home

Electability Nevada Style

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:44:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This from Ras hurts my Horace Greeley Go West Young Obama Theory:

NEVADA

Obama 40
McCain 46

Clinton 46
McCain 41

It seems that Horace Greeley is demanding a Unity Ticket too:

Obama currently attracts just 65% support from Democrats in the state. That is at least partly a reflection of the ongoing competition between Obama and Clinton. . . . It is likely that Obama’s support from within his own party will increase once he is fully recognized as the nominee. How much they will improve depends upon how the end game is handled. The key for Obama will be to make Clinton supporters believe that their candidate was treated fairly and with respect. If he can accomplish that goal, his support among Democrats will dramatically improve.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama Hires VP Advisor | Michigan Delegates Should Go to Convention Uncommitted >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Electability Nevada Style | 90 comments (90 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The crosstabs would tell us (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:46:04 PM EST
    just which Democrats he isn't attracting in NV. Women? Whites? Hispanics? RAS makes us pay. . .

    Me and my dad (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by jen on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:11:12 PM EST
    Old, old dad. Always votes Dem -- over 60 years of voting Dem. Lifelong union worker, no college, garlic-nosed Italian. Will not vote for O!

    Clark County (Las Vegas area) -- only Dem stronghold in the State, has a huge Latino population. I believe they carried the caucus for Hillary in Feb.

    Northern and rural NV, very red, went overwhelmingly for Obama in the caucus -- to stop Hillary. Will go McCain in the GE, if it's Obama.

    I have heard several cases of Repub women speaking well of Hillary. She's earned their respect during this campaign with her mix of toughness and graciousness even as she's been vilified by the press.

     So yes, I think it's women, older voters, and Latinos he's lost here.

    [ Parent ]

    women, older voters, latinos (5.00 / 14) (#31)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:13:58 PM EST
    he has lost them everywhere.  A disaster waiting to happen.  And I am begging someone to come up with one instance where Obama has shown the ability or the will to roll up his sleeves and work to get back these voters.  Again, thank God this isn't over.  Keep going, Hillary!  We need you!

    [ Parent ]
    Can you roll up your sleeves whilst still (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:20:28 PM EST
    wearing a perfectly knotted tie? LOL

    [ Parent ]
    And in their infinite wisdom (5.00 / 8) (#48)
    by angie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:41:09 PM EST
    the Dems are scrambling to give  Obama advice on  what he needs to do to win the Latinos, women, blue collar workers & older constituencies instead of nominating the person whose base already is made up of those constituencies! It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.  

    [ Parent ]
    where's the evidence? (none / 0) (#90)
    by diogenes on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:47:28 PM EST
    Where is the evidence that Hillary is the best VP choice to draw in more votes for Obama?  How does she run head to head to others?  How would Napolitano, Webb, or others do?  Does Obama really need to ruin his first term with Billary drama to be elected, or are we talking the difference between a win and a landslide, since Obama is the only one being attacked now while McCain is getting a free ride?  Maybe we should wait for the convention (if Hillary stops attacking Obama for awhile) and see what the polls look like then.

    [ Parent ]
    Jen...I am in Clark County/NLV....All new to me (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:18:04 PM EST
    i.e., the political landscape.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton also winning in MO and NC (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Exeter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:46:59 PM EST
    while Obama losing.

    The latest results at electoral-vote (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by MisterPleasant on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:56:08 PM EST
    show Hillary's electoral vote lead over McCain has risen to 99 points.  And most amazing that NC now polls in her favor, after her sizeable loss there in the primary.  

    Yes the election is still 5+ months away, but these trends should be quite disturbing to the DNC and Democratic party leaders who continue to tilt towards a non-Clinton presidential candidacy.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, why are you still supporting Obama? (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Angel on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:47:22 PM EST


    he is more neutral now (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:23:44 PM EST
    To give BTD credit he has recently said that he used to think Obama more electable but not anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD obviously knows the answer... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by makana44 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:14:17 AM EST
    but I don't recall ever seeing him say he actually preferred Obama, just that he's always believed him to be the most electable. Lately he prefaces every third post or so by stating that he believes Obama will almost certainly be the party's nominee; but he appears to be equivocating on the 'most electable' stance. I wonder who BTD actually thinks would make the best president?

