Newsweek Poll: Clinton Beats McCain, Obama Tied

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" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • 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
    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


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


    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).


    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.

    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:


    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.  

    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"

    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%


    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.


    That was then. This is NOW, remember? (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:07:36 PM EST
    Right...we are transformed (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:09:02 PM EST
    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?

    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.  


    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.


    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.



    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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?


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.  


    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.


    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.


    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.

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


    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.


    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.  

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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%.

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

    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.


    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.


    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


    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.


    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?

    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?

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.


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


    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.


    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.)


    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.

    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?




    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?

    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
    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.



    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.


    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...?


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


    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.

    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.

    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!!!!!

    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.


    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.  


    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?

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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?

    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.


    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.



    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.


    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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
    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



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

    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."


    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?


    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.)


    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.



    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


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

    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!


    dude, sir (4.77 / 9) (#64)
    by DFLer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:33:56 PM EST
    sometimes one is in the middle of carefully composing a comment when they get closed. If the pace of commenting is fast and furious, while sometimes pokey posters like myself end up posting post-humourously.

    Sometimes it not a matter of not respecting the rules, but an accident of timing.

    just saying


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:35:27 PM EST
    it would be helpful to know (none / 0) (#79)
    by DFLer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:41:27 PM EST
    if the server-killer is the amount of actual replies, or is it the total number of words used in all replies.

    In other words, would it be wise not to waste space with one-liners when the discussion is hot and heavy?...or what?


    With that problem -- it happened to me, too (none / 0) (#189)
    by Cream City on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:16:47 AM EST
    -- of commenting as a thread closes while we write, it's just a thought, but perhaps to save the servers, close threads at 190 or ?  Would that help?  I really, really don't want to be the one to crash TL!

    She does have African-American support (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by rebrane on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:30:16 PM EST
    She wouldn't be getting 48 percent if she didn't.

    The Polls and The Voters (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:33:24 PM EST
    As the so called "super delegates" watch the parade of insanity crawl by, this allows the remaining ones to feel self-important and how they feel they will shape the political destiny of the USA.

    Polls and voters don't mean a thing to the SD's.  Look @ WV:  Byrd comes out for Obama, when not one county was won by Obama.  Richardson:  Obama loses NM but gains his support. And Massachusetts?? Let their conscience be their guide.  But the voters should rememeber these things...polls be damned.  Elections, notsomuch.

    I wouldn't just naturally assume that CA is not in play:  lots of Latinos there that are COMPLETELY being ignored now by Obama.  McCain has a record that doesn't square too badly with regard to immigration.  His military service will help him out in that demographic as well.

    Remember kiddos, in 2004, Orange county CA delivered the HIGHEST plurality of votes for Bush43 in the NATION.

    The entire state AIN'T San Francisco.  And Obama didn't want to appear with Gavin Newsome in ANY photo ops and Mayor Villaragosa supports Hillary, as does the United Farm Workers.  It doesn't hurt that Cesar Chavez's grandson is also stumping for Hillary.

    CA may be a little safer than FL or PA, but they did remove a Democrat governor and voted for a Republican one.

    I take NOTHING for granted.

    This just confirms what was already apparent (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Xeno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:33:28 PM EST
    The Democratic Party establishment is gearing up to nominate the weakest available candidate, yet again. It's like they keep lining up sheep* at the slaughterhouse gate every four years. Elitist, priggish, aloof, out-of-touch sheep. Then they wonder why their candidate always gets destroyed in the GE.

    * Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry -- notice that the candidates I left out don't fit that mold, so they actually won.

    Please don't diss McGovern! (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:37:30 PM EST
    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Xeno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:48:55 PM EST
    I was just eleven at the time of his epic failure, but I sure do remember it. McGovern set the gold standard for electoral disaster. His campaign was historic, in the bad, Titanic-meets-iceberg kind of way. How the h&ll did anyone manage to lose to Dick Nixon in such a humiliating manner? How??? It still boggles the mind.

    McGovern's (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Left of center on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:53:03 PM EST
    main support came from minorities and ultra liberal hippies. Remind you of anyone?

    Watch (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:54:07 PM EST
    what's going on now and you'll see. Look at Obama and you'll wonder how he could lose when the GOP is in such bad shape. We nominate bad candidates and no matter how bad of a shape the GOP is in, we lose because our candidates are horrible. We aren't interested in winning elections we're interested in things that have limited electoral appeal like ending the war or making history with the first AA candidate. The party is pathetic.

    I'm truly convinced that it's elitism (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by Xeno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:47:19 PM EST
    both the reality and the perception of it, that has consistently hamstrung Democratic candidates. While the GOP is actually far more elitist in its policies than the Dems, they are successful at avoiding the perception of it in the minds of the public. The press helps, of course. Even the local (DC) stations were touting McCain's down-home reputation as a "master of the barbeque," as one reporter gushed. You will never hear comparably folksy and "endearing" language used towards any Democrat, no matter how engaging and approachable s/he might be in person.

    There are plenty of voters who answer that perennial poll question, "Does __ care about people like you?" Yes regardless of the republican, and No for most dems.  The public is simply accustomed to dems appearing/being portrayed as more concerned about the price of arugula and private school tuition than rising gas and food costs and the need for affordable health care.

    If the party is going to keep nominating seemingly cold, patrician, distant candidates (and Obama is definitely in that tradition), they're going to keep getting crushed by the gopers every four years.


    Remember how the media (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by abfabdem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:03:52 PM EST
    dissed Gore for being "populist"?  They thought it was a such a losing strategy when if he'd just stuck with it . . .

    And perfected it. As Hillary has n/t (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by echinopsia on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:32:33 PM EST
    Yes, the Republicans do an amazing job (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:21:04 PM EST
    of portraying themselves as 'just regular folks' and portraying the Democrats as elite, Ivory-tower, myopic snobs.

    Kerry was a war hero, for pity's sake.  While I'm sorely disappointed in his supporting BO, he has a pretty amazing record.  Yet they managed to make him out to be an out-of-touch, rich, snobby liberal against a spoiled brat who dodged military service with a National Guard sinecure.  And this in a country where patriotism matters (lapel pins, anyone?) and we worship war heroes.

    And here we have Obama, who is already viewed that way, largely of his making, by a significant part of his own party.

    Someone on the thread (or one of the ones today, I've lost track) said that the GOP is gearing up to play the race card.  But I don't think they'll even have to go there.  They can pull out the elitism label and win off that alone, since Obama has kindly given them a head start.  It's been a winning hand for them with every election of the last 30 years except -- who was that again?  Yes, Bill Clinton.

    When I first heard the drinking-the-Kool-Aid jokes, I laughed because it was a funny metaphor.  But now I think it's so close to literally true as makes no difference.


    Nostalgia. I have no (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:54:07 PM EST
    explanation for why he lost so badly to Nixon, who owned the war and Watergate was already in the public eye.  Got to read up on that somewhere other than Wiki.

    His coalition never expanded (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:57:31 PM EST
    past the one he had in the primary.  And, his support was only an inch deep.

    It was much, much deeper in Ann Arbor! (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:04:38 PM EST
    I was steeped in Watergate (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Xeno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:26:06 PM EST
    As young as I was, I followed many of the ins and outs of it with my elderly grandparents. Their eyesight was failing, so they had me read the Washington Post and the now-defunct Evening Star to them every day. My grandfather hated Nixon, but reserved a lot of his venom for "Ted" Agnew, Maryland's ex-governor. Granddaddy knew Agnew was a crook, long before he was brought up on charges ("Nolo contendere," anyone?).

    Watergate and the war are the main reasons I can't figure McGovern's loss. I know that Nixon cleaned up among the middle and working class voters, but had McGovern managed to appeal to those voters he should have had the landslide victory. Did he even try? From what I can recall, the Dems spent their time acting like out-of-touch, nose-in-the-air elitists, which made it quite easy for the repubs to portray them as such. Elites and minorities do not a winning coalition make, it's clear.


    Yes, for pity's sake, it was dirty tricks (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Cream City on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:25:50 AM EST
    in 1972 -- I was steeped in Watergate, too, as a newsroom national (wire services) editor then, and a lot of folks today cannot fathom all that was done then, all that kept coming from WaPo daily and even hourly for a year and a half.  Only a fraction of it is in the Woodstein book (and far less, of course, is in the movie).

    And historians who have looked at even those files available yet, listened to the Nixon tapes, say that there was much more.  At every turn, every single turn, every event, the Dems were done in by dirty tricks.

    But no, Watergate really wasn't on the public's radar screen much by the 1972 election.  It still was a weird prank, a two-bit burglary then.  WaPo still was a struggling paper then, trying to regain its reputation.  A lot of media didn't even run the WaPo stories or buried them -- until, finally, Seymour Hersh of the NYTimes came on board on the story, too.  But that was too late to truly affect the election.

    It was maddening for those of us who had seen so much from WaPo -- but even those of us who gave their coverage credence had little national news hole to run even a bit of it.  I watched in sheer frustration as the Dems went down, no matter what they did.  It was awful.  I don't want to watch that again.


    Also remember that under 21's voting (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Cream City on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:37:20 AM EST
    was very new, with the 26th Amendment ratified only a year before.  The Dems were not alone in being new to how to reach college students to get them out not just for primaries but with follow-through for fall -- which didn't happen in such numbers.  They didn't sustain student support through the summer, they didn't rev up fast enough again in fall when school started, as such groups have to be reached and re-educated again with GOTV efforts to get them registered anew if they moved, as most do, etc.).

    That would have been a major part of the antiwar vote.  As for what else was going on with the antiwar movement -- well, Ayers and his ilk were instilling massive fear in a public exhausted by years of urban riots, campus riots, police riots at the previous Dem convention, etc.  Bombings in the early '70s caused many deaths, as in Madison; others not fatal also occurred.  What the antiwar movement didn't do to itself was worsened by infiltration by the FBI by '72.  Etc., etc.  I won't use up more bandwidth, but -- it is the subject of many books but many more, plus access to files still denied, are needed.


    I was in MD for a wedding (none / 0) (#237)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:41:41 AM EST
    the day the first paragraph on a 'burglary' came out.  No one could have guess the rest of it.

    McGovern (none / 0) (#220)
    by Steve M on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:41:42 AM EST
    never united the party.

    There was a great diary once on Daily Kos about the McGovern campaign.  All sorts of people who worked on the campaign started posting in the comments and talking about what went wrong.

    The consensus was that McGovern never patched up his rifts with the other factions within the party.  The result was that McGovern's team was left entirely on its own to run a 50-state election, with no real clue what they were doing.  All the infrastructure the Democratic Party had in place went by the wayside because McGovern didn't buddy up with the right people.

    When you're a kid, you think it's just a matter of waiting for the right candidate to come along, and then everything just magically falls into place.  Once you learn a little more about how the process works, you realize the only way to win a national election is through a team effort for the ages.  McGovern could have been the greatest campaigner ever and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference.


    Why not? (none / 0) (#205)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:49:55 AM EST
    He was a bad candidate and kind of a jerk who thought he would ride the anti-war vote to the presidency.  I voted for him, but I didn't think much of him.

    There's no evidence of that. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:33:53 PM EST

    Polls have been a little wonky the last couple (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by tigercourse on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:35:12 PM EST
    of days. Wonkier then usual anyway. First SUSA has Obama weaker in New Mexico then I expect him to be, and then has him alot stronger in Ohio then I was thinking. Rasmussen has him 2 points up in Pennsylvania. If he's only 2 in Penn, he's not 8 or 9 in Ohio, so one is off.

    My gut says (3.00 / 1) (#77)
    by andgarden on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:40:44 PM EST
    OH is off the table, and PA is a probable win. Like John Kerry!

    I am happy to see NH turning around, though. He might just win this one in a squeaker. . .


    You might be right (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:22:09 PM EST
    about a squeaker, but I seriously doubt once the GOP attack machine gets going full force that his numbers will be the same come November. (and before any one points out that the GOP attack machine will be out against Hillary too -- I know it will, but it is all old news with her).

    That New Hampshire one is strange (none / 0) (#86)
    by tigercourse on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:46:28 PM EST
    too. The last 4 or so polls have McCain ahead fairly comfortably and this one has it flipped. SUSA has been very good, but I'm not really trusting their new batch. I particularly don't understand how there can be such big divergences in the VP polls.

    Ras says he's ahead in NH (none / 0) (#90)
    by andgarden on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:51:09 PM EST
    not SUSA.

    OH, well, I don't believe SUSA. I call outlier.


    McCain is doing really well in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#169)
    by Exeter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:32:20 PM EST
    against both Hillary or Obama. I assume the b/c of McCain-Feingold.

    Not quite..... (none / 0) (#174)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:38:06 PM EST
    According to the average and trend, Obama is tied with McCain, and Clinton is behind.

    see pollster.com


    No, ignore the average at that site (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by Cream City on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:43:23 AM EST
    and see only the most recent poll, post-Reverend Wright.  It's on the mark; Wisconsin is going McCain.

    And no, it's not about McCain-Feingold at all.  I won't go into why, but it's about Obama, Wright, etc.  And, of course, about the Republicans who crossed over en masse to vote for Obama, in their ritual fun with a Dem primary when the GOP is decided, now going back where they always belonged and really were.

    It was the closest state last time and is still on the cusp.  Don't count on it without a lot of work -- as Gore did and Kerry did in Wisconsin to keep it blue.  They worked the Mississippi "coast" hard and a good effort could win it again.  That with  Milwaukee and Madison is about it for blue strongholds, but it can be enough.  But it will take hard work in Wisconsin to counter Wright, as it is one of the most churchgoing states -- and almost every AA in the state is in Milwaukee.


    There you go again (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:35:21 PM EST
    buying the Obama meme that Clinton is racist and therefore can't win over AAs in the GE. This is contrary to the numerous polls that AAs view Clinton as a strong "second choice" (after Obama, of course) and would have no problem with her on the ticket OR as the nominee in the GE.

    I believe BTD showed... (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Addison on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:56:01 PM EST
    ...they were among the STRONGEST demographics in favor of a unity ticket.

    That's my point too (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:10:51 PM EST
    Despite all the talk on the blogs and the msm, the majority of AAs actually like Clinton & know she isn't racist, they just like Obama more -- that does not translate into them refusing to vote for Clinton, as the parent post stated.

    Why? (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:40:46 PM EST
    Why can't she win the AA vote?  Because they will feel 'shafted'?  How do you think I feel, voting for the Dems since '88 and I am now being dismissed as some atavistic racial throwback who won't see the light because of my own stupidity.  To see the greatest living President trashed as some kind of racial goon who needs to be destroyed by a bunch of wild-eyed cultists.

    These are the hard facts, if HRC can win the nomination, maybe the AA's stay home and she loses.  They will not vote for John McCain.  But BHO, and especially his acolytes, have so poisoned the well that the groups we're talking about (Whites, Latinos, Women, etc.) will not just stay home, they will actively vote Mccain or for some 3rd Party, and we get our butts handed to us badly.  Maybe that isn't fair, but it is the truth.

    HRC, as funny as it sounds, will be the real Uniter of this party.  Strange days indeed, eh?



    Spite isn't the word (5.00 / 7) (#81)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:43:00 PM EST
    I would use to describe why I won't support Obama.  "Disgusted" might better describe how I feel about the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign. I never do anything to be spiteful.  That would just be foolish, and I'm not foolish.  It's foolish for the DNC to put Obama up as their nominee when Hillary has a better chance of beating McCain.  Are they being spiteful because they want to get rid of Hillary and Bill, and they're willing to risk losing to do it?

    this is simple, really (none / 0) (#124)
    by Baal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:31:04 PM EST
    The DNC isn't "putting up Obama" as the candidate.  It turns out that he has more delegates according to the rules of the nominating process that everyone agreed to at the beginning.  This is not sexist or racist.  

    Don't be disingenuous (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by echinopsia on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:58:52 PM EST
    If the DNC superDs make Obama the nom, they ARE putting him up.

    Repeating and typing slow so you get it: delegates are one, very undemocratic measure the superDs may take into account. Popular vote is another. Overall electibility is another, and it's the biggie.

    He's got one out of three.

    SuperDs were never ever meant to be a rubber stamp for the candidate with the most (estimated) pledged delegates. They were intended to be a check and balance to prevent nominating someone who can't win.

    If they do their job, they'll be voting for Hillary Clinton.


    Not that it matters..... (1.00 / 6) (#173)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:35:24 PM EST
    ....but he also has the most popular votes.

    Stop lying (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:54:16 PM EST
    Hillary has the popular vote lead but I guess you aren't counting Florida and Michigan

    You get a 1 for trolling (none / 0) (#181)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:54:52 PM EST
    whatever helps you sleep at night Baal (none / 0) (#138)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:47:27 PM EST
    just keep telling yourself that -- I see you've already convinced yourself, but I'm not buying what you are selling. In fact, I sent a pair of shoes to the DNC today.

    Thanks for the reminder! (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by nycstray on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:42:40 AM EST
    Dean's getting my old sneakers. A clue as to their condition: I have a Dalmatian. We put in a few miles a day  ;) I will also include a good pair of shoes for a woman in need.

    I don't vote based on race and the (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by athyrio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:46:14 PM EST
    reason that I won't vote for Obama has absolutely nothing to do with his race....I was one of the people many years ago that marched with Dr. King...My complaint against Obama is the treatment of Hillary and the deliberate sexism in this campaign...she doesn't deserve it and her treatment by the DNC is disgraceful.....This simply isn't a white and black issue for me.....sorry to hear it is  for you...:-(

    What? (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by RalphB on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:46:50 PM EST
    the way Obama has been treated

    You can't be serious  :-)

    I am sorry but I see (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by delacarpa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:07:09 PM EST
    it as a rejection of Obama. She is leading in states she was in long ago, and people seeing Clinton as still the nominee running for their vote  and not someone who is trying to be President now. The tide is turning.

    From your lips to god's ears imo n/t (none / 0) (#118)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:25:23 PM EST
    If Obama was not a nominee (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:14:39 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton would be receiving huge African-American support and I believe there is plenty of evidence to back that up.  It is understandable that African-Americans are supporting Obama so strongly but that does not mean they will abandon Clinton or the Democratic party in a general election.  You are simply ignoring so many years, decades actually, of the Clinton's standing with and fighting for the African-American community.

    The unlikely populist (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:30:59 PM EST
    I think going into the campaign, most people would have thought Hillary would have, at least, the same problems connecting with blue-collar voters that Kerry and (to a lesser extent) Gore had. I think her ability to connect with them on a level similar to what Bill managed has been one of the surprising aspects of the campaign as it's unfolded. And while this poll supports it, I've already thought it was a positive aspect of Hillary as much as it was a negative of Obama.

    I realize now that I just didn't know Clinton (5.00 / 20) (#153)
    by Xeno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:07:23 PM EST
    I'm as shocked as you are at her populism, but I think that is because I didn't really know who the candidate was. Oh, I assumed that I knew everything there was to know about Hillary Clinton, just like most other voters. The long, dreary slog through the 90s, through more trumped-up "scandals" than I can even recall now, convinced me that Hillary's political persona had been laid bare. Even though I liked her and was open to her candidacy, I had no idea what her true political views were.

    (Full disclosure: I was solidly behind Edwards until January.)

    The Hillary Clinton I've seen during this campaign has been a revelation to me. I have been pleasantly shocked to discover that she not only had a complete grasp of every issue, but that she cares deeply about things that matter to the average American. She understands our concerns, even if she doesn't pump her own gas or shop for her own groceries. That sort of understanding, of the economic realities of life, isn't dependent upon one's bank balance or salary. It stems from compassion and empathy that allows a person to put herself (or himself) into another's place. Both Clintons possess that ability, as do the Kennedys and John Edwards. The vast majority of Democratic presidential candidates (including Obama) have lacked it.


    I've always known... (5.00 / 7) (#165)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:30:10 PM EST
    ... that she had a grasp of the issues. But I think most people associated her with corporate interests, given her fundraising over the years. That isn't an inaccurate view, but having watched her career here in New York, I really do think the attention to detail and effort to help regular people on small-bore issues is largely who she is. I think her campaign has been unfortunately bogged down by egotistical, unhelpful advisers, but I also think as the campaign has progressed, the Hillary that has emerged is actually the real Hillary, not just who she thinks she can sell to the voters.

    I've never seen a campaign (none / 0) (#235)
    by Fabian on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:06:30 AM EST
    that I liked from start to finish.

    But then again, I don't like the premise of most campaigns which are 95% marketing an Image and 5% actual Candidate.

    In reality, campaigns are publicity wars and something that works today may not work next week and something that has worked for a month might be a total dud thereafter.

    The best candidates are ones that are totally amorphous or are skillful and well rounded enough that they can change without missing a stride.


    I was having a hunch she would be (5.00 / 8) (#196)
    by nycstray on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:36:47 AM EST
    much more down to earth and on the people's side. I'd seen glimpses of it and had seen flashes of the fight in her  (9/11 air quality/funding for responders for starters). I did not think I would see it to this extent in the primaries. It was more of a gut instinct that once she was in the WH, we were going to see more of 'her' and her experience (along with the fact she's my senator) that had me leaning towards her in the beginning. At that point I was also happy with Edwards and Obama. Now only one person will do for me. She has really put it out there and I am quite happy about what I see.

    Has anyone called her an elitist lately? You describe her well. I knew she was wonky and knew the issues, but her wonkiness that has come out during this campaign just really blows me away. And if you watch the news area of her website, she's constantly pumping out info, so it's not just where she's stumping that she's focused on. Back in the fall when we were getting slammed with all the bad imports, she put out a policy statement that had some teeth in it. She was the only one that spelled it out in detail and it def wasn't Corp friendly. I actually went through all the statements they were putting out in the lead up to Iowa and comparing them. She def had high wonky scores and less grey area  ;)

    Oh, and my full disclosure: Was not a huge fan of her coming here to run for the senate. Was pretty much over the media/Clinton BS and didn't want to deal with it. The bright spot was she was going to run against Rudy, lol!~ Was just fine voting for her the second time around.


    Your reaction to Clinton is close to mine (5.00 / 8) (#219)
    by andrys on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:28:34 AM EST
    Xeno, I was just fatigued by Clinton dramas and the night of the  New Hampshire primary, I hoped to God that Obama and Edwards would beat her by good margins so I'd never have to hear about the Clintons again.  I had been a Clinton supporter but had no idea of the substance behind Hillary herself and was sort of stunned when I heard her talking about the issues, the amount of knowledge at her fingertips, the fact that she cares so much about all these things that she has studied every aspect of these problems and specific ideas and plans just roll out of her with such engaging enthusiasm.

      I had been an Edwards supporter too but thought maybe Obama would show more later.  So after I heard her and realized, to my surprise, that there is someone with the involved mind and heart to tackle the issues, not to mention the ENERGY she has for this, I was amazed.

      Obama has never showed me that he cares enough to even know the details.  Without a prepared speech and a teleprompter he is just empty when it comes to issues.  He's an interesting conversationalist when the subject is fairly vague and is only about theories.  

      It's such a loss to me that Obama will probably get the nomination instead.

      As for Matthews and Russert and their crazy conversations of placating women by Obama putting another woman on the ticket, they know nothing.  It's not about a woman, it's about a fantastically capable, knowledgeable person whose every fiber is excited by dealing with what Obama would consider the tedium of problem-solving.  Add that to the knowhow of the whole Washington scene after being an unofficial VP, and it would be great if we were able to get her for that job.


    Keeping it short (none / 0) (#221)
    by Lupin on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:47:05 AM EST
    I too was a solid Edwards supporter until January, with policies leaning Kucinich.

    After Edwards quit I leaned Clinton. I wrote several anti-Obama diaries on DKos in February and March to prove it.

    In the last month or so, without feeling more positive about Obama, I have come to really dislike Clinton and/or her campaign and/or her surrogates. (Hard to tell who to blame.)

    I'm perfectly comfortable voting for her if somehow she manages to win the nomination, but at this point, I dislike her more than I dislike Obama.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:37:08 PM EST
    I was talking about Obama. He's dropped considerably and has zero chance down here. I doubt that he would get over 40% of the vote vs. McCain.

    Polls Do Not Substantiate Your Claims (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:48:43 PM EST
    Rasmussen 5/6

    McCain 53% Obama 39%
    McCain 48% Clinton 37%

    Does look like Obama makes GA more competitive. If they hate Clinton, then their revulsion for Obama is even higher.

    I believe that buyer's remorse (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:57:41 PM EST
    is rearing it's ugly head, via your poll data and the Rasmussen poll that shows that

    Fewer Democrats want Hillary to drop out

    have you heard anything about this? (none / 0) (#154)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:12:34 PM EST
    Saw this comment at MyDD about Obama--

    >>>Today we find out that he did not take his name off MI in compliance with DNC but he did not even try to get his name on MI ballot because...he did not think he had a chance to win there.


    No, (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:16:21 PM EST
    I haven't heard anything about that.  I wonder if it's even possible to get reliable information on the subject.

    His name was entered by the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by andrys on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:47:17 AM EST
    I read that yesterday.  Also, he did remove his name and there are a few articles that talk about it.

    Here's a newspaper report about his trying to get others to follow his lead in trying to get Clinton to be the only name on the ballot to embarrasss her in Iowa where they did not look kindly on Michigan trying to tread on their early-date territory.

    Democratic presidential hopefuls who honor their four-state pledge and support the nomination calendar won't be on the Wolverine State's ballot. As with most things in life, and especially politics, the situation is more complicated.

    Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface.

     The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.

      A contact in one of the campaigns said,

    "The belief that this would somehow hurt front-running Clinton in Iowa was icing on an already sweet cake," he said. "The real meal, however, is the good will the move generates not only in Iowa, but in all the states who are playing by the DNC rules and that don't appreciate all of this jumping and chaos."

    The Washington Post reported

    The campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards are urging their supporters to cast ballots for "uncommitted," according to state Democratic party chairman Mark Brewer. The Obama campaign says there may be "grass-roots efforts," but that the Chicago-based campaign is not involved.

    In an effort to signal that Clinton cannot stroll away with the state's delegates, even in a largely uncontested race, Michigan Rep. John Conyers...taped a radio advertisement Wednesday afternoon. In it, they called on Obama backers not to surrender their vote.

    They say on the radio spot that they intend to vote "uncommitted" and give Obama a chance to compete for those delegates in Denver.

    The Democrats were split, with one side wanting the date change and the DNC not.  The Republicans didn't mind the date change so their results stood.

    The article continues,quoting the radio cripts.  Excerpts:

     . . .

     . . .




    He had no chance to win there + (none / 0) (#171)
    by Exeter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:33:36 PM EST
    he was trying to score political points with the early states. The thing is, is that he got those early points--especially in Iowa, and Hillary suffered!

    A McCain-Obama campaign in the fall (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by zyx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:30:13 PM EST
    will be quite a spectator sport, it would seem.  

    My cable package dropped MSNBC, and I'm not about to pay for an upgrade, so mostly we watch the grown-up News Hour on PBS.  David Brooks was saying tonight that it's odd that McCain was taking shots at Obama like he did--like the one about Obama not serving the country and yet criticizing McCain for his vote on the military funding bill, that McCain doesn't usually do that kind of thing.  But he and Obama HAVE been trading swipes--about preachers, about heads-of-states, etc.  Brooks thinks they just don't like each other, which makes me think about what Bill Clinton said about if Hillary ran against McCain--that they DO like each other.  I think I've seen Hillary and McCain together (I mean, on the teevee) recently, and they looked really comfortable around each other.

    But not so much the guys.  It might get, oh, less than lofty, and not that "same ol' politics", and, you know, divisive.

    A tireless fighter (5.00 / 6) (#177)
    by Manuel on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:44:27 PM EST
    For her supporters, that is the lasting image of Hillary that comes out of this campaign.  Back in 2000 Gore found his fighting voice too late.  I don't think Kerry ever found his.  Obama doesn't seem likely to have one.  Hopefully, he won't need it.  These last couple of months Hillary has connected with a large chunk of voters.  Working class people understand what it is like to face long odds.  I don't think I can forgive the media and the left blogs for the politcs of personal destruction they have pursued against Hillary.  I certainly won't forget it.

    Is Winning the Only Thing? Apparently Not. (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:06:34 AM EST
    Check out this electability tsunami.  Scroll down and click through.

    She does have ALOT (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by TheViking on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:26:33 AM EST
    of Black Support -- and they're ALL being threatened with DeathThreats if they don't support the "Black Messiah".


    There's an RFK thread open for comments. (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:20:33 AM EST
    I say this, because unfortunately, we folks at TL don't get to determine when this thing is 'over'. I believe it's a VERY long way from over. It's a cluster bomb; the main one detonated and now we're in for a fire storm of bomblets. Not talking about it isn't going to make it go away; our best hope is to keep talking sense.

    How Hillary can beat Obama (5.00 / 3) (#229)
    by RJH on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:06:05 AM EST
    I think I may have come up with a campaign strategy for Hillary to beat Obama. I call it The Audacity of Hoping for More than Obama Does.
    For example Obama has no foreign policy ideas beyond meeting with foreign leaders and hoping something good happens. So Hillary could go one better by hoping something even better happens without even meeting with them. This also saves aviation fuel in travelling to these countries so we get more hope for the gallon.
    Obama also hopes that racial problems in America can be reduced, but Hillary could hope for much more than this. For example she could hope that Appalachians could give up their racism completely. She could even hope that everyone's skin color changes to a new color so racism becomes impossible. This is just as likely to happen as Obama's hope, but here Hillary not only hopes to reduce racial tensions she eliminates them completely. After all why just half hope a problem like this, if one is completely unrealistic one might as well hope for the whole solution.
    Obama is also hoping Americans don't need a tax cut on their fuel bills, though he has no reason why this would be true. I think Hillary should hope that OPEC just gives the oil to America instead, because that would save the country much more money. So instead of hoping people can afford fuel, why not just hope the fuel is free? This is far more hope for the dollar than Obama is wishing for.
    Obama also hopes for a new kind of politics and an end to partisan behavior. He also hopes that McCain, Rove, etc will not criticise any of his shortcomings, since that might make people not vote for him. Hillary can also out hope Obama here. I think she should hope all Republicans simply become Democrats immediately so by definition all partisan politics is resolved. She should also wish Rove never existed which would fix that problem better than Obama's hoping Rove will like him too much to swiftboat him.
    Vote for Hillary, Hope is a Plan.

    Hillary is absolutely (4.83 / 6) (#195)
    by daryl herbert on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:31:37 AM EST
    killing Sen. McCain in that poll.

    Uh, sorry.  Poor choice of words.  I mean she's beating him.

    But not with a tire iron or anything.  Don't misinterpret me, please.  I mean she's pulled ahead.

    Which is not to say that she's pulling his hair.  That's not what I meant.  What I mean to say is, she's bleeding off his support.

    No, that's not right.  She's crushing hi--err, you all know what I mean.  Stop looking at me like that.

    Please don't speak for all of us (4.66 / 12) (#98)
    by Xeno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:58:00 PM EST
    All Black people do not support Obama. Period. And not all of us will follow him over a cliff, lemming-like, just because of a shared ethnicity. We can think for ourselves, and opinions on the election are as varied as we are as individuals.

    We will have to wait for the GE to see how people will vote. That is far preferable than having anyone, whatever their race, attempting to predict what all Black voters will do in a situation that has yet to fully unfold.

    As for your point about not being able to assume that all Black voters will back the Democratic Party, I agree. As proof, I've changed my affiliation to Independent and will only support candidates based on how closely their views match mine on the issues. Actually, that is how I've always voted, but now I'm free of the constraints of one particular party.

    I love Xeno's (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:52:02 PM EST
    approach and his great regard for history (kinduva history buff myself).

    Blacks certainly are a bellwether group for the Democrats.  And no one in here would ever undermine their contribution to Democratic successes.

    The harsh reality is setting in though. Both sides are digging in and no one is giving up. BHO's supporters would rather "lose with Obama than win with Hillary", and HRC supporters, like myself, will NOT vote for Obama.  

    Polls are an inaccurate snapshot at best.  I never really knew what the Bradley Effect was until recently.  I think that's what is going to happen here, sadly.

    FTR, I started out as a strong Obama supporter.  I remember waking up early that Saturday morning to hear his speech about running for the presidency that cold January morning. I blogged about it and was totally moved. Sadly, his actions and to a lesser extent, his followers have turned me way off.

    And has anyone noticed how many people have to disqualify themselves when they say they won't vote for Obama regarding his race?

    Another fissure compliments of Axelrod.


    this (1.00 / 1) (#163)
    by CanadianDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:24:25 PM EST
    IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR OBAMA, he is now moving up while HRC stagnates.

    Heh (none / 0) (#187)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:10:40 AM EST
    you might try reading the post before placing your talking point.

    BTD - (none / 0) (#19)
    by EddieInCA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:16:05 PM EST
    Aren't there two new polls which show Obama beating McCain in both PA and OH?

    One poll each (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:17:49 PM EST
    Also a poll with him losing in Ohio and Florida.

    SUSA has him winning Ohio by 8, Q Poll has him losing by 4.

    Q has him losing Florida by 10.


    In March (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:47:11 PM EST
    the voters found Obama LOST the primary by 10 points.

    Since 1960, only TWO Dem presidents won OH:  LBJ in 64 and Bill Clinton in 92 and 96.

    Does anyone seriously think that Obama can pull off Ohio when JFK couldn't?  Dewey took OH from FDR in 44, too.

    History is our FRIEND.  And teacher.


    I found the internals... (none / 0) (#45)
    by EddieInCA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:27:06 PM EST
    ... of the SUSA poll interesting, especially the ethinic breakdown.

    Any thoughts?


    Did not look a t them yet (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:28:32 PM EST
    Beeen on RFK a lot of the day.

    Yeah within the MOE (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:18:55 PM EST
    but the same polls have Hillary winning easy by double digits

    Feh (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Kathy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:22:30 PM EST
    let's go with the riskier, unexperienced candidate with all the new skeletons in his closet.  I'm shocked the media isn't more excited about this hot, young fella!

    I wonder what these polls mean to SDs.  Some of them have got to be feeling like they've swallowed glass about now.  I really think they are just waiting for a reason to break for her.


    If so, they are being really discreet. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:24:03 PM EST
    I feel like I am in the middle of something (4.90 / 11) (#120)
    by Anne on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:26:24 PM EST
    that is a cross between The Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland...

    Every time a new poll comes out showing that Clinton beats Obama and McCain doesn't, I hear the Wizard's voice, only he's saying - amid much thunderous noise and flashing lights - "Pay no attention to the polls and electoral maps!  I am Obama - the Great and Powerful!"  Occasionally, I hear back-up that sounds like the Media Boyz doing an American Idol Reunion Tour number..."nothing you could say could tear me away from My Guy..."

    And then, on days when these polls come out, Obama trots out more superdelegates, who seem to have come straight from the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, giving reasons for their support that make no sense.

    I sure wish Alice had a little tea cake labeled, "Bite Me," because that's kind of been my response to much of what I hear these days.

    Time for bed, I think.


    He picked up another five today, I believe.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by EddieInCA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:25:10 PM EST
    ...including one that switched from Clinton.

    Just sayin....


    SD endorsement don't mean a thing (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:27:51 PM EST
    until they actual vote at the convention. just saying . . .

    This is the thing... (5.00 / 6) (#114)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:22:21 PM EST
    SD's have been one of the biggest disappointments of this primary season.  This race has exposed many as spineless, political opportunists who have not done the one job they were put in place to do.  

    In my opinion, I think SD's should not even declare until the primaries are over or the convention is had.  SD announcements should not be providing the media narrative or shaping the race.  I even felt this way in the beginning when Hillary was ahead with SD's because it made it seem like 'the Party Insiders were behind her and might overturn the will of the people'.  At least, that was what we were hearing in the media.  Although, funny now that Obama is ahead in SD's, the whole narrative has changed, unsurprisingly.  


    I agree completely (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:21:28 PM EST
    The ones that will be showing up on my ballot in the fall will hear from me via my vote for their opponent.

    This polls (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:30:55 PM EST
    looks ok on that score.

    Hasn't your candidate sd. repeatedly (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:32:27 PM EST
    his supporters would vote for Clinton if she is the nominee?

    Mixed signals. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Addison on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:54:06 PM EST
    I don't get polls.

    The polls recently, and not ust Rasmussen, but SUSA as well, have shown Obama leaping ahead of McCain (inexplicably, to me) in some states (OH and VA, notably), but then some national polling stays the same. I don't get what is causing this. Are Clinton supporters rallying to Obama in the general even as they stick with Hillary in the primary?

    He's (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:01:10 PM EST
    probably doing worse in other states. At one time he was getting 45% here in GA (pre wright) but now is down to 35%. It's unlikely that he'd break 40% here or in most southern or border states.

    You don't get polls? (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:24:23 PM EST
    Join the club -- it seems to me anyone can "find" a poll that supports their candidate, so it is best not to spend too much time trying to sort them out.

    Average the polls...... (1.00 / 4) (#168)
    by Laureola on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:31:58 PM EST
    .....and you're correct.  Obama is rapidly improving against McCain in states like Ohio and PA.  Clinton is sinking like a rock.  On average, she's now 10 points below Obama, nationwide

    Please refer to a new talking (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:35:23 PM EST
    point. You have said this before. Thanks.

    How much are you getting paid (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by angie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:20:01 AM EST
    to spread this bs around here? I notice you've only been posting here since 5/14 & you posted 25 inane comments today, in violation of site rules. So, please go catapult your propaganda somewhere else for a while.

    High Racial Resentment Index (none / 0) (#202)
    by Prabhata on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:43:27 AM EST
    My view about high racial resentment index is that these people do not change their views easily.  Those changes are so subconscious that most people don't admit there is a problem.  Obama therefore can only deal with that problem by getting a higher percentage of those who don't have "high racial resentment index".  Can he do it?  I doubt it.

    Not on RCP (none / 0) (#203)
    by Lupin on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:46:45 AM EST
    As always, I first go to Real Clear Politics (whose existence was pointed out to me here) to read more and what do I see, right on the front page:

    # Polls: McCain v. Obama

        * PA: Obama 45, McCain 43
        * OH: Obama 48, McCain 39
        * NV: McCain 46, Obama 40
        * NH: Obama 48, McCain 43
        * MS: McCain 54, Obama 39

    General Election: McCain vs. Obama
    RCP Average
    Obama +4.7

    General Election: McCain vs. Clinton
    RCP Average
    Clinton +1.5

    My only point here is that, at the stage we are in, I don't find this kind of statistical date (often within the margin of error) convincing.

    My two comments from andgarden's post (none / 0) (#207)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:13:17 AM EST
    Yes, she respects the voters (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:55:41 PM EST

    But this nice piece here still does not get down to what I think is the real issue at play here.
    And I finally figured out how to talk about it without rehashing a long dissertation on the topic.

    A question, rhetorical or otherwise:  Why is there no such thing, why was there never such a thing as the Carter wing of the party?

    You see because the narrative, the whole entire discussion here is limitted, and in so far as it exists, Carter was also someone who was able to speak to certain groups of people without demagoging certain wedge issues.  He knew exactly how to talk about abortion.  If it was as big of an issue back then I believe he would have known exactly how to talk about gay marriage.

    As far as this discussion is concerned there's no reason at all why Carter shouldn't have been a more successful Democrat.

    There is more going on here.

    More than ever gets talked about on blogs.

    hopefully, bloggers will start talking about it soon.

    Another way to put it (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:07:18 AM EST

    It all depends on how you define a Reagan democrat.
    Is it a Democrat who looked at the platform of the Democratic Party and thought it was too liberal, elitist, and borderline amoral?

    Or is it a Democrat who looked at the Carter administration and decided Democrats can't be trusted with executive office.  Great legislators.  Bad executive office holders.

    More data points.  Republican governors in Dem strongholds like CA and MA.

    Why do social liberals like Giuliani and Bloomberg feel compelled to run [for an executive office like mayor] as republicans in a blue state?

    Anecdotally (none / 0) (#214)
    by Lupin on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:38:04 AM EST
    May I proffer the notion that most, the majority of Democratic voters are not that much invested with either Clinton or Obama?

    I conduct my business in LA, in the godless sodomite industry and I've yet to meet an Obamaton or a Clintonista in the flesh. People have their preferences, yes, but anyone I know will be perfectly fine voting for whoever is the Democratic nominee.

    The strongest motivation I can perceive to get rid of the Republicans.

    Thanks for the link. (none / 0) (#232)
    by Fabian on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:58:01 AM EST
    OMG!  I agree with David Brooks!

    As for Shields, I could characterize Clinton's remarks as many things but not "reckless".  That's probably the one thing that I think Clinton isn't.  She's painfully cautious and very deliberate, but I can't remember the last time she was "reckless".  

    While I agree that Clinton (none / 0) (#242)
    by smott on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:38:06 AM EST
    ...has found a way to connect strongly with the working class demo, I really think citing white voter statistics of Gore/Kerry is meaningless. They were running against a white guy, she isn't. Like it or not, that changes the dynamic.
    I'm sure part of it is attributable to Clinton's ability to click with the working class.
    But not all of it.

    margin of error (none / 0) (#243)
    by brooksie78 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:51:35 AM EST

    Obama has an upside (none / 0) (#245)
    by diogenes on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:31:08 PM EST
    At this point Obama has been getting tagteamed while neither he nor McCain have been attacking Hillary.  His supporters are hers anyway, as many on this site say.  She has high negatives, which is why she is barely ahead of McBush.  If Hillary bowed out and threw her support to Obama, surely he'd gain at least two points of her white support.  If Obama dropped out and threw his support to Hillary, what would she gain?