) (#175)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:07:26 PM EST
    you give no plan, no argument other than an irreducibility context. Sounds like intelligent design. I don't agree with the defense job creation that reagan created, i think it was horrible policy that created jobs and an environment to use them to build more. We are a military industrial complex that eisenhower warned of. Clinton created far fewer jobs but as i said, he was a far better steward of the money and should be given credit for that. I still don't know how HIllary or Obama will be creating jobs and that is a horribly frustrating thing to me. you have provided ZERO relative to that and yet you find it in your heart to debate and poorly so, the macro side of economics. I have not called you any names in this thread, I said you were being daft relative to the economics and I believe that to be true. You are obviously not stupid I said and obviously not a economist. Tell me how Hillary is going to create jobs, in what sector and with what money. That would be a nice start for your argument. It should be easy, just look at my posts for how it has been done historically and how it should be done without building on our defense. I would argue that some of it should come from defense spending and the last person to make that argument was Dukakis, not my fave Bill Clinton.

    I don't know if obama is capable (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:34:01 PM EST
    any more than i know that Hillary is. I know that neither will give the upper 1% free money and both believe in R&D. To what degree they are willing to commit resources to government job growth and build a bigger deficit while we try and get the heck out of Iraq but it will take a very strong spine to make that happen especially since it takes months to get funding for infrastructure and americans are not a patient people.

    Well I have seen (none / 0) (#163)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:35:36 PM EST
    An economy where the deficit was brought under control and jobs were created.

    I don't know if Obama could do that.


    getting the deficit (none / 0) (#168)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:43:23 PM EST
    under control only comes in growth periods, neither candidate can do it. the real question is whether Hillary will be more effective at ramming through agendas than Obama because of her well established connections and power streams. this is the only argument i believe that is a slam dunk for Hillary, despite her unpopularity amongst repubs and the right in general, she will have more political capital to twist arms and break them when necessary.

    Do you think a president (none / 0) (#169)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:44:34 PM EST
    Can create a growth period?

    I think one of the candidates can.


    108 months worth? (none / 0) (#171)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:52:40 PM EST
    no. Not unless we get out of Iraq quickly. The money isn't there. EVen with tax increases it can't be done. Sooner or later China is going to start belly aching about their notes and we are going to have to start paying those down. When we start paying those down, there is less money to spend creating jobs and investing in R&D. Again, if the private sector has a sudden explosion like we did with defense and IT, that is great for everyone, problem is, i don't see that coming for some time unless we have a green explosion which would be just ducky, everybody wins there.

    Oh ok (none / 0) (#173)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:58:09 PM EST
    You can call me whatever you want (nothing has stopped you before from doing that), but I think it's possible with the right president.  I do.

    And again, I just hope Obama can craft such an honest and objective assessment as you have for his campaign?

    Otherwise, he's not being honest with the American people.  Grim times ahead.


    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#176)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:09:23 PM EST
    Did not take on a trillion dollar deficit and a crappy war with no exit plan. I long to see Hillary's exit strategy out of Iraq and her job creation plan. Perhaps you could share it with me.

    i hit post too soon (none / 0) (#177)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:13:25 PM EST
    a plan that does not depend on Bonds from the american people to fund infrastrucure while they piss away my tax dollars in Iraq and on insane defense contracts. 1 stealth plane could provide enough nets in Africa to almost wipe out malaria. 10 stealth planes could fund infrastructure in 10 states. 12 billion a month in iraq in 50 months could employ millions of americans for several years. A bond system is not a proposal, it is a dream. How can people afford bonds when they are not working?

    Here's a nice interchange (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:30:28 AM EST
    Between Krugman and O'Reilly that I'm reminded of by your posts.

    Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, you know, again, we're getting back only to the tax rates we had in 2000, you know, the tax rates we had all through the '90s. There's no sign--you know, the United States is the lowest-taxed, advanced country by far. Now...

    Mr. O'REILLY: Yeah, because we're not a socialist country.

    Prof. KRUGMAN: Oh, gosh.

    Mr. O'REILLY: And when did the R&D blow and get into the go-go '90s? It happened when Reagan cut taxes, all right...

    Prof. KRUGMAN: I love this.

    Mr. O'REILLY: And all the corporations started R&D. I don't care whether you believe it or not.

    Prof. KRUGMAN: Going to give...

    Mr. O'REILLY: You're a quasi-socialist. You want a big government creating jobs. I want the private sector to create jobs.

    Prof. KRUGMAN: We're going to give...

    Mr. O'REILLY: It's a difference.

    Prof. KRUGMAN: Reagan's '81 tax cut--credit for the prosperity in 1999.

    Mr. O'REILLY: When do you think all that R&D took place?

    Prof. KRUGMAN: So that means that everything good...

    Mr. O'REILLY: Back during FDR?

    Prof. KRUGMAN: ...that happened under Reagan is Lyndon Johnson's policies.

    Mr. O'REILLY: OK. Wait a minute. When did the R&D that led to all of the technological advances take place, sir? When did it take place?

    Prof. KRUGMAN: Actually a lot of it in the '90s right at the time...

    Mr. O'REILLY: Oh, sure. OK.

    RUSSERT: You said the only thing good in Ronald Reagan's administration was Lyndon Johnson's policies?