    [ Parent ]
    Nevada (5.00 / 20) (#6)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:47:36 PM EST
    evidently has just become part of the Appalachians.

    Welcome Nevada!

    Wouldn't you expect NV (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:48:57 PM EST
    to support AZ Senator McCain?  

    [ Parent ]
    Vegas had about 5,000 new folks (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:16 PM EST
    moving in every day a few years back.  I'm sure that's not the case now, but those 5K a day aren't the 'typical" Nevadan.  The state's demographics have changed considerably, and Obama's base has always been the big cities.  Maybe these new big city dwellers aren't so crazy about him.

    Did anyone see McCain swat down Obama like a fly today?  Thank God this isn't over.

    Rise, Hillary, Rise!

    [ Parent ]

    Kathy....you are right about the slowdown... (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:20:49 PM EST
    and many people moving.  We moved here right before Xmas and there are foreclosure signs popping up everywhere.  I moved here from the big city...Los Angeles....and I do not like me any obama.

    Check this out re: mccain/obama

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080523/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc

    I especially liked obama's really harsh retort...he is tired of mccain's endless diatribes and schoolyard taunts...whoooooooo

    [ Parent ]

    welcome to the big leagues (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:27:19 PM EST
    "It is typical, but no less offensive, that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of," McCain said.

    Obama really shouldn't be mentioning the schoolyard, because he's the one whose closer to being compared to an upstart youngster.  Even the Obama News Network made O look bad on this.  He just doesn't have the experience to handle these attacks and they will only get worse if he wins the nomination (which is not a lock)

    I think that the bad state of the housing market in Las Vegas helpd Clinton because she's been ahead of this issue from the beginning, and Obama's plans seem to favor his advisors, who helped dig us into this mortgage mess in the first place.

    [ Parent ]

    Dems better get used to this (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by RalphB on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:34:00 PM EST
    if Obama manages to get nominated.  He really sucks at these back and forths, and that's with a writer doing his responses.  When he opens his mouth I just see a pathetic spoiled whining child.


    [ Parent ]
    lectures from Mc Cain (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by bigbay on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:14:54 PM EST
    is what Obama will be getting.

    Interesting that Mc Cain has completely sucked Obama into a national security debate. Obama has to talk about the economy economy economy, to win..

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, McCain's bearings aren't so loose (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by angie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:34:31 PM EST
    after all. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    I thought they (none / 0) (#88)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:32:00 PM EST
    had to be cause he's "old".

    All kidding aside, the idea of attacking McCain's age is dumb. The older vote is one of the most reliable. Pi$$ing them off seems like a seriously stupid thing to do.

    I personally don't like being old until I consider the alternative. And I tend to get a bit testy when someone rubs my "oldness" in my face and suggests that my marbles are about to fall out and roll across the floor.

    Stop all ready with the McSame stuff too. People don't believe it. He's a "maverick" he's a "straight-shooter" he's a "war hero". One outa 3 ain't bad.

     Attack him where he's weak, economy, economy, economy. But that would be issues not personality or appearance so never mind.

    [ Parent ]

    I Think The Reporter Left Out obama's (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:40:26 PM EST
    parting shot to John McCain....

    "I know you are, but what am I".... :)

    [ Parent ]

    LOL (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jane in CA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:52:28 PM EST
    This sounds like it could be taken from SNL's weekend update commentary!

    [ Parent ]
    It'd be fun (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Jane in CA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:39:29 PM EST
    to play a drinking game where you took a shot everytime Obama responded to sharp criticism of him with the phrase that "he was disappointed" (cue violins and outrage from the blogosphere).

    Of course you couldn't play it without understanding that you would be blind drunk before it was half over.

    [ Parent ]

    I think they chose (none / 0) (#21)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:58:45 PM EST
    Romney first go round so McCain may not have an edge there.

    [ Parent ]
    beautiful (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by hlr on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:52:14 PM EST
    I'd love to send you some valuable prizes for this one.

    [ Parent ]
    If that is true, now I can become a coal miner :) (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:52:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Welcome Nevada! (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by liminal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:59:59 PM EST
    Watch out for the cicadas!

