home

Newsweek Poll: Clinton Beats McCain, Obama Tied

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:59:31 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Newsweek poll sez:

Obama 46
McCain 46

Clinton 48
McCain 44

Newsweek notes:

Clinton's white support [44%] is unusually high: at a comparable point in the 2004 election, Democratic nominee John Kerry received the support of 36 percent of white voters, compared to George W. Bush's 48 percent, and in June of 2000, Bush led Al Gore 48 percent to 39 percent.

It appears that the issue is not so much Obama's relative lack of appeal to white working class voters vis a vis typical Dems like Kerry (indeed, Obama exceeds Kerry's white support), but rather it is Hillary Clinton's strong appeal to that demographic. In other words, it is not that there is something wrong with Obama but that there is something RIGHT with Clinton.

See also andgarden on the subject.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments closed

< RFK, Jr. On Hillary's Remarks | Obama On Florida Delegation: "We're Not In The Way" >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Newsweek Poll: Clinton Beats McCain, Obama Tied | 217 comments (217 topical)
    Yes, there is something right with Clinton. You (5.00 / 15) (#1)
    by Angel on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:01:58 PM EST
    nailed it with those words and I thank you.

    That choice of words was no accident. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:58:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, funny isn't it? (5.00 / 12) (#117)
    by echinopsia on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:25:07 PM EST
    Obama is the one who panders his @ss off to Republicans and their policies, but Hillary is the true fighting Democrat that even the moderates and independents - and many Republicans - like best.

    Which means you don't have to pander to them and say they have the best ideas and trash previous Democratic administrations to get those votes. You just have to stand for something and explain your stance in a way that they can appreciate.

    Heck, Hillary even got Bill O'Reilly to agree to higher taxes and universal health care. Now there's a good politician.

    [ Parent ]

    I think she's changed (5.00 / 12) (#185)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:08:46 AM EST
    I really think she's had a whole bunch of epiphanies during the course of this campaign and has come out the other end something she really didn't start out to be, or think herself that she could be.  The whole RFK flap is fantastic irony to me because in some ways, she's following his trajectory.  I've always liked her, but RFK was and is my ultimate political hero, and when this all started, I would have scoffed at any comparison between the two of them.  Not anymore.  She's an unlikely working-class hero, but she gets it in a way that even Bill didn't quite.

    I'm profoundly impressed, and at this point, I'd go to the mattresses for her.

    [ Parent ]

    Ditto for me (5.00 / 5) (#190)
    by Serene1 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:17:08 AM EST
    I Iiked her initially but now I positively adore her and consider her a role model.
    She has truly evolved as a leader in this campaign. She is the only person I believe who can handle both the economy and the 3 AM call efficiently.


    [ Parent ]
    Right in other ways (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by andrys on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:21:23 AM EST
    RFK was excoriated by McCarthy supporters (who said they were like 'A' students to RFK's 'C' students) as "ruthless" and "untrustworthy" ...

      He was focused and was bent on opening schools to all and he really stood behind that, which made him very unpopular as did his heavy focus and energy on the crime world.  

      His off-the-cuff speech to announce MLK's assassination to an AA crowd was one of the most beautiful I have ever heard.  A real heart with firm purpose.  Too many don't like that.

    [ Parent ]

    You mean she's human.n/t (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by echinopsia on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:26:53 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    With politicians, we always see what we want (5.00 / 2) (#228)
    by cpa1 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:03:39 AM EST
    to see.  Has Hillary really changed, who knows.  Who knows what genuine emotions politicians have.  However, she has gone through the gauntlet and we can only hope she has learned from her mistakes.  Obama has gone through nothing and his political life has a foundation of cut throat and nasty politics.  That is my objection to him.  Who knows what kind of president that would yield.

    At the end of the day, I'd rather have the confidant of my president be Bill Clinton rather than Michelle Obama and Jeremiah Wright.  

    [ Parent ]

    Gryfalcon is right (5.00 / 2) (#240)
    by rnibs on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:27:03 AM EST
    She's changed.  

    'she's had a whole bunch of epiphanies during the course of this campaign'

    Obama has remained static.  She's learned and grown.  This is why her appeal is widening while his remains static (except for some duped SD's, most of whom are pretty static themselves).

    [ Parent ]

    Same here (none / 0) (#241)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:28:35 AM EST
    My support was about equal to all the Dems at the start. I voted for her twice as Senator here in NY and like her but I wasn't sold for President. War vote and all. But I thought pay back for the impeachment crap would be sweet so I was a nominal Hillary supporter. But I gained respect for her and after the Texas debate I fell in love with her. Since, I give $25 a paycheck and when ever I can spare a little extra.
    On the flip side after his 2004 convention speech I though Obama was the future. But he has done so many crappy things during this campaign that now I can never vote for him.

