Hillary Leads McCain and Obama in Big Swing States

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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
    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.

    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?

    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?

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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!


    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.


    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.  

    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?


    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.

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


    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.

    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)

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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


    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?

    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?


    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).

    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.

    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.


    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.



    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.

    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.

    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:

    1.  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.

    2.  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.

    3. 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!


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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)

    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.

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

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


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.



    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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.

    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."


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?  

    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?


    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

    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.

    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.

    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.


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


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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 . . .

    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.

    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
    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.  


    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.

    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)
    by mogal on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:52:39 PM EST
    Claire took the money and ran with Obama and I fear that is what the SD's will do UNLESS the sourse of O's money is exposed.

    YES (none / 0) (#73)
    by Foxx on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:11:17 PM EST
    NO WAY all this money came from individual donors. Who can we get on this?

    The Hill (none / 0) (#106)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:29:06 PM EST
    had an article on Obama's "stealth" K Street machine a while back.

    follow the money (none / 0) (#166)
    by urduja on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:15:10 PM EST
    from Counterpunch.

    How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street

    Obama's money cartel


    If you recall, he purged his list of wannabe (none / 0) (#180)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:34:05 PM EST
    delegates in favor of his money bundlers and their g/f's.  After much hullabaloo, he reinstated the wannabe's...

    Clinton's lead on electoral-vote.com (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cymro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:07:07 PM EST
    Cream will back me up on this (5.00 / 9) (#65)
    by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:08:09 PM EST
    but what is going on with the dem party right now--the weaker, less experienced candidate being vaunted instead of the strong, fighting candidate, reminds me of the early suffrage movement.  

    The strongest voices against suffrage were, of course, other women.  They tended to be wealthy, well educated and well-married women.  In short, the type of women who didn't really "need" to vote to get rights, to get things changed.  They already had more power than most women of their time.  They didn't want to jeopardize their power--or dilute it--by giving other women that kind of access.

    The tool they used to denigrate women of the suffrage movement was the press.  A lot of them were married to men who owned or edited major newspapers or were publishers (Houghton/Mifflin, anyone?)  The suffragists, on the other hand, were thought of as lower or middle class.  Susan B. Anthony (unmarried)  and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (unseemly and outspoken) had gotten down in the trenches and marched and rallied to end slavery.  They were considered common.  Too aggressive.  They didn't know their place.  Even within the suffrage movement, women who fought too hard were vilified.  Cady Stanton was left out completely toward the end of her life--until they needed someone to kick butt and take names.

    Does anyone else hear those bells ringing in their head?

    Hillary Clinton is a figure with a sense (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:13:00 PM EST
    of history. She knows how big a deal this year's campaign is. Does Obama have any idea that this is about more than him winning? I have never gotten that impression.

    I hear his wife has never been prouder (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:14:47 PM EST
    Can you blame her? (none / 0) (#90)
    by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:17:33 PM EST
    America is such a mean country.

    My great grandmother... (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:14:28 PM EST
    and great aunt were amongst those women.

    My mom tells a story about how she found my great grandfather hiding behind a pillar sipping a glass of champagne at my parents' wedding reception. Seems my great grandmother didn't like him drinking.

    Heh...you did not cross my great grandmother.


    err... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:16:15 PM EST
    they were part of the Seneca Falls crew.

    Really? Historians have a research (none / 0) (#172)
    by Cream City on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:53:23 PM EST
    project underway for years now to find the stories of the signers of the Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls -- 100 signers, including 68 women aged 14 to 81.  I personally tracked down some who went west to my state, as so many upstate New Yorkers did, soon afterward -- including one who was a girl then and lived past 1920 to see full, federal woman suffrage.  It is such a rewarding project.

    If your foremothers have not been "found" yet by historians, and you want to help, reply -- and we can figure out a way to connect on this.


    They aren't on the (none / 0) (#174)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:02:26 PM EST
    signature list.

    It's so funny how the Clinton's are (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:21:04 PM EST
    still considered lower class by the elites.

