home

More On Why Obama Needs To Fight To Seat Florida

Courtesy of the Q Poll.

FLORIDA

Obama 41
McCain 45

Clinton 48
McCain 41

By Big Tent Democrat

< Once Upon A Time . . . | Clinton Conference Call On FL/MI >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    He. Won't. Do. It. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:09:04 AM EST
    What could he possibly do now that would persuade Floridians to come out for him the way they would for Clinton?  I'm serious, because no one seems to be able to answer this question.  How will he reach out to the seniors and the working class?  Send John Edwards into the Everglades?

    There is not enough time in the campaign to heal the damage he has done.  Obama has spent a lifetime burning bridges, and this is one that he cannot go back and rebuild.  You can fool some of the people some of the time...

    He can fight to seat the delegates (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:14:30 AM EST
    I am amazed that some fo you think that would not have a positive effect on how Floridians perceive him.

    Would YOU not feel better about him?

    Parent

    It's moot. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:19:03 AM EST
    He won't do it.

    If he were the type of person to do it, he would have done it by now.

    IMHO of course. ;-)

    Parent

    And Now The Jewish Community of FLA (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:24:13 AM EST
    is expressing their doubts about obama, per Jodi Kantor in today's NYT.  This will not help!

    Parent
    I live in Florida and I am seething mad at Obama (none / 0) (#124)
    by Mark Woods on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    I would still vote for him if Hillary were 1/2, any half of the ticket, but only then.

    Otherwise, I will vote for Democrats and either write in Hillary's name in protest or vote for McCain out of burning rage against Obama and the DNC.

    My neighbors are all Jewish, gay or Latino and none of us wants Obama -- we have all called Dan Gelber our State Senate president and local District 35 Senator to tell him that his support of Obama goes against his constituency here in Miami Beach.

    Will he listen? I doubt it.

    Parent

    I don't think it will change minds (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:24:32 AM EST
    Because people are not stupid.  They know that Obama will only accept FL being seated if he is certain he has won the nomination.  He is blocking it now because he knows that, should Clinton get the popular vote and close the delegate gap, he could lose.  This is political maneuvering, plain and simple.  Which is fine, because it's working for him right now, but people will not forget that Obama was willing to ignore their votes because it did not suit his narrative.  

    I say this with the utmost respect:  I don't know why you think that Obama has this magical power to just "heal" folks and bring the party back together.  You say that he needs to start appealing to Clinton's base, but I don't see how he can do this, nor do I see Obama making any effort to do so.  There has been nothing in his past that indicates he has the power to unite.  He talks a good game, but he cannot deliver the goods.  

    I also think folks are so entrenched right now that there is no going back.  Speaking for myself, the man could not pass wind without me thinking he'd done it incorrectly.


    Parent

    People actually are (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:28:43 AM EST
    very stupid.

    Parent
    You're such an elitist!! (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:30:30 AM EST
    No wonder you support Obama.. heh

    Parent
    even a dog remembers who beat 'em. (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:37 AM EST
    People don't vote purely on logic.  If they did, Gore would have won.  They vote with their hearts and their instincts.  They don't trust Obama.  They know he's trying to block their votes.

    But, again, what is Obama's grand plan for healing these wounds?  Making a new speech?  Sending John Edwards to rope them back in?  What is he doing right now to heal these rifts?

    Parent

    Lets see (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:41:10 AM EST
    the people he would start to appeal to are the people he was vehemently running to diminish.  He was sure that he could jump over these people, the Democratic base, they would obediently or through "subservience" come back for the GE, and he would then spend his jolly good time wooing the Indies and Republicans.  Well, he now has to spend all that free time he thought he had convincing a bunch to come back home.  I must say a bunch that does not believe anything he says because his brand is exposed.  

    Parent
    Dogs are smarter than voters apparently (none / 0) (#81)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:08:17 AM EST
    George W Bush pretty much started talking nice nice moderation in June of his 2004 campaign...essentially saying that his policies would be the reverse of what they actually had been up to that time.

    It worked like a charm.

