home

Obama's GE Margin Of Error: Nonexistent

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:51:16 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I am sorry to continue to harp on the need for a Unity Ticket, but I feel it is important. I just looked at the latest McCain-Obama head to heads (forget the electoral college math problems for a moment) and here they are:

Rasmussen: Obama 44, McCain 46

Gallup: Obama 45, McCain 47

Newsweek: Obama 46, McCain 46

Forget for a moment that Clinton is beating McCain in these same polls, excuse me, is no one but me worried about needing a unified Democratic Party in November? I pray there are grownups in the Obama camp that will give him a reality check on this.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed. I am gone for the rest of the weekend. I might be back Tuesday or Wednesday if something about FL/MI happens. I will not be writing on anything else for the time being.

< Sunday Afternoon Open Thread | Open Thread - Watch Recount Tonight >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's GE Margin Of Error: Nonexistent | 269 comments (269 topical)
    Why not nominate Hillary? (5.00 / 22) (#1)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:52:33 PM EST
    She'd be happy to run with Obama as her VP.  Problem solved.

    I'm thinking (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by facta non verba on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:02:52 PM EST
    that I as witness the evolution of BTD's thinking that is where he will end up. One of few true enjoyments of this primary has been to read his posts and see his thinking evolve. His honesty is refreshing.

    [ Parent ]
    Because losing is what Democrats do best (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by Davidson on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:06:49 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton, with her incredibly strong and potent coalition, threatens that cherished tradition of losing elections, even those that are gift-wrapped for Democrats (see: McGovern).  What better way to display "unity" than giving the Republican Party a way to win the White House when it should be impossible for them to do so?

    So it's better to pretend that it's not totally possible and within the precious "rules" to nominate Hillary Clinton and just focus on making Obama somehow electable.*  May I suggest asking McCain to drop out now for the sake of the country?  Or perhaps disenfranchising all those states that probably are too stupid to understand the awesomeness that is Obama (I'm looking at you, OH!).  And if all else fails, we should switch to caucuses!

    *By "electable," I don't mean actually winning--Heavens, no!--but avoiding a landslide loss and settling for a "respectable" one like Kerry or Gore.

    [ Parent ]

    I had some testy exchanges with friends (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by zyx on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:55:15 PM EST
    ...in past months who told me that Obama was the best choice because he was the best candidate for the GE--that he led in the polls, etc.  I suspected that they didn't want to tell me that they disliked Hillary, and that was their way of rationalizing--but STILL.

    Gag me.

    It simply hasn't been true (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:56:22 PM EST
    since Super Tuesday.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, the supposed fact that he would (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:58:43 PM EST
    win the GE in a landslide was a very important reason to choose him!


    [ Parent ]
    This is early polling (none / 0) (#120)
    by 1jane on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:35:46 PM EST
    and McCain and Obama have not yet gone head to head. There is so much baggage McCain carries, a broke and broken RNC, Bush fatigue, dispirited Republicans, losing House and Senate seats right and left, inability to field Republican candidates in state races.....

    Way to soon to jump to any conclusions.

    [ Parent ]

    I am not the one who argued choosing (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:41:44 PM EST
    Obama because he would win the GE in a landslide. That WAS the primary argument of his online supporters, 5 months ago. According to you, they were jumping the gun.

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama supporters had allowed a reasonable (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:10:23 PM EST
    level of vetting Obama, the Republicans wouldn't have to do it. Don't doubt they have a busload to run over him with.


    [ Parent ]
    McCain was broke before (none / 0) (#295)
    by zyx on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:00:18 PM EST
    and the oddsmakers were giving his single-digits for the nomination in 2007.  You could have made a lot of money putting a few dollars on him back in December or so.

    I am not a big risk-taker, and wouldn't put money on him or against him.  I think McCain has a lot of potential appeal to voters.  

    [ Parent ]

    I am hearing this from MANY Obama (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by kenosharick on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:39:06 PM EST
    supporters- they say all the polls show him winning big. Where are these polls they speak of? The vast majority think he will win the WH in a cakewalk.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, why not?? (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:49:12 PM EST
    After all, if mean ole' Hillary hadn't kept campaigning and ruining his roll to the nomination, the primaries would have been a cakewalk. Of course, I am not sure how he is going to persuade McCain to "quit for the good of the (insert whatever here)". Obama seems to think that when he wants an office, everyone should get out of the way and let him have it. Someone should point out to him that is not how a democracy works. And I don't think the GOP is going to buy any of his arguments for why he is the best candidate for President. They will start showing reasons why he is one of the worst ever offered. I wonder how many of those reasons will be news to the Democratic leadership. Not many, I'll bet.

