home

State Of The Race: OR And KY

The RCP OR and KY polling info. Tell me what it means.

This is an Open Thread.

Comments now closed.

< CA Supreme Court Overrules Gay Marriage Ban | It's Not A Contest >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Too bad they're on the same day (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by goldberry on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:30:52 PM EST
    If KY went first, maybe Oregon would narrow somewhat.  

    That's what I was thinking (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by bridget on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:56:45 PM EST
    even 24 hours would make the difference

    no doubt in my mind a great KY victory over Obama would help Hillary in Oregon

    people do watch TV and the WV 41 pt media coverage was pretty sensational for Hillary and embarrassing for Obama.

    Parent

    Oregon is voting now. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:07:53 PM EST
    Survey USA had a 50-49 split with the voters who had voted.  

    Perhaps, West Virgina helped in giving some momentum in Oregon.  The polls are all taken before W. Virginia.

    Parent

    Wouldn't it be cool (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:18:49 PM EST
    if there were no more primary victories in O's future.

    Parent
    I don't think so. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Faust on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:36:15 PM EST
    There is no momentum to be gained in the Northwest from wins in the Northeast. There are strong cultural differences between the two sides of the country...as the polls suggest.

    Parent
    It means (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by stefystef on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:31:41 PM EST
    nothing has changed.

    Clinton supporters seem to be very loyal to her, Obama followers continue to support him.

    KY is more working class, OR has more high-end, intellectuals.

    It tells me OR will go Blue in November and KY will to Red.

    Nothing has changed.

    Red states only count when they vote for (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Teresa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:34:20 PM EST
    Obama in the primary. Of course, Kentucky was Clinton blue in a better day.

    Parent
    "high-end, intellectuals"? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by dwmorris on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:42:17 PM EST
    Did you mean to imply low-end, working class?

    Parent
    Just say "class" (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:44:43 PM EST
    It's about income.

    Parent
    Portland, Eugene, Ashland (none / 0) (#75)
    by shoephone on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:01:55 PM EST
    Highly educated, tech-sector, "creative class", whatever you want to call it.

    Oregon has been strongly for Obama all campaign season. He will do well there. I just don't see Clinton getting a lot of gains in OR, per the WV win.

    Parent

    Please do not use the term (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:03:48 PM EST
    "creative class".  It's extremely elitist.

    Parent
    Excuse me, oh sensitive one (none / 0) (#116)
    by shoephone on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:28:21 PM EST
    but that's why I put the phrase in quotes.

    Parent
    I'm not being sensitive, (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:32:21 PM EST
    I just would hate to see people adopt this objectionable terminology.  Nothing about being upper income and liberal makes one "creative".  

    Parent
    Creative class is a nonsensical faux voter group (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:52:01 PM EST
    You're right to put quotation marks around it, but I hope people stop using this designation entirely. It's just some new ill-defined election year blob that's pulled out as SomeOne We Must Sacrifice To Or Else ....

    It's just a label that flatters the needy doofuses who pounce on such things, but I've seen very little to determine where teh Awesome S/he Who Must Be Obeyed is, or in how many numbers.

    It's not an economic group. Enterntainmet, arts and media (and hangers on who thing they're part of the group) encompass all earning levels, classes, education levels, etc. So do techs and whatever other "types" that get swept into the category.

    Sure it's fun to speculate about this BogeyThing at the poli-watering hole, but I'd have to have a decent sippable in front of me (and in me) before I'd get into it.

    Parent

    It's about income, not "class" (none / 0) (#119)
    by stefystef on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:31:29 PM EST
    I am saying that most of the people in KY are middle and working-class people, not the same population as in Oregon which has a lot of the Silicone Valley industries and higher with tech services.

    All I am saying is that I believe that Kentucky will go Republican in November if Obama is the nominee because there is still a large Republican voter population.

    I would to hope that the Republican voters will abandon their party, but I don't see that happening.

    I'm just talking about income and industries, not social standing.

    Parent

    Kentucky would NEVER go blue with BO on the top (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:33:41 PM EST
    of the ticket.  Indeed, few Dem's could turn Kentucky blue.  I believe Hillary could, but it's not a given.

    Parent
    I would dare say that Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by stefystef on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:05:27 PM EST
    would get a couple of "red" states to go blue like MS, TN and OK.  I think she was centrist enough to appeal to the more moderate and conservative Democrat and some moderate/fiscal Republicans who are upset that the party has been hi-jacked by neo-cons, war hawks and religious right.

    But know, I don't see any of those states (including Kansas) going to Obama.

    The Democratic Party- grasping failure from the jaws of victory

    Parent

    Also, Arkansas (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:12:31 PM EST
    Yup (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by facta non verba on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:42:29 PM EST
    here's the data how people voted by income in West Virginia. Obama won one group.

    Vote by Income in West Virginia


    Parent

    That makes it obvious! (none / 0) (#194)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:19:10 PM EST
    nice link, thanks!

    Parent
    The rural vote (none / 0) (#69)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:01:08 PM EST
    small town vote is a little different.  In many areas of CA, small town main street is appliance repair, auto supply, garden shop, fast food restaurants... OR leans a little more to the coffee shop, art boutique etc.  OR has a different environment... an abundance of parks etc.  I did a google early in the season.. OR has a pretty high capita of coffee shops.  I did it as a fluke to look at the difference and it turned out to have some statistical support. :)

    The demographics are very favorable to Obama.  If he gets less than 10, I would be surprised.  Obama projected 5, and the voters have solidified.

    Parent

    Just realized these are pre-WV (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by goldberry on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:33:04 PM EST
    OR could maybe tighten after all.  But if the numbers looked this good in KY before WV, I doubt that they're going to get smaller.  

    Be funny if the gap widened, lol!~ (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by nycstray on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:41:00 PM EST
    Demography (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Lahdee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:33:30 PM EST
    is political destiny

    And demographics mean more than just race... (none / 0) (#47)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:47:02 PM EST
    Oregon and West Virginia are nearly indentical.

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:00:28 PM EST
    for pointing this out.

    It's about class, not race.

    Parent

    Are they? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:09:15 PM EST
    I have heard that West Virginia is one of the poorest states, whereas Oregon has a much higher median income.

    Parent
    On rankings of the states (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:21:14 PM EST
    West Virginia and Mississippi always vie for the 50th place.  One is almost always 49th while the other is 50th.

    West Virginia is the only state of the 13 states the Federal government says is Appalachian to have all its counties are constituent parts of Appalachia.

    Parent

    Huh? You mean by race. Oregon has (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:10:56 PM EST
    an average family income of 70k, that's one of the highest in the country and nothing like WV.

    Parent
    I don't know where you get your numbers, (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by seeker on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:55:40 PM EST
    but median household income in OR was about $42.500 in 2004.  Portland, Eugene, Bend and Ashland have some very wealthy areas.  They in no way represent the state.  

    There is a large rural population, much of which is hurting.

    Parent

    Did you see (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:34:46 PM EST
    In McCain's speech today outlining his vision of what his first term would look like, he said he would begin the practice of "question time" before the Congress?  I don't have a link handy, but I think that would be a great idea.

    I don't know any details, like who would ask the questions, but I think this is kind of a bold idea.