    [ Parent ]
    THere is a new LA Times poll (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:05:46 PM EST
    out also:

    LA TIMES

    Both Clinton and Obama beat McCain in CA but Obama beats him by more than Clinton does.  

    Plus, I guess we California Dems may now stop worrying about McCain taking CA in the GE.  The professional Dems of CA say it won't happen.

    California (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:06:49 PM EST
    land of the Bradley effect, and it was in the General not primary.  

    [ Parent ]
    Judging by all the talk of racism, I would say (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:10:27 PM EST
    The Bradley Effect, may still be in "effect"

    [ Parent ]
    Obama gets 20% of the GOP vote... (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:43:02 AM EST
    to Clinton's 10% in the LA Times poll...

    which means that Republicans really haven't focussed on the race at all at this point, so I don't expect that number to hold up.

    The poll also has a very skewed demographic for California, when compared to the 2004 election...

    White 2004--GE 65%  Poll 77%
    Black 2004--GE 06%  Poll 10%
    Latino 2004--GE 21% Poll 08%

    [ Parent ]

    The Obama Campaign (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by ccpup on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:25:57 AM EST
    must be worried about these National Polls showing Hillary doing better if their minions at the LA Times are putting out some favorable match-up numbers in a Poll with weighted demographics which give Barack the (almost necessary) leg-up he needs.

    I mean, the Latino number polled -- which would have helped either Hillary or McCain -- was laughable (8% when 21% voted in the 2004 GE?) and the higher than the GE % AA number was, of course, going to bump up Barack's final numbers.

    It's a bit like stepping on the scale to make the final tally look more impressive than it is.  And if that's what you gotta do to sell your guy, it ain't worth it in the end.

    [ Parent ]

    That was then. This is NOW, remember? (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:07:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Right...we are transformed (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:09:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Stellaaa, how about you and I (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:11:00 PM EST
    go to one of those huge rallies?

    [ Parent ]
    Then we will (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:10:07 AM EST
    be dragged out like in the last scene of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

    Heh, just had dinner with a real "California" type friend.  He agrees with me, McCain can pull off California by doing a minor Arnold adjustment.  

    [ Parent ]

    Minor Arnold Adjustment...? (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by EddieInCA on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:31:02 AM EST
    ...Like become Pro Choice?

    ...Like become pro-Gay Marriage?

    ...Like become for the legalization of some drugs?

    McCain cannot win without religious conservatives.  If McCain panders to centrists or liberals, he will lose ALL the swing states, and Clinton and Obama will have a Democratic win of Historical proportions.

    California is NOT in play.

    To even surmise that it is is delusional at best.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh huh.... (5.00 / 4) (#216)
    by oldpro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:47:09 AM EST
    were you around and politically active in '94?

    Arrogance meant the Gingrich Revolution and the Contract (on) America were a shockeroo to Democrats, coast to coast.  Lucky for us, Bill Clinton stood in the doorway and vetoed the Hell out of budget after budget, bill after bill...more than all previous presidents put together.

    What a loser.

    Right?

    [ Parent ]

    He doesn't have to become a liberal (5.00 / 7) (#231)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:52:20 AM EST
    all that McCain has to do is

    1. Show people that he's not Bush
    2. Show that he's not an ideologue

    The evangelical vote is not going to go for Obama under any circumstances -- they will turn out to vote against him once the GOP starts hammering Obama on abortion (he was for full, unrestricted access to abortion in 1996), gun rights (he supported making handguns illegal in 1996), and his association with people like Wright, Ayres, Khalidi, etc.

    Obama's problem is simple -- the combination of the positions taken in 1996 (the ones he now denies taking), his close association with "radicals", and his lack of a clear political record is going to convince the average American that he is simple not to be trusted.

    People know McCain -- they know he may be too 'conservative' for their tastes, but in uncertain times a known quantity has more appeal than someone who is both an unknown quantity and about whom very significant -- and real questions will be raised.

    [ Parent ]

    But... (none / 0) (#206)
    by Addison on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:54:19 AM EST
    ...if he pulled off such an adjustment that would doom him almost everywhere else. So.

    [ Parent ]
    Not given the alternative (5.00 / 3) (#210)
    by angie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:25:28 AM EST
    Don't fool yourself, the Republican base is never, ever going to vote for the Dem candidate -- Hillary or Obama -- and they aren't going to stay at home in November either. So, McCain has nothing to loose by trying to broaden his appeal to the moderates. That's what the whole rejection of Hagee was about today, imo. Oh, and those stories about all those Republicans who hate McCain not voting for him are highly, highly overrated. Sure they do hate him, but come November, they will all line up and vote for him -- bank on it.

    [ Parent ]
    PS (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by angie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:29:46 AM EST
    that means LA, TX, MS, GA, AL, Alaska, SD, MT and the rest of the usual suspects are all going red in November no matter how "Arnold" McCain goes.