    [ Parent ]
    Gallup (5.00 / 5) (#153)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:55:51 PM EST
    Daily trackin' poll had him beating the tar out of her (all the while Obama was losing to and she was beating McCain).  Those are likely the polls being quoted.

    I think the RFK garbage produced a rally around Clinton effect, because she's coming back.

    And that's likely why Obama et al. walked back on the RFK fake controversy (of course while still handing out Keith "Joe McCarthy" Olbermann's vitriolic garbage).

    One thing I noted during impeachment -- Bill Clinton never did better in the poll than when he was being trashed by media.  Everyone knows the media trashes the Clintons.  Her voters just don't care.

    [ Parent ]

    you're right! (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:17:21 PM EST
    Today Axelrod was trying to walk it back. It didn't seem like he be doing that unless he'd figured out that continuing to scream ASSASSINATION! isn't wise while complaining that Hillary placed Obama in danger.

    [ Parent ]
    Golly Gee (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by pammc on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:55:24 PM EST
    seems like the DNC may need us after all.

    It is my opinion that the only reason (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:57:32 PM EST
    Obama has wanted Hillary out of the race before August is that his camp anticipated a drop in polls for him against McCain. Whether this is because of Hillary or not, I don't know or care. I don't see any other logical reason for them to be so desperate to get her out, since the "math" seems so good for Obama.  With Hillary in the race, SD's have over 2 months to reconsider choosing Obama.
    At the rate things are going now, maybe that is enough for Hillary.

    I also think Hillary would be willing to drop out in return for the VP nomination. If Obama's camp is smart, they should be asking her to make that choice, instead of having their surrogates scoff and chuckle at the possibility.

    I disagree that Hillary would be interested in the (5.00 / 15) (#15)
    by athyrio on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:01:57 PM EST
    VP position at all...There is absolutely nothing to be gained for her in this....After all the hate, etc from the Obama campaign (even the mailing of Olberman tape to the media in recent days) there is absolutely no reason for her to stay around if he wins the nomination except to campaign for him as promised....She is a great senator from NY and should return to that to rerun again in 4 yrs...The only unity ticket most of her supporters would be interested in supporting would be her at the top of the ticket..

    [ Parent ]
    Athyrio, I am truly sorry if I have (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:32:21 PM EST
    misinterpreted your words. I have been reading these posts all day and so much of what you wrote sounded like the (what I would call)trolling that has been going on here and perhaps I should have recognized your name, but I did not. I am truly sorry.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you for the apology (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by athyrio on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:38:12 PM EST
    and if you read back many months you will discover why I have very personal reasons for supporting Hillary and shall continue to do so....

    [ Parent ]
    I, too, have supported Hillary for quite (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:40:42 PM EST
    a long time. I did the Tx 2-step for her, complained at the unfair pandering of the process, and have told her she's my hero. We are on the same team and again, I apologize.

    [ Parent ]
    Please update your talking (none / 0) (#18)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:03:28 PM EST
    points book(s). We've heard this all many, many time before. Please give us new info.

    [ Parent ]
    For a first-day poster here (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:23:22 PM EST
    you're awfully sassy with a longtimer here.

    Athyrio has detailed, far more than anything you have done, exactly why her stand is what it is.  We don't do the work for you.  Use the search function.

    [ Parent ]

    Is your reply directed at what I (none / 0) (#90)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:25:16 PM EST
    said?

    [ Parent ]
    Why should I care more than Obama (5.00 / 8) (#103)
    by felizarte on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:28:30 PM EST
    if he is the nominee, for the democratic party in November?  He has campaigned with no regard for half of the democratic party.  Why should the victims of his thinking, now be the ones responsible for acting to unite the party after he has done with impunity, to divide it?

    Obama and the leaders of the party no longer deserve my loyalty. I will vote for what I believe is best for the country.  And Obama is not it for me.

    [ Parent ]

    my sentiments exactly (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by ccpup on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:40:42 PM EST
    I have friends who bought the media blather and voted for Bush in 2000 and, since then, quite literally hang their heads in shame whenever they think back to what they unwittingly helped create.

    I refuse to vote for Obama simply because he has a (D) by his name.  I'm not going to be even slightly responsible for yet another disastrous Presidency.

    I won't vote McCain, though.  I'll leave Pres blank -- for the first time in my voting life! -- and support worthy downticket Dems.  