    No offense cmugirl (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by kmblue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:36:11 PM EST
    (and I mean that!)  but long, long, ago we used to have these things called press conferences.
    Of course, this was before Dubya.  ;)

    Parent
    Must add (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by kmblue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:37:26 PM EST
    I love question time in London!  Used to watch it on the news feed at CNN.  So snarky! ;)

    Parent
    None taken :) (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:38:32 PM EST
    But picture W going before Congress now and having to answer Henry Waxman's or John Murtha's or Joe Biden's questions!  

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:39:09 PM EST
    We used to have a press corps who did their jobs....

    Parent
    I'd (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kmblue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:40:20 PM EST
    buy tickets to that!

    Parent
    Oh please... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by DWCG on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:45:11 PM EST
    That would not dare compare to the theater of Maxine Waters, Barney Frank or Charlie Rangel questioning W.

    Parent
    OH! (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:54:58 PM EST
    I forgot about Maxine Waters!!  And Sheila Jackson-Lee, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers  - ooh!

    Parent
    Mad At Waxman...he endorsed obama today (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:02:17 PM EST
    NoooooOOOOooooOOOOO! (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:11:30 PM EST
    Not the Mustache of Justice!

    [lays down head, weeps softly]

    Parent

    Ok - you win madamb (none / 0) (#95)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:14:46 PM EST
    Best.Nickname.Ever!  :)

    Parent
    I LOOOOVVEEE that ida (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by DWCG on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:39:01 PM EST
    Once of my favorite parts of C-Span used to be prime ministers questions in the British Parliament.

    If his party weren't out to kill the planet and line the pockets of rich folk with the blood and sweat of poor folk, I'd actually consider supporting him for that reason alone.

    Parent

    McCain is moving to the middle (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:43:24 PM EST
    I expect polls in two weeks to show him leading Obama all over the place. Since I already decided I have to vote for McCain if BO is the nominee, I am very happy about the Question Time idea. I've always thought it was a great thing in the UK.

    Parent
    I guess you don't care about (none / 0) (#44)
    by DWCG on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:46:41 PM EST
    Ever winning back a majority on the Supreme Court in  the next 50 years.

    I'll support the Democratic nominee (when we have one) wholeheartedly.  Nothing can compare to the damage of any Republican in that office.

    Parent

    Yes I do (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:54:34 PM EST
    But since Obama thought John Roberts was fabulous I am not going to bank on him for Supreme Court appointees that will do anything positive on reproductive rights.

    I live in a pro choice state no matter what party is in charge and I am no longer willing to be blackmailed by Democrats who demand that I vote for their candidate based on the court. If members of congress actually did their jobs, they wouldn't be there in the first place.

    I also happen care about foreign policy, tax issues, social security, the environment, etc and Obama does not reflect my values there.

    Is McCain good? No. But Obama will be a disaster for the democratic party for two generations.

    Parent

    I'll join you. (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by AX10 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:24:28 PM EST
    Today I changed my registration from Democrat to Non-Affiliated.  If McCain governs from the middle, I can deal with that, especially if the congress is Democratic.

    I will not be blackmailed either.  I care about many issues.  Roe v. Wade is NOT one of them.  I will take a flawed McCain to a disasterous Obama.

    Also, the Democrats had 56 Senate seats when Clarence Thomas was appointed.  What was the Democratic party's excuse in 1990 when they had 56 SEATS?!?

    Parent

    I'm with you (none / 0) (#87)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:09:18 PM EST
    I'm in CA.  SCOTUS blackmail doesn't work with me either.  I can't imagine ever voting for McCain, but if he wins, eh, that's what they get for playing with the party to further their ends of getting rid of the Clinton's.  Let them go for Obama's money.  If McCain wins, if that's what it takes to make the Dems get their act together, so be it.  Obama doesn't represent me either.

    That being said, I tend to go with BTDs media darling theory.  There is no way they will let Obama fail, Obama's has the demographic they want.... he's not only money... he's their shiny new toy and they will prop him up all the way to Nov.

    Parent

    Heh heh heh. (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:13:28 PM EST
    McCain is the once and future media darling.

    He has far more money and power than Obama could grab on his best day.

    Watch and learn, my friend. Bush fired the first salvo today. The attack machine is oiled and ready.

    The media will crush Obama like a bug if he is the nominee.

    Parent

    I will believe you if... (none / 0) (#104)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:21:43 PM EST
    the media says tonight that Obama's response was a little weak.  If, on the other hand, we see 'Bush was picking on Obama' maybe the wind will blow the other way.  The media seem to be bored with the Repubs and it is natural for the electorate to kick the current party out.

    Bwahaahaa...

    It's going to be fun to watch. :)

    Parent

    The Dogs are Out (4.50 / 2) (#114)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:27:56 PM EST
    Check out the story on the front page of the ABC website. It is on McCain and he is taking huge swipes at Obama on his inexperience and judgment in foreign policy. He promises this will be a general election theme. Also, the article points to BO's debate comments about negotiating with Iran without pre-conditions.

    Clock has struck midnight.


    Parent

    This in addition (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:29:34 PM EST
    to the article Angie pointed out last night on Obama's gaffes on Iraq and Afghanistan. ABC isn't going to play the Obama game.

    Parent
    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by pie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:45:31 PM EST
    Which is why Clinton would be a much better match-up (as she pointed out, sending Obama supporters into outer space).

    Parent
    How nice of McCain to start now (none / 0) (#183)
    by nycstray on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:34:25 PM EST
    with a few more states left to vote  ;)

    Parent
    LA Times (none / 0) (#154)
    by felizarte on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:05:40 PM EST
    had an article linked to in another thread talked about Obama's time in Indonesia where twice in his enrollment form, he was listed as "Muslim" and the only one who can really vouch for his conversion is Rev. Wright.

    Parent
    Not so sure on the media darling thing (none / 0) (#94)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:13:53 PM EST
    I think McCain is the real darling. I also think when the Republican op research is unleashed on Obama there isn't gonna be much the media can do to help him.

    You still have to get the electoral votes and I don't see a map that gets Obama over the top - even if Kennedy came back from the dead to help him.

    Parent

    that is false (none / 0) (#174)
    by seesdifferent on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:21:01 PM EST
    Obama: The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court's historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.

    are you trying to fool people?

    Parent

    Dems, Obama didn't care about SCOTUS before (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:04:16 PM EST
    Two right wing ringers greased onto the SCOTUS during Dems watch.

    Obama's in love with one of them and openly courting right wing Unity to give us more.

    Don't you dare put this on people who don't support Obama. (And pre-emptively, don't pull any of that sudden, ex rectum Roe v Wade concern to guilt and shame women your way either.)

    Of all the tactics TeamObama has used, this one is the most perfidious and disgusting to me as it not only trivializes past suffering from persecution and impediments to inalienable constitutional rights, but falsely and needlessly puts additoonal burdens on those persecuted for continuing abuses.

    It's pure scum.

    Parent

    The SCOTUS (none / 0) (#73)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:01:45 PM EST
    arguement doesn't work on me, especially since Barack wanted to vote for Justice Roberts.

    Next!

    Parent

    SCOTUS (none / 0) (#139)
    by CST on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:54:02 PM EST
    Yea, but he didn't vote for him.  And he was one of 25 senators to actually filibuster Alito.

    Parent
    Only because (none / 0) (#149)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:03:47 PM EST
    an aide told him it was bad for his presidential aspirations - not out of principle or anything.