    [ Parent ]
    Speaking of adjustments... (none / 0) (#238)
    by Anne on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:47:16 AM EST
    have you noticed that Obama is markedly different depending on where he is and who he's talking to?  I notice this much more in his non-speech events, where he's answering questions or talking off-the-cuff to a targeted group, like Jews or Cuban-Americans, for example - he pretty much will say anything to curry favor, even if it means that he's saying something 90-180 degrees different than he might have said just a few hours or days before.  There is a very high WORM factor afterwards, when his inconsistencies and changes in positions are brought to his attention.

    Clinton ought to be exploiting the obviousness of Obama's shape-shifting, contrasting it to her total grasp of information that she can integrate into the big picture without compromising her positions.

    And even though McCain has a similar problem with contradicting himself, I think that will not stop him from taking Obama to the woodshed over Obama's own pandering.

    [ Parent ]

    The GOP (none / 0) (#239)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:02:50 AM EST
    has already picked up on this regarding his comments about Iran and meeting with dictators. I'm sure there's more where they came from.

    I have to wonder if Obama has never heard of that modern marvel the videorecorder? Or does he just think that he can say and do anything and get away with it?

    [ Parent ]

    Ca goes dem in Nov. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:18:18 PM EST
    no matter what and no matter who. I'm from there.

    [ Parent ]
    Ca goes dem in Nov. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by delacarpa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:10:44 PM EST
    I don't know it depends on who is the nominee me thinks.

    [ Parent ]
    In a previous thread, it was the consensus of (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:09:30 PM EST
    opinion that any dem will beat McCain in CA.  However, if the nominee is obama and he keeps up his dissing of huge voting blocs, we may see that change.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:11:11 PM EST
    Only fools believe  Cali is in play.

    [ Parent ]
    I think so too. McCain is resonating (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:13:11 PM EST
    on immigration and big military presence here.

    [ Parent ]
    Then you disagree (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:18:31 PM EST
    I said Cali is NOT in play.

    [ Parent ]
    define "in play" (5.00 / 4) (#233)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:03:53 AM EST
    To me, "in play" means that it will be competitive/contested -- and under that definition California is definitely "in play" if Obama is the nominee.  Obama isn't going to be able to simply assume that the state will be his, he'll have to make a considerable effort there.

    That's why I never bought the whole "expand the map" theory -- Obama may "expand the map" and make some deep red states look pinkish, but at the same time he takes states that should be deep blue and makes them a pale blue -- and the blue states he places at risk are far more crucial to the Dems than the Red states in question are to the GOP.  

    [ Parent ]

    Ah. I thought there was a period (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:21:01 PM EST
    after Only fools believe.  

    So, I'm a fool already.

    [ Parent ]

    Oculus- (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Kathy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:25:15 PM EST
    don't you live in Cali?  As does Stellaaa?  You've both said this about California, and I've heard it from my beloved pals in SF who are repubs (but in that way that Cali repubs are really dems who don't want to pay taxes) and they say that McCain really has a chance.

    Can either of you expound on why you think this might happen?  I'd be interested to hear the other side.  

    And, to go back on topic, I wonder if Alter(ed) will comment on this stunning Newsweek poll in Newsweek's next issue, or if he'll just write an anti-Clinton screed about how her winning all these elections and polls is ruining Obama's chance at the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    Kathy, only fools think California is (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:29:33 PM EST
    in play!  But see my comment above.

    [ Parent ]
    you magnificent fool! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Kathy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:35:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by echinopsia on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:27:43 PM EST
    Cali repubs are really dems who don't want to pay taxes

    And Libertarians are Republicans who like to smoke pot.

    [ Parent ]

    Depends how McCain handles immigration. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Llelldorin on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:36:00 PM EST
    CA would be very finely balanced between the two parties, if it weren't for immigration. The only reason it's gone solid blue in the last several elections is that the CA Republican party has a nasty nativist streak, which infuriated the state's large Latino population into voting solid Democratic.

    If McCain were very careful on immigration, he could probably make California competitive. Fortunately for us, he'll also have our local Republicans campaigning for him. Since they're generally really, really awful, CA will probably stay blue.

    [ Parent ]

    This just in: hundreds of (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:13:13 PM EST
    people rounded up in Postville IA at a kosher meatpacking plant are being criminally prosecuted, as oppoed to being deported.  Stay tuned.  

    [ Parent ]
    yikes....california will stay Dem in November (none / 0) (#224)
    by ksh on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:30:05 AM EST
    with either dem candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Please stop using the term "Cali" (none / 0) (#115)
    by Get 27 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:23:13 PM EST
    Only LL Cool J calls us that, and he's from Queens.