    Prof. KRUGMAN: If you're willing to give Ronald Reagan credit for good things that happened 18 years later, then credit for good things that happened...

    Mr. O'REILLY: All right.

    Prof. KRUGMAN: ...under Ronald Reagan go to Lyndon Johnson.

    Mr. O'REILLY: Call any corporation, any high-tech corporation in Silicon Valley, and just ask them when their R&D ramped up and when the machinery that has led the the United States and the world--when it started getting developed. They will all tell you it happened during the Reagan administration. When corporate taxes were cut, there was more income to devote to that. I mean, look...

    Krugman is right here (none / 0) (#160)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:30:31 PM EST
    REagan got way too much credit for the 90's explosion. An argument can be made that the astronomical defense spending created a ton of intelligence that was transferred to the private sector but the cost was too great. When the economy was growing at record paces, he needed to raise taxes to build a surplus. Instead, he kept spending and created a lack of resources to prepare for the next downturn ultimately screwing the american people and bush I. Clinton left a healthy surplus by being a fiscal conservative and now that we are in another recession, that surplus was supposed to help us through our "rainy day". Instead we are financing a bullshot war and cannot create jobs in construction (schools, hospitals etc), road repairs, bridges etc. Clinton did little for job creation but he left a ton of money for the next "generation" but he left it to Paris HIlton instead of Warren BUffett.

    I think Bush (none / 0) (#164)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:39:36 PM EST
    gave it Paris.

    Not Clinton.


    Carter didn't have time (none / 0) (#80)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:07:15 AM EST
    to finish cleaning up after Nixon-Ford and the Vietnam War.

    I would point to Bill Clinton as the proof. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Radix on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:48:57 AM EST
    As we all know, at least according to Obama, I would be wrong.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    i love bill (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:53:17 AM EST
    but his presidency and the timing of the information technology boom is incomparable to anything since the early 1900's. The amount of jobs created as a result of the IT surge had nothing to do with Bill or policy. The fact that he ran up a surplus and raised taxes early helped carry the economy prior to the surge. Bush overplayed our hand in Iraq and the estimate what was it a billion, was so far removed from reality it is really unfathomable. What we really need to do is withdraw immediately and reinvest that money in job growth until the economy heals and then pay down our debt aggressively.

    The IT sector was huge, it (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Radix on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:56:50 AM EST
    didn't materialize out of no where though. Clinton, in large part thanks to Gore, recognized the opportunity and capitalized on it.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    If presidents don't have any control (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:59:03 AM EST
    Over the economy how does Obama propose to fix it?

    he'll use Hillary's economic proposals (none / 0) (#68)
    by Josey on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:00:44 AM EST
    He'll devise a 57 state economic strategy. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:28:32 AM EST
    If I believed that (none / 0) (#82)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:07:54 AM EST
    I might consider changing my opinion of him.

    Bill did the right thing (none / 0) (#60)
    by Foxx on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:59:00 AM EST
    in the circumstances. He did not rip off the surplus in a phony war that put the money in his friends pockets.

    it is not "steward" (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:41:16 AM EST
    we need right now. Our current economic situation requires higher taxes and rescinding of the tax cuts on the wealthiest needs to happen immediately. No repub is going to allow that or admit it. That money needs to be reinvested in R&D and into infrastructure for our country. Both will create new jobs that will tide the economy over until private industry recovers and has new "products" to sell en masse which will stimulate our largely based service economy. Bush the first recognized that, raised taxes and got hung for it. Clinton did it to perfection, by expanding R&D (not all military as bush had done) and infrastructure.) It is a theory as old as time and it works. Republicans like the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps and get an education" mantra, which simply doesn't work long term, there will always be a segment of society that isn't interested in education, and they will always vote on the stability of the economy because they are the most affected. So yes, any demo would be better than McCain right now relative to the economy.

    Bush's tax cuts are going to expire. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Radix on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:53:18 AM EST
    It would take congress to reapprove them, that ain't happening. So taxes are going up, despite what McCain says or wants.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    yes (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:57:05 AM EST
    and we also need an increase in tax revenue to pay for the war. We have not paid for it yet and it has to come from somewhere. Since proportionally the lower and middle classes serve more in the wars, it is only appropriate that the upper and super class pay for it.

    Word, Jlvngstn! (none / 0) (#39)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:47:18 AM EST
    Go to the history (none / 0) (#32)
    by Pootsteen on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:42:58 AM EST
    DEMs come in and clean up the REPs mess time after time.  

    not really (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:46:31 AM EST
    Reagan was in the right place at the right time and the economy boomed, of course it crashed pretty hard also and he expanded gov't more than any president in history (i am 90% sure, have to check that). It usually starts with higher taxes and moves to reinvestment particularly in infrastructure jobs.

    McCain has no plan (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:38:43 AM EST
    but more tax cuts for the rich.

    Republicans are always worse than Democrats on the economy - at least for the middle class, the heart of American democracy.

    I know Obama inspires no confidence in many. He doesn't do it for me, either. But McCain? I just don't know if this country can survive four more years of Bushian economics and warmongering.

    Of course I'd rather have HRC. I have total confidence that she would be by far the better President. But if I can't have her (and I think I still can), I'd rather take a chance that Obama won't screw up, than bet on a sure disaster like McCain.

    IMHO, of course.


    McCain put himself in third place (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:38:47 AM EST
    because of his memorable statement about not knowing much about the economy.