    Parent
    okay... (none / 0) (#161)
    by CST on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:10:17 PM EST
    I would still rather have a president that thought it was politically bad to vote for Roberts than one who has openly endorsed him.  Also, I seriously doubt he would nominate anyone like Roberts, especially if he thinks it's political dynamite.  Also, given that he filibustered Alito I think it's pretty clear that those are not the type of judges he would promote.

    Parent
    When it comes to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:19:25 PM EST
    Little is clear. It depends on what audience he is talking to. I haven't a clue what his principles are and I would venture to guess most people on this blog don't either.

    Parent
    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#179)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:29:13 PM EST
    There was no filibuster of Alito.  Kerry tried to get one, but the measure failed. The motion to invoke cloture on the nomination, well, Obama did vote "nay", but so did Hillary. It went down 77-25.

    LINK

    Parent

    So if he didn't actually VOTE for the war either (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:12:33 PM EST
    Let's take that off his record too. Not being snarky, when it comes to Obama's post hoc positions, what counts to me is what the guy did rather than the wouldda shouldda's that he dines what lavishly on.

    Hope this isn't a drift or phish for gotcha's, but does anyone know what solid, recorded actions show Obama will liberalize the courts?

    Did he do so in state politics?

    (Also, what was Anti-War Obama doing in political office or in his personal life during the crest of the anti-war movement before Iraq? Was he organizing marches, volunteers? Did he go to DC?

    Parent

    Obama and Alito? (none / 0) (#202)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:37:11 PM EST
    The news reports were after Obama.  He was against the filibuster.
    here
    here
    here[But Obama joined some Democrats, including Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Charles Schumer of New York, in expressing his unhappiness with the filibuster bid.

    "There's one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values. And that's to win elections," Obama said.]

    Again, he does things for political expediency not because of any particularly held position or belief.

    Parent

    you sure do assume a great deal! (none / 0) (#85)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:08:23 PM EST
    As a fellow tepid supporter of McCain (none / 0) (#180)
    by RalphB on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:30:55 PM EST
    I heartily agree.  question time will make for great sport.

    Parent
    I watched one of those a couple weeks ago (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by nycstray on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:47:48 PM EST
    it was fun! Can't remember if it was C-Span or PBS though.

    Last night I was watching Kerry render an FDA guy speechless. That was good TV. He kept asking the guy if he had anything to say and then would answer himself with a no. I almost expected him to say 'crickets', lol!~

    Parent

    This would be a nice idea. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:40:37 PM EST
    I do so enjoy watching the British Prime Minister answer questions in the House of Commons.

    Parent
    He also said (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Lahdee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:49:11 PM EST
    he would have weekly press conferences. The thing that stood out for me was his reiteration of his position on signing statements. I won't support it he says yet again. Those wacky judges and those high cost medical plans, they're still on the table though.

    "My friends, The press loves me babies, so you better get in line."

    Parent

    I like the idea... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:45:20 PM EST
    but instead of making a crooked president have a question/answer with a crooked congress, I'd rather the president put aside an hour or two for a townhall type question/answer with american citizens chosen at random.

    Wouldn't that be fun?

    Parent

    He might get my vote on that alone (none / 0) (#52)
    by davnee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:49:32 PM EST
    Question Time would be beyond fabulous.  This is why I like McCain, even though I'm not fan of his policy.  He isn't afraid to put himself on the line.  I know the Maverick meme is puffed up, but there is a root of truth to it.  If the base lets him run to the center, then the Dems better bring their A++ game in the fall.

    Parent
    McCain never gets challenged by his friends in (none / 0) (#91)
    by bridget on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:11:25 PM EST
    the media and congress so his idea of question time would be beyond cute IMHO

    besides he would never subject himself to a process every prime minister goes thru in the brit. parliament. He is simply not up to it and he knows it.

    Parent

    Love that idea (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:51:32 PM EST
    I'm sure, as it is in Britain, the Pres would get some softballs from his supporters in Congress, but I love the idea of leaving the press out of it altogether from time to time.  

    Parent
    This (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:10:13 PM EST
    sounds wonderful to me. Of course, after almost 8 years of Bush, the country is so pathetic that we would like something like this. I think it's a good idea.

    Parent
    The Oregon Polls (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by katiebird on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:35:33 PM EST
    All predate Obama's crushing defeat in West Virginia.  Would that make any difference - maybe in a perception of Hillary's viability - to Oregon voters?

    Not unless she changes (none / 0) (#35)
    by Lahdee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:43:01 PM EST
    this, from the SUSA: "there is movement in Oregon among women. 5 weeks ago, Clinton led by 7 among Oregon women. Today, Obama leads by 7."

    Parent
    I wonder is this will change (none / 0) (#97)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:14:59 PM EST
    By the "sweetie" comment coupled by the Edwards endorsement. I think this may backfire with women. But heck, I have been wrong before.

    Parent
    Why do I keep hearing (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:35:39 PM EST
    that some of the votes have already been counted and that Obama and Clinton are neck-and-neck in OR?

    BTD - you are the expert. What's up with that? Obama's more favorable districts have not yet been counted?

    I think they ask Oregon Voters if they've voted (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by katiebird on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:39:19 PM EST
    So the poll can vote on Have Voted & Expect to Vote.  But I think it still depends on the interview answers -- not Official Tallies.

    Parent
    Madamab (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by caseyOR on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:51:04 PM EST
    No Oregon votes are counted until 8 pm on May 20. Ballots are not even opened early. I don't know where those % come from. Maybe from pollsters calling folks?

    As of May 13, only 22% of all ballots in the state had been returned. Many, many people will decide over the weekend and hand-deliver their ballots to one of the multiple statewide drop-off sites.

    Hillary will appear at a live townhall tomorrow night in Portland. It will be televised at 7 pm(PDT) on Portland's NBC Affiliate, KGW-TV. Only undecided voters in the audience, I've been told.

    This is a great time to call and campaign for Hill.

    Parent

    Thanks - and thanks everyone (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:54:57 PM EST
    for all the responses!

    The 40% figure above my comment is what I've seen but I can't seem to use teh Google correctly to find it.

    I am kind of shy about phone banking but I am definitely considering it. :-)

    Parent

    It's fun (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:01:17 PM EST
    Give it a try.  The people I've talked to have been wonderful. I started phone banking several years ago for a local politician and I was nervous, too, but it makes a difference.

    Parent
    You mean they won't even start counting (none / 0) (#57)
    by Teresa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:54:02 PM EST
    until 11:00 Eastern? What time is he accepting the nomination? That would be funny if he did it and then the race is too close to call until late into the night.

    Parent
    Thank goodness I have an end of (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by nycstray on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:57:03 PM EST
    week deadline next week. Looks like I'll be up late 'occupying myself' waiting on Or. finals (hopefully!). {pencils in long work day}

    Parent
    I think I'm taking off Wed. or at least going in (none / 0) (#67)
    by Teresa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:00:02 PM EST
    late. I'll never be able to sleep if I don't know the result.

    Parent
    Thankfully, I work for myself (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by nycstray on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:21:29 PM EST
    so I just need to turn off the phone, lol!~

    Yeah, I know me, no going to bed until results are final. Only way I could is if I did a media black out. Once I start paying attention, it's over :)

    Parent

    This is good news (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:01:52 PM EST
    Kentucky will be called well before that, and Hillary will be able to give a victory speech.