    Oh yes!! (none / 0) (#81)
    by mogal on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:13:21 PM EST
    Kathy, you summarized it so well (none / 0) (#173)
    by Cream City on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:54:32 PM EST
    and you bet I've got your back on this and much more. :-)

    Does the DNC and the Super Delegates (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:20:03 PM EST
    watch these polls? I mean come on........ We are doomed to lose. Again!

    OT - The Vermont State Convention Held Today. (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by alexei on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:23:26 PM EST
    I just got back from the VT State Convention. The good news is that Obama only got six delegates to four delegates for Clinton (even though he won substantially here, it was mainly the city of Burlington, with the rest of the State, which is rural much closer).  

    Former Governor Madeleine Kunin spoke for Hillary and she was great.  As usual, even here in Vt, there were some boos for her speech (when she spoke about FL and MI and the voters in those two states).  And get this, the Obama campaign sent the turncoat, self absorbed Washington lobbyist SD from Indiana, Jim Andrew to the speak for him.

    The Clinton delegation turnout surprised the organizers and we had to be moved from a smaller room to the lunch room (and it was near capacity).  All our Clinton delegates pledged to stay with her and follow her direction.  It appeared that there was pretty much parity as far as turnout for Clinton and Obama supporters.

    Have to say, except for that one move and the boos by Obama supporters, everything else was smooth, orderly, and well run.  Leahy spoke as the key note and was not very impressive with only polite applause lines.  Peter Welch, our Congressman, got a couple of standing ovations and lots of claps - he was actually speaking more about the issues and even used Hillary's line about the Apollo Project for energy independence and job creation.  

    We also have a great gubernatorial candidate (she is Speaker of the State House and was the State Co-Chair for Hillary's campaign here).  She is running against a Bush clone, Governor Douglas.  

    So it's good news that Obama got more delegates... (2.00 / 0) (#107)
    by EddieInCA on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:29:41 PM EST
    ... than Clinton?

    Why is that?


    No Clinton defectors. (none / 0) (#115)
    by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:34:23 PM EST
    Thank you... (1.00 / 1) (#123)
    by EddieInCA on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:41:56 PM EST
    ... for the response.

    That didn't even come into my realm of possibility.

    Didn't even think that was a possibility since the undeclared Super Delegates are all supposed to break for Clinton any day now due to all the baggage and problems with the Obama candidacy.


    No shenangans or bullying and the Clinton... (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by alexei on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:03:16 PM EST
    contingent is strong and very supportive even in an Obama state like VT.  Not like NV or Texas, both won by Hillary, but of course, Obama "hijinks" were in play there.  VT does not tolerate that type of behavior.  

    Also, that the rural areas were much closer than the "liberal" Burlington area.  It was very inspiring to see how Clinton supporters really showed up, were resolved and were talking about FL and MI getting their votes counted.  To be a near parity at the convention in turnout, is a real show of strong support for Clinton and might even show some weakening for Obama (he did have a substantial victory here).


    The total is 15 pledged delegates (none / 0) (#176)
    by Cream City on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:07:23 PM EST
    for Vermont at RealClearPolitics.com -- 9 for Obama and 6 for Clinton, although it would not have caught up yet on changes today . . . but can you explain the discrepancy in total numbers?  Are there still some to be selected in Vermont?  

    Other sites vary so much, too, on delegate allocations that it really is difficult to know where the heck we are in this -- but more often, they vary in verifying super-delegate commitments.  So that the total of pledged delegates can differ, too, truly is confusing.

    And mind-boggling, as these unofficial websites' tallies, as well as the media's own websites that also vary widely, drive so much of the media narrative.


    Good to read an article (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by lilburro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:35:24 PM EST
    that makes more sense than Alter's.  

    Hillary now has a 99.9% probability of winning... (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by Exeter on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:41:06 PM EST
    ...versus McCain, while Obama now has a 32.7% probability of beating McCain.

    Let's roll the dice! (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:48:04 PM EST
    What do we have to lose?

    Oh, wait.