    How do we know (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:40:52 AM EST
    Obama knows more?

    we don't (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Josey on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:59:10 AM EST
    and Obama was always LAST to release major policy proposals - after Hillary or Edwards had released theirs.
    Obama has not led on the Economy or solutions for our current economic crisis!

    If Hillary Were To Stop Putting Out Policies (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:01:20 AM EST
    who would obama have to steal from.  He has not had one original idea that I can think of.

    I repeat (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:02:25 AM EST
    Austan Goolsbee and David Cutler make George Will VERY comfortable.

    National polls are meaningless (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by dotcommodity on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:23:13 AM EST
    We elect in the GE by state electoral votes. I am very angry that Rasmussen has pulled the plug in our bana Republic on state by srtate comparisons. Could it be because ONLY Clinton solidly trounces McCain and has since PA been 20 to 60 points above him? ie till May 7: 291 / 236

    I imagine people (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:25:29 AM EST
    are not going to play this game when polled.  I know I wouldn't.  They ask me Obama or McCain, I would say Clinton and end the poll.

    Leading the donkey to the poison (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Salt on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:39:31 AM EST
    and McCain can overcome this if a Dem Congress has the majority in many folks minds, its and argument for divided government unfortunately tailor made for him.

    Rasmussen provides what the customer (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:00:17 AM EST
    will pay for. Fox news yesterday said over and over again that Obama is the weaker candidate, and they only said it because they were convinced he is the likely winner.

    Neil Cavuto referred to the negative information already released on Obama as nothing more than an appetiser for the feast to come.


    State polls paint a less rosey picture. (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:24:24 AM EST
    McCain solidly ahead in New Hampshire, New Mexico and Nevada going from blue to red, Michigan slipping out of our hands, etc.

    National polls measure "sentiment." (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by wurman on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:32:22 AM EST
    A poll like this one gives fodder to the pundits & sort of, kind of, maybe reveals the overall trend of an election--which makes for really easy blathering columns by the folks Somerby routinely excoriates over at Howler.

    As Big Tent put it, we need state-by-state polls in order to identify Electoral College results, the only real measure of a potential outcome.

    Sentiment = pop-psych = Broder, Brooks, Dowd, etc. columns in the Dead Tree world.

    Weak messenger (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:52:50 AM EST
    Hillary's advantage, and what would have sealed this deal, is the way she talks about the economy.  She is so confidant when she speaks that she educates voters.  She takes away the fear dribble of the Republicans.  On the O'Reilly interview she took the core issues head on like no Democrat I have ever

    My fantasy match up was Hillary Vs. McCain on the economy.  I just don't think Obama can be as clear or confidant.  He will muddle it.

    Please do not condescend (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:55:10 AM EST
    "we will not just get over it"   He has not won yet.  And our votes are not given.  


    Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by nellre on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:00:24 AM EST
    The hatred displayed by folks like you have really really alienated folks like us.

    I just changed my voter registration from Democrat to "Declined to state".

    I don't want to be where I'm not wanted.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:02:39 AM EST
    I know I'm not going to write Hillary in.  I don't like that idea.

    I've already written and resigned from the Democratic Party.  Did that weeks ago, when Dean was pulling the business about trying to get her out right before the PA race.   So I'm already an Independent.

    And I'm not sure Nader is quite exactly the 3rd-party guy I'm excited about.  :)

    As a "new" Independent, I may just watch the show from the sidelines.

    Get off it (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:03:33 AM EST
    your attitude is condescending.  I have never considered voting for Obama and never would.  He's not qualified.

    Don't threaten me with McCain or the SCOTUS.  I don't play that game.  Clinton supporters have said over and over they would not support Obama over and over again.  You watched the number increase with every primary, yet refused to switch directions.  You insisted you were going to have your shiny new toy knowing full well you would lose without Clinton's supporters.  You refused to face facts.  This situation is your own making.

    It's not the same thing. (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    1. HRC has actively courted Obama's voters. Obama has insulted and dismissed HRC's voters time after time. We have every right to say "If you really don't need our votes, we won't give them to you!"

    2. Obama has sold himself as part of a movement whose goals we are unsure of. We like the Democratic Party whose base is concern for the working class (what Chris Bowers calls "Bubbas"). If Obama really sees himself as some kind of leader of a New Democratic Elite, he is not getting my vote. (However, I am willing to see if he himself, and not just his followers, promotes that idea.)

    3. Michigan and Florida must be seated BEFORE the nominee is chosen. Otherwise, he is not getting my vote.

    So you see, we are not Obama haters. We have legitimate reasons for not wanting to vote for him.

    He could possibly change our minds, but he will have to extend the effort to do so.

    #3, 2, 1 (1.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Defeat McCain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:16:11 AM EST
    Hillary seems to be the one barring Michigan getting seated. Florida should be seated, though perhaps with half its delegates, like teh Republican model.

    Anyway, they will both be seated before the convention. Its a non-issue.

    1. Why do you care who he courts? What is wrong with his policies?

    2. Again, that isn't logical. You make teh choice on principle and policy.

    god do I hate these kinds of polls.... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:05:18 AM EST
    as someone else has noted, this is a 50 state race, not a national contest.  And this year, that is especially important to keep in mind, because of the nature of Obama's support which (based on exit polling data and primary/caucus results) would appear to be greater than Clinton's in GOP leaning states, and less than Clinton's in Swing states.