    But Obama will never have my vote, my money or my support.  And, yes -- knowing how politically active and engaged I am --, my friends ARE shocked by my intractable stance.

    In fact, I was speaking with a very good friend in Paris last week who spent our whole dinner together repeatedly asking "really?  you really won't vote for pres?  really? ... really?!"  She knows my history and my loyalty to the Dem Party and my not voting for the Top of the Ticket just didn't compute for her.

    I suspect many, many feel the same way.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, the parallels with 2000 make me (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:42:52 PM EST
    bitter too. I am fortunate that I am in a state where Obama has no chance, regardless.

    [ Parent ]
    I live in NYC part-time (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by ccpup on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:50:59 PM EST
    and, although I'm by NYU in Greenwich Village, I don't know anyone who supports Obama now even if they were gung-ho (mainly NYU kids) for him during the Primary Season.

    Actually, many regret voting for him and wish they could recast their vote for Hillary.  In fact, one of my friends who voted for Obama via absentee in WA State was aghast with his last debate performance and just could not stomach the fact he voted for "that guy", as he now puts it.

    The more they see of him, the less they like him ... ergo the desperate attempts to force Hillary from the race.  The only way he wins is if there isn't an opponent ... which is kind of an obvious end result if you stop and think about it.  :-)

    [ Parent ]

    But if you are a Hillary supporter, you (none / 0) (#124)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:37:23 PM EST
    must acknowledge that she is in a good position to convince you to vote for Obama, if she is on the ticket.


    [ Parent ]
    Was that a snark? (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:37:30 PM EST
    I support Hillary, but my vote isn't hers to give to someone else.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think they are reasoning well, though (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by Valhalla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:12:00 PM EST
    in looking at the situation this way.  Maybe it's because a lot of them (note I didn't say all) are not old enough to remember what real negative campaigning is, Republican-style.  And I think perhaps the hatred for Hillary has blinded them to how effective the Republican machine can be.    They managed to turn Kerry's war record into a liability, for goodness sake.

    The longer the attention is on Obama vs Clinton, the  less time and airtime the Republicans have to attack them.  I think Obamas supporters may look back to the last few months as the good old days.  Most of the swing voters don't get into a tizzy about references to RFK, or respond to race-baiting.  They're too busy living their lives and worrying about their mortgages for the MSNBC/blogger crowd to get any traction with them.  The Republicans, however, have always done a great job of aiming their ads right into the center of most people's everyday fears and problems.

    [ Parent ]

    what gets me is - (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:28:26 PM EST
    their Hillary-hate is stronger than their knowledge of Obama's positions on the issues. Most don't have a clue he voted for Cheney's energy bill or voted against capping credit card interest rates.
    Instead they believe St. Obama would never vote to give the oil companies huge tax breaks! And yet who was first out of the gate to dismiss Hillary's gas tax suspension and claim the oil companies paying the taxes "just wouldn't work."

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary as VP - bad idea (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by LCaution on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:19:43 PM EST
    I think Obama would still lose - and she would get the blame.  Besides, she would have more power and influence as Majority Leader or even as just a Senator.

    Even as a Hillary supporter, I don't think I could vote for an Obama/Hillary ticket for the simple reason that I have decided he is not qualified to be President, and he's too arrogant to turn the effective reins of govt. over to her (as Bush has done with Cheney).

    Turn things around: do you think Obama's supporters would accept a Hillary/Obama ticket?

    [ Parent ]

    It wouldn't make a difference! (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by Cate on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:00:21 PM EST
    I am committed to re-registering as 'unafiliated' if Obama gets the nomination and then leaving the top spot empty in the GE - even if Hillary is on the ticket..BTD, you are wrong about it healing the wounds.

    The reason: I want to take down not only Obama but the people BEHIND Obama's campaign. They are a cancer on our society. It is appalling that this faction of the Democratic Party has been there all along - no wonder we lose and the Republican's hate us with the likes of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews being our spokesmen!!!

    We are totally disgusted - and maybe BTD should accept this reality.

    [ Parent ]

    I switched to independent (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by Mrwirez on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:31:16 PM EST
    2 weeks ago after 22 years in the D party.

    [ Parent ]
    I think they wanted her to quit (none / 0) (#196)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:28:38 PM EST
    because she was starting to win and gather significant momentum thus becoming the favored candidate.

    Additionally, that crowd wanted her to quit because hints of Obama's vast weaknesses were emerging.

    They didn't care about the GE, only the nomination and defeat of the Clinton wing of the party.

    [ Parent ]

    I see a lot of "yes men" (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:59:05 PM EST
    and very few who are willing to step into the breach and say "hey look."