    [ Parent ]
    Cicadas? Where? (none / 0) (#26)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:05:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    In my backyard - (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by liminal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:11:23 PM EST
    - in the Appalachians, which y'all have now joined.    :)

    [ Parent ]
    liminal....okay gotcha...although there was an (none / 0) (#39)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:25:00 PM EST
    invasion of cicadas when I was in Las Vegas many years ago...you had to watch everywhere you walked and had to keep your mouth shut, so as not to have one fly in your mouth....ewwww

    [ Parent ]
    bring in some chupacabras (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:25:56 PM EST
    and let them fight it out the way nature intended.

    [ Parent ]
    I think my chances of running across a cicada (none / 0) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:50:52 PM EST
    are much higher than finding a chupacabra, but I will try :)

    [ Parent ]
    Honest, Informed, Objective people would (5.00 / 12) (#8)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:50:25 PM EST
    know damn well Hillary was not treated fairly or with respect.  Exactly who is the obama camp trying to fool?  I think it will be a cold day in hell before many Hillary supports would even consider voting for obama.

    it's a new day i tell you. dogs talk, cats sing! (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by hellothere on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:18:06 AM EST
    and obama truly respects hillary. i don't know about ya'll but i am tired of being insulted with that after watching the dog and pony show these past months.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe (none / 0) (#89)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:36:08 PM EST
    A lightbulb went on somewhere and it occurred to someone that enraging the voters they need to get their candidate elected might not have been such a good thing?

    "Aw, come on honey you know I didn't mean it. Quit being so sensative. We have to stick together of the big bad Republicans, you know, those nasty, ugly people that don't count all the votes, will get us."

    Consider it? Okay.      I did. I won't.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry (5.00 / 16) (#9)
    by hlr on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:50:35 PM EST
    it's absurd to put the stronger candidate in the VP slot, where she'd be less effective in drawing voters.

    If the Dems want Obama, then fine. Let him sink or swim on his own. It's utterly absurd that the strong candidate should prop up the guy who's only a few years past his state senate position.

    Hear Hear (5.00 / 13) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:57:11 PM EST
    My sentiments exactly. Hillary has the support to win. Obama only has a possibility to win. Let's select the winner.

    If not, let Obama prove that the New Democratic Party is viable.

    [ Parent ]

    Good point! (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Andy08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:58:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not VP (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by margph on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:32:42 PM EST
    I totally agree with Hir.  To put Hillary as VP is upside down.  She has the gravitas and more years of political experience.  He can make fun of that experience all he wants, but while she was meeting world leaders, what was he doing?  

    BTW what exactly has he done on his own without being propped up by either the Chicago political machine or currently the MSM.  It makes him look weak and Hillary looks stronger because she has not only survived but thrived under adversity.  

    Hillary as VP?  I would not be for that at all.  POTUS, yes thank you.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, the poll in the post would (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:37:02 PM EST
    support Clinton as Pres. nominee with Obama as VP.  

    [ Parent ]
    no surprise at all (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by miguelito on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:50:35 PM EST
    and he is only dropping.  

    Actually, he's doing better (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:51:37 PM EST
    in most state polls than he was last month. Missouri, for example.

    [ Parent ]
    I suspect (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by xspowr on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:30:01 PM EST
    this is nothing more than a temporary bump given the nonstop media drumbeat of inevitablity over the last few weeks. Given BTD's "media darling" theory, I think the more remarkable thing is not that he is performing marginally better recently, but that he still cannot overtake HRC in the battleground and western state polling vis-a-vis McCain, despite the continuous coverage that he is now the presumptive nominee. If one buys the meme that Democrats cannot lose against McCain this year, and that Obama is the inevitable Democratic nominee, his continuing lackluster polling at this stage in critical states (i.e., even before the Republican GE attack machine cranks up) speaks volumes, regardless of any minor improvements.