    Obama could (and probably is) out-polling Clinton in the Mountain/Plains states, and in the South, but still be losing to McCain by well over the margin of error.  In other words, a whole lot more of his support is basically worthless when you look at the electoral college map.  

    In other words, under the "if the election were held today" scenario, Clinton would have to be considered a "lock", and Obama a great big question mark.

    Finally, McCain, like Clinton, has the skills and know-how to appeal to all the key constituencies... if people think he's "weak" on the economy, all he needs to do is strengthen his policy approach -- and it won't be hard for McCain to do that.  All McCain needs to do is close the "economy" gap with someone like Obama, and Obama loses, because people only "think" that Obama would be better than McCain at this point.

    The other problem with this kind of poll is that it doesn't tell you how much of this support is "soft", i.e. people who are simply reflecting their current opinion, rather than a decision regardling for whom they will vote.  

    But McC is going to be hurt (none / 0) (#105)
    by brodie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:28:26 AM EST
    badly among indies and mod Rs once the fall campaigning is fully underway and people become aware of his anti-choice stance and his wish to have more Roberts and Scalias on the Court.  He's going to find it hard to weasel around his previous firm commitments to make the Ct even more RW.  He's stuck in a politically dicey place on this one, and will likely calculate he needs another issue with which to make up ground.

    I think before it's done that the Bush admin will rustle up a bogus ME scare on McCain's behalf, probably to do with Iran, in order to push nat'l security matters to the frontburner.  They lose when the top major issue is only about the Republican recession and Are You Better Off Today Than 4 Yrs Ago reminders.  They don't want O pulling a 1980 Reagan against McC's Jimmy Carter.

    They'll do ME shenanigans plus whatever election stealing they feel they could pull off with impunity -- and here it's been all impunity for them because of timid Dems.  Fraudulent nat'l security issues and stolen elections are what the Repubs have been about in most elections since 1980 and each time it's worked and no one has gone to jail.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:51:34 AM EST
    but if there's one thing the last few elections have shown is that the supreme court doesn't bring you enough votes to win an election.

    Neither Gore nor Kerry (none / 0) (#136)
    by brodie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:21:28 PM EST
    made a sharply framed, robust argument about the crucial importance of Scotus selections.  Neither ran particularly good campaigns.  Of course, both were robbed by Repub election shenanigans and the 5 "robed robbers" of Scotus.

    Our friendly 527s and DNC need to step in here too to hit the airwaves in the fall and educate the public better about this most under-covered branch of our gov't.  Effective  "public service announcements" which can starkly frame the stakes surrounding a potential Court packed with Scalias and Thomases and Roberts who want to take away women's intimate choices and otherwise generally do away with individual liberties.



    What makes (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:25:20 PM EST
    you think it'll be different this time when it wasn't in 2004? Obama, if he's the nominee, seems to be running a very Kerry like campaign. He's even publicly shied away from those issues.

    I have to maintain some hope (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by brodie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:48:34 PM EST
    for our fall prospects and nominee's ability to learn from the mistakes and shortcomings of the past else it all gets too depressing and there becomes no point to hanging around to vote in November.  

    There's also a role for some of us grassrooters to play, if necessary, to help guide our candidate and party in their messaging and issue emphasis.  

    In any case, it's silly to be passing harsh judgment on O's campaign since it appears he's just defeated my candidate with a fairly competent showing generally, greatly aided by cushy MCM coverage.  

    The fall campaign has yet to start so it's absurd to talk about him running a "Kerry" campaign.  We're more in the interim period now.  The real campaign probably won't begin until at least June 4.


    Obama (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:57:40 PM EST
    will lose the general election. The handwriting is on the wall. I know Obama supporters don't want to see it but it's there.

    If Obama hasn't been able to change his campaign strategy to broaden his coalition during the dem primary what the heck makes you think that he'll be able to do it in the general? I don't think he'll be able too. Too arrogant and condescending to realize that he has huge electoral problems.


    Obama thought Roberts was a great nominee. (none / 0) (#165)
    by MarkL on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:40:36 PM EST
    Your point?

    Opinions are fine (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:27:41 AM EST
    But please don't state them as fact. It is not over.

    Also stick to the topic at hand, rather than stating this same opinion as fact over and over again.

    Summary: not over yet, stick to topic.

    Opinion: Obama will lose to McCain in GE.

    The Popular Vote (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by facta non verba on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:50:44 AM EST
    is nice but it is all about the Electoral College, ain't it?

    You guys (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:54:52 AM EST
    never stop do you?

    Lots of people aren't going to vote for Obama simply because he isn't qualified. Obama is relying on the most unreliable voting populations to show up and vote for him.

    Why (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:55:49 AM EST
    should we care about SCOTUS when the DNC doesn't care about scotus? Heck if our own party doesn't care about it then why should we?

    Go read my comments (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:01:21 PM EST
    I have been here for awhile now.  Just because I don't worship anything with a D after it's name doesn't mean I'm a republican.  If the Dems weren't such wimps and actually upheld Democratic values, I would be voting for more than downticket.

    The Commenter Defeat McCain (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:35:46 PM EST
    is suspended for chattering -- he's posted 20 comments today alone, that's the limit. He can come back on Monday if he follows the site rules.