    California will be blue in November. Thank You.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm going from memory... (none / 0) (#208)
    by Lupin on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:18:14 AM EST
    ...but in our primaries, a total of 7 million democrats came out to vote, versus 2.9 million republicans. Fact, not polls.

    That doesn't look to me like a close race.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't know if you heard: GOP chose nom 3 mos ago (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by Ellie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:47:25 AM EST
    I don't want to be mean here, but the Republican nomination race has been over for almost 3 mos (early March). Perhaps the disparity relates to that.

    There has simply been no reason for GOP voters to come out in the same numbers as Dems have.

    I'm willing to go out on a limb and guess that the Dem turnout relates to a close and hotly contested nomination race.

    I have no idea why anyone would presume that these numbers reflect general election turnout other than the late hour or an attempt to bamboozle.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm afraid you're ill informed... (none / 0) (#226)
    by Lupin on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:55:34 AM EST
    I don't want to be mean here, but the Republican nomination race has been over for almost 3 mos (early March). Perhaps the disparity relates to that.

    The CA primaries were in February. There was a strong Republican contest between McCain and Romney, the former beating the latter by less than 200,000 votes.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm afraid, very afraid, you're missing the point (5.00 / 3) (#234)
    by Ellie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:04:31 AM EST
    The (Repug/Dem) turnout disparity has no bearing on turnout, performance or likely voting in the general election.

    And McCain was essentially the GOP nominee at that point, not by the smoke and mirrors and roolz dickering the Obama campaign is relying on now. It was simply a matter of presenting it for media.

    [ Parent ]

    I live in Los Angeles (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:54:51 PM EST
    My guess is both Democrats win California, but I bet it's a tougher win for Obama.  I think you can break Cali down into four main centers -- SF Bay Area, LA Area, Central Valley, Orange County/San Diego Area.  Of those areas, I think Obama would run stronger than Clinton in only one, the Bay Area, and I would maintain that Clinton would easily carry the Bay Area in the General because the liberals there would just not vote for McCain.  They MIGHT vote for McCain in Southern California and Central Valley because they are more conservative with lots of Latinos.  

    Point being, Hillary's strength with conservative Dems and with Latino's would make it much easier for her to carry the state. Just my opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    I think NY will play out similar (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by nycstray on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:17:54 PM EST
    much easier win for Clinton than Obama. He's gonna have to work for some of her voters here. And then he has that lil' problem with dissin' large demographics. In his Fl swing he promised he would be spending a lot of time there. I'm wondering if he's gonna have enough hours in the day to do all the pandering he's gonna need to do. His supporters/endorsers don't seem to help him to the degree he needs them to.

    [ Parent ]
    You got that Wright! (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:00:11 PM EST
    Let's see how his Messiah complex plays out when he has to be in so many places all of the time.

    If he thought the primary was taxing, wait until the GE.  His cranky waffle moment will be just the tip of the iceburg.

    FL, OH, PA, NY, CA....then to CO, VA, NC.

    Wonder how much time he's going to spend in Idaho, Utah, Nebraska and Wyoming where he WHIPPED Hillary's but in all those caucuses?

    My guess...not a lot.  He will have too many leaks in the SS Obama to be plugging.


    [ Parent ]

    recent poll shows Obama would win Calif. today (none / 0) (#225)
    by ksh on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:35:49 AM EST

    California voters would change their February primary vote for Hillary Clinton to a vote for Barack Obama if the vote were held again, according to an exclusive poll commissioned by CBS 5.

    While voters in the California Democratic Presidential Primary backed Clinton by a 10-point margin, a new SurveyUSA poll shows that if given the chance to vote again, Californians would choose Barack Obama by a 6-point margin, 49%-43%.

    The poll was conducted on May 7 and 8 and has a margin of error of 4%.



    [ Parent ]
    Thank (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:16:29 PM EST
    you for being so reasonable.

    [ Parent ]
    California is NOT... (none / 0) (#34)
    by EddieInCA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:22:18 PM EST
    ...in play.

    Obama or Clinton will win by 15-20 points.

    [ Parent ]

    CA is in play with Obama (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Davidson on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:45:27 PM EST
    First, this poll is before the GOP and its BFF, the media, go all-out against Obama.  They've barely hinted at what they can do to him, a horribly weak candidate.  Second, McCain is never to be underestimated, especially in his appeal to Latinos and moderate Democrats.  Third, Obama vs. McCain will be a battle of bios.  McCain, the War Hero, will win it every time (Let's not forget the inevitable October Surprise that awaits us).  Fourth, Obama will not be able to exploit concerns about the economy because he's anemic on policy, substance, and experience/qualifications, and by burning the legacy of Bill Clinton, he's denied himself his only advantage on that issue as a Democrat.

    I'm calling my shot: if Obama is the nominee, McCain will win CA by 5-8.

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong (1.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:41:43 PM EST
    Obama is up 13 points over McCain in CA.  Clinton is up 11.