    Armando is right, Obama should fight for Florida.

    Parent

    that was four years (none / 0) (#119)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:44:56 PM EST
    an attack on American soil killing thousands, and two wars declared later.

    And Kerry gave him a big assist by being almost as weak as Obama is now.

    Parent

    That's why I say (none / 0) (#120)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    dogs are  smarter

    Parent
    stupid, maybe (none / 0) (#83)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:09:19 AM EST
    Too busy with their lives to pay much attention until the election gets closer...definitely

    Parent
    That is how we are treated.. (none / 0) (#111)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:56:20 AM EST
    like cattle..prod 'em in, prod 'em out. Do as we tell you..Not this girl..when you're a chief, you're feather sticks out..Hillary is a chief, Obama's feather seems to be tucked somewhere.

    Parent
    That is how we are treated.. (none / 0) (#112)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:57:53 AM EST
    like cattle..prod 'em in, prod 'em out. Do as we tell you..Not this girl..when you're a chief, your feather sticks out..Hillary is a chief, Obama's feather seems to be tucked somewhere.

    Parent
    One thing it would do (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:43:21 AM EST
     is show that he can be gallant and big in the name of Democracy--but he boxed himself in with the rules are rules gibberish.  

    Parent
    Post-Partisan Politics Perhaps (none / 0) (#121)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    If Obama were to get behind seating FL & Mich delegations, he could have at least a colorable claim to believe his "post-partisan politics" mantra.

    Parent
    He's not going to do it. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:01 AM EST


    He has started his vp search (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:11 AM EST


    Any Republicans on that list? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:55 AM EST
    That's the way I predict he's going.

    Parent
    Hagel (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:15:21 AM EST
    Chuck Hagel is on his list.  Vocal war opposer, but with no votes behind his words.

    Parent
    Birds of a feather (n/t) (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:37:28 AM EST
    nothing yet (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:16:22 AM EST
    but I don't like him floating that out with FL and MI unresolved. Finding a VP is more important than counting votes. Come on Obama, step up and show some leadership...

    Parent
    I don't believe obama would know leadership (3.00 / 2) (#100)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:33:41 AM EST
    if it came and bit him on the butt.  This VP is part of the perception scenario that he is the nominee already.  

    Parent
    Yes. Because coming this far in the (1.00 / 0) (#108)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:47:44 AM EST
    primary against Clinton requires nothing but a pretty face.

    (you may assume this is snark)

    Parent

    I am an obama supporter (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:44:41 PM EST
    and am highly disappointed in the lack of dialogue coming from him on this matter. At this point, the SD's are deciding the candidate and Clinton with all her political capital cannot move them in her favor? What does that say about her capital as potential president? He is not showing leadership and she is losing the SD battle. Both are failing in my opinion.

    Parent
    Not sure it is a valid argument since it is plain (none / 0) (#125)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:59:41 PM EST
    as the nose on your face that Hillary has had no help to speak of from the DNC.  Clearly, they are in the tank for obama.  So I would say this is a bit of a lopsided argument.

    Parent
    Here are his considerations. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:44:46 AM EST
    I am shocked that so many are Obama loyalist, clearly has to be Hillary person.  

    "Obama's campaign refused to talk about who was being considered, but possible options are Clinton; governors such as Arizona's Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Tim Kaine of Virginia; foreign policy experts like former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd or Delaware Sen. Joe Biden; or other senators such as Missouri's Claire McCaskill and Virginia's Jim Webb.

    He could look outside the party to people such as war critic and Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel or independent New York mayor Mike Bloomberg. Or he could look to one of his early prominent supporters such as former Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota or try to bring on a Clinton supporter like Indiana's Evan Bayh."

    So many of these are just terrible choices.  Not sure how they made the list.  

    Parent

    Hagel, I have heard n/t (none / 0) (#13)
    by Coral on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:14:11 AM EST
    Should he win the nomination, (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:17:43 AM EST
    I bet you all that he will go with a Republican.

    Worst, most tone-deaf thing ever. But that's what John Kerry almost did.