    I'm afraid (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by kmblue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:04:42 PM EST
    I was thinking that about you.

    sorry (none / 0) (#156)
    by kmblue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:05:48 PM EST
    my comment was addressed
    to Defeat McCain.

    Reality Check (1.00 / 0) (#151)
    by joharmon86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:32:48 PM EST
    I know people on this blog don't really understand the notion of evidence, but that little quote from realclearpolitics.com about Michelle's so-called hostility towards Obama includes NO EVIDENCE to support it, and yet Hillary supporters immediately believe it because of their unprovoked disdain and natural aversion to Obama.

    Correction (none / 0) (#152)
    by joharmon86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:33:25 PM EST
    Should be "hostility towards Hillary" not Obama.

    I suppose we'll just have to go by (none / 0) (#153)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:43:56 PM EST
    Michelle Obama claiming Clinton couldn't keep up her own house, so why should she be trusted with the White House; saying she didn't know if she could support Clinton in the ge because she'd have to hear her "tone"; and--my favorite--going to a church where her trusted preacher who baptized her children humped the podium in a simulated sex act in order to humiliate Hillary Clinton.

    I think this is what the lawyers on this site would call "hard evidence."


    I threw this post up (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:23:36 AM EST
    to give you something to talk about.

    At this point, if someone could tell me what the turnout is going to be in November, I am pretty confident I could predict the popular vote.

    And if you can give me the state by state turnout, I could tell you who our next President will be.

    if it is a turnout game (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Defeat McCain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:43:41 AM EST
    The same finely oiled Obama machine that brought 70 thousand new caucusers to Iowa will beat McCain like a drum. Honestly folks, Obama is gonna take this election in a walk. Lets calm down.

    Hmmmmm* (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:45:50 AM EST
    I suspect a lot of us may not bother to go.  I can't resolve my own conflict here.  I absolutely won't vote for this new gang of thugs in the Democratic party.  I'm not prepared to vote for McCain.  I'm trying to talk myself into focusing on the down-ticket.  

    But knowing me, I'll just "forget" to vote.


    A caucus model loses. (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:48:28 AM EST
    I hope the Obama campaign is sharper than that.

    However (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by janarchy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:50:36 AM EST
    it's just that kind of hubris from the Obama campaign and its followers that makes me think they haven't got a prayer come November. Not to mention that the Republican smear machine hasn't even started to get itself rolling. They're just sharpening their knives and lying in wait...so a lot of it depends on how whatever comes up is dealt with. I.e. will Obama go windsurfing?

    Today's must read: Haka, other ways to represen (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Ellie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:05:38 AM EST
    I put several links into this post which includes jumps to various measures, besides phone banking, that Clinton-supporters should check out.

    Thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by janarchy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:38:08 AM EST
    I read it and it's great. However, some of us aren't going to be cowed by a bunch of silly (testosterone infused) posturing. Substance over style, I say.

    Well one of the things is they have so much (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:10:21 AM EST
    to work with. And most of the quotes are from Obama.  Republicans are not going to change over to him. For Hillary, she would pick up women, but he won't get those votes. So, he has to get them from the Democatic base that he has alienated. And just us bloggers are not the voices of the rest of America. A lot of people have felt the change in the party and will vote their feelings. And McCain will capitalize on those feelings as he courts those people. All he has to do is say that Obama thinks you are Archie Bunkers, and bitter, and non important middle class blue collar workers. Obama loses in the GE. I do want to see the state by state polls now. Then you will be able to see if he really picks up the red states including Iowa.

    Oh believe me, I know (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by janarchy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:36:49 AM EST
    I have a lot of relatives who don't have the time or energy to spend their days on the internet. They do things like work.

    And I can tell you that they're not pleased with what's going on and have no intention of voting for Obama come November. We're talking long term Democrats from Long Island/Queens, Upstate New York and Western Massachussetts for a start. Hardly your Dems-for-a-day.

    As BTD has pointed out (as have other saner, more rational voices than my own), this sort of treatment of the rest of the party is not going to win elections.


    ha (none / 0) (#46)
    by Defeat McCain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:52:44 AM EST
    um, yeah we are the naive ones who kicked the sophisticated super stars who thought Democratic primaries were winner take all's asses.

    Obama is already starting a 50 state turnout strategy. This election is going to turn the Republican party into a regional party of the South. With your help.


    Naive (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by janarchy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:54:24 AM EST
    arrogant, delusional, sorely lacking in reality testing. While I honestly think that most Obama supporters are well meaning and passionate in their beliefs, their inability to see outside of their little bubble of reality just is staggering.

    I won't even debate the illogic of the 50 state turn around strategy considering the Obama camp with help from the DNC has already managed to disenfranchise two of those states (MI and FL) and discounted them completely.

    You can keep convincing yourself that you're going to win in places like Idaho and Utah and Wyoming but the reality is very different. McCain is outpolling Obama in Massachussetts which should be a bastion of Obama-love, esp with both state senators behind him. It's not.

    And there will be nothing won nor lost with my help. I am doing nothing. I, like many others , was told I was not wanted despite the fact that I should be a target demo for O's campaign. So I'm sitting on the sidelines and letting all you experts take the reins and run things the way you want. Unlike every other campaign since 1980 (before I was old enough to vote, mind you) when I've been a good Democratic drone no matter who the candidate was.