    [ Parent ]
    Any opinion on the CA PPI poll? (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:23:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    California PPI Poll re: oculus (none / 0) (#53)
    by formerhoosier on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:10:54 PM EST
    My opinion, hard to quantify.  The poll cited by SFgate is being compared with an earlier poll by Field.  Without a reference to an earlier poll by PPI, so there is no baseline for comparison. Also, lived in California for over 35 years and Field has been polling there since 1947, very reputable.  Checked the website for Field and they have not polled California since February. Have never heard of PPI (could be reputable, just never heard of them).  So my estimation cannot tell if there is movement or not without any other polls by PPI for comparison.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks. I've never heard of PPI either, (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:13:10 PM EST
    although I live in CA.  Of course I read the NYT, so that might account for my lack of familiarity with PPI.  andgarden is the go-to guy on polls and he isn't responding so that tells me something also.

    [ Parent ]
    I just checked LA Times website again. (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:27:04 PM EST
    No mention of this poll.  An April Fool's Day joke?

    [ Parent ]
    I did a little research (none / 0) (#80)
    by Grace on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:27:18 AM EST
    The PPI poll shows Obama getting around 70% of the Hispanic vote.  Unfortunately, in the California Primary, he got 32% of the vote (against Hillary).  

    I didn't do enough research to find out how he polled with Hispanics prior to the primary, but several of the polls just before the primary showing him winning over Hillary -- then she beat him by nearly 10%.

    I have a suspicion that Hispanics say they will vote for him, then they don't.    

    [ Parent ]

    Fairly and with respect? (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by dianem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:51:44 PM EST
    Does anybody remember "Men In Black"? They had a little gizmo that they could flash to wipe people's memories so they could implant new, false memories. That's what it would take to convince Clinton supporter's that their candidate was treated fairly and with respect.

    Obama's lost his MO. He started losing it in (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Angel on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:53:12 PM EST
    February after he racked up the red state wins using crossover republicans and caucus votes.

    Buyer's remorse has set in and the polls are proving it.  

    What *will* they do (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by hlr on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:54:48 PM EST
    That is at least partly a reflection of the ongoing competition between Obama and Clinton.

    when they don't have Hillary to blame?

    Could it be that Obama's appeal to Nevadans was always overrated? Nooooooooooo, it's cuz Hillary's still around.

    Is it republican women? (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:55:43 PM EST
    Or, is it Dem's against Obama?

    I knw a bunch of right wing women who want to vote for Hillary.  Amazing just as they write her off she becomes incredibly strong.

    and this is before the heavy GOP machine (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by athyrio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:59:02 PM EST
    gets in gear against him....He is not electable IMO and I think the polls are starting to prove that..God Bless the American People for being a great deal smarter than the DNC and the media!!!

    Hmm (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Benjamin3 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:01:30 PM EST
    Well, I would imagine this reflects Obama's continuing problems with working class voters, and many of them in Nevada are Latinos.  Obama got the endorsement of the huge Culinary Union; however, the rank-and-file members, which included large numbers of Latinos, overwhelmingly supported Clinton.

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by bigbay on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:17:48 PM EST
    and the SEIU has wasted a lot of dues money on Obama, with little effect. Better to save it for the general.

    [ Parent ]
    For some reason (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by nellre on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:05:49 PM EST
    For some reason many states are resisting Obama (like Kentucky). Strange.

    Seriously, though, I don't think he'll win in November if he's the nominee.
    And I think he'll be the nominee because the DNC and MSM want him to be.

    BTD, I want to say you really (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:14:29 PM EST
    live up to your name.  You really get the big picture.  I'm glad you are out here.

    Oh the angst of it all..... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:16:59 PM EST
    The key for Obama will be to make Clinton supporters believe that their candidate was treated fairly and with respect. If??? Ha! Ha!

    Here's the good part of the survey:   This is a difficult time for Clinton supporters.  sniff.  

    As Tweety says.. Hahck!

    Quite frankly (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by IzikLA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:38:44 PM EST
    I never once understood this argument that Obama could win Nevada but Clinton couldn't.  And I never got anyone to tell me why this was the case, it just seemed to be the common perception, even here.

    From my viewpoint -- Clinton won Nevada, not by much, but she won it.  I would think this already gives her a slight headstart.  Secondly, Nevada has many, many California transplants and she won California handily. It also borders much of CA and even more specifically lots and lots of counties that Clinton won.  Finally, she also won Arizona against Obama and Nevada's population centers are closest to Arizona and California.  The people there are much more similar to them than they are to, say, Colorado or Utah.  

