home

State Of The Race: OR And KY

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:27:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

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 >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    State Of The Race: OR And KY | 206 comments (206 topical)
    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


    [ Parent ]
    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


    [ Parent ]
    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


    [ Parent ]
    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 ]

    What he said and why he said it are two different (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Just another person on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:06:57 PM EST
    things - but that has always been Obama's tactic.

    From Washington Post

    It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

    And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.

    I don't fault Obama for not wanting ideology to interfere with the appointment of an otherwise brilliant legal mind. But in the end he said no to  Justice Roberts purely for political expediency.

    [ 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 ]
    The only reason he didn't vote for Roberts (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Just another person on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:09:48 PM EST
    was because it would interfere with a possible future presidential run

    And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.

    From here.

    His not having voted for Roberts provides little comfort in light of its reason.


    [ 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


    [ Parent ]
    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


    [ Parent ]
    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


    [ Parent ]
    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 . . .

    Oregon (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by sgdavis73 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:38:54 PM EST
    The one stat that jumps out at me re: Oregon is that more than 40% of the expected ballots have already been submitted (by the time of the poll) and Obama and Hillary are predicted to have evenly split those votes. That's somewhat encouraging. Do we know what level of GOTV operations she has in Oregon compared to Obama?

    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.

    [ Parent ]
    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 (