    Personally, a pox on everyone's houses.


    You need our help? (none / 0) (#157)
    by kmblue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:08:16 PM EST
    First I've heard of it!

    just an example (none / 0) (#53)
    by Defeat McCain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:55:41 AM EST
    They get it. Obama comes from an organizing background. His people are excellent. I worked on Gore and Kerry and their campaigns were like two kids selling lemonade. Obama is like Coca-Cola.

    Stop with the organizing blather (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:58:54 AM EST
    some of us know what community organizing is and what it's not.  You have believed your own hype.  These techniques work on the Obama demographic, they will not translate to the Clinton demographic and especially the McCain.

    why did we out work you every time? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Defeat McCain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:13:25 AM EST
    if we don't get organizing?

    Are you now working on the Obama campaign? (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:16:26 AM EST
    Just wondering. You joined us just 3 days ago and since you mentioned your credentials, I thought you might be a member of the advance team. Nothing wrong with that, but I just would like to know your position with the campaign. Thanks.  

    just a volunteer (none / 0) (#96)
    by Defeat McCain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:20:13 AM EST
    I have no position with the campaign and have not even been actively campaigning since New Hampshire.

    An actual campaign worker would probably be a bit smoother.


    Actually a GOP troll (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:29:18 AM EST
    would be a bit smoother.  Your sh-t stirring isn't doing Obama any good.

    I don't think Obama (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by stxabuela on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:02:18 PM EST
    nor his team "get it" regarding Hispanics.  I am white, but my family, including all my grandchildren, is biracial (Hispanic/white.)  

    Here in Nueces County, Hispanics tend to strongly identify with the local Democratic Party, but not at the national level.  They see McCain as sympathetic to the immigration issue because he took a more moderate stand early on.  Although many of them are opposed to the current situation in Iraq, they are not necessarily anti-war; almost every family has someone serving in the military. Veterans are viewed as heroes, especially those who saw combat.  

    Should Hillary win the nomination, she will carry my normally-blue county in November.  Should Obama win, the county will turn red at the presidential level, and I feel the election of Rick Noriega to US Senate will be in jeopardy because many Hispanics will just stay home.  I know Obama comes from an organizing background, but I fear he's inexperienced in Hispanic organizing.  

    BTW, did you know that we import a version of Coca-Cola called "Coca Mexicana?"  It's made with sugar instead of corn syrup and comes in glass bottles.  Just a humorous way of pointing out that selling a candidate requires a bit of marketing research.          


    And That Mexican Coca Cola Tastes Infinitely (none / 0) (#179)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:47:42 PM EST
    better than regular Coke!  I have to say that Hillary has the right stuff!

    wow! (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Josey on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:49:04 AM EST
    Rasmussen - Hillary 48-43.
    Hillary jumps 5 pts., Obama down 7 pts.
    Wonder if this is blowback for Brazile's declaration about white voters....

    They put the numbers in backwards (none / 0) (#76)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:04:45 AM EST
    Its 48/43 O/C, they put the numbers in the table reversed, read the main story.

    nice catch! (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:16:19 AM EST
    did you notice that Obama's negatives are up to 48%.  

    All three now have pretty high negatives (within 5 points of each other), and with Clinton doing significantly better than Obama against McCain, that Clinton's high negatives are not that big a problem against McCain, but Obama's are.


    They'll fix that shortly (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:21:21 AM EST
    As they are stopping the polling on Clinton, as she may actually have a chance to win in the GE! ;)

    I have just started (none / 0) (#14)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:27:47 AM EST
    gathering demographics.  I have all of the vote, alot of the demopgraphics.  You'll be able to change the demographics and the % you expect a candidate to get.

    So far, using primary turnout, I can plug the drop in support and tell who wins which state.


    Do you take the GOP vote out? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:40:21 AM EST
    I don't believe all those crossovers and Dems for a day will stay with Obama. I know some and believe me, they voted for him because they figured he was easier for the GOP to beat. Republicans already knew they had a uphill battle. As I said yesterday, I heard from a die hard Republican who said, "I didn't think we had a chance but now I think we can win against Obama."

    BTW, the undecided was a pretty good margin in this poll. Hope you post your findings.


    That's the Rush L. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:54:44 AM EST
    mantra.  I don't think that many crossed-over, frankly.  But I do think a lot of the Independents who have been voting Republican and were interested in voting for Hillary will go back to Republican.  Obama isn't attractive to that group.

    One thing I've never gotten is why his campaign claims otherwise.

    He's getting the Independents who voted for Nader last time.  :)  Why do they think he's getting the conservative group?

    That's just asking me to buy utter BS.


    Multiple columns (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:59:24 AM EST
    Separate spreadsheets with multiple columns.  You can do drop off, transfer some to Repubs etc.  For instance...

    One spreadsheet for Clinton:
    One column for drop off of Obama supporters
    One column for rep gain of the drop off
    One column for drop of indies
    One column for rep gain of the drop off
    One column for inc in rep turnout

    Second spreadsheet the same for Obama.

    Third spreadsheet for GE chances. Has demos of white, latino, asian, other and AA with columns similar to the first two for running different scenarios.

    Fun stuff.