    There is a reason no explanation was given (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by RalphB on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:07:03 PM EST
    for Obama winning NV while Clinton didn't.  It was silly conventional wisdom and had absolutely no origin in rationality.  Think of it as a blog only factoid.  In fact, the rational argument was always that Clinton would win more easily.

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:12:37 PM EST
    There was consistent polling to that effect.

    I do not make stuff up out of thin air.

    [ Parent ]

    Then the pollster made it up (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by RalphB on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:07:19 AM EST
    because it defied common sense.  Looking at the caucus results, OK I know that sucks, and where Obama won, I don't see him doing better than Clinton in NV in the general election.  If not for the red districts he won, it could have been a blowout.  Those red districts won't be there for him in November.

    The same case can be made for New Mexico.


    [ Parent ]

    This is a good point (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:48:14 AM EST
    And also, Clinton won Nevada in Caucuses! Now knowing how much better Obama usually fairs in Caucuses, I think this is yet another reason to believe that Clinton would win in November while Obama would not.

    [ Parent ]
    well, apparently the pollsters did, (none / 0) (#58)
    by english teacher on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:18:13 PM EST
    then.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you BTD (none / 0) (#65)
    by IzikLA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:30:52 PM EST
    I never saw the polling but I always trust your knowledge here so I appreciate your input.  I think that even if I trusted polls whole-heartedly, I would question the general wisdom of these particular polls knowing the things which I stated above about Nevada.  I live in Los Angeles and have gone to the Las Vegas area and Reno/Carson City/Tahoe almost every summer and winter of my life and then some.  I just highly doubt he could win there, and then the fact that she won NV only adds to my belief.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm afraid (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by standingup on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:48:56 PM EST
    the Democratic party just can't get over their losing ways.  Why do they have to change the electoral map, choose hope and change over substance and dismiss important groups of their base all in one year?  

    BTD, there is also a new poll(ras I think) (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:54:37 PM EST
    showing her way up on McCain in CA, BO up but not nearly as much.  

    Here's my question she appears to be growing in strength depite her fading chances of the supers nominating her.  I am wondering if for the sake of argument, you could argue for a Clinton/Obama ticket, or do you see that as out of the question?

    So nothing then? (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:38:33 PM EST
    Because while it's true that BO has a great February, Hill has won the last three months.  Isn't there a good argument that she is the stronger candidate?  Wasn't the point of a protracted process to determine the stronger candidate?  Don't they both need the supers to win?  The difference in pledged delegates is miniscule.  Hill has the pop vote.  I don't see why you can't as easily argue for a Clinton/Obama ticket.  

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's loss (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Left of center on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:30:00 PM EST
    in November will be devastating, McGovern style. Why would Hillary want to be on the back end of such a ticket?
    I'm not going to vote for Obama till someone explains to me why he is a better candidate than Hillary, not why he is a better candidate than McCain. If my candidate (Hillary Clinton) had to be replaced as the nominee, i demand to know why without a bunch of "she's a warmonger" bullcrap before i will even consider voting for Obama.

    Nevada and Oregon (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:34:05 PM EST
    Oregon and Nevada have two different ex-California demographics.  Oregon is the Obama demographic, Nevada is the Clinton demographic.  It's a sure thing for Hillary, it's a maybe for Obama.  

    great way to put it (none / 0) (#76)
    by diplomatic on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:08:09 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I Love That (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by BDB on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:46:02 PM EST
    the answer to Obama being a weaker GE candidate than Clinton is that Clinton should just be his VP.

    This election is essentially tied and will be decided by the SDs.  Other than to placate the media and Blogger Boiz, can someone explain to me why the Democratic Party should nominate the weaker candidate?   I mean I know he hit that fake marker of having  more pledged delegates (even if it's a moving target) and that Keith Olbermann would be very angry.  But if Clinton/Obama is the stronger ticket - and I believe it would be because Clinton appears to be the stronger candidate and it's quite a risk to assume your VP candidate can carry your nominee across the finish line - then why is the party rushing headlong to set up a weaker ticket?  And what does that say about the Democratic Party?  