    Parent
    If Obama follows through (none / 0) (#88)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:09:34 PM EST
    with his self-anointment plan, he will do so right after her KY victory speech. Let her have her moment, then he will make sure he has the last word.

    I am hoping he is looking at these polls and thinking, "Hmmmm....maybe I should wait till May 31st."

    Parent

    Nah, he'll pre-empt her. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by nycstray on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:22:21 PM EST
    If he did that...she could make him pay... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by cosbo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:39:20 PM EST
    by saying....

    "well, you know, President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" before the war is over..."

    Parent

    Please, (none / 0) (#143)
    by NWHiker on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:58:19 PM EST
    Someone MUST contact the Clinton campaign with that line!

    Parent
    Just emailed (none / 0) (#155)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:05:45 PM EST
    someone I know who works for the campaign.

    Parent
    When will the counting be finished? (none / 0) (#82)
    by honora on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:07:34 PM EST
    Early voting (none / 0) (#17)
    by Regency on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:37:17 PM EST
    Remember OR votes by mail-in. I've heard (no link, sorry) that's he's 1% ahead in those who have already voted.

    Parent
    I'm going to go use teh Google (none / 0) (#20)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:38:19 PM EST
    and see if I can find a link.

    Parent
    Look at SUSA (none / 0) (#98)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:15:43 PM EST
    It's from their last poll.  Link

    column headings: gender/age/age/age/race/Already Voted?/Ideology....

    SUSA has 43% already voted, split 49/48
    and 57% likely voters, split 58-38

    I am surprised there is such a large difference, frankly.

    Parent

    Perhaps, when it gets down to it (none / 0) (#111)
    by nycstray on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:24:50 PM EST
    they mark Hillary?

    She usually gets late deciders, right? OR will be interesting, hopefully

    Parent

    I also wonder how they count the votes there. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Teresa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:38:15 PM EST
    Do they count them in advance and then have an announcement? Will we be up all night for the coronation or will they announce early? Anyone from Oregon around?

    Parent
    Last I heard (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by DWCG on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:42:06 PM EST
    I think it was CNN, he was up 1-3 pts per the early ballots.

    Hillary has to just hope the loss, if it is that, whatever the percentage does not net him many votes.

    She needs to be able to argue she's credibly won the popular vote when:

    a) Florida is counted but not Michigan

    and/or

    b) Florida is counted, Michigan is counted while given Obama the benefit of all of the undecideds (which we know he didn't have)

    Parent

    Do you know when they release the final vote? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Teresa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:44:23 PM EST
    I assume they don't wait until the end of the day on May 20 but I wonder how they keep the results from getting out.

    Parent
    Northern CA (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:54:19 PM EST
    here.  No they do not early-count the votes.  The poll asked if voters had voted already.  The small spread is based on a poll, not actual counting.  One of the polling questions was 'have you already voted.' CA does not early count either.

    Parent
    No advance count (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by tree on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:04:00 PM EST
    Starting 7 days out(this past Tuesday) they start verifying signatures on the return envelopes and prepping for the tally but the tally doesn't start until election day.

    All the polls on Oregon  are just polls asking respondents whether they have voted yet or not.

    Parent

    OR has total mail-in (none / 0) (#158)
    by seeker on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:08:41 PM EST
    voting.  Ballots are mailed out about 3 weeks before an election.  They can be returned until 8:00 PM on election day.  No ballot is counted until 8 PM election day.

    The "already voted" numbers you are hearing come from SUSA, and possibly other polls, that presented their polling results to distinguish, among other things, responses from those who said they had voted from those who had not.

    Parent

    Not sure what it means, but (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by nycstray on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:37:12 PM EST
    OR was before WV and wasn't there something out there that said Clinton only trailed by a couple points in ballots cast so far? I'm hoping it's single digit when all is said and done there.

    KY will be interesting to watch now . . .

    holy cow (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    watch this movie.

    painted on walls and photographed frame by frame.

    I hope this person had a grant or something.
    it is about 7 minutes long but you need to see the whole thing.

    Wow is right (none / 0) (#196)
    by MichaelGale on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:55:09 PM EST
    he must have spent alot of time doing it.  

    Thanks

    Parent

    WSG is a horrible BG (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:43:38 PM EST
    Hey, you said it was an open thread. :-) OK, anyone else addicted to WoW?

    I think there are two things to watch for in the upcoming. One is if JE makes a difference for Obama in KY. Of course things could tighten just because of the presumptive nominee issue and people stay home. But there could be a reaction that the race isn't over, like in WV, which would be a major embarrassment to Obama. I don't think Clinton has the finances to really push KY, so who knows. I think KY is a big test though.

    Similarly if OR tightens up that would be telling. If Obama is unifying, you should see his numbers get better. If he's divisive, you won't. If the Obama team disrespects KY like they have WV, then the message of exclusion will continue.

    Wash, Rinse, Repeat (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by thomphool on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:44:13 PM EST
    Because Demographics in KY are slightly more favorable than WV, a 40 point victory won't happen.  People won't notice that the demographics are less favorable to Clinton and interpret it as:

    a) Obama seems to be making inroads among Clinton's base an therefore is going to be able to sure up the white working class in November.

    b) John Edwards led to this and therefore "maybe John Edwards will make a a good VP."

    Democrats continue to bury their heads in the sand about this issue, the narrative continues and the results will be used by Obama partisans to further alienate Cliton voters, and the media continues to misunderstand the nature of the support she drew this primary season...

    I want the margin by x10 (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by davnee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:44:45 PM EST
    KY by 30, OR by -3 or better yet 3.

    Seriously though, I've given up hope that the press will wake up, but I do wonder if she gets the OR margin down to the mid or low single digits if that would have any effect on the coronation.  I still think his self-coronation can only backfire in the court of public opinion.  But that's just me.  We are roughly two weeks away from the finish line and he's going to declare victory on a night where he got pasted in one state (the larger state by the way!)?

    x (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:48:38 PM EST
    Didn't Napolean self-coronate himself?  Whatever happened to him...?  Hmmm......

    Parent
    On May 20, while Obama (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by DWCG on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:54:10 PM EST
    Is claiming the "majority of pledged delegates," she needs to simply claim over and over again, she has won the popular vote and neither of them can be the nominee without the support of the superdelegates.  So will the delegates stand with the person with the most votes, and wins in big states and swing states with all of the momentum or will the stand against that candidate?

    Parent
    They will stand with the money (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:27:35 PM EST
    They will back the person that has the potential of getting them the most money for their re-elections.  Many aren't dependent on just their constituents, they need party money.  The party will back a challenger if the incumbent doesn't do what the people in control want.

    Parent
    encouraged (none / 0) (#157)
    by tedsim on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:08:03 PM EST
    Today is a big day for hillary. jewish vote+hard working americans+catholic vote+womens vote+ popular vote=hillary for president.

    Parent
    Clinton by 25-30 in KY (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:46:47 PM EST
    Obama by 5-15 in Oregon.

    It means Hill should be the nominee, and BO (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:48:53 PM EST
    peaked in WI.  There are far more working class americans than upper income voters.