    True, (none / 0) (#12)
    by sander60tx on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:26:37 AM EST
    it's the electoral vote that matters, and I agree it is interesting that Clinton still does better than Obama against McCain, even though she has supposedly already "lost."  I have read many, many comments on this blog saying that Obama will lose to McCain.  The poll doesn't really support that (though it ignores the electoral vote.)  As much as I dislike Obama, if he is the nominee, then I'd still rather see him be president rather than McCain.  He may not be as effective as Clinton would be, but I think he'd do less harm than McCain.  We REALLY need a stronger democratic congress!  So, I for one am going to focus my energy on electing a democratic senator in Texas.  It could happen!  (Being from Texas, my vote for a democratic presidential candidate doesn't really matter, so I'm not going to fret about that.)

    McCain said yesterday (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:33:22 AM EST
    that he expects a 10 point drop as the Dems get a bump once the primaries are in and it's over.

    He's already working on Jewish Dems....and Latinos....

    We'll see.  He's already going after her moderate and conservative Dems, and I personally think he's going to get a big chunk of them.


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Leisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:37:35 AM EST
    the "old" party dems...  there are millions of us.

    I am not sure (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Leisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:39:03 AM EST
    that Obama would do less harm.  Look at the Democratic Party...

    Yes, please do this (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:20:50 AM EST
    Look at the Democratic Party...

    The New Democratic party is an awfully small tent.  I have zero faith it will do anything better.


    It's still early (none / 0) (#26)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:40:01 AM EST
    as seen with the undecideds, but it does point up McCain's vulnerability. Has he flip-flopped here yet?

    My pocketbook hurts at the thought of President McCain.

    My pocketbook (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:46:28 AM EST
    on taxes would be better off with McCain.

    as would mine (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:47:49 AM EST
    Substantially. But i don't mind paying higher taxes unless I am supporting a stupid*&%# war.

    Higher taxes (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:54:37 AM EST
    are okay as long as we are seeing increased benefits.

    This is something that needs to be reframed in the Democrats' favor, IMHO.

    If your money buys you more of what you need, you don't need as much of it to have the American dream. Right now, we may pay lower taxes, but how far does our $$$ go?

    They pay a much higher percentage of taxes in Europe and Canada, but they have universal health care and "free" college as long as you can get in, for example.

    They don't have to spend 12,000 a year on health insurance that doesn't even cover them. They don't have to spend $250,000 for college. Imagine the emotional and financial burdens we would no longer be saddled with if we didn't have to worry about these things.

    Taxes are seen as so punitive in America. We should, instead, look at them as investments in a better life for ourselves, our parents and our children.



    We'll have to disagree (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:57:25 AM EST
    I was OK with Hillary's increase.  Above 250,000....even those guys were saying they were OK.

    I am not OK with Obama's.  He's going to hurt the middle-class.

    For sure, CA should think carefully.  His health care plan is a disaster for us.  The worst of both worlds.  Higher taxes to support an ineffective plan while not addressing the issue of the uninsured.  yikes

    I'm going to have to move to make sure I'm near a hospital that is still open!


    We don't disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:10:38 AM EST
    Tax increases that don't benefit the middle class don't work for me either. :-)

    I'm in CA (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    too.  I have always been averse to Obama's health insurance plan.  I don't work right now.  But guess what I do for a living?    I work as a hospital budget analyst.  I build budgeting systems and do trend analysis. I am fully aware of the impact of govt policies and insurance reimbursement on the healthcare system.  MCR/MCL pay from 8-13 cents on the dollar.  A community without a strong job market and insurance is screwed, you can't keep an ER open without an income base and the local govts are too poor to help out.  

    We are an area of 100k.  We have to ambulance or fly people out.  Don't have serious heart problems here, our heart program is very small.  Chances are you won't make it to another hospital in time.  The hospital had to stop surgeries as all of the anesthesiologists but ONE bailed.

    We are looking at cutting $1000 per child from education when we are already near the bottom.  High schools have shut down their pools, cancelled music programs, are shutting schools and shuffling students.  My son's college program (while in high school) may be cancelled which affects opportunities to get an education.  Our local small university is no longer offering classes to freshman and sophmores.

    His plans don't work.


    Interesting.....thanks (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:27:56 AM EST
    He supported a program in Illinois that allowed the ER rooms to charge MORE to the uninsured.  They were a profit maker.  blech

    They pay (none / 0) (#111)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:33:49 AM EST
    $5 and $10 dollars a month in some cases.  We count the revenue for self-pay persons at $100 and carry it over month to month as if we are going to receive it.  It just doesn't happen.  Our self-pay pool was pretty small, but the dollars aren't written off unless the person dies.  Could just be fancy bookkeeping.  I would love to see their cash reimbursement.  Discount incentives are nice if you can pay same day. sigh.

    His plan (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:38:16 AM EST
    reminds me of the disastrous car insurance plan they tried in CA.

    Totally flopped.


    depends on life experience (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:00:34 AM EST
    i have several friends who hate welfare, but being that i grew up on it i am definitely grateful. I know that some of my taxes go to help families like mine was so as much as I hate the AMT, it is what it is. But that said, the press gives us great stories of "welfare moms buying 40's" and not the good ones that show how many families in need are grateful for the food stamps and peanut butter and cheese and how it gives them "hope". We boo welfare here, they cheer it in europe.