    Parent

    Hegel is pro-life (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by ajain on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:19:41 AM EST
    I think that will just compound problems with women voters.

    Parent
    Hegel is also a philosopher (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:21:44 AM EST
    Sorry, I couldn't resist !  :-)

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#34)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:24:02 AM EST
    Hagel is a terrible guy. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:23:47 AM EST
    He stole his own election from a very popular Democrat. He has no principles whatsoever AND is socially extremely conservative.

    Meanwhile, the country is sick to death of Republicans.

    A Hagel pick will garner the lurv of the Broders of the world, but I don't think the voters will be too thrilled.

    Parent

    But he owns a (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:26:45 AM EST
    voting machine company.  Can be an important asset at election time.  :-)

    Parent
    I doubt it. (none / 0) (#29)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:21:04 AM EST
    A republican or two in cabinet positions,  but not on the ticket.

    Webb or McCaskill would be my bets for VP.  The polling of VP matchups released a few days ago was interesting as it showed Obama was strongest when matched up with Edwards in the VP slot.

    Parent

    These two are never going to happen: (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:24:45 AM EST
    "Webb or McCaskill would be my bets for VP."

    I like Webb but he's a bit of a loose cannon.  Won't happen.  McCaskill would be a disaster of gigantic proportions.  

    Parent

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    I doubt Webb would go over very well with female voters - some controversial history there. But I guess it would shore up other things.

    As for McCaskill, she just seems kind of lightweight to me.

    Parent

    what if Obama picks Hagel (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:33:36 AM EST
    and McCain picks Hillary?
    that would make for an interesting election, no?


    Parent
    Hahahaha... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:44:22 AM EST
    never, ever happen.

    Parent
    But I wouldn't be surprised (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:06:34 AM EST
    if the McCain camp floats the idea to appeal to disillusioned dems and indies, along with a bunch of moderate reps (especially women) who hate Bush.

    Parent
    Works for me! (none / 0) (#70)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:46:17 AM EST
    The problem, tho, Cap'n, would be getting the conventions to confirm those nominations!

    Let's all remember the nominees get to recommend a running mate to the conventioneers...recommend is not the same as 'pick' or 'choose.'

    No Democratic convention is going to OK an R on the ticket...not even with magical O.

    And no Republican convention is going to allow a Clinton anywhere near their nominee!  A Clinton?  Puhleeze!  McCain would need a foodtaster after the election because I'd be sending the White House chef my best mushroom recipes!

    Parent

    John Kerry (none / 0) (#72)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:51:40 AM EST
    was pretty confident he could have gotten John McCain on the ticket somehow.

    Maybe JK was fooling himself about that, but he did extend the offer to McCain.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#85)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:10:56 AM EST
    WTF was up with that?

    Parent
    I have no clue. (none / 0) (#91)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:17:15 AM EST
    It was a massively stupid idea.

    Maybe he was hoping for the Two, Two, War Heroes In One! ticket.

    Parent

    Does anyone actually remember (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    that the VP has a leg up in the next election?

    Sheesh!!!

    Parent

    John Kerry (none / 0) (#114)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:10:51 PM EST
    is a demonstrable political moron.

    Demonstrable.

    Many times over.

    A Democrat.  Sometimes, even, a brave one.  But a political moron if ever there was one.

    And a loser.  Big time.

    Now he's sponsoring Obama as 'the answer.'  That alone should tell you something.

    Parent

    Further, VP's are more about rounding out the (none / 0) (#49)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:38 AM EST
    Party apparatus than bringing in voters because people vote top of the ticket.  I'd say it has to be Strickland or Rendell.  He'd be lucky to have either.  Rendell probably because in Rendell's case, given he would be an historical candidate as well, he'd be able to push up jewish support, which would help in FL.

    Parent
    The Lieberman strategy? (none / 0) (#60)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:36:54 AM EST
    I do think Rendell is in a whole different league than Lieberman, but it has been tried before.

    Parent
    Obama will need at least high 60's (none / 0) (#63)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:39:55 AM EST
    in Jewish support to win a GE, or at least every Dem since Woodrow Wilson has, a simple majority won't do.  Rendell is no Lieberman.  He's a far more appealing candidate.