    See the average of polls and trend at pollster.com

    [ Parent ]

    Just to be fair, though... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Y Knot on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:47:35 PM EST
    They haven't really gone after Clinton at all.  In fact, many Republicans have been rooting for her, and not because they're going to vote for her in the general.

    If you think that the MSM and the Republicans have gone after her now up until now?  You're fooling yourself.  

    Don't get me wrong, I like Clinton. I'd vote for her in a second, with my head held high.  But they haven't even started to go after her.

    [ Parent ]

    Where have you been (5.00 / 6) (#141)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:52:11 PM EST
    for the last 20 years if you can say with a straight fact that the GOP "hasn't gone after Hillary yet"? And is the weather nice there?

    [ Parent ]
    When a poster makes a comment like that (5.00 / 6) (#146)
    by abfabdem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:59:40 PM EST
    "They haven't really gone after Clinton at all," doncha wonder how old they are?  Do they really not know the history of the two political parties over the last 15 years and what went down?

    [ Parent ]
    read below (none / 0) (#151)
    by Y Knot on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:04:10 PM EST
    I'm quite aware of the history, thank you very much.

    How anyone could have lived through the muck of 1992-2000, and think that what they've thrown at Hillary Clinton from 2007-2008 is at all comparable, is beyond me.

    [ Parent ]

    In the past (5.00 / 6) (#156)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:13:53 PM EST
    she was burned in effigy in NC (a GOP representative to Congress was there) because of her UHC ideas.

    Now? One of her colleagues, and a Democratic representative to Congress, equated her with the psycho stalker character in Fatal Attraction.

    Somehow, I think she can handle the stuff that might get thrown at her should she become the nominee.

    Indeed, I suspect that it won't take her 3-4 days to figure out what the correct response is to whatever attacks come her way.

    [ Parent ]

    I never said she couldn't handle it. (none / 0) (#158)
    by Y Knot on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:20:07 PM EST
    I just said they (the Republicans) haven't even been trying, yet.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (5.00 / 8) (#162)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:22:23 PM EST
    the media has been doing plenty of their work for them.

    [ Parent ]
    But what would be new that we have not (4.66 / 3) (#155)
    by abfabdem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:13:22 PM EST
    already heard about?

    [ Parent ]
    I'm referring to this election (2.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Y Knot on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:01:42 PM EST
    Not the past 20 years.  

    Face it, they've been PLANNING to go against her in 2008 ever since she announced her plans to run for the Senate.  Karl Rove had seven years in the White House to pour over every single document, hard drive and post-it note that was left behind in 2001, looking for something on her.   An e-mail about her knowing about Monica, something to do with Filegate, Whitewater, something we know nothing about... anything.

    Heck, he had Tim Griffin installed as the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas, for two years.  You think the guy who created the swiftboat ads in 2004 was in Arkansas as a career move?  (Hint:  he's now running the opposition research for the RNC).

    If after all that, the only thing they can come up with is some comment about the Kennedy assasination?  They're not trying.

    Whatever they've got, they're holding it back until the general.  They're begging for her to get the nomination.

    And keep in mind, this is not to say she shouldn't get the nomination, or that we're dead if she does.   I'm just saying, people who think she's been through a lot up until now, are fooling themselves.  No matter who the Democratic nominee is... is in for a very tough summer and fall.

    [ Parent ]

    You haven't been paying attention... (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:06:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    They've also got a (5.00 / 6) (#161)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:21:49 PM EST
    1000 page dossier on Obama in Chicago.  

    The difference is with Clinton, the media has trained people to ignore the scandals because there have been so many trumped up scandals

    Whitewater
    TravelGate

    etc.  All amounted to nothing.  I think that's why the harder the media hits her, the better she does.  It's well-known that the media is unfair.

    However, I think average Americans have figured out that the media favors Obama.  Therefore, when the media reports one of his potential scandals, people are going to be more likely to believe it.

    The fact that Hillary has survived being "the racist," the "nutcracker," and now the one waiting in the wings for Obama's mortality, proves that she really can withstand media scrutiny.

    [ Parent ]

    I never said they didn't have things on Obama. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Y Knot on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:30:27 PM EST
    I ONLY said, they haven't even stared on her yet.

    That's my whole point, believe it or not.

    But seriously... the racist thing was never going to stick because while she has said some dicey things lately, America knows she's not a racist.  The nutcracker thing isn't a media blitz attack, its a an extremely tasteless novelty item, that most of America hasn't even seen.  This current assassination thing, is just noise to fill up airtime.  None of those are serious attacks.

    This is my only point, which should be self-evident.  If she wins the nomination, they are going to come at her in ways that we can't imagine.

    Hopefully, she can.

    (And forgive me if my replies aren't nesting right.  I seem to be having a problem with that tonight.)

    [ Parent ]

    And my whole point is (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:43:29 PM EST
    they have nothing new on her. You can pretend that the fact that the GOP & Ken Starr spent $50 million trying to bring her & Bill down and couldn't do it has "no bearing" in 2008 all you want but that does not translate into them having anything new on her. We've all heard it, they've all be debunked, and when they start trying to recycle all that bs again it will not have the same "shock & awe" effect as exposing all the skeletons in Obama's closet because the plain fact is the msm has downplayed almost all of it in their quest to take down Hillary. And when the GOP starts exposing Obama it will be new and shocking to the average American.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? That's what you're going with? (1.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Y Knot on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:51:35 PM EST
    They've got nothing new, so they'll just play nice this summer and she'll just stroll into the White House come January?

    Seriously?

    OK.

    [ Parent ]

    That's not what I said (none / 0) (#184)
    by angie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:06:57 AM EST
    you know it, I know it, everyone here knows it. For you to pretend otherwise is laughingly idiotic. Now, you've done 16 posts today that made no sense -- the rule for new posters is 10. I'm sure it is past your bedtime anyway, so why don't you run along now. 'kay?

    [ Parent ]
    Y Knot, take out a loan & buy a clue! (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:28:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    All due respect... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:25:47 PM EST
    That is a pretty large spread for either candidate, but I agree that Cali is not really in play, unless the Latinos really turn their backs on Obama.  But i want to stress again that I agree with your main point, the spread is just a little large IMHO.

    Jackson

    [ Parent ]

    Actually -- Cal is not a Done Deal this Year (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by cdalygo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:34:06 PM EST
    Don't be so confident about California.

    There are a lot of upset women (like me) who are now former dems. Frankly, there are a lot of men who feel the same.

    Nor has Obama shown any real connection with Southwest Hispanics. If he is foolish enough to pick Arizona's governor as his VP all bets are truly off.

    Even without those two factors, remember Arnold took this state twice.

    Right now, you may  be correct about it not being in play. But lets revisit this conversation in Fall.

    [ Parent ]

    Arnold took the state ONCE - (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by EddieInCA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:43:14 PM EST
    when he was re-elected.

    This only came as he changed drastically after the citizens of the state HUMILIATED him by voting down, en masse, all FOUR of the state initiatives he sponsored.

    He pivoted immediately and became a RINO, even hiring a former employee of Gray Davis to be his Chief of Staff, in order to recreate himself and get re-elected.

    Arnold didn't/wouldn't run in a real election.  He waited until the recall and slipped in with less than a majority of the vote.

    Additionally, all those reforms Arnold promised to fix the financial problems of California...?

    Heh...

    We're in the same financial mess we were in when Gray Davis was recalled.

    [ Parent ]

    True (none / 0) (#198)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:37:55 AM EST
    and the voters in your state still think he's wonderful.  Doesn't speak well of their ability to distinguish between, say, Obama and McCain.


    [ Parent ]
    Pres & VP from same state? (none / 0) (#104)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:06:37 PM EST
    that seems self-destructive.

    [ Parent ]
    Haven't ya heard, (none / 0) (#131)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:41:39 PM EST
    come Nov. we'll all follow along behind the party and be one, big, happy family!!!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks Jackson - (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by EddieInCA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:38:47 PM EST
    I'm involved with the State Dem Party, and you have to live here to understand how different California is from the rest of the country.  Our Governor is liberal, not centrist, liberal. And ie's a Republican.  He wouldn't get elected as a Republican statewide probably anywhere else in the country.  In fact, he couldn't get re-elected without turning into a Democrat on the issues, and hiring a Democrat as his chief of staff.

    McCain has zero chance here. Between the GOP stance on immigration, the McCain stance on the war, the McCain stance on abortion, and the current economy and housing debacle, it's not a good time to be running as a republican.  

    The statehouse is dominated by Democrats, every major city is run by a Democrat, all the major city councils (except for maybe San Diego) are run by Democrats. Even the Central Valley, which used to be reliably republican, has turned more blue due to the the immigration issue.

    If they get the gay marriage California State Constitution Amendment on the ballot, it will help McCain, but he still won't get within 10 points of either Obama or Clinton.  Neither candidate will spend much time or money here.  For Clinton or Obama, it's a sure thing, so why come. For McCain is money and time wasted, so why come.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain was in Silicon Valley yesterday. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:41:32 PM EST
    San Diego has a Republican mayor (who supports gay and lesbian rights, including marriage) and a Republican city council.  

    I just read Arnold's approval rating is quite low, due to the economy.  

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't he have a really low approval rating (none / 0) (#106)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:07:32 PM EST
    when he was re-elected?

    [ Parent ]
    When will you folks get (none / 0) (#199)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:41:18 AM EST
    that local party politics isn't the same as national, or even statewide, for that matter?  Mass. has elected Dems. as state legislators more or less forever, yet it's hard as hell to get a Dem. elected governor.

    And McCain is pretty much sui generis.  The public does not see him as a garden-variety Republican.

    [ Parent ]

    There are reasons to worry (none / 0) (#215)
    by dianem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:39:47 AM EST
    As I've said (repatedly) I don't think Cal will go right this fall, and if it did then the election would probably be over before we even voted. But there are reasons for concern. Hispanic voter's don't particularly like Obama, and they did like Clinton.I don't know what their current stand is, but McCain is endorsing temoporary worker visas, which is not going to hurt his relationship with them. Hispanic's were moving toward the right anyway, over abortion and religion. This won't help.

    Then there is the gay marriage amendment that is going to be on the ballot, that will bring out ever right win nut in the state, and probably even some moderate nuts. We voted a few years ago to ban gay marriage with a solid majority - not enough for a constitutional amendment, but enough to make Democratic challengers nervous. I'm not happy about this. I wish they had brought out the decision after the election. I want Charlie Brown to win.

    Finally, California isn't as liberal as everybody thinks we are. We're more of a patchwork of liberal, moderate, and neocon, with a fair sprinkling of socialists, anarchists, and communists. We seem to keep electing Republican governors and Democratic reps, both of our Senators are Democratic females.  We're mixed.

    [ Parent ]

    Hidden bit of concern for Obama (none / 0) (#182)
    by gandy007 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:04:16 AM EST
    Not sure this means much in a state that either candidate will almost surely win.

    More telling was this bit:

    McCain won only 70% of his party colleagues, not enough to offset losing independents and 75% of Democrats to Obama.

    The party loyalty numbers were a potential sign of trouble for both McCain and Obama, though at this point they are canceling each other out. Typically, candidates corral nine out of 10 of their party's voters. A substantial drop in Republican support for McCain would put the state out of reach for him, and a drop in Democratic support for Obama could make California more competitive.

    Gee, I wonder why 25% of Democrats are reluctant to support Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, and that (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:05:51 PM EST
    will just eat at their hearts.  This is why we support her.  I am so infuriated at the attempts to minimize her every day.  If he is such a shoe in, he should be 10 points ahead of her now and she should be losing to McCain.  I know, it's a national poll.  Did'nt this have Obama 20 points ahead a few months back?  Remember that?

    Polls (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:00:51 PM EST
    I believe Obama was even or up on primary day - the day Clinton won by 9 points, so I take these with a grain of salt.  Also, the LA Times endorsed Obama (while LA and it's surrounding areas voted overwhelmingly for Clinton), I just can't bring myself to take this kind of thing at face value.

    [ Parent ]
    Pre-Wright, maybe. (none / 0) (#10)
    by sweetthings on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:09:20 PM EST
    I've been looking to see if I can find any other Newsweek polls that might point out any trends, but I've struck out so far.

    [ Parent ]
    You know, this isn't exactly (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:07:03 PM EST
    revolutionary news to most of us here -- the ones who live in the real world.

    Please read (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by DFLer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:08:28 PM EST
    andgarden's dairy and comments on this subject for further insights on Clinton's strong appeal.

    here

    Keep forgetting there are diaries on TL (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Xeno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:20:29 PM EST
    How does that work? Do only a few users write them, or what?

    [ Parent ]
    far as I know (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by DFLer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:27:42 PM EST
    those interested in posting submit their content to the Dynamic Duo via email for approval and posting. The internal sub-diaries are listed in the right side column, under 'recommended diaries" and "recent diaries"

    These were the instructions posted earlier by Jeralyn about this procedure, as I recall.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:29:42 PM EST
    I was wondering about that myself and have been curious.

    Jackson

    [ Parent ]

    J decides (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:31:46 PM EST
    who has privileges.

    I have no say in the matter.

    [ Parent ]

    there you go (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by DFLer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:36:06 PM EST
    I stand corrected....the dynamic uno.

    [ Parent ]
    Once again, he's just as strong (5.00 / 14) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:08:34 PM EST
    as John Kerry. Boy, that's a relief!

    Kerry, whose VP selector (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:10:02 PM EST
    is now working for Obama, whilst Kerry is campaigning for Obama in CA.  

    [ Parent ]
    So glad to know that John Kerry (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Anne on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:14:49 PM EST
    is living his dream...my fear is that we will all be re-living the nightmare come November.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm Not Sure That Is A Winning Combination (none / 0) (#18)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:14:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Also... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:18:44 PM EST
    He had the same job for Mondale.  Yeah, that's a good track record allright.  GO TEAM!  LOL

    Jackson

    [ Parent ]

    This just gets better and better... :) (none / 0) (#55)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:29:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's to the (5.00 / 7) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:37:14 PM EST
    point of almost being comical. The people in the party who win are derided but losers are embraced. And it's not just that, it's the fact that I think our party really, really likes losing. Why break a streak?