    Welfare? Boy, my life would have (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:58:46 PM EST
    been pretty miserable without tax dollars coming to my daughter.  Even worse, it would have become hard to see my daughter as the loving gift she is if it had not been for tax dollars (Thanks, everyone!)  SSI and Medicaid made all the difference from 1978 to 2001 while she lived at home.  After my husband's stroke, she exchanged SSI for half my share of the SS check, but Medicaid let us take her off the insurance.  Still, the SS money no where near paid for 24-hour care that meant I could retire from full-time responsibility for a 4-year-old who just happens to be 51 now.  No, I don't object to paying tax, even tho I did get shoved into the 25% bracket.  Who wants to do without parks, roads, police, schools and a 1001 other benefits brought to us by your tax dollar?

    BTD (none / 0) (#83)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:09:39 AM EST
    May polls mean nothing.  go check the historical record.  thus, you're pushing meaningless stories... remember WJC was behind even Perot everywhere in June.  

    If you cared about this country (none / 0) (#99)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:23:38 AM EST
    maybe you would have voted for someone who could win the GE?

    come on (1.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Defeat McCain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:26:14 AM EST
    You dont think Obama can beat the crazy old man who doesnt understand the economy, wants to ban abortion, and thinks Iraq is the best thing ever? Let's be real. Hillary could have beaten McCain and so will Obama. McCain from eight years ago would have been tough but he ain't teh same guy.

    Short answer: NO, Obama is toast in GE (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:30:32 AM EST

    why? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Defeat McCain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:35:18 AM EST

    Oh boy (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:41:12 AM EST
    Where to begin:

    • His electoral map prospects are very dim (see electoral-vote.com)

    • He has blown off two important swing states (FL/MI)

    • He is weak in OH/PA (another two important swing states),

    • He is weak with Latino voters compared to McCain, and they are a significant portion of the population in certain states,

    • He has made himself unelectable by his primary campaign strategy (discussion of some aspects is verboten on this site).

    • He will get destroyed by republicans when they start running an ACTUAL negative campaign against him (rather the one he has been complaining about that was actually very mild from Clinton)

    • The ads and "revelations" that will pop up starting late August, you know, the ones Clinton never ran.

    • The magical Wright tapes and exposes of "where was Obama" tapes that will pop up right before election.

    • The fact that he really has no record or accomplishment to run on, against McCain, who is NOT the weak candidate everyone who supports Obama wants to pretend he is.

    This is a partial list.

    ok (1.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Defeat McCain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:04:56 PM EST
    #  His electoral map prospects are very dim (see electoral-vote.com)

    Actually very close races lots of places. Once Clinton supporters stop gaming polls, the electoral landslide will start to take shape.

    # He has blown off two important swing states (FL/MI)

    Nonissue. Most people couldnt care less if indeed they know about it.

    # He is weak in OH/PA (another two important swing states),

    Not really, impassioned Clinton supporters are lying to pollsters. Penn is a lock, Ohio will be close.

    # He is weak with Latino voters compared to McCain, and they are a significant portion of the population in certain states,

    Doesnt matter. Most Latino voters are clustered in 3 states. California we win. Texas they win. Florida is a toss up. There are more Democrat than Republican hispanics in Florida, finally. Clinton has her own problems with Miami Cubans.

    # He has made himself unelectable by his primary campaign strategy (discussion of some aspects is verboten on this site).

    Nonsense. He has run a great savvy campaign.

    # He will get destroyed by republicans when they start running an ACTUAL negative campaign against him (rather the one he has been complaining about that was actually very mild from Clinton)

    Naw, he is going to enjoy months of glowing coverage. Dunno if you know, but being the first black nominee is kind of a big deal.

    # The ads and "revelations" that will pop up starting late August, you know, the ones Clinton never ran.

    They don't exist.

    # The magical Wright tapes and exposes of "where was Obama" tapes that will pop up right before election.

    Wright is over. Guilt by association is weak. McCain has his own pator problems.

    # The fact that he really has no record or accomplishment to run on, against McCain, who is NOT the weak candidate everyone who supports Obama wants to pretend he is.

    Obama has a record of tremendously sound judgment. He is a brilliant guy, head of Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude. His intellectual superiority to McCain will become ever more evident.

    In conclusion, I appreciate your points but I think your concerns are overstated. With your help, we will win a historic victory.


    I am sorry, I made a mistake (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:16:33 PM EST
    I thought you were interested in an honest discussion. I was wrong. Because essentially you didn't provide one counter to what I said, except "Clinton supporters are gaming the polls" which of course is very credible.

    Good luck on the GE, I'd say keep practicing that sticking your fingers in your ears and going LaLaLaLaLa as all this comes to pass.

    Now I'm off to game some more polls.


    Latinos don't matter? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by stxabuela on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:37:51 PM EST
    Thanks for confirming what the Hispanic members of my family have been saying for a couple of months:  Obama doesn't care about us.    

    You might want to check out the demographics of New Mexico and Nevada.  I'd say Arizona, too, but I think McCain wins there no matter who is the Democratic nominee.  We live in more than three states.  


    Your cynicism (none / 0) (#142)
    by vigkat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:37:02 PM EST
    is breathtaking.

    Not intended (none / 0) (#144)
    by vigkat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:38:05 PM EST
    for you, Marvin.

    And please (none / 0) (#140)
    by vigkat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:29:01 PM EST
    Stop telling people to "calm down."  It is the height of condescension.