    Regarding Pennsylvania...Rasmussen Poll (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:01:58 PM EST
    and these polls are (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by Lisa on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:06:01 PM EST
    • for a fully vetted McCain and Hillary
    • for a Democrat in an anti-incumbent year (with an outgoing Republican president)

    Obama is benefiting from a press that trumpets only his strengths.  Most Americans know very little about him, so he's benefiting from the favoritism plus being the "generic Democrat" vs. Bush.

    Polls involving Obama at this point will change, even more than the polls for Kerry did.  Kerry was well-known, remember, and had WAY less baggage than Obama.

    BTD blowing gas (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by pluege on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:16:24 PM EST
    I [BTD] disagree. The most inclusive vote totals properly honor the fact that most uncommitted voters in Michigan were Obama supporters.

    If BTD's leap of faith about uncommitted voters in Michigan being mostly Obama's was correct maybe he can also explain why Obama squashed a Michigan revote.

    Swing state polling (3.00 / 0) (#19)
    by s5 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:39:02 PM EST
    was all in Kerry's favor in 2004. He still lost the election. There are many, many more moving parts to this. What the polls show, regardless of whether Obama or Hillary or McCain is ahead, is that many of these states are close, and a strong campaign from a Democrat can win.

    But if polls are all that matters, then nominating Hillary will put California in play ... for McCain.

    LA Times

    Overall, Obama led McCain 47% to 40% among registered voters, while Clinton led McCain 43% to 40%.

    3 points in California is not a margin that anyone should be comfortable with. I think a Democrat will win California no matter what, but if polls 5 months out are what matters most, then this should make any Democrat tremble.

    Yes (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:50:30 PM EST
    and the fact that they were in Kerry's favor makes it even less likely for Obama to win. McCain is a far superior candidate than Bush and Obama is an inferior candidate to Kerry (sorry but it's true). When you start out with a candidate who begins where Kerry ended after the swiftboaters had they say then you aren't looking a win, you are looking at a loss.

    In 1976 Jimmy Carter had a 20 pt lead over Gerald Ford. It eventually dwindled down to a point when the election came around.

    If the GOP was in such bad shape then either candiate should have a huge double digit lead at this point. It isn't happening.


    Kerry had a weak message (none / 0) (#93)
    by s5 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:19:18 PM EST
    He ran a blur-the-lines campaign against an incumbent with a strong message. The swift boat veterans didn't help, sure, but ultimately Kerry made the mistake of not offering a strong contrast. And the contrast he did offer, he was too timid to make a strong case for it. "I voted before the war before I voted against it" or whatever that was. I still to this day can't figure out what he meant.

    Another problem was that he was arguing on Bush's turf. Kerry was the "no" candidate on the question of the day, which was "should we give the Iraq war a chance to make us safer?". The question, of course, was ludicrous, but Kerry's didn't offer a forceful answer.

    In this election, all of the issues of the day are on the Democrats' turf, like health care, the green economy, fixing our broken foreign policy, and technology. McCain is the "no" candidate, and luckily he doesn't even understand the issues of the day. He will appear weak and out of touch in the debates. Pit that against Obama's disciplined campaign, fundraising machine, and media advantage, and McCain is looking more and more like the sacrificial lamb for the decline of the Republican party.


    yes, Kerry was weak (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:24:14 PM EST
    but so is Obama.  He's flip-flopped (or should I say "waffled") more times than Kerry.  With all his questionable associations, he doesn't need to be swift-boated.  The Repubs can (for once) just tell the truth and it will be enough to turn off a massive percentage of the electorate.  He may cry victim, but it's not gonna play so well in the GE against the Repubs.  

    Obama is Kerry Redux - except he does have the youth vote and the AA vote in his pocket.  However, he has a ton of negatives that Kerry didn't have, and much less experience.

    He's toast.


    Don't recall (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:12:35 PM EST
    In addition, I don't recall Kerry every having said or done anything viewed as disrespectful of any traditional Democratic voting group.

    Really? Then why is it that (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:24:59 PM EST
    whenever there is an exchange between McCain and Obama does Obama get spanked?  