    [ Parent ]
    wait until you watch Recount (5.00 / 10) (#76)
    by Kathy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:39:29 PM EST
    You'll be pounding your head, screaming, "AND WE'RE DOING IT AGAIN!!!"

    New dem party motto:  "It is better to have run and lost than to ever have run a Clinton at all."

    [ Parent ]

    I have been waiting for Recount (1.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Cream City on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:13:54 AM EST
    for so long, since the first ads half a year ago.  I find the timing of it to be fascinating -- who knew it would air less than a week before the recently scheduled DNC rules committee meeting on Florida (and Michigan) facing its votes not counted again . . . and this time by the DNC?

    Weird as the election of 2000 was, who could have predicted how weird it would get this year?  And will it take eight more years for the HBO movie of this debacle?  At this rate, will the Dem debacles become a series?

    [ Parent ]

    Have you seen that W.Palm Beach ballot ? (5.00 / 0) (#218)
    by andrys on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:00:57 AM EST
    It was designed so badly, that Democrats voting for Gore wound up voting for Pat Buchanan because the selector-circle seemed to be near his.   Thousands of Jewish residents wound up voting for Buchanan in that area, which is considered HIGHLY improbable  :-)

      See the Butterfly Ballot webpage I put up at the time.  

      I've been able to keep that ballot-illustration -- there's a still-photo that can be enlarged and also a flash file linked beneath it which lets you see the ballot as would have looked in front of you while you were trying to figure which circle to punch.

      THAT cost us the election, since we lost Florida
        by something like 500+ votes.

        (So did Nader's votes cost us, for that matter.)

    [ Parent ]

    Well to be fair... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:35:11 PM EST
    it's not like there's a million campaign consultants to choose from on a winning Democratic presidential campaign.

    /snark

    [ Parent ]

    That seems (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:20:58 PM EST
    to be the thread through everything doesn't it? He doing as good as Kerry. Well, unless you are a toddler you should be aware that it's not a good thing.

    [ Parent ]
    I remember seeing (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by lilburro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:14:04 PM EST
    some really left-field poll from Newsweek about a primary race a few weeks ago.  Maybe I'm wrong but experience leads me to believe their results aren't all that trustworthy.  Their columnists sure aren't.

    Right. She's our strongest candidate. (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:23:23 PM EST
    Let's nominate her.  

    Further, some time ago a pollster looking at the primary thus far said Hillary was on track to earn more of the white vote in a general election than any Dem since LBJ.  Of course, I believe, she'd be strong with latinos, african americans and other ethnic groups, but it's interesting this poll bears out what that pollster predicts.  That could lead to a very big win for the Democrats.  I wonder what it is.  White women?

    While (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:24:35 PM EST
    I think this poll probably has Obama's white support correct now I don't think it will hold. I have seen it drop precipitously here in GA. Now, granted it's GA but there are a lot of states out there that have GA like voters. And my standard disclaimer is that the GOP 527's haven't done their work yet. The GOP plans a black vs. white campaign in Nov against Obama. Just like Obama has mined black resentment they plan to mine white resentment. Guess who wins that war?

    GA6th (5.00 / 8) (#50)
    by Kathy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:28:24 PM EST
    I feel like the implication behind your remark is some hidden Bradely effect, but it's my opinion from talking to fellow Atlantans that the charges of hillbillyism and racism are what is turning them, not actual feelings of racism.  Wright was the nail in the coffin.  Ayers, etc, will just be the extra dirt that buries him.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:44:04 PM EST
    the reason I don't think it will hold is not because of the Bradley effect. I won't think it will hold because he's a horrible general election candidate. Rev. Wright is what caused his tanking with whites here in GA.

    [ Parent ]
    I have had to disable comment in the other threads (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:24:52 PM EST
    because you folks do no respect when ewe declare comments closed.

    I will start banning folks who keep doing this.

    Here's the story - 200 comment or more KILLS our servers.

    Stop it. NOw.

    It's easy to miss.. (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by daria g on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:30:31 AM EST
    I just assumed comments were disabled when it says "closed" and that we'd be OK to keep posting up until they're disabled.  

    Does that make sense?  I didn't think "comments closed" was a notice telling us to stop commenting - I thought it was a notice informing us that commenting was no longer possible on that particular thread.  So I think you have a usability issue and not an issue of lack of courtesy on the part of your readers.

    Maybe if you changed the wording to make it clear that people should no longer comment, and put it in a larger font and boldface.

    [ Parent ]

    What you said (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:47:51 AM EST
    Ditto

    It'd be nice, BTD, if you didn't always appear to be assuming us loyalists were deliberately trying to cause trouble and break the rules.  Sometimes it's just not clear.  We really do mean well!

    [