    Same old, same old (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:58:51 PM EST
    I am of the opinion that there are no more surprises in this race.  Hillary will win big victories in Kentucky and Puerto Rico.  Obama will win a North Carolina-size victory in Oregon.  Montana and South Dakota will be closer, but Obama will get these wins.  Moreover, I can tell you that the press will see no significance in large wins by Hillary but will fawn over Obama's more modest wins in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota as if he has catapulted the stars.

    I think Hill may win Montana. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:01:14 PM EST
    It's a matter fo turnout.  High turnout favors Clinton.  SD will go Obama.  Most Dem's there are students and their professors.  

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#81)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:05:58 PM EST
    School's out.  And, please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't MT and SD tailor-made for Hillary?  I picture the Dems there as being on the more conservative side - closer to WV or KY then a VT?

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:14:55 PM EST
    My in-laws in Montana are Hillary supporters I believe.  There's 3 of them, so that's like half the Democrats in the state.

    Obama has generally done very well in the region, but I'm not sure how much of that is a caucus effect.  There's a lingering animus towards Hillary since she is seen as a big-government type and the western states don't really have a big-government culture.

    Parent

    My hubby and I already voted Hillary in Mt!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by athyrio on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:22:43 PM EST
    so that makes 5 of us so far lol...

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#112)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:25:30 PM EST
    I wonder how they'll view "the most liberal member of the Senate" - Obama (not that I think he's even close to being "liberal")

    Thanks!

    Parent

    I live in Mt and the people here are mostly (none / 0) (#105)
    by athyrio on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:22:01 PM EST
    Republicans and to register to vote, you don't need to declare a party so when you vote they hand you both democratic and republican ballots and you simply choose which one to use, thereby making it extremely easy to screw around with the election if you are a Republican and you want a weaker opponent....That fact in and of itself makes this state more Obama...Sadly speaking...

    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#115)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:28:21 PM EST
    That explains a whole lot.  Thanks!

    Parent
    The Republicans (none / 0) (#117)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:29:21 PM EST
    are willing to have an Obama presidency?  Really?

    Parent
    Cities (none / 0) (#152)
    by thentro on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:05:33 PM EST
    I was just in MT, and in the cities at least using the lawn-sign-poll it was Obama in a landslide. Every other house had one in some parts. It also matches his demographic very well. Destiny as they say...

    Parent
    I agree n/t (none / 0) (#156)
    by stefystef on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:07:32 PM EST
    Off topic but (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:20:02 PM EST
    Aol home page now leading off with McCain discussing his first term as President over a story of Obama apologizing to that reporter for calling her sweetie.

    Check this out . . . (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:00:51 PM EST
    http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/14/according-to-obama-hillary-is-winning/

    If super-D's voted based on how their constitutents votes, it changes a lot.  Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, are you listening?

    On top of that (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:14:48 PM EST
    It's a stupid narrative (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:26:43 PM EST
    If that was supposed to be the case, then just increase the number of pledged delegates by the number of SD's in democratic districts.

    The narrative says that the SD's cannot use their own judgment if they are bound by any rules.

    But, I think Obama dropped it because he would have had to give up too many existing and decline the support of those yet to come if someone were to hold him to it. Remember, all rules in this primary are designed to the favor of Obama.


    Parent

    She also has a healthy lead in counties won n/t (none / 0) (#185)
    by dwmorris on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:40:16 PM EST
    If super-delegates vote based on how their (none / 0) (#171)
    by RickTaylor on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:18:55 PM EST
    constituents vote, Obama wins the nomination. Even according to the numbers you linked to, the advantage Clinton would gain in superdelegates is far too small to offset the advantage Obama has in pledged delegates. That's been the point for a while; in order for Clinton to win, she has to get a large number of super-delegates to support her; she needs plenty of them to vote against the way their constituency and for her. She needs a powerful reason to convince them to do that. That hasn't changed.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:32:59 PM EST
    If SD's (those who are elected) voted based on how their districts went, Hillary wins by a landslide.

    I understand the rules as written - my point was the Obama camp was screaming for a month or so (I'm looking at you Nancy Pelosi) that SD's should vote the way their districts voted (even though that's not in the rules).  They haven't mentioned that theme lately since Obama would lose under those circumstances.

    Parent

    Numbers won't matter (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Fultron on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:32:58 PM EST
    Clinton will win KY by a large margin but not as large as WV. The MSM will assume the demographics are identical and call this an improvement for Obama. They will point to his win by any amount in OR as a breakthrough in the white vote. His electability problem will have magically been solved. Some will credit JRE, others will say it never existed, while the rest of us will cringe and seethe.

    This was over at Riverdaughter this afternoon... (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by sas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:07:30 PM EST
    Please pass this on folks....our future depends on it.  I can't bear the thought of Obama.
    This was sent to Riverdaughter.....keep it going.....

    "This little ditty was sent in by commenter Nana. It looks like the Obamaphiles have pushed the envelope:

    WooHoo...................Wilk talk radio here in Scranton, PA is going wild this afternoon. Host Steve Corbett has had it with being called a racist for supporting Hillary Clinton and has stated he will not vote for Obama. The lines are going crazy with calls from people in NE PA who feel the same way. They will not vote for Obama and will vote for McCain if they have to to stop him. The mementum is starting against the Democratic Party. Keep it going all over the USA"

    Here's a link to the discussion. (5.00 / 0) (#198)
    by AX10 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:53:21 PM EST
    http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/breaking-radio-talk-host-had-it-with-racism-accusation /#comments

    The party establishment better watch it.
    The rank and file Democrats are not going to take this nonsense.

    Parent

    Obama will end this in OR? (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:08:29 PM EST
    I worry Obama is going to end this in OR.  I saw this post over on noquarter....
    -----------------------------
    [I heard Paul Begala on the radio with Ed Schultz and Schultz felt that Obama was going to have
    2025 by May 20. He just got 9 delegates today from
    Edwards...... Schultz asked Begala if this happens then the DNC can't change the number needed and it would be unnecessary for them to meet on Florida and Michigan. Begala said that is right. I think that Obama is trying to get this done before the DNC meets.]-----------------------

    If Obama gets his delegates to come out, Begala agrees what? FL and MI are irrelevant?

    Please tell me Obama is not going to do this.  People need to be able to vote.  I understand he looks bad if people don't consolidate behind him, but don't any Dems want to at least pretend to care about voters.

    There Still Has To Be A Vote.... (none / 0) (#204)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:29:30 PM EST
    We won't vote for Obama (1.00 / 1) (#191)
    by chopper on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:56:51 PM EST
    Hillary is ahead in the popular vote.

    Hillary is ahead in the electoral votes.

    Hillary won the big states.

    Hillary is experienced and has a record of accomplishments. BO has neither.

    Hillary's close friends don't include an anti-American terrorist bomber, crooked Iraqis, Chicago crooks, Farrakhan, and the Black Panthers. And, she didn't sit in front of an anti-American racist preacher for 20 years, who Oprah has sense enough to leave, but Obama is a bit slow.

    Obama is a loser. If you can't see it now, you will when you congratulate McCain.

    If we have to wait 4 years for a great president like Clinton, we will. We will not vote for a corrupt, lying, charlatan.

    If you want to see more reasons why we won't vote for BO go to:

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/pledge-to-vote-against-obama-in-the-general-election

    I would say... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Regency on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:33:12 PM EST
    "closing the gap," but the phrase has definitely lost its humor for me.  I'm surprised she's doing that well in OR. And, I guess JE's endorsement meant less than anyone thought.