    Feingold did ages ago...and look how he got thwacked for his observations.

    My Formerly Intelligent Friend (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Kensdad on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:02:42 PM EST
    who has fallen heart and soul for obama assures me that hillary's poll numbers would fall instantly (vs. mccain) if she were to win (i.e. "steal") the nomination...  you see, obama supporters are very magnanimous towards Hillary, he assures me, but if she were successful in her bid to win (i.e. "steal") the nomination, then suddenly those unity-loving obamaites would start telling the truth to pollsters that they would not vote for Hillary in november...  also, he assures me that obama's poll numbers against mccain will rise as soon as hillary leaves the race and hillary supporters regain their senses long enough to realize that obama is their only choice!

    (the above message is brought to you from the mind of an otherwise intelligent and rational person...)

    Well It Is A Hope Based Candidacy n/t (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:16:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I love the 'poll #s will go up when HRC (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by nulee on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:21:48 PM EST
    exits' - was just reading this over at MYDD.  I am glad you focused on this because this is a really weak argument from the Obama camp.  He will have great GE numbers when McCain drops out too!  LOL.

    [ Parent ]
    They will (none / 0) (#108)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:30:53 PM EST
    statistically speaking they will.  Both camps prepare for it and then wait for it to shake out.  McCain camp has planned on riding out the wave for Clinton or Obama.

    Problem: if pollsters stop polling Clinton if Obama is labeled the presumptive nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    What fantasy (none / 0) (#201)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:32:15 PM EST
    were they citing?

    I guess if one is stupid enough to fall for the Unity pony they'll buy into any crackpot ideas.

    [ Parent ]

    Umm, don't think so (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by goldberry on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:29:03 PM EST
    Oh, sure, there would be some online kool-aid drinkers whose head will explode but my canvassing experience showed me that most ordinary Obama people don't really have that much problem moving over to Clinton.  They only need a gentle push.  Clinton people are adamant though.  They don't want anymore amateurs in the White House.  

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. That's my biggest problem (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:30:48 PM EST
    with Obama.  He's done nothing in nearly 50 years of life to merit the office.  I don't want another President where the advisors have to make the decisions.  It's no time for amateur hour.

    [ Parent ]
    yes, the advisers will help him.. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:39:13 PM EST
    I have mentioned my poli-sci prof friend who said Obama will do well because he'll have good advisers.
    I know this person has little respect for the abilities of ANY Presidential candidate, which I think is a terrible mistake.


    [ Parent ]
    I think the Wright (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by LoisInCo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:44:51 PM EST
    nonsense blew his argument there. He claimed not to know at all how his pastor thought after 20 years. So it makes claiming you will know how an advisor will think a wee bit hard to swallow. ( For the record I have no issue Wright, just think Obama harmed himself with his reaction ).

    [ Parent ]
    Well, this is a guy who thinks William (none / 0) (#157)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:59:51 PM EST
    Ayers has some good arguments for his terrorism.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh God (none / 0) (#206)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:34:09 PM EST
    a closet Jacobin.

    [ Parent ]
    I remember literally begging my best friend not (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by suki on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:22:33 PM EST
    to vote for Bush in 2000. She said the same thing about him - it will be OK because he'll have 'good advisors'. I even mailed her Molly Ivin's book,"Shrub" (which was all anyone needed to know) to no avail.
    I never said, I told you so, but it was really hard not to. I feel as frustrated now as I did then.

    [ Parent ]
    I know of many people who...tell (none / 0) (#247)
    by AX10 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    me that Obama will have "good" advisors and we need not worry one bit.
    This could be another disaster in the waiting.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm Particurly Fond Of Obama's GOOD Advisor (none / 0) (#283)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:54:30 AM EST
    who is in favor of privatizing SS. Stephanie Powers (who I think will be back on board) is on record as favoring military intervention in Israel.

    [ Parent ]
    Jennifer Hart? (none / 0) (#288)
    by dws3665 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:51:33 AM EST
    of Hart to Hart fame is an Obama supporter?! I've heard he's "in" with the Creative Class, but this is just ridiculous! ;-)

    /snark

    You mean Samantha Power, of the famous "monster" quote.

    [ Parent ]

    frankly, obama hasn't shown a great (none / 0) (#292)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:26:01 AM EST
    deal of talent for picking good advisors over the years. witness reverend wright. i think the block supporting him will make sure they dominate the inside advisors. the insider dems might find the door locked. it will be "their time" and to heck with the rest.