    Parent
    You are right, but will he get that support... (none / 0) (#98)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:31:13 AM EST
    And, to be fair, they won that election. (none / 0) (#71)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:50:56 AM EST
    Rendell won't take it (none / 0) (#73)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:53:18 AM EST
    He is a vocal supporter of the unity ticket.  He has said publicly that if Hillary wins Obama should be VP, and if Obama wins Hillary should be VP.  I think he would be almost offended to be offered in leiu of Hillary.

    Also, PA needs him...

    And I think he is a big part of the reason either dem would win PA.  Him and Bob Casey have already started joint fundrasing for the GE.

    Parent

    Yeah, Strickland said he doesn't want it either. (none / 0) (#75)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:55:30 AM EST
    But they are the best two possibilities.

    Parent
    Electoral Map (none / 0) (#122)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:38:03 PM EST
    Why would any ardent Hillary supporter who believes the risky nature of the Obama Fall electoral map want to hitch themselves to that ride?

    Parent
    if he picks Lieberman thats it (none / 0) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:55:20 AM EST
    I am voting for McCain

    Parent
    McCain or Obama? (none / 0) (#113)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:08:20 PM EST
    I think McCain is much more likely to pick Lieberman.  I don't think Lieberman would even agree to be on the dem ticket against McCain, since he has already openly supported him for president.

    Parent
    Just what we need... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:19 AM EST
    a man who's afraid of the voters running against War Hero McMaverick McCain.

    Just Heard On CNN That obama Originally (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:22 AM EST
    wanted half of the delegates in FLA, but because Hillary won by such a large margin he would be willing to give her a few more than he originally proposed....I just feel like throwing up.

    He won't ever do it. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:13:02 AM EST
    He'll lose the nom if he counts florida. Which is what matters apparently. Cuz instead of FL in the GE, he'll get CO, VA, and "the west" Except he won't.

    With Florida included he is still winning (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:14:25 AM EST
    by a large margin.  I don't see any justification for your assertion that he would lose the nomination if Florida is counted.

    Parent
    It is my premise (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:15:14 AM EST
    that he will win with both FL and MI seated.

    The SDs are going his way no matter what.

    Parent

    Pretty much (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:16:47 AM EST
    I agree. (none / 0) (#24)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:18:39 AM EST
    There doesn't seem to be any appetite in the Rules committee for counting FL and MI in full.  I suspect the compromise will look something like FL and MI both being counted (with Uncommitted in MI going to Obama), and probably all at 50%.

    btw -  BTD have you seen Al Giordano's post at The Field where he claims some inside knowledge of a call between Hillary and Obama where she asked for the VP spot and he turned her down?  If true it would explain the harder edge to her rhetoric in the last day or two.

    link

    Parent

    I have not read it (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:22:57 AM EST
    and I can tell you I do not believe such a call took place.

    Al is a good friend but that is just silly.

    Parent

    That's nonsense. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:52 AM EST
    That would be a sign that she's conceding.

    Parent
    In the end (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:55:31 AM EST
    Hillary has enough support, votes and delegates to force herself on the ticket if she so chose.

    I doubt that call took place.

    Parent

    No she doesn't. (none / 0) (#77)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:59:17 AM EST
    Obama's people adamently oppose it.

    Parent
    Translation: (none / 0) (#92)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:18:35 AM EST
    Michelle says NO! ;-)

    Parent
    That may or may not be true. (none / 0) (#97)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:29:46 AM EST
    I doubt Hillary would want to get on the ticket in that manner though.

    Parent
    I believe if she wants it (none / 0) (#104)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:41:47 AM EST
    it's hers. I just don't think she will want it. why would she? It's a losing ticket and the party is going to need a saviour in 2012.

    Parent
    Your premise (none / 0) (#102)
    by Dave B on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:37:18 AM EST

    that he will win with both FL and MI seated. The SDs are going his way no matter what.