    All Polls Were Taken Before JE's Endorsement n/t (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:36:11 PM EST
    JE's endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:42:31 PM EST
    won't mean a thing in the PNW.

    Parent
    Oregon (none / 0) (#9)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:35:27 PM EST
    is much closer than people think and the anger at Obama there is all too real.

    Anger? At What? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by katiebird on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:37:15 PM EST
    And the difference looks huge to me in all the polls?  (of course they were all before his defeat in WV)

    Parent
    From what I am hearing on the ground (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:41:21 PM EST
    in Oregon people are really angry at the Edwards endorsement coming when it did. they are angry at the way they are trying to push Clinton out of the race with only a few weeks to go. they feel like their votes are being taken for granted and some plan to make a statement.

    Parent
    I hope this is true (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by chancellor on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:18:09 PM EST
    It's certainly what I see. Hillary is absolutely correct to say that letting the process play out until the end has increased voter participation and enthusiasm. The move by Edwards, and some of today's SD endorsements just make it look even more like the fix is in and that our votes don't count.

    Parent
    Witrh a double whammy (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:57:06 PM EST
    email campaign for donations to his NC college fund to help less than 200 students in a small area of NC.

    When the real motives are exposed, the endorsement becomes an insult to the intelligence of the people.

    I'm betting we won't see much of Edwards again for awhile. At least not if he's reading his emails. He really let the country down with his self-serving 180 degree turn.

    They are birds of a feather: Obama: I will not run in 2008, and Edwards: I will not endorse.


    Parent

    Yeah, that Edwards endorsement will (none / 0) (#178)
    by Melchizedek on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:27:45 PM EST
    cause a real backlash. I mean, can you believe the gall of exploiting an Edwards endorsement? If Edwards had endorsed Hillary when she was ahead in delegates and popular vote, she would obviously have waited until all the primaries were over before announcing it. She would NEVER have tried to use it to her political advantage.

    I bet she wins Oregon (and maybe the nomination) over this.

    Parent

    I sent Edwards (none / 0) (#184)
    by smott on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:38:19 PM EST
    ...a scathing email last night...and got back an "Out of Office" reply...

    Can't make this stuff up....

    Parent

    But are those people (none / 0) (#80)
    by shoephone on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:04:22 PM EST
    undecided voters or Hillary voters?

    Parent
    Or already -voted voters? (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:10:19 PM EST
    Eh (none / 0) (#45)
    by nell on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:46:46 PM EST
    I don't know what to think..

    I am surprised that Obama is doing as well as he is among women in Oregon, to be frank. It is possible that among those who have not voted, women will rally to Hillary due to the NARAL and Edwards double teaming after her big win. What is interesting is that we won't have Oregon exit polls since it is all vote by mail, right? I expect him to win there by 8-10, though I sincerely hope the polling showing them neck and neck among turned in ballots is correct and that she can pull it much closer.

    Kentucky I think will come down to turnout. If he is able to drive the turnout of African Americans WAY up, as he did in Indiana (though AAs are about 9 percent of the population in Indiana, AAs accounted for 15-17 percent of Dem primary voters), it will be closer than people think.

    Oregon women seem like Vermont women, (none / 0) (#53)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:49:57 PM EST
    at least according to polling.

    Parent
    Say what? (none / 0) (#134)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:51:45 PM EST
    Could you explain what you mean, please? (Speaking as a Vermont woman here...)


    Parent
    They voted Obama over Hill too. (none / 0) (#144)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:58:27 PM EST
    The rare case since February where white women choose Obama over Hill.  

    Parent
    Oh, gotcha. (none / 0) (#162)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:10:57 PM EST
    Sounds like you've seen some sort of breakdown of the VT primary vote somewhere?  I didn't know anybody had bothered exit-polling Vermont, and I'd love to look at the data if you have a reference.

    Worth noting that there are two Vermonts, really, old and "new."  We have quite a flood of ex-pats from NYC and Boston, etc., (of which I am one, sad to say), mostly that "creative class" type, and then there are the folks whose families have been here forever, mostly farmers.

    Almost every town in the state went for Obama in the primary, but by varying margins, higher in the "cities" and lower in the farm towns like mine.  I suspect, but I don't know, that the farm women here-- farm women being about the most practical people on the planet-- mostly voted for Hillary and the men for Obama.

    Virtually all old and new Vermonters are open-minded and idealistic, and many of the farm folk in my town were just captivated by the idea of an African-American president and voted for him mostly because of that, bless their hearts.

    Parent

    It's a guess givan he won by 60-40. (none / 0) (#170)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:15:47 PM EST
    I strogly object to that "creative class"  nonsense.

    Parent
    I do, too (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:52:31 PM EST
    That's why I keep using it and will keep using it with massive sarcasm.  It's their name for themselves.  Let's bust it with overuse and scorn.


    Parent
    Kentucky (none / 0) (#72)
    by BGP on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    doesn't have a very large African-American population, although it has six times as many as WVa

    Still, it's like less than 10% of total.

    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#176)
    by nell on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:26:12 PM EST
    this was the same situation in Indiana - the African American population in IN is about 8 or 9 percent, but accounted for 15-17 percent in the primary. That is how he closed the gap. She took white voters about 60-40, but he gained a huge advantage from 15-17 percent African American turnout because for every point increase in African American turnout he basically gains a point overall. So that is how the gap was closed. If Kentucky were to be a repeat of Indiana, the margin would be much more narrow than it looks now.

    Parent
    Heh: no OR exits (none / 0) (#163)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:12:10 PM EST
    If there are no exit polls for OR because of the mail-in voting, it's going to be a riot watching the cable news stations trying to ignore the KY results while waiting for the official OR results, which won't show up till much, much later in the evening.

    Parent
    I'm guessing there will be (none / 0) (#187)
    by tree on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:50:39 PM EST
    exit polling of some sort, but not sure how reliable it will be. A lot of people like to wait to the last minute and return the ballots in person on election day. Again, its got to be tough to figure out if the late voters are going to be representative of all the mail-in voters as well.

    Parent
    OR vs KY (none / 0) (#54)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:50:59 PM EST
    It tells me that Oregon Democratic voters are not as bright as KY voters.  It constantly amazes me that the Clinton voters are referred to as a group lacking in intelligence.

    Not fair to label "not as bright" (none / 0) (#108)
    by shoephone on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:23:44 PM EST
    You have to understand, the Pacific NW has a long-standing reputation of independence. We don't like to follow the crowd. Frontier mentality. And yes, sometimes that means doing things that are counterproductive and even dumb for us -- like how Oregon only allows for gas to be bought at full-serve ($$$) gas stations, meaning more revenue for a state without a sales tax. Maybe smarter to just have sales tax.

    A lot of Washington's electoral problems can be connected to the aggressive insistence of its citizens refusing to register by party -- hence, the Dem party's rule that all delegates will be apportioned by caucus, not primary. And we have continually rejected a state income tax, which would actually solve a lot of problems with tax inequity and our vulnerable bi-annual budgets.