    By the way, espousing two diametrically different positions on whether Iran is a threat within 48 hours is not a "strong message" either.  Unless the message is "I don't know what I'm saying.".


    Here it is on Youtube... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by K Lynne on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:22:24 PM EST
    Hopefully I can get this right!



    K LYNNE- (none / 0) (#181)
    by leis on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:13:55 PM EST
    You know, you can  read about something and it has  impact but there is NOTHING like seeing it in live action. Has anyone explained the concept of youtube and the internets to this dunce?

    That Was Enlightening and Frightening... (none / 0) (#185)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:36:29 PM EST
    ...what a difference 48 hours makes!!

    Obama's campaign (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Emma on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:30:32 PM EST
    doesn't look disciplined to me.  It looks like Obama's getting a lot of free passes right now.  I mean, saying Iran is not a threat and then the next day saying it's the biggest threat -- that's not disciplined.  I think empty rhetoric and not really having any other message combined with a very friendly press is being wrongly seen as discipline.  But it's really a lack of depth.  When Obama has to talk about policy he inevitably stumbles, revealing that whatever is going on, it isn't necessarily a disciplined campaign.

    I mean, look at Goolsbee and NAFTA, Power and Iraq, Iran is/isn't a grave threat, the weak and inappropriate reaction to the "appeaser" comment.  I'm sure there are more.  Not all of them are big issues in and of themselves, and I don't know that any of them can effectively be used as game changers in the GE.  But that steady drip, drip, drip of inconsistency and suspicious mendacity could be a real problem given the right opponent.


    I was reading an AP article that said obama (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:47:06 PM EST
    out-organized Clinton...by 1% maybe?  They are neck and neck, so I really don't see the point of that article, other than they have to spin something positive for obama once and hour.  I wonder if they didn't, where obama would be right now?

    Just throwing this out....does anyone think Odinga, obama's cuz in Kenya, will be a problem?
    New edicts from Odinga...

    Raila Odinga is the Prime Minister of Kenya. He is on the record espousing a political view that promotes Islamic law as the law of Kenya and has agreed to ban Christian broadcasts in Kenya. But more troubling is Odinga's view that any Muslim residing in Kenya, visitor or relative, cannot be arrested or detained in Kenya for terrorism by any other country. So, if the men responsible for bombing the U.S. Embassy in Kenya in August 1998 are located in Kenya, Odinga is on the record denying the United States the chance to bring them to justice. Thankfully, he lacks this clout right now.



    Well (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Emma on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:50:25 PM EST
    There's no doubt Obama out-organized Clinton in Feb. and possibly super Tuesday.  After that, I think it's been Clinton.

    Odinga?  Too far removed, too hard to understand, too hard to make the connections in a sound-bitey way.  Just IMO.


    Could be a problem (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:53:27 PM EST
    if McCain wants to make it one.  Relatives promoting Shariya law would probably not be too popular with swing voters.

    Here's a one liner for ya . . . . (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by nycstray on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:56:23 PM EST
    Obama's cousin agreed to ban Christian broadcasts in Kenya.

    Ouch. n/t (none / 0) (#163)
    by Emma on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:00:05 PM EST
    And that can be radioactive (none / 0) (#178)
    by Cream City on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:14:42 PM EST
    in getting more into Obama's background, bringing up more muddling of the story of his heritage -- by him.  He and Dems really don't need this cousin pushing his anti-Christianity movement right now.

    yes (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:41:12 PM EST
    kerry did have a weak message but so does Obama. Obama's ge message so far is McCain is Bush's third them and wants people to vote against said third term.

    Obama is running the same blur the line campaign. He's talking about unity and how both the dems and reps are bad.

    We had the issues in 2004 too. It still didn't help. When you have a bad candidate it just doesn't seem to matter that all the issues are in your favor to be honest.