    I agree with you. The SD's are deathly afraid of the AA backlash if they choose Clinton over Obama. JMHO



    Parent
    I Think The AA Backlash Scenario Is B.S. (none / 0) (#105)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:45:35 AM EST
    ...and they are counting on people being paralyzed by it, fearing the AA's won't show up.
    It is time we gave the AA's a little more credit and stop letting obama use them as a shield for his ineptness.

    Parent
    this is for the General (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ajain on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:18:46 AM EST
    He needs them for the General and insulting voters will do nobody any good.

    Parent
    I'm talking GE. You know when it actually (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:25:24 AM EST
    MATTERS.  But as long as Obama wins the primary, he'll be all set. /snark

    Parent
    If that's what you meant then fair enough (none / 0) (#45)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:30:49 AM EST
    but it's not what you wrote.

    You wrote that he would lose the "nom", which I, not unreasonably took to be short for nomination.

    Even assuming that's what you meant, I don't see how it makes any more sense.  By allowing the Florida delegation to be seated at the convention based on the disputed primary votes, that means he will lose Florida in the GE?

    Parent

    Quinnipiac Poll (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by ajain on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:17:39 AM EST
    The other battlegrounds also should Clinton stronger.

    Even though Obama wins Pennsylvania, Clinton is much better, and Obama loses Ohio while Clinton wins Ohio.

    There are no parties (none / 0) (#107)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:47:11 AM EST
    Obama's not a Dem, Repubs don't consider McCain a repub.  Bloomberg was not going to run because Obama is the Unity '08 candidate.  Both camps are relying on their base.  Are they not paying attention to Congressional approval?  Isn't it the lowest ever?  People are sick of this govt and sick of politicians.  Neither McCain nor Obama has a public persona.  It will all be made up for the GE.  Politician lie and will say anything to get elected so this will be a GE based strictly on character and personality.  It will be fun.

    Parent
    Look at this: (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:20:36 AM EST
    Plagued by a defection of Clinton supporters and white working class voters, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the leading Democratic presidential contender, trails Arizona Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican candidate, in Florida and Ohio, according to simultaneous Quinnipiac University Swing State polls released today. Sen. Obama is six points ahead in Pennsylvania. New York Sen. Clinton wins handily in all three states. No one has been elected President since 1960 without taking two of these three largest swing states in the Electoral College.

    In 1960 Kennedy was able get southern states which Obama can't. Gerald McEtee has gone public now about Obama's electability problem. And this is only going to get worse as the time goes by. I'm sure that the 6 points in PA will disappear too. With Clinton supporters having massive defections there's just no way Obama can win a general election.

    The Q poll (none / 0) (#68)
    by zyx on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:45:10 AM EST
    needs to get around to posting the cheery numbers supporting the Majick Obama Map that CNN's John King showed us, whereby Obama wins us Dems the WH by taking VA, GA, CO, NM and IA...maybe they release those good poll results tomorrow?

    Parent
    I Don't Think He Takes Iowa (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by creeper on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:06:50 AM EST
    In fact, I think if his association with Rev. Wright had been known at the time of our caucuses he wouldn't have won those.

    Wright and "bitter" completely changed the dynamic of this primary.

    Parent

    I'm skeptical (none / 0) (#84)
    by zyx on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:09:31 AM EST
    about most of 'em--at least, him getting the run of them, AND keeping Pennsylvania, too.

    I should have put a /snark tag on my rant, I guess.

    Parent

    Obviously not enough to stop him (none / 0) (#103)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:41:06 AM EST
    winning the nomination. /snark

    Parent
    Massive (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:23:43 AM EST
    defections from the party if Obama is the nominee. Seating FL and MI might help him somewhat but looking at those polls not enough to win the general election. He's toast.

    why is no one alarmed (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:27:46 AM EST
    that lifelong, yellow dog dems are so against Obama?

    Oh, wait, because we are women.  Nevermind.

    Parent

    The general (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:30:48 AM EST
    election news just gets worse and worse for Obama yet the party seems oblivious to it. They want to lose.