    [ Parent ]
    switchability of supporters (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by LCaution on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:26:30 PM EST
    I think you've hit on a key point.

    I've been surprised by the repeated polls showing that Obama's supporters are more willing to vote for Hillary than v.v. because, based on online comments, the reverse has seemed to be true to me.

    Bur I've started to think, as you point out, that the explanation may be experience rather than race.  More of Obama's supporters think Hillary is qualified to be President than the reverse.

    [ Parent ]

    switchability of supporters (none / 0) (#193)
    by LCaution on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:27:00 PM EST
    I think you've hit on a key point.

    I've been surprised by the repeated polls showing that Obama's supporters are more willing to vote for Hillary than v.v. because, based on online comments, the reverse has seemed to be true to me.

    Bur I've started to think, as you point out, that the explanation may be experience rather than race.  More of Obama's supporters think Hillary is qualified to be President than the reverse.

    [ Parent ]

    Sometimes you might think some obama (4.00 / 4) (#34)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:10:41 PM EST
    followers have had partial lobotomies...all clear thoughts and rationale have seemed to fly out the window.  Those of us who support Hillary, do not go along with all she has done; and yes, there have been gaffes, but nothing earth shattering that would take away from her being a good president.  On the other hand, obamatrons REFUSE to believe this guy can do any wrong...they will twist all his wrongs into a right to protect him.  It is frightening and people need to wake up to what is going on.

    One more thing...all those young voters obama supposedly brought to the table, might have voted in the primaries, but traditionally young voters do not show up for the GE.  With the lack of the working class voters, those former followers suffering buyer's remorse and not having the youth vote...obama is royally...well you know the rest.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm starting to wonder (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Grace on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:49:10 PM EST
    if some of the SDs (especially the ones with elected positions) aren't looking out for their own jobs by supporting Obama.  

    Let's face it:  The Democratic Congress isn't exactly "well loved" at this point.  

    It would give them a little job security if a Republican became President.  We'd get gridlock again.  

    [ Parent ]

    agree re Dem. leadership (none / 0) (#200)
    by LCaution on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:31:19 PM EST
    I've thought for some time now that Pelosi and Reid would prefer to have a disinterested, uninvolved Obsma in the White House than a detail-oriented, policy-smart Hillary.

    And McCain would be almost as good, maybe even better, because the two of them could blame yet another Republican President for their own inadequacies.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I'll be damned (none / 0) (#190)
    by dell on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:25:34 PM EST
    ...so THAT'S what's happened to me!!  

    I HAVE been wondering.

    I sure hope my insurance covered it.

    But if it turns out that it was more than partial, I guess I could get Jeralyn and/or Armando to represent me...

    [ Parent ]

    Projecting (none / 0) (#214)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:40:53 PM EST
    "all clear thoughts and rationale have seemed to fly out the window."

    In 2000 I knew people who projected their goals on Bush.

    But the mass projection we hear from the Obama crowd is just way way overboard.  I've never experienced anything to match the madness we see in his following.

    [ Parent ]

    i look on it as the american idol syndrone. (none / 0) (#293)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:27:54 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'm confused. (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by mystic4hill on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:04:50 PM EST
    If Hillary can win without Obama, but you don't think Obama can win without Hillary, tell me again why Obama should be top of the ticket?

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by LoisInCo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:06:57 PM EST
    he is the media darling. And that is the single most important quality in a President. <sarcasm>

    [ Parent ]
    Forget what I think (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    Obama is going to be the nominee.

    Keep fighting. I applaud you. I applaud her.

    But I do not stick my head in the sand.

    [ Parent ]

    Why? Why will Obama be the (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:08:32 PM EST
    nominee?

    [ Parent ]
    You know, (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by LoisInCo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:10:01 PM EST
    even I think that he will be the nominee and I am a Hillary cultist.

    [ Parent ]
    That's not what I asked. I said why. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:10:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Because the SD's will stick with him, (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:12:40 PM EST
    IMO. What will peel them away? 2 months of miserable polling will probably not be enough---unfortunately, IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's say the Republicans put something (none / 0) (#167)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:08:35 PM EST
    from their list of attacks out there that shows Obama in a light that destroys his base of supporters and his numbers drop to only a 35% to McCain at over 55%?

    Then, do you honestly think the SD's will stick by him?

    [ Parent ]

    Well, first of all that's a hypothetical; (none / 0) (#182)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:18:34 PM EST
    second, why would the Republicans unleash their strongest attacks before Obama is nominated?
    The Swift Boat stuff didn't start until Kerry got the nomination---