    Obama has the exact samee wafflish etism that Kerry has. Obama was saying that Iran was a grave threat one day and no threat the next. He tells every audience he talks to a different story or has a different stance. It's the same thing all over again. Oh, and he was for meeting with dictators before he was against it.


    when was the last time obama had a forceful (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:11:44 PM EST
    comeback...oh yeah..."lay off my wife"

    this is what I understood -- (none / 0) (#187)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:19:06 AM EST
    >>>>"I voted before the war before I voted against it" or whatever that was. I still to this day can't figure out what he meant.

    Kerry voted for the war - then in Oct. 2003 voted against a bill that included war funding and reconstruction funding. Combining the 2 issues was another Repub "catch 22" dirty trick.
    iirc - Kerry's amendment to make the reconstruction funding a loan - failed - and he had said prior to the amendment vote that if it failed he'd vote against the bill.
    In 2004 election, Repubs considered a vote against any funding for Iraq tantamount to heresy and they made an even bigger deal about Kerry's "defection" and refusal to "support the troops" after his flip flop comment.

    The public is already saying they "don't know Obama's positions" - and the GOP will maximize that with Obama's numerous flip flops.


    do you trust corporate media polls? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Josey on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    what is LAT score card this primary?

    isn't LAT (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:03:48 PM EST
    owned by the Chicago Tribune?  Just sayin'.

    This poll seems extremely dubious to me.


    it is dubious (5.00 / 8) (#82)
    by ccpup on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:13:58 PM EST
    21% Latino vote in the GE in 2004, the Poll's sample was only 8%.  Destined to hurt Hillary's numbers and help their boy Obama.

    Only 7% AA voted in 2004, yet the Poll's sample was 10%.  Again, to help Obama's final tally.

    But they're gonna parrot this Poll as the be-all, end-all of Polls.  I strongly suspect that all those other Polls showing Hillary running stronger GE electoral numbers has got 'em spooked.


    Thank you (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:16:28 PM EST
    the poll results seemed odd to me b/c I know there is a big Latino vote in CA and they haven't been going for Obama and many in fact find McCain an acceptable candidate.

    Not my point (none / 0) (#70)
    by s5 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:10:40 PM EST
    I'm saying that you'll find polls that support either scenario for these candidates, including polls that show Obama far ahead in Ohio.

    All this tells us is which states are in play, not that any one particular candidate is guaranteed to win them in November. I would say this even for polls that show Obama ahead.

    It's not correct to believe that this kind of polling is predictive. All it shows us are which states are in play, where some potential strengths and weaknesses are, and that's all. All these maps showing which candidates have locked up which electoral votes are setting false expectations.


    Exactly the problem with polls (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:00:48 PM EST
    You are using polls for your argument though and you are using a poll that has no credibility whatsoever.  In regards to the CA poll, they polled Latino's at 8% (???!!!) when in California they make up almost a quarter of voters (not to mention that the LAT endorsed Obama in a strong Clinton region).  The fact that mainstream news organizations pass these polls off as truth, and the media perpetuates it as such, is reprehensible.  But, I have a feeling you know that already.

    SUSA Polling (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by SpinDoctor on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:04:13 PM EST
    Kind of curious that the SurveyUSA polling wasn't mentioned as it was the pollster of choice of Talk Left this entire campaign season.  Perhaps it is because the most accurate pollster this primary season, has just published these polling numbers:

    In Ohio, SUSA has Obama beating McCain by 9 points.

    In Pennsylvania, SUSA has Obama beating McCain by 8 points.

    In New Mexico, SUSA has Obama tied with McCain.

    In Virginia, SUSA has Obama beating McCain by 7 points.

    Maybe because... (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Marco21 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:17:52 PM EST
    Clinton isn't a factor in their current polling?  

    There are scenarios withing their polling that suggests losses for Barack also.

    I know it's not reality for some Obama supporters if he's not winning all around, but...


    If the issue is electability.... (none / 0) (#105)
    by SpinDoctor on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:28:53 PM EST
    ...than these SurveyUSA numbers should give everyone around here some comfort.  While Hillary might poll better than Obama in some of these swing states, what matters most is that both Democrats poll better than McCain.

    matters most to you maybe (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:32:03 PM EST
    but not to some of us here.  I for one am a strong Hillary supporter but a tepid McCain supporter if Obama gets the nomination.