    It's just part of the blazing-the-trail mindset from the 19th century. It takes many different forms here. Some positive, some not. We are leaders in recycling and green energy programs. We are leaders in technology and medicine. And... we have A LOT of voters who consider themselves political independents. West of the Cascades is very different from East of the Cascades, in both states. The divides between the mountains are  like two different countries.

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    then how about not as engaged?  How can it be, that someone as grossly out of his league like Barack Obama compared to Hillary Clinton, can get Oregonians, who are perceived as being "more enlightened" than those in Appalachia, considering their proximity to California and Washington state, to vote for him?  I give them far too much credit.

    Luckily NARAL in OR can see through Obama.


    Parent

    I think SUSA (none / 0) (#65)
    by Makarov on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:58:44 PM EST
    will prove to be more accurate in OR.  Interesting difference between SUSA's 5/11 and 4/30 crosstabs is Women/Men.  5/11 has them 50/50, which would be about the first such election this year (women normally vote in higher numbers).  4/30 had 55 women to 45 men.  The polls also show Clinton winning women narrowly by 4% on 4/30, and losing them by 7% on 5/11.  PPP has Clinton losing women by 3%, and men by 29% (much more than the SUSA polls).  The SUSA and PPP polls show differing "most important" issues, Economy and Iraq War swapping the #1/#2 spots.  Overall, Obama appears to be set up to win this one pretty easily, in double digits.

    The biggest question for me is the accuracy of the already voted number reported by SUSA, which show the candidates in a statistical dead heat.  For those who hadn't voted, Obama was winning by 20%.  This would tend to make me think Clinton's supporters were more motivated than Obama's.  I can't think of an explanation why those who haven't voted tilt so heavily in favor of Obama.

    KY looks like a blowout, probably around 30% in favor of Clinton.

    BTD said a while back in another thread (none / 0) (#77)
    by athyrio on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:02:24 PM EST
    that if Clinton won big in WV and KY and PR and kept it close in Oregon, that changes things...Do you still think that BTD??

    I think margins are the key. (none / 0) (#205)
    by adcatlett on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:36:11 PM EST
    We already know WV margin.  I think SD and Montana will have a play as well.  How close will the margins be with OR, SD, and Montana.  They have to be close.  I'd looked at the super delegates and had seen which ones were committed (verbally).  It seems as if in PR that Hillary has more supers on her side than Obama.  Obama has the indicted governor and the mom (arroyo) on his side.  How would that play out?  The governor indicted and he promised Obama?  Is that when they do an add-on when the governor can't actually make the vote?  Also, If you had FL and MI, Hillary has more supers than Obama.  They pledged for her already but they aren't counting it.  I think the DNC is waiting on May 20th.  If there is a huge win in OR, then they will not seat MI and FL.  Just my opinion!  That will bring it closer and I believe to pease the voters from other states, they need a big difference and not just in delegates but popular vote as well, to win their argument.

    http://www.politico.com/superdelegates/

    Parent

    Cyber bully woman indicted (none / 0) (#83)
    by Makarov on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:07:36 PM EST
    by a federal grand jury.  This is the Missouri case of a mother getting revenge for her daughter by pretending to be a young male courting another Missouri teen girl.  The girl committed suicide after being dumped by her online boyfriend.  The federal charges from AP:

    Lori Drew of suburban St. Louis was charged with one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress on the girl.

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gg5xCtQtLBF6vJqWXStItGEOsJfwD90M8KA00

    In other legal news, the California Supreme Court has overturned the law banning same sex marriage in the state.

    Cyber bully woman indicted (none / 0) (#130)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:47:49 PM EST
    Good!  If life were fair, she'd be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.  (Sometimes the old ways were better...)

    Parent
    Great news ! (none / 0) (#159)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:09:53 PM EST
    I was so glad to hear that breaking news story.

    The number of agencies this went through before it finally found a voice in the legal system is really sad.

    Parent

    I doubt (none / 0) (#110)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:24:00 PM EST
    she'll have the money to match Obama's GOTV even if the support was there.

    What does it mean? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:32:21 PM EST
    The Oregon working class are Republican.  Oregon has many expat Californians and east coasters  from the creative class.  The new version of white flight.  Sorry, I know it does not apply to everyone but, ask the majority and they left the big cities because of the schools, crime etc.  Those are code words.  

    Stellaaa's take largely jibes with my (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by brodie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:47:00 PM EST
    non-expert outlook on OR.  It's basically not much different from 40 yrs ago when the state favored "creative-class" McCarthy over RFK.

    In the years since, OR has added more suburbanites from SoCal as well as your liberal organic farmily fammers, environmentalists and artisan types.  Far fewer working class whites and the vast majority of them are your basic Goopers.

    Yes, there may have been some anti-inner city white flight, but that's a non-issue since Obama would be considered a "safe" unthreatening, even ideal, black guy, someone who looks well "assimilated" in the dominant establishement white culture.

    Parent

    That is why I can't figure out how Obama (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:38:43 PM EST
    takes OR primary by a wide margin.  

    Did you see Berman's reasons for endorsing Obama today [rather Edwardian, IMO]:

    -

    Representative Howard Berman of California: The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Berman's endorsement seems well timed given the furor over President Bush's comments in Israel today:
    Barack Obama has laid out a foreign policy vision driven by principle and conviction, and he understands that our moral authority and our safety as a nation go hand in hand. I spoke with him about a number of foreign policy issues that most concern me. He assured me that he shares my views. The moment President Obama takes office, we'll send a powerful message to the world that America is back and ready to lead again--that we haven't abandoned the values that made us the light of the world, and neither should anyone else.

    I wish Berman would share the content of his conversation with Obama about "a number of foreign policy issues that most concern me."

    Parent

    Well...the white flight liberal (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:41:22 PM EST
    You see it makes complete sense.  They can be liberals and condemn others--but they don't have to ever test their values.  

    Parent
    Ah. It all becomes clear. (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:43:26 PM EST
    Here's an LA Times link for (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:50:59 PM EST
    which CA House of Representatives members have endorsed each candidate, or not yet endorsed either:

    LATIMES

    Parent

    "He assured me that he shares my views." (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:14:39 PM EST
    LOL - You and everyone else who asks him.

    Parent
    It means (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:41:40 PM EST
    that Oregon is going blue in the GE and Obama sans Hillary is definitely red for KY in November. Despite the jobs policy which bodes far better for KY under Obama, they love Hillary. It says, pick Hillary Obama.

    Obama avec Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by brodie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:52:38 PM EST
    is going red in Nov.  Ditto for Hillary-Obama.

    She could only hope to make things interesting enough to force the Rs to spend some money/time there if she were the nominee.  Her being VP would be almost meaningless.

    OR is definitely blue and regardless of who BHO puts on the ticket.

    Of course, there's always troublemaker Ralf Nadir to have to worry about when it comes to calculating OR.  

    Parent

    really? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:54:46 PM EST
    Bill won it twice, I would think Hillary could pull that off as well. I think BHO/HRC could pull it as well. Oregon is not going red under any condition, i think we agree there...

    Parent
    Re KY, Bill was a fellow Southerner (none / 0) (#145)
    by brodie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:58:39 PM EST
    as was his VP, and secondly had the benefit of Rauss Péreau who helped keep the Repub numbers down.

    I'd like to think HRC at the top of the ticket could work, at least in this very anti-Repub year -- it's certainly not impossible, but I suspect KY would fairly comfortably remain red in Nov in that scenario.  She definitely, as I say, would have a greater chance to force the Repubs to spend money there to ensure a win.  