    It's certainly nothing good.  

    Exactly. I just made the same point. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:59:09 PM EST
    No reason on earth the supers have to nominate Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Something happened on 9/11 (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by diplomatic on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:06:56 AM EST
    Common sense has been in short supply ever since.  I think the country was damaged in some cosmic way.

    [ Parent ]
    Seems the democrats are just (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by RalphB on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:11:58 AM EST
    conflict averse in the extreme.  You are right about common sense being thrown under the bus with Obama's grandmother.  I've never seen an election season like this one.  Just bizarre!


    [ Parent ]
    check the latest from Jeralyn (none / 0) (#79)
    by diplomatic on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:24:47 AM EST
    another bump in the road for the bus.

    [ Parent ]
    Put Hillary at the top of the ticket (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:32:28 AM EST
    if for no other reason, just for the fun of watching Olbermann's head explode.  

    But true.  Obama/Hillary is not a dream ticket, it's a "dreamer's" ticket.  

    [ Parent ]

    Must be (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by zyx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:31:43 AM EST
    all those new folks who moved to Nevada from Appalachia.

    BTD, That Unity Ticket (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by creeper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:25:42 AM EST
    you keep promoting needs Hillary at the top, from the looks of those stats.

    It seems that (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by facta non verba on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:29:24 AM EST
    it is Obama that needs Clinton, not vice versa. In every poll, it seems Clinton is ahead and wins while Obama trails and loses. The Obama camp argument is that as people get to know Obama they will come around. Really?

    It seems Obama was at his peak when people knew little about him and now that they do, they are fleeing in droves.

    She polling really well (4.71 / 7) (#35)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:19:10 PM EST
    against McCain and is clearly the most electable dem. Let's nominate her.

    Obama won't have it. (none / 0) (#1)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:45:49 PM EST
    Doncha think that's true?

    better let Jeralyn know Greeley (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:47:26 PM EST
    agrees w/you.

    Obama needs a time machine? (none / 0) (#11)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:50:41 PM EST
    The key for Obama will be to make Clinton supporters believe that their candidate was treated fairly and with respect. If he can accomplish that goal, his support among Democrats will dramatically improve.

    Well people forget quickly, he probably could accomplish this by November.

    By forgetting (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:53:24 PM EST
    You say "It's ok."


    [ Parent ]
    Didn't say I would forget (none / 0) (#63)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:27:33 PM EST
    I was speaking for the masses, as is my right :)

    [ Parent ]
    Forget by Novemeber: re: Caffish (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by formerhoosier on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:25:35 PM EST
    Had a response, decided to think first then post.
    I am only speaking for myself, but acquiring a certain age and maturity, my sense of a person is not easily changed once they have demonstrated who they are.  My family fits into too many demographics he and his mentor have denigrated.  Have voted the Democratic nominee since 1968. Not this time.  If we are going to have two corporatist parties for the elites, count me out.

    [ Parent ]
    He doesn't just need a time machine (none / 0) (#69)
    by angie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:39:40 PM EST
    He and his buddies KO, Tweety, pumpkinhead & that Avarios person all need to start crawling to China in sack clothes and ashes for me to "forgive & forget." And frankly, that still might not do it.

    [ Parent ]
    Make no mistake the ship has sailed (none / 0) (#86)
    by Salt on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:27:26 AM EST
    on many Clinton supporters ever voting for Obama it is not repairable, I'm in Ohio and I know not a soul who is on the fence on McCain Obama or Clinton and that's an extremely diverse group I am referencing and all high information voters, the split appears to be moderates to conservatives are not even considering an alignment with Obama that's over.  The words I hear referenced are another untalented fringe candidate like Bush, that's hopeless to change IMO and very strange one wonders really how a Party could so offend their own Base. I'm an Independent and my opinion is that the Primary process is corrupt and not intended to crown a winner selected by voters, but with a nod and a wink manipulate the Base so they believe they are deciding when they are not.  Party's are not turning out the talent we need to lead, and I am now convinced it is the Party's  that are the main treat to our country, hopefully this sham wakes the People from their poodle slumber and they take their power back.

    Electability Nevada Style | 90 comments (90 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment