Hillary Leads McCain and Obama in Big Swing States

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:19:32 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A Quinnipiac Poll shows Hillary leading and Obama trailing McCain in two of the three critical swing states, and Hillary leading Obama as to McCain in all three:

May 22, 2008 - McCain Leads Obama In Two Of Three Key Swing States, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds; Clinton Has Big Leads In Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania --- FLORIDA: Clinton 48 - McCain 41; McCain 45 - Obama 41; OHIO: Clinton 48 - McCain 41; McCain 44 - Obama 40: PENNSYLVANIA: Clinton 50 - McCain 37; Obama 46 - McCain 40
..."The numbers for Florida and Ohio are good news for Sen. John McCain and should be worrisome for Sen. Barack Obama. That is especially true about Ohio, which decided the 2004 election. Ohio's economy is worse than the rest of the country and the Republican brand there is in disrepute. McCain's Buckeye lead may be a sign that nationally this may not be the easy Democratic walk to the White House that many expected," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

In the popular vote, Jonathan Last of the Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board comes up with much the same numbers that I did a few days ago, using Real Clear Politics and the most expansive number of voters available, one that includes Florida, Michigan and the caucus states. [More...]

Lost in the excitement of Barack Obama's coronation this week was an inconvenient fact of Tuesday's results: Hillary Clinton netted approximately 150,000 votes and is now poised to finish the primary season as the popular-vote leader. In some quaint circles, presumably, these things still matter.
Real Clear Politics keeps track of six versions of the popular-vote total. They are, in ascending order of inclusivity: (1) the popular vote of sanctioned contests; (2) the total of sanctioned contests, plus estimated votes from the Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington caucuses; (3) the popular vote plus Florida; (4) popular vote plus Florida and the caucuses; (5) the popular vote plus Florida and Michigan; (6) popular vote plus Florida, Michigan, and the caucus estimates. After Tuesday, Clinton now leads in two of these six counts.
If you believe that the most important precept in democratic politics is to "count every vote," then the sixth category is the most inclusive, and here Clinton leads Obama by 71,301 votes. Of course, this includes the Michigan result, where Sen. Obama had removed his name from the ballot. So while it may be the most inclusive, it may not be the most fair.
The third and fourth counts - the ones which include Florida - seem more fair. Here, Obama is clinging to a slight lead of 146,786 votes (257,008, with the caucus estimates). However, with Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota remaining, he will almost certainly finish behind her in these counts, likely by a few hundred thousand votes.
But could Clinton take over the lead in all of the popular-vote tabulations? Quite possibly. In Puerto Rico's last major election, two million people voted. Let's assume that turnout for this historic vote - Puerto Rico has never had a presidential primary before - will be equal to or greater than that turnout.

He concludes:

If Clinton were to win Puerto Rico by 20 points she would pick up at least a 400,000-vote margin. This would allow her to swamp Obama in the popular-vote counts, which include Florida, making her the leader in four of the six permutations of the popular vote. At that point, Obama would be left clinging to the least-inclusive count, which he now leads by 441,558 votes (551,780, including caucuses).
To understand how razor-thin this majority is, consider that if the Puerto Rico turnout is slightly larger than we have imagined - or Clinton's margin is slightly greater - then Clinton would finish the primary process leading in every conceivable vote count. With two million voters, a 28 percent victory would put Clinton over the top even in the count, which excludes Florida and Michigan and includes estimates for Obama's caucus victories.

He also makes a good point about the unity pony:

Partisan voters almost always come home after their candidate loses. The problem arises when a candidate's supporters believe that their guy (or gal) didn't lose. Expect the chorus calling for Clinton's withdrawal to grow louder over the next week, with people insisting that she has no "path to victory."
Clinton's path is both obvious and simple: Win the popular vote and force Barack Obama and his cheerleaders to explain why that doesn't matter.

Big Tent Democrat disagrees, as he noted here.

< Indiana Jones Movie and Karen Allen | Obama Labels Hugo Chavez A Dangerous Demagogue >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Hillary Leads McCain and Obama in Big Swing States | 179 comments (179 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Crash and Burn Snobama (5.00 / 5) (#1)
by Lady in Blue on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:06:28 PM EST

The Democratic leaders will get what they deserve if they make the weaker candidate the nominee.

LOL - yes, Obama has "snowed" many (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Josey on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:44:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately Hillary Clinton, all her supporters, (5.00 / 2) (#77)
by Angel on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:12:29 PM EST

and the country will suffer the consequences.

[ Parent ]

Weaker? (1.00 / 1) (#64)
by Spike on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:07:14 PM EST

Why is the supposedly "stronger" candidate stronger if she has lost to the "weaker" candidate?

[ Parent ]

Since (5.00 / 3) (#69)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:10:33 PM EST

when have Dems picked the best candidate in a primary? 40 years of picking losers is a great record right?

[ Parent ]

1992, 1996 & 2000 (none / 0) (#76)
by SpinDoctor on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:11:55 PM EST

Clinton and Gore were the best candidates, or do you disagree?

[ Parent ]

Of course (5.00 / 3) (#85)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:15:15 PM EST

but we bucked that trend four years ago and if Obama is the nominee then we'll be bucking it again. Overall our history has been to pick losers. Now we have a candidate who can win in Nov. and all the former losers in the party are doing everything they can to push her out and crown a known loser.

Warren Buffet said today that the economy is in for a long deep recession. Maybe this is why they would rather put up a known loser. They would rather have a GOP president take the blame.

[ Parent ]

Did you see the SurveyUSA polling (none / 0) (#103)
by SpinDoctor on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:26:50 PM EST

I posted down-thread the most recent SurveyUSA polling that demonstrates that Obama is far stronger than the commenters here give him credit for. I appreciate and even respect the support many of you have for Senator Clinton. But if she is not the nominee, that does not necessarily translate into Obama being an inferior candidate. If anything, the amazing grassroots support organization he has built and the enthusiasm he has created should be a sign that he is a much different candidate than John Kerry, or even Al Gore. If anything, Obama is much more similar to Bill Clinton than the previous two candidates and I think once some time has passed and emotions have cooled, many here will see the similarities.

[ Parent ]

You (5.00 / 6) (#114)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:34:21 PM EST

haven't researched Obama if you don't realize he is the inferior candidate. Politico just today was talking about their electoral landslide against Obama. Dukakis dropped 10-15 points overnight from a 527 ad. Don't you think an empty suit like Obama would drop that much?

The grassroots or net roots is not enough for Obama to win.

Bill Clinton had 10 years as Gov. of AR. Obama has had 28 months in the in state senate and 143 days in the US senate. I hardly think it compares. And if Obama was like Clinton, he would be winning the white working class votes like Clinton did. He is not therefore I think you can pretty much assume based on those few things that Obama is pretty much unelectable. You're just so caught up in the hype that you can't think clearly. I did the same thing in 2004 and I know that kind of starry eyed bewilderment when I see it.

[ Parent ]

143 Days? (none / 0) (#132)
by SpinDoctor on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:50:33 PM EST

I can understand comparing the relative experience of the different candidates. But you hurt your own cause by misstating the facts. Obama has served 3-1/2 years in the United States Senate and 8 years in the Illinois Senate. Now reasonable people may differ as to whether that is sufficient experience, but at least they can draw their conclusions based upon an accurate set of facts. Also, you realize that Obama has more legislative experience than Abraham Lincoln had at the time he was elected? In the 20th Century alone, Obama has more experience than Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Warren Harding, Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

[ Parent ]

: Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and (5.00 / 4) (#143)
by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:02:41 PM EST

Ronald Reagan? Let's see Obama had 8 years as a part-time state senator and something over a year in the senate before beginning his campaign. Zero executive experience.
Ronald Reagan: 2 term governor of CA and prior president of SAG.
Jimmy Carter: governor of GA, nuclear scientist and submarine officer
Dwight Eisenhower: he must have done something? oh yes, Supreme Allied Commander and planner of the Normandy invasion. That's executive experience in spades!

[ Parent ]
: He served 7 years in the (none / 0) (#160)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:30:45 PM EST

Il senate which meets for 4 months out of the year for a total of 28 months. It is a part time job. In the senate he has had a knack for not showing up and I believe the 143 days is the number that he has shown up during his tenure.
Oh geez, are you know saying that Obama is going to be assisinated? You brought up Lincoln.
He doesn't have more experience than Ronald Reagan. Comparing being a part time legislator with being the Governor of CA is beyond ludicrus. Yeah, he about equals Jimmy Carter in experience. How did that one turn out? Not well as I remember. Dwight Eisenhower had extensive experience in the military in WWII. To say that Obama has more experience than him is an insult.
Not teddy roosevelt either. Roosevelt was VP for four years and Gov of NY for 1 year. Thats more experience than Obama.
Woodrow Wilson was Gov. of NJ for two years but also was President of Princeton. Obama was only a part time lecturer at U of C right?
Not Herbert Hoover either. Hoover had 7 years as Secretary of Commerce. I hardly think that's equal to being a part time state senator.
Warren Harding? No. Not more experience their either or even close.
The truth is that Obama is the least qualified candidate a party has put forth in modern history.

[ Parent ]

Primaries are different from general elections. (5.00 / 3) (#72)
by Lady in Blue on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:11:08 PM EST

Just look at the the projected electoral maps based on state polls for McCain v Clinton and McCain v Obama. It's pretty clear that he would have more trouble against McCain than she would, at least in this stage of the game.

[ Parent ]

Yes they absolutely are (5.00 / 1) (#133)
by Valhalla on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:50:37 PM EST

And the electoral college is entirely different from primaries and even more different from caucuses.

When you ask why she's not a winner if she's losing in SD counts, what you are really asking is: Why is she not ahead in this one group of 800 people?

If she does pull ahead in popular vote count on all counts listed above, the question can be flipped: Why is he not ahead in this one group of 34 million?

Now which group would most people pick, personalities aside, as the measure of democracy? 800? or 34 million?

If you had to bet your next paycheck, which would you go with?

[ Parent ]

Not Proof (1.00 / 1) (#110)
by Spike on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:31:29 PM EST

Polls in May have no predictive value of what will happen in November. It is all speculation at this point. I speculate that Obama will win big.

[ Parent ]

: Keep dreaming (5.00 / 1) (#148)
by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:06:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]

for the same reason that the weaker candidate (5.00 / 3) (#74)
by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:11:18 PM EST

keeps losing to the strong candidate by large margins now, yet the weaker candidate can't open up the same big leads.

If I told you that, out of the last four contests, candidate A had two wins around 15% and candidate B had two wins around 30% each, who would you say was the stronger candidate?

[ Parent ]

Not Stronger (none / 0) (#120)
by Spike on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:39:04 PM EST

Clinton has now won three contests by 60% or more. Obama has won more than a dozen by that margin.

[ Parent ]

yeah, with a sum total of 1000 people at some (5.00 / 1) (#150)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:08:43 PM EST

of those big wins. While caucuses may be legal, they sure as hell are not representative of the people's choice. Yeah, that obama is a tough one alright....(last sentence sarcasm to the nth degree)

[ Parent ]

And if by "gamed"... (1.00 / 1) (#130)
by EddieInCA on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:49:23 PM EST

... you mean "Put together a team that knew the rules, and developed and executed a plan to win the most delegates in order to win the nomination."

Then, yes, he gamed the system.

[ Parent ]

I have more faith... (3.00 / 2) (#149)
by EddieInCA on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:07:00 PM EST

...that Democrats and Independents and even disaffected Republicans will want a change from the Bush policies.

McCain has the same Tax policies as Bush.
McCain has the same Abortion policies as Bush.
McCain has the same Iraq War policies as Bush.
McCain has the same need to pander to the religious right as Bush (See Hagee and Parsley)
McCain has to walk a fine-line on immigation. Too lenient, he pisses off his base (who can barely stomach him anyway. Too strong, he loses NM, CO, NV and and even FLA.

I could go on and on. Obama (or Clinton) will destroy McCain on policy. The country is ready for a completely different direction. And they're not going to get it with the guy nominated by the GOP.

Bottom line, is that McCain cannot put together a winning coalition in enough states to fight the Democratic trend, and the toxicity of the Republican brand.

[ Parent ]

: I know that's a talking point (5.00 / 1) (#165)
by Lisa on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:14:39 PM EST

but not only is it not true (that McCain = Bush) but you are going to have a steep hill to climb to overcome peoples' perceptions of McCain - rightly or wrongly, the public views him as as a maverick"
At some point the Obama camp will realize calling people names, scaring people, insulting people, etc. is not going to cut it.
At some point it will have to be about Obama.
And no, hope and change will not fly.
So what will they be left with? A flawed, inexperienced candidate without a firm grasp on national and international politics.

[ Parent ]
: You (none / 0) (#169)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:22:59 PM EST

just encapsulated the whole problem with the Obama candidacy. It's nothing more than anti Republican. It's the same campaign Kerry ran four years ago against a weaker candidate. You can call the GOP evil all you want but you have to offer the voters something to vote for. So far there's really nothing.

[ Parent ]

Would those be the red state caucus ones? (none / 0) (#125)
by nycstray on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:46:10 PM EST

Counting caucuses? (none / 0) (#129)
by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:49:18 PM EST

She hasn't lost... (5.00 / 2) (#86)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:15:25 PM EST

Really? (1.00 / 1) (#102)
by Spike on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:25:52 PM EST

The popular vote has nothing to do with winning the nomination other than being a talking point for superdelegates. And superdelegates have been steadily moving to Obama. Hillary Clinton started the contest as the prohibitive favorite. And she let it slip through her fingers. If she can't win her own party's nomination there is no evidence that she would be the strongest candidate against McCain.

[ Parent ]

I know Bill Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#113)
by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:32:17 PM EST

Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton. He can't even pick up Clinton's dry cleaning.

Here's a good article on a bad site (HuffPo warning) about why the popular vote matters, and why Clinton's base is so important:

Sean Wilentz

[ Parent ]

Um.... (none / 0) (#127)
by EddieInCA on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:47:42 PM EST

Who has gained more Super Delegates since May 20th, the evening of the Kentucky/Oregon Primaries?

[ Parent ]

: Palomino... (none / 0) (#141)
by EddieInCA on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:00:16 PM EST

..as you observe that Obama has won more recent Super Delegates, I'll ask the question a different way.
If Obama is such the inferior candidate why aren't Super Delegates going to Sen. Clinton?
I'm not talking about rushing to Sen. Clinton. Why aren't they even trickling to Clinton. For ever Super Delegate that Sen. Clinton gets recently, Obama gets 3-5.
At some point, doesn't this have to turn around, and she starts regaining lost ground? (Remember she was up 106-0 in Super Delegates at the beginning of the race). Or is the hope that Super Delegates suddenly, en-masse, change their minds at the convention?

[ Parent ]

Spike (none / 0) (#140)
by Dr Molly on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:00:02 PM EST

I agree with you that Hillary has lost the nomination and that popular votes won't save her, but I disagree with your last sentence. There's a big difference btw Hillary going up against the Obama machine now, with all that that entails, and Hillary going up against McCain. As the polls clearly show, she could clean McCain's clock despite having not cleaned Obama's. Maybe Obama can too - I don't know. But, right now at least, she is stronger against McCain (not that it matters anymore).

[ Parent ]

She also has the money to fight him....obama's (none / 0) (#146)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:06:05 PM EST

amount is paltry in comparison. As his support diminishes, he is not going to be the king of cash anymore.

[ Parent ]

Not Accurate... (none / 0) (#157)
by EddieInCA on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:17:47 PM EST

Obama can roll his primary money into the general election. He already has 9.2 million on hand for the General. Clinton has 22million for the General.

HOWEVER...

Clinton is in massive debt. She has 8 million cash on hand as of three days ago, but owes 19.9 million, inclluding the 10 million she has lent her campaign. This amount doesn't include the 1.4 million she lent her campaign in May.

Obama has more than 28 million cash on hand for the remaining three primaries, with no debt. That doesn't include the 9.2 million available for the general. When the primary is over, if he wins, he can roll the primary money into the general election campaign.

By any measure, Obama has greatly outraised and outspent Clinton. And his organization will be able to go back and back and back for more money because the OVERWHELMING majority of people gave less than $100.

http://tinyurl.com/46ahvk

[ Parent ]

I was talking strictly about money for the GE (none / 0) (#161)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:40:16 PM EST

calm down...easy on the hysterics....and this will be my last post to you since it always seems your focus here is to incite discourse.

[ Parent ]

: Hysterics....? (none / 0) (#162)
by EddieInCA on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:58:15 PM EST

Reminds me of McCain calling Obama's calm and eloquent rebuttal "a hysterical diatribe" when the video showed quite the opposite.

[ Parent ]

The morals of the story (5.00 / 21) (#2)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:20:05 PM EST

About the unity pony/coming home thing, the morals of the story are:

You should never exercise the "nuclear" option against a fellow Democrat in a primary -- In this case, the nuclear option is calling Hillary a racist, and implying via your media surrogates that she wishes you were assasinated.
Make your media surrogates be more subtle. If you want them to hate on her, make sure their hatred is not so vitriolic (opposite of Olbermann, Brazille, many of the DailyKOS surrogates) that it reflects on you.
Count votes, don't game the system. And maybe if you've had every advantage and you aren't kicking her hiney, then maybe it's YOU who should be the VP.

and finally

4. Be a Democrat. Don't apologize for Republican behavior at the expense of Democrats. If you don't do this last thing, then hard core Democrats have NOTHING to come home to.

Amen! (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by LoisInCo on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:27:11 PM EST

It would be "Obama who?" (5.00 / 11) (#18)
by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:38:20 PM EST

if he hadn't done these things. He has no experience and no record to run on, so the only option was to seek to tear her apart limb for limb.

That won't work with McCain, of course, because (1) most of the press will be on his side and (2) McCain doesn't mind if he looks "cold" or "ambitious" or as if he'll "do anything to win."

Because when you think of those attributes and apply them to a man, they are compliments.

Rise, Hillary, Rise!

[ Parent ]

Moral #3 (5.00 / 7) (#52)
by Pacific John on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:58:07 PM EST

Count votes, don't game the system. [...]

It's a bit of an untold story, but that boat sailed a long time ago. Obama's strong, often overly aggressive caucus machine alienated a whole lot of Dems, something I can't find a parallel to in modern primary history. Looking at Nov., with the prospect of another tight electoral victory, that element alone could decide the election when people stay home or vote McCain.

[ Parent ]

5. Dont kid yourself that your opponent is an (none / 0) (#49)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:57:09 PM EST

easy mark.

I do believe that this primary will be talked about every four years, and the media will be merciless with how the put the blame square on Obama.

[ Parent ]

: I think (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by livesinashoe on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:01:08 PM EST

this primary will be talked about FOR years.

[ Parent ]

Amen! Amen! (none / 0) (#66)
by Bob Boardman on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:08:22 PM EST

I think (5.00 / 8) (#3)
by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:21:33 PM EST

this will happen no matter what the PR results are:

Partisan voters almost always come home after their candidate loses. The problem arises when a candidate's supporters believe that their guy (or gal) didn't lose.

With FL and MI up in the air, and the dubious caucus results, Hillary supporters are going to walk away feeling burned if (or perhaps I should say when) the SD's give the nomination to Obama.

They didn't come home in 1980 (5.00 / 6) (#4)
by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:24:08 PM EST

That primary wasn't nearly as close as this one

[ Parent ]

John Anderson (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:44:46 PM EST

undoubtedly siphoned off votes from Carter in 1980.

[ Parent ]

This brings up a point: (5.00 / 6) (#75)
by Pacific John on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:11:21 PM EST

(I happened to vote for Anderson, and regret it)

Winning is all about momentum. One reason we are not finishing Gore's second term is that his momentum was continually sapped by Rove on the right, Nader on the left, and the media across the board. Dems do not have a history of winning if they run into a head wind. Obama's coalition, that Joe Wilson characterizes as identical to Dukakis' "eggheads and African Americans," does not seem robust enough to weather a slight breeze.

Hillary, on the other hand, can weather a cat 5 hurricane.

[ Parent ]

Completely agree (5.00 / 3) (#89)
by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:16:34 PM EST

about the cat 5 hurricane. Her support is wide and very deep. People wouldn't be voting for the designated "loser" now if it were not.

[ Parent ]

: Yes, no matter how much they pummel Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:20:46 PM EST

she gets back up and keeps fighting. I seriously doubt people would keep sending her money if they thought she was losing....something to think about.

[ Parent ]

Anderson did (none / 0) (#35)
by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:49:50 PM EST

but not enough to account for Reagan's victory.

[ Parent ]

OK (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:55:28 PM EST

I take your word for it. I don't know the stats and I would also be willing to bet that if Carter hadn't been weakened by Ted's run for the nom, we wouldn't have had a viable third party candidate.

[ Parent ]

: Anderson really didn't like Reagan (none / 0) (#62)
by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:06:56 PM EST

with good reason. I don't have a clue if he would have run without Kennedy's run though. There's a good chance you are correct.

[ Parent ]

Very apt analogy (none / 0) (#8)
by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:30:27 PM EST

Even in 1980, I don't remember quite this much vitriol between the sides. IMHO Kennedy may have helped to create some of the Reagan Democrats. Though I think it's obvious that Carter would have lost on his own.

[ Parent ]

He didn't even want to shake Carter's hand (5.00 / 4) (#17)
by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:37:08 PM EST

Never understood the reason(s) for a primary challenge that year unless it was for personal enrichment or gain

[ Parent ]

: Had to be personal (5.00 / 4) (#25)
by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:43:57 PM EST

I do remember Carter chasing Kennedy around the stage after his concession speech trying to shake his hand.
Seems to me as if some of the problems that Kennedy had with Carter are similar to their issues with Clinton. Neither are down-the-line followers of DC elite liberal positions. Too much thinking for themselves, etc.

[ Parent ]

Nah, Carter could have won. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:43:36 PM EST

It was the cheating in the debates and the October Surprise that killed him.
If it hadn't been for Reagan's team having Carter's debate book, he would have seemed the buffoon he really was.

[ Parent ]

I don't think Carter would have won (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:47:29 PM EST

the country was in a funk at that point, economy in the tank, and Carter looked ineffective. A lot like the current situation, if Bush were running again.

[ Parent ]

Carter lost (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by Pacific John on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:03:11 PM EST

in large part because of a fluke of history. If Delta Force's first mission had been a success, Carter would have been a hero. That's not to say that he wouldn't have lost in a close election influenced by Teddy's issues, but that one event drastically altered subsequent events.

[ Parent ]

Well, as I remember it, there were a lot (none / 0) (#37)
by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:49:50 PM EST

of doubts about Reagan's mental acuity.
The debates helped to clear that up (unfortunately, and wrongly)

[ Parent ]

: We're in agreement on that (none / 0) (#56)
by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:02:33 PM EST

there were those doubts in my circle. However, the GE voters were probably not too concerned. George Will and the debate book undoubtedly helped Reagan though.

[ Parent ]

Another problem with this quote: (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by livesinashoe on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:04:51 PM EST

Not all of us are partisan.
Some of us simply consider ourselves to be Americans.

[ Parent ]

What would it take? (5.00 / 10) (#5)
by cmugirl on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:27:07 PM EST

This has been at least 2 months now where Hillary has consistently polled stronger than Obama in poll after poll. This is not a fluke - this is a strong trend. Why are the SD's so blind? Do they honestly believe that all these people who say they'll never vote for Obama will suddenly just turn around and do it?

Partisan voters almost always come home after their candidate loses

Maybe - but that has always happened when one clear leader emerged and it was usually early. It never happened where the presumptuous nominee had run such a scorched earth policy and the media had been clearly in the bag for one candidate. No one else could have survived what Hillary has to do in a campaign.

Why don't the SD's see it?

There are none so blind (5.00 / 6) (#7)
by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:30:03 PM EST

as those who will not see.

[ Parent ]

I think (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by cmugirl on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:32:19 PM EST

We need to keep copies of all these polls. Then, when Obama gets beaten badly in the fall, and they start to blame Hillary, we whip these out and say - we told you so - here's the proof. You refused to listen and chose instead to nominate a lightweight.

I wouldn't be surprised if on election night, we see Obama curled up in a ball in a corner after the beating he's going to take.

[ Parent ]

: Maybe I'm just "bitter" (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:02:05 PM EST

but I would love to have that shot as the desktop page on my computer.

[ Parent ]

the establishment doesn't like Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:31:30 PM EST

Plus let's be honest here, they are worried about AA's leaving the party. That's the primary reason she won't win the nomination.

[ Parent ]

They ought to be a lot more worried about (5.00 / 12) (#15)
by Anne on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:36:33 PM EST

the real backbone of the party: women. Women who are mad as hell and not looking to make nice just because some condescending men think that is what we will do once we get our hormones under control.

[ Parent ]

Well (5.00 / 9) (#16)
by livesinashoe on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:36:42 PM EST

They ought to be worried about women leaving the party.

[ Parent ]

Some of us have already gone (5.00 / 7) (#21)
by nycstray on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:43:27 PM EST

but I have a feeling they think we will still come 'home' on election day.

Not.

[ Parent ]

: I have already left (5.00 / 5) (#47)
by livesinashoe on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:56:36 PM EST

abd registered as an Independent.
Something about me....I give relationships my all, but if I walk, I never look back.

[ Parent ]

That (5.00 / 5) (#20)
by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:40:59 PM EST

plus the fact that they believe that with Hillary out of the race, her supporters will come to Jesus - I mean, Obama. I think they're conning themselves with the rationalization that his poll numbers against McCain look bad b/c Hillary is still in the race.

[ Parent ]

And the only way to correct that (5.00 / 6) (#22)
by Edgar08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:43:30 PM EST

Is to make sure they know EVERYONE is free to leave the party.

The point at which one group of voters -- in this case African Americans -- stands up and threatens to leave the party -- then that becomes the only way to discuss anything.

In a way, the Obama movement has been playing the "Nuclear Option" from day 1.

And they are being rewarded for it.

It's up to us to make sure they are not.

[ Parent ]

I believe the number of women voters is much (5.00 / 4) (#98)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:23:00 PM EST

higher than the number of AA voters. Maybe they should be worrying about the women now. I really don't see a big defection of AA's to the republican party based on obama losing the nomination. They will thank us later. One more thing, it is not my feeling that AA's are necessarily against Clinton. Down deep, they know she is on their side....hell she is on all our sides.

[ Parent ]

: should be worrying about the women now (5.00 / 2) (#112)
by nycstray on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:32:17 PM EST

Their answer is prob to have Obama start pandering to us. Thing is, so far he hasn't said or done anything that gives me confidence in gender issues, health care, economy, ss, etc . . .
It's kinda like "What can Obama do to get your vote?" My answer is "He would have already done it."

[ Parent ]

IMHO it's the Obama fundraising prowess (5.00 / 5) (#11)
by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:33:18 PM EST

which is the prime mover. They also may believe that they will get a huge trove of new young voters out of it as well, though history would say different.

[ Parent ]

When obama loses, those young voters will (5.00 / 6) (#33)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:48:59 PM EST

be long gone and so will the money.

[ Parent ]

I agree. (none / 0) (#40)
by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:51:56 PM EST

the new voters won't keep following a loser. Neither will their money.

[ Parent ]

So true. (none / 0) (#46)
by Marco21 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:56:06 PM EST

I am still wondering why Obama is letting Kerry campaign for him? His big email/donor list is the reason most-given, but who didn't delete new Kerry emails the very next day after he couldn't be bothering to look into Ohio voting irregularities and gave up?

[ Parent ]

I think it's because (5.00 / 0) (#67)
by livesinashoe on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:09:19 PM EST

this fight is actually between the NE Dems (Kennedy, Kerry, Dean) and the Southern Dems (Clinton.)

Who will control the party?

I am still wondering why Obama is letting Kerry campaign for him?

[ Parent ]

You mean losers vs winner? (5.00 / 7) (#80)
by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:13:13 PM EST

NE Dems (Kennedy, Kerry, Dean) and the Southern Dems (Clinton.)

: That IS the record (none / 0) (#116)
by livesinashoe on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:34:48 PM EST

:D

[ Parent ]

They think we are stupid sheep (5.00 / 3) (#42)
by kenosharick on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:52:53 PM EST

who will fall into line when they snap their fingers. It will be the fault of the DNC, party leaders and SD's when John McCain is elected president by a large margin. I will feel ZERO guilt.

[ Parent ]

: They absolutely do. (5.00 / 4) (#50)
by Marco21 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:57:50 PM EST

Anyone who has had a back & forth email exchange with Donna Brazile clearly understands she could care less about anyone who dare question Obama or prefers Hillary to him.

[ Parent ]

Indeed, what would it take. (5.00 / 6) (#48)
by cal1942 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:56:58 PM EST

This is not a fluke - this is a strong trend. Why are the SD's so blind?

Because for a couple of decades Democratic office holders have been paranoid about holding onto their own bit of power and have no regard for the bigger picture which ironically would make their positions sounder. Obama has bought a lot of SDs and threatened still others with primary challengers. That's what all that cash buys him.

That paranoia also makes them act with timidity in Congress. Don't take the risk of doing the right thing if it MIGHT upset some constituency.

It was telling in the early part of '06 when Shumer said that the DSCC's purpose was to keep incumbent Democratic Senators in office.

That's one of the attitudes that kept Democrats from taking back Congress after losing it in the '94 midterms and why some Democrats in Congress were willing to take an occasional whack at Bill Clinton.

Interesting that the Obama candidacy is supported by many of the more timid of the incumbents, that group eager to maintain the status quo.

While preserving seats is important, expanding is more important.

[ Parent ]

SDs blind?.... I don't think so. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
by NO2WONDERBOY on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:36:58 PM EST

About,
Why are the SD's so blind? Do they honestly believe that all these people who say they'll never vote for Obama will suddenly just turn around and do it?,
IMHO, these candidates have been... I'll say "co-opted" by the allure of all of that $ and/or (more and than or) because they want to take the credit for having backed the FBPOTUS.

About the second part of the statement, I believe they don't care, he is actually the candidate of THE ESTABLISHMENT period! I mean, look who are his supporters: Teddy, Kerry,BYRD,the NERVE of him to switch support for O after such a HUGE and EMBARRASING DEFEAT in 'his' state of WVA. It goes the same for the other two. So, doesn't this mean that they give a rat's? Aren't they soooo arrogant that they would think that their 'flock' would change their minds and vote for THE ONE?

[ Parent ]

When you combine the swing state polling (5.00 / 6) (#12)
by Anne on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:33:56 PM EST

with the popular vote trend line, it escapes me how people can have any confidence that Obama represents the Democratic Party's best chamce to win the WH in November.

There is no doubt this has been a hard-fought contest, but the nomination is not the end of it, it's just the beginning of the hardest leg of the whole race.

I wish I could shake the feeling that Obama doesn't realize that putting McCain away is not going to be a cakewalk, that he has so bought into the gushing adoration and obsequiousness from the media that he's convinced they will be helping him win - that he won't really have to work that hard.

McCain will eviscerate Obama, counting on Obama pulling his punches lest he be called out for not being the "different kind of candidate." Obama will try age-ism against McCain, and it will fail in the way that Obama's use of sexism should have.

Hillary, on the other hand, won't resort to age-ism, but she won't pull any punches, either.

But if the superdelegates insist on being completely stupid about the obvious truth that is right in front of them - well, we'll know who to hold accountable, won't we?

It's just so frustrating!

so refreshing (5.00 / 6) (#13)
by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:34:19 PM EST

to read an article that actually doesn't start with the premise that Clinton is the living embodiment of evil.

I was asking months ago what happens if she has the popular vote lead; looks like PR can make it happen. I wish my spanish wasn't so trashy or I'd be calling every inch of the archipelago. What a wonderful opportunity for the nation's eyes to be turned to one of our most important territories!

Not coming home (5.00 / 7) (#14)
by nell on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:35:33 PM EST

I am done with the DNC, I am registering as Independent. The sickening feeding frenzy that resulted over the RFK comments yesterday was truly the last straw. I will never feel like this has been a fair fight because of the way she has been BASHED by the media day in and day out while her opponent gets a free walk with no one in the DNC standing up against this disgusting abuse, and of course, the caucuses, FL, and MI just add to this sense of unease.

Short of Hitting The DNC Members & The (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:43:42 PM EST

already committed to obama SD's over the head, exactly what is it going to take for them to realize we are doomed with obama as the nominee?
Hillary is still going strong and based on these numbers, they cannot just push her out. She will be the salvation of the democratic party....GO HILLARY!!!

: Wouldn't do any good (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:46:34 PM EST

their heads are not their vital organs. It's all about the wallet.

[ Parent ]

Obama and his supporters... (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by Marco21 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:44:47 PM EST

will just claim Puerto Rico doesn't count as it holds no electoral votes. It doesn't matter if she takes every single vote there.

The DNC will gladly follow their narrative and Barack backers on TV will do the same.

The fix, as it were, is in and if he loses in the fall (doing my best to stay positive and not say "when" instead of "if") they'll blame Clinton in a way that will make the GOP '90s Clinton Derangement Syndrome seem as mild as a head cold.

Barack's supporters and their constant calling for Hillary to drop out because she is "damaging" his campaign is more telling than annoying. They've not up to fighting McCain and instead are laying the blame for a November loss on her doorstep a full 5 months ahead of the final showdown.

There's always an excuse (5.00 / 8) (#43)
by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:53:35 PM EST

Obama is like a kid saying, "The dog p*ssed on my homework." It's never his fault when he loses. It's the voters' fault (bitter, racist, clinging to guns/religion). Or it's Hillary's fault b/c she threw the kitchen sink at him.

He really is not a good campaigner. He's great at preaching to the converted, but he doesn't try to win hearts and minds. He'd rather use the excuse that he didn't campaign and the voters didn't get to know him (KY, WV) than man up and try to win over some voters. Heck, even McCain welcomes questions from voters who don't agree with him. Obama, not so much. If you don't see how awesome he is, well, too bad. You must be a low-information voter and not worth his trouble.

If he's the nominee, he's gonna get his clock cleaned by McCain.

[ Parent ]

: Yes he will have to seriously change his campaign (5.00 / 3) (#151)
by Valhalla on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:10:22 PM EST

style to have a hope for November.
He reminds me of rock bands who have one huge hit and every song they come out with after that sounds just like the first one.
What I don't understand is why, instead of paying the 400, he doesn't pay one really good writer to come up with responses to inevitable questions? His answer to WV and KY was abysmal, he should have said "I have not reached out to the people of WV/KY as I should. But I will work like hell to win their confidence and vigorously address their concerns. I know I can do better for them and I WILL do better for them."
I mean, has insulting potential voters ever, ever been a winning political strategy? (I know that sounds snarky, but I'm really trying to think of any instances where it's been successful).
Because, even if it was all bull (I wouldn't have bought it) it would have at least opened up the chance at converting some voters and like-minded voters in swing states. A far better chance than calling them racists.

[ Parent ]

Danger is (5.00 / 2) (#144)
by BackFromOhio on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:03:10 PM EST

The Obama campaign will court serious danger if they diss the PR vote; it will be seen as broadly anti-Latino, with all its ramifications for the Fall.

[ Parent ]

Obama is damaging her campaigni (5.00 / 2) (#170)
by Cream City on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:31:07 PM EST

far, far more if she is the party's nominee, and she could be . . . but nobody says that. I think that Wolfson, Ickes, et al., should start saying so -- and certainly Dem leaders Dean, Pelosi, et al., ought to say so. But they have been deplorably dumb in every sense of the word throughout all of this.

Even if she's not the nominee, they ought to care about damage to a Dem leader in the Senate. That body will be needed to be strong about SCOTUS nominees and much else, no matter who is president.

Damage to the Dem base, women voters, may be irreparable. But it could recover if the damage to a leading Dem woman Senator stops and is reversed.

[ Parent ]

I meant they're not up to it... (none / 0) (#32)
by Marco21 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:48:25 PM EST

not "they've."

I gotta start previewing before I post.

[ Parent ]

They have already started to say that PR (5.00 / 4) (#30)
by honora on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:46:55 PM EST

should not count. That is going to be helpful to Obama, if God forbid, they give him the nomination.The DNC has forgotten "make new friends, but keep the old". This schism did not need to happen. In SC, everyone knew that Obama's actions would come back to destroy him in the end, I think we are there now.

Gee, maybe he'll join us in NYC (5.00 / 4) (#34)
by nycstray on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:49:49 PM EST

for the annual PR parade. . . . I can just see him riding the Pander Pony now . . .

[ Parent ]

No one has done more (5.00 / 5) (#51)
by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:57:59 PM EST

for Puerto Ricans than Barack Obama.

[ Parent ]

have you seen any PR polls? (none / 0) (#61)
by Josey on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:05:24 PM EST

: Nope, not a one (none / 0) (#68)
by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:10:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Link please (none / 0) (#54)
by SpinDoctor on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:01:30 PM EST

Please show me one member of the Obama campaign who has said Puerto Rico does not count.

[ Parent ]

: So it is the media darling who ought to say (5.00 / 2) (#171)
by Cream City on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:33:22 PM EST

that Puerto Ricans are citizens, for pity's sake, and that the next president will be their president, too -- and that it thus is good and significant, in a democracy, for their participation to matter.
That is what a wannabe president whose every word is golden with the media ought to say. But he won't.

[ Parent ]

Girl Scout? (none / 0) (#182)
by samanthasmom on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:29:19 PM EST

40 years and counting here. Many "silver and gold" friends.

[ Parent ]

: Such a Girl Scout, through and through (none / 0) (#184)
by honora on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:05:56 PM EST

that I did not even realize that it was a GS reference. I guess I just thought it was good sense. My GS days were a long time ago, but I guess , like the Thin Mints, it stays with you.

[ Parent ]
: 12 years a Girl Scout (none / 0) (#186)
by Cream City on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:30:21 PM EST

Brownie through Trailblazer Senior Scout here, earned every badge available and Marian Award, too, until Scouting years ran out. As an adult, served on local Scouting board and was a Brownie and Girl Scout leader. Still could sing more than a few rounds of "make new friends" with all of you -- and lots of other great campfire songs. I have them all; I was a camp leader, too! (And I also still have all those recipes for weird culinary artistry, food cooked on coffee cans -- "buddy burners.") I went to some of the same camps that Clinton did as a Girl Scout, when she came north to my state, she said.
She probably didn't know, nor did I until recently, that we grew up near the homes in Wisconsin and in Chicago of the grandmother of the founder of the Girl Scouts -- the adventurous grandmother for whom Juliette Gordon Low was named and who raised her with a love of the outdoors. That grandmother was an author and artist who left us a marvelous book, Waubun: Early Days in the North-West, about her years here -- and the last years here of many of the native Ho-Chunk, before the impact of the Indian Removal Act. She was outraged by it and her American people's treatment of them.

[ Parent ]

It's all about the $ (5.00 / 7) (#36)
by Steph on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:49:50 PM EST

Whether or not you like Obama, he is raising an insane amount of money. I think the SDs believe that ability to raise money = votes in the GE.

I think that works up to a point, but I think they should be more concerned with the fact that Obama outspent Hillary 2x or 3x in Ohio, Pennsylvania,and West Virgina and she still spanked him.

All the money in the world is not going to buy him wins in those states in the GE IMO

: Obamabucks are key (5.00 / 1) (#188)
by pluege on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:40:08 AM EST

nearly the entirety of democratic pol support of Obama is based on the ability and expectation of Obama to spread a little sugar all over demoland. Obama is in essence buying the democratic party, a corruption-filled rudderless organization of low moral and ethical capability.

[ Parent ]

After reading that article (5.00 / 3) (#39)
by jen on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:51:50 PM EST

by Mr. Last yesterday, I shot him off an email to thank him, and to counter the almost assured barrage of angry emails he's probably getting from Obama supporters. Less than an hour later, I got a reply thanking me for my kind words. Thought that was really sweet. His email addy is at the end of the article.

Money (5.00 / 3) (#41)