    Parent
    It's what we do. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Jake Left on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:57:29 PM EST
    I'm tired of being a part of the stupid party, but I can't bring myself to be a part of the evil party.

    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Marco21 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:20 AM EST
    to mention that he is inexperienced means you're against hope and change and rainbows and unicorns.

    Parent
    Is there a precedent? (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:45 AM EST
    What percentage of Democrats say they absolutely will not vote for Obama? Extrapolating from the numbers I've seen for Clinton supporters, it could be 25% or higher.

    Parent
    According (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:34:42 AM EST
    to the Q poll it's between 25-35% of the party that will jump ship in Nov. And that's even before the GOP 527's get their work done.

    Parent
    And even in 1980 there was not (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:36:30 AM EST
    as much of  a split, I think.

    Parent
    Yipe! (none / 0) (#82)
    by creeper on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    Do you know what the stats are on the reverse question...how many Obama supporters would refuse to vote for Clinton?

    Parent
    Check (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:28:01 AM EST
    the link. I think it's about 90% of dems will vote for Hillary.

    Parent
    And because (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:33:41 AM EST
    they are racists. So apparently it's better to purge them and replace them with 'true progressives'. Lord.

    Parent
    Yawn. (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Jim J on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:21 AM EST
    I don't know why we have to keep rehashing this. Obama has clearly written off Florida in the general election.

    Because BTD (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:35:09 AM EST
    doesn't want to believe Obama would be that stupid.

    But he is, Blanche, he is.

    Parent

    Isn't Obama financing a FL voter reg drive? (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:33:44 AM EST
    It is important, but he is sort of a one trick pony.  He wants to convince super-D's that he is electable in FL because he registered X amount of new Democrats. The same appeal he has been bringing all along even in the states that Hillary is clobbering him in and across the electoral map that McCain is clobbering him in. This poll just drives the point home. That argument is getting old and hollow. Republicans can register voters too.

    And the bigger the turnout, (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:00:58 AM EST
    the better Hillary does.  Is Obama out there recruiting new voters for Hillary?  Seems like. He should keep it up.  8^)

    Parent
    One Trick Pony (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by creeper on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:14:26 AM EST
    You nailed it.  And the name of the trick is "game the system".  

    I keep saying this...Obama has never fought a truly contested race in his life. That's obvious to anyone who looks at his reactions when he's crossed.  The latest example, of course, is his demand that the media lay off his wife.

    There is no way...NO WAY he will survive what the GOP throws at him.  He has no frame of reference for that.

    Parent

    Yup...one lesson from 2004. (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:15:24 AM EST
    Republicans can register voters too


    Parent
    Republicans have an even stronger communications (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Newt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:19:59 PM EST
    machine now, after years of public funding via the so called "faith based initiatives" that paid to beef up their electronic infrastructure.

    Parent
    And the state will dump the registrations (none / 0) (#123)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:51:40 PM EST
    Am I remembering incorrectly or didn't FL throw 90% of new registrations off the rolls this past year on grounds of no match ups between registration data and either state motor vehicle or Social Security records.

    The Dems put their heads in the sand in 2004 about voting problems and they are now putting their heads in the sand regarding electability.  

    Parent

    More On Why Obama Needs To Fight To Seat Florida (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:32:09 AM EST
    This has been on the minds of Florida voters now for a very long time, and IMO he doesn't have enough time to improve his standing in all the states where he is losing. The people are slowly rejecting him. Plus the news conference at 2:00 that promises to be a stunner. No he is rushing too fast to the finish line. Shanu on Fox News will bring the news out.

    Well, polls are a more honest rationale (1.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Melchizedek on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:13:26 AM EST
    than comparisons to Zimbabwe, given how the
    Clinton campaign led the effort to
    disenfranchise Florida and Michigan back
    when it was politically expedient.

    They led the effort? (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Marco21 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:54:39 AM EST
    I didn't know the Clinton campaign was made up of Florida Republicans.

    Parent
    I would still like to see a poll (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:21 AM EST
    supporting the theory Obama would lose FL in the GE because he opposed counting the FL primary votes.  Would he have won FL w/o that?