    Agreed. A weak McCain presidency ... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by cymro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:58:39 PM EST
    ... will hurt the Democrats much less than a weak Obama presidency would.

    another weak presidency... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:29:43 PM EST
    either Dem or GOP will hurt the country.

    Agreed. But if Clinton is not nominated ... (none / 0) (#177)
    by cymro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:09:47 PM EST
    ... we're faced with choosing the lesser of two evils, which I believe would be McCain.

    that's true... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Marco21 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:06:44 PM EST
    and it does for me. I hope Obama can increase his leads and we'll find out soon enough.

    This would be the case (none / 0) (#155)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:15:02 PM EST
    only if the particular SUSA polling involves proper internals.  

    Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:27:27 PM EST
    KUSA is our pollster of choice.

    Discounts role of media, GOP attacks (5.00 / 6) (#138)
    by Davidson on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:57:39 PM EST
    Yes, SUSA are truly accurate pollsters, but polls don't take into account that Obama has not been truly attacked yet, let alone throttled, by McCain, the right, and the media.  If Kerry, a decorated war hero, and Gore, of all people, could not beat Bush, what makes you think a mumbling neophyte with a hysterically thin skin can take on St. John McCain?  If the GOP could turn Max Cleland into a traitor, imagine what they can do to Obama.

    Clinton, despite being at the white hot center of a vicious propaganda storm of hate, still does better than Obama against McCain in the big swing states and beats McCain overall while Obama currently loses according to SUSA (Again, this is before the right has set their teeth into him).

    Go check out SUSA polls on an Obama vs. McCain match-up in MA to see how already there are major red flags in the bluest of blue states.


    exactly what I've been saying (none / 0) (#175)
    by Lisa on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:03:24 PM EST
    The extreme favoritism, attempts to rig the outcome of an election, elevation of the inexperienced, blatant sexism, accusations of racism and worse (the latest accusation is too heinous to repeat)...  Yes, all that and more, and we've only gotten to the end of the primary part of the story.

    The part of the story that has not yet been written is the months ahead in the general election season.  Yet Obama backers seem to think it's "game over" if Obama gets the nomination.

    When really, the worst is yet to come.


    that OH poll in particular (none / 0) (#92)
    by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:18:49 PM EST
    seems very suspect.  Didn't they also have a poll saying that Hillary would beat McCain in NC?  I don't believe that one either.

    Yep (none / 0) (#97)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:22:55 PM EST
    and they have NO NUMBERS on Clinton for these polls.  This is a Clinton-leaning site.

    Swing states (none / 0) (#154)
    by zebedee on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:14:38 PM EST
    My own definition of a swing state is one that has a Bush-Kerry margin of no more than 10.85% either way. This is because that was the largest swing in any state between the 2000 and 2004 results so it seems possible such a swing could occur but (given that no state changed by more than this margin) we won't be far off by ignoring states with a bigger margin.

    In these swing states I have Clinton leading the popular vote by 136,000, counting Florida and Michigan but giving Obama all the uncommitted MI votes. Using electoral votes (perhaps more interesting for electability arguments) Clinton leads  180 to 122.

    Of course, this isn't comparing matchups vs Mccain but it's a reasonable measure of preference in those swing states.

    A Unity Ticket Improves Dems Chances in Swing Stat (none / 0) (#156)
    by stevenb on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:17:41 PM EST
     Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a staunch Clinton supporter, said Friday that she believes that if Obama becomes the nominee he should select Clinton as his running mate.

    "I think as this race has emerged each one of them has garnered a different constituency and different states, and therefore when you put the two of them together it forms, I believe, the strongest ticket," she told The Associated Press in a phone interview.

    "Women feel very strongly about Hillary and African-Americans feel very strongly about Barack, and the election results show that, and the young versus old, the higher educated versus the working person. ... All these things are sort of separated out into one or the other so there is a logic in combining the two constituencies."

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/May/24/clinton_regrets_rfk_assassination_rema rk.html