    Parent

    McCain is running 12 pts (none / 0) (#153)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:05:37 PM EST
    ahead of Hillary and 20 ahead of Obama. I think with the economic issues not improving, it may very well swing 15 points. You are probably right, but I think it is a state that has potential to swing despite the long odds.

    Parent
    My sense (none / 0) (#207)
    by DeanOR on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:18:39 AM EST
    is that Nader is very relegated to the past here now and not a factor.

    Parent
    What on earth? (none / 0) (#131)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:47:52 PM EST
    "Despite the jobs policy which bodes far better for KY under Obama, they love Hillary."

    Parent
    do you know their jobs policy (2.00 / 0) (#137)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:53:15 PM EST
    if you do, please explain your what on earth comment. Or are you one of those "informed" posters who is not all that informed?

    Parent
    Yes, I know their jobs policies, and I fail to see (none / 0) (#146)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:59:45 PM EST
    how Obama's would be better, much less "by far" for the people of Kentucky than Hillary's.

    Parent
    really (none / 0) (#148)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:02:36 PM EST
    please explain why. Please explain to me how HRC's 3 million jobs contingent upon bond sales, stacks up to 5 million jobs based on higher taxes and decrease in Iraq spending. Explain to me how that is going to work for every hard working american. One is contingent upon the sale bonds the other on a higher tax. I would love to see some analysis as opposed to exclamation points and statement of grandeur.

    Parent
    Can you explain how Obama knows policy? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Davidson on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:12:51 PM EST
    Let's say you're absolutely right, for the sake of argument: What about Obama shows you he knows what he's talking about and what experience does he have that he can deliver the results?  Clinton knows policy and can actually pass through legislation; at least, she fights for it.  What has Obama ever fought for?

    Parent
    Hillary and Obama have the same plan for higher (none / 0) (#175)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:23:47 PM EST
    taxes unless you are talking about BO's terrible idea of treating capital gains as regular income, which is a non-starter.  Further, Hillary and Obama have the same plan for decreased spending in Iraq, which really isn't reliable.

    Parent
    Irreducibility (none / 0) (#188)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:53:39 PM EST
    is your argument then, not the feasibility of a bond program and 5 million vs 3 million contingent upon said sales.

    Parent
    Lots of independents and (none / 0) (#173)
    by seeker on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:20:45 PM EST
    Republicans outside a few cities in OR.  I would not count on a GOP loss with McCain.

    Parent
    Bush should fire Robert Gates (none / 0) (#138)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:53:17 PM EST
    for being an appeaser.

    OR has a tradition of independent libertarian (none / 0) (#167)
    by wurman on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:13:11 PM EST
    Wayne F. B. Morse, Senator
    Tom McCall, Governor
    Mark Hatfield, Senator

    Many very conservative OR voters refer to their various GOoPer elected officials as "RINOs."

    There's a form of independent party switching just to indicate some folks' sense of "independence."

    The Clinton name is a negative.  To some extent, the logging industry was gutted by decisions made when the Big Dog was president.  Logging was not just an economic/financial entity; it was a way of life & it has been eliminated.  The industry dropped from about 6.1 billion board feet in 1991 to about 3.8 bbf in 2000.

    OR has a "great divide" between blue collar & pink or white collar.  Most of the blue collars register GOoPer.  The so-called "Cascade Divide" isn't quite accurate since the logging & fishing businesses tend to be on the Pacific Coast & the agriculture in the East-side drylands.

    There is a North-South tunnel, the I-5 Corridor, that concentrates the more up-scale voters in Portland, Corvallis, Salem (capital), Eugene & (to a minor extent) Grants Pass / Medford.

    It is not Clinton country on income, job type, or political allegiance.

    Currently Ron Wyden (D) is a somewhat liberal US Senator; Gordon Smith (R) is wingnut trying to move toward the middle for this election.

    This is why I think McCain (none / 0) (#189)
    by tree on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:00:27 PM EST
    has a shot at Oregon no matter who the D nominee is, and Obama's path to victory is the one that depends on it.

    Parent
    KY Resident (none / 0) (#199)
    by adcatlett on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:03:46 PM EST
    I participate in Hillary's campaign in Lexington.  I've done some phone banking and visibilities.  Polls to me have varied rom state to state.  I remember reading a thread and post from an Oregonian on this site maybe a month or so ago.  I felt his explanation was interesting.  If I can remember correctly the polls are generated from Portland which of course has some diversity, such as black voters.  The rest of the state doesn't represent Portland and the polls may be wrong with giving Obama more of a lead. I don't know how it will be in Oregon because I'm not a resident of the state.  However, I don't believe Hillary will have a huge lead here in KY like she did in WV.  Here is why.  She definitely will take the southern part of the state's  (below Lexington)districts as well as the mountains.  We have 3 big areas here in this state: Lexington, Louisville and NKY.  NKY is like a huge suburb of Cincinnati.  As a matter of fact the Cincinnati Airport is in KY not Cincinnati.  I see a lot of Obama ppl here but I do see the Hillary supporters.  We are more closet supporters because for some reason the rock star image shadows logic and reason here.  We've had are yard signs stollen and so were the McCain signs. Without a doubt it's split in Louisville.  I believe he will take Louisville / Jefferson Cty district.  I could be wrong but 40% of the population there are black and I don't see her taking that.  I think Obama may take Lexington/Fayette County and may take the 3 main counties in NKY (my home town).  We really have a lot of Reagan Democrats here but there are a lot of college kids and residents are still involved in our college sports.  Mind you, the KY Wildcats are in Lexington.  I think she'll have a 20pt lead.  He is attempting to shrink that and hope he doesn't.  He apparently was here today , in Lexington and the signs are showing up fast around the town.  I don't think Oregon will be a huge slide for Obama based off of that comment on this site a month ago.  I know she will take PR.  Hell , they gave Chelsea a damn parade.  LOL  PR usually tend to vote for the Clintons.  They loved Bill!  PR governor endorsed Obama and guess what they can't stand their governor.  

    I dont dare to hope Clinton will do well in Or. (none / 0) (#201)
    by alright on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:09:34 PM EST
    I have had my hopes high before in N.C and Indiana.

    i think it means (none / 0) (#203)
    by cpinva on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:51:43 PM EST
    that the people in oregon are rather easily swayed by nifty sounding, but ultimately empty rhetoric.

    but hey, that's just me.

    Oregon (none / 0) (#206)
    by DeanOR on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:03:17 AM EST
    It's really hard to evaluate where Oregon is going now because a lot of us have already voted. I turned in my ballot yesterday. Many people will be mailing their ballots at the last minute, which is probably Saturday at the latest, or dropping them off after that. I don't know what % are already in. Obama has polled ahead here consistently, but who knows what the trend is? I'm noticing a surprising lack of presidential campaign signs in my usually politically active Portland neighborhood. Sorry, I don't know what that means either. :) Repubs are scared, and some of us Dems are becoming more motivated to unseat Repub Senator Gordon Smith than anything else.

    I do think the campaigns (none / 0) (#208)
    by DeanOR on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:33:03 AM EST
    missed the boat by not campaigning here in Oregon earlier. If they were thinking of this as an election that takes place on May 20, they were not doing their homework.