    Does it really matter? (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:15:53 AM EST
    1. He was always going to have to fight for FL, just like HRC; and

    2. He's not going to seat the delegates. He said FL and MI didn't matter in January. He's been true to his word.


    Parent
    Given Obama is the presumptive (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:24:12 AM EST
    Dem. nominee and how much time and attention are being devoted to FL, I think it matters.  Otherwise, the argument would simply be:  seat FL, count the primary votes.  Its only fair to do so.

    Parent
    I disagree with the argument (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:33:00 AM EST
    that Obama is the presumptive nominee.

    I also disagree that the argument should be that Obama should honor the voters of MI and FL so as to benefit him in some way. Clearly, Obama feels doing so will not benefit him, so he is not doing it. I'm sure no one really believes he is blocking the votes out of a sheer devotion to some ROOL. So, that argument is moot.

    The argument in my opinion IS very simple. Count. The. Freaking. Votes. It's what we do in America.

    Period.

    Parent

    Actually.....no. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:39:00 AM EST
    Not according to Black Box Voting, anyway.

    Counting the votes is a major problem...on top of everything else...still.

    Parent

    Oh, I agree. (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    It's the principle that I'm arguing.

    We're not so great on the whole execution thing since the Republicans got control of the voting apparatus.

    Parent

    good point (none / 0) (#87)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:14:12 AM EST
    perhaps not. He is having a really hard time getting out of his demographic strengths.

    My husband says that the dynamic will shift when/if Hil gets out of the race, but I think it's more of a hope than anything else.

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:37 AM EST


    Strong words. [nt] (none / 0) (#9)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:47 AM EST


    Unacceptable words (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:15:58 AM EST
    Comment deleted.

    Parent
    That's an improvement (none / 0) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:32:23 AM EST
    3/16 down 11.  The next two polls 5/19 and this on 5/13-20 have him down 10 and 4.  Maybe there will be more polls before June 3 or the couple of weeks after that before Obama says the superdeez need to decide.

    How many VPs can he pick to help him improve in all of these states?

    Georgia/InsiderAdvantage Poll (5/21) (none / 0) (#86)
    by AlladinsLamp on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:11:38 AM EST
    Sorta off topic, but Georgia does border Florida.

    John McCain, Republican: 45%
    Barack Obama, Democrat: 35%
    Bob Barr, Libertarian: 8%
    Undecided: 12%

    Story

    Crosstabs (pdf)

    They Didn't Even Bother (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by creeper on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:15:58 AM EST
    to run the numbers on McCain against Clinton.

    Guess the coronation has already taken place and I missed it.

    Parent

    35% is (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:29:01 AM EST
    about all Obama will get down here.

    Parent
    May I suggest people on this list take a detour (none / 0) (#101)
    by Newt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:35:31 AM EST
    over to HuffPo to post a few comments on this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-gizbert/the-ho-hum-obama-revoluti_b_102459.html

    Oh, and may I also humbly suggest you post strong, yet reasonably polite criticism, since if Hillary wins, we still need the Obamabots to beat McCain & Nader.  

    Here's my post:

    Brought her to her knees?  

    I don't think so.  She may lose, and as an Obama supporter I hope she does, but we don't need to use stupid, oppressive, sexist language to get there.  No one brings Hillary Clinton to her knees.  And "stubborn support from American women?"  If and when Obama wins the nom, how the hell do you expect us to recapture her male and female supporters after insulting their intelligence and dedication?  They're about 50% of the Democrats, and you're casually blowing them off with your demeaning characterizations.

    And BTW, the 75,000 people?  I live in Oregon.  Guess what we do on those first hot days of spring... we go outside in droves.  That's right, it's been rainy or cool all spring.  Yeah, people came to see Obama, and they also came to hear a free concert by a popular local band on the first beautiful, hot weekend we had this year.

    Tell the truth, HuffPo.  We'll get to the presidency without distortions.  More importantly, we need to get there without sexist, demeaning comments about Hillary and her supporters.  

    uuuhhhmmmmmm (none / 0) (#109)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:54:04 AM EST
    Way too little, way too late.  'Honey I'm sorry' does not work on a black eye.  Obama's GE strategy is to get new voters.  He's targeting high schools, colleges, churches,  'scouring consumer marketing data' and will be microtargeting.  Obama supporters need to research his GE strategy and get on the ball.  Good luck, you're badly going to need it.  Ha!

    Parent
    Again, I'm not the one punching my fellow Dems (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Newt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:15:50 PM EST
    and the few thousand obnoxious Obamabots posting on blogs DO NOT represent the rest of us who total in the millions and who are working very hard to reclaim our government and our country with a Democratic landslide in Congress this fall.

    Parent
    Counting the votes is a great way for the DNC (none / 0) (#115)
    by Newt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:11:40 PM EST
    to step forward into a new paradigm of Democratic control over our nomination process.  

    Basically, we can't trust the Republican-backed electronic voting apparatus, and we will continue to get sidetracked in future elections by Republican-led state legislatures who are hellbent on disrupting the Democratic primaries by changing the dates in spite of the DNC rules.  

    This is the DNC's chance to pull the rug out from under the Repub's manipulations, and to establish a new direction to defeat election fraud in America.  We need to demand a re-vote in MI & FL, and pay for the cost of a mail-in election that utilizes equipment we already have based on Oregon's successful 100% mail-in process that undermines electronic fraud by establishing an audit trail even in states that used HAVA to undermine that concept.  We've already got the infrastructure and policies in place, based on the Oregon model.  We've got the voter rolls in both MI and FL, and it's cheaper to do the mail-in than try to repeat the vote.  Plus, a re-vote now puts both states back in good standing with respect to the DNC timing of elections rules.

    This solution is expensive, but it puts to rest the issues of disenfranchisement, establishes a new standard for reducing election fraud, and creates a route for Hillary to establish that she really is more electable.

    What say you, fellow Democrats?


    Too late (none / 0) (#126)
    by daryl herbert on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:03:23 PM EST
    First, your headline is a bit strange: if Obama and Clinton both want FL seated, it will be seated.  But on to the important point:

    Obama has dragged his feet and now Florida's votes almost don't matter (because he has a substantial lead in pledged delegates and superdelegates)

    If Obama gets to the convention with enough votes to the be the nominee regardless of whether FL/MI are seated, and then decides to let FL/MI be seated, that's no different than if he refuses to seat them.

    If FL and/or MI only get seated because they won't affect the outcome, then it's like they never got to vote at all.

    ---

    Imagine if a retrograde American state announced that women would vote separately from men, and their votes would only be counted if it wouldn't change the outcome.

    Suppose this goes on for 10 elections, and 5 times, the women's votes are counted, and 5 times, they are not.

    Did women get to vote 100% of the time?  (They always got to cast ballots)

    Did women get to vote 50% of the time?  (Their votes were "seated" with the total 50% of the time)

    Or did women get to vote 0% of the time?  (Their votes never had any chance of affecting the outcome)

    I think the correct answer is 0%.  It's not voting if there isn't some chance you can affect the outcome.

    If FL/MI are not going to count, then they shouldn't be seated.  That makes a mockery out of democracy.  Seating people who don't count is no different from shutting down a recount in order to preserve "legitimacy."  They need to be seated now or it's not going to matter whether they are in or out.

    ---

    On the flip side, if FL/MI are not decided until the convention, then everyone will know whether seating them will swing the election to Clinton.  The problem with that is that the vote whether to seat FL/MI becomes a proxy for the vote to make Clinton or Obama the nominee.  The rules committee won't be able to decide the issue on a principled basis, because the result of their choice will be 100% certain.  They won't be deciding the rules, they will be deciding the nominee.  And the perception that the Dem nominee is chosen by the rules committee, as opposed to by the voters, will be devastating.

    FL/MI has to be resolved now, while there is still ambiguity as to how much it will help Sen. Clinton's chances.  Apologies for the length of this post, but I think it's an important point that gets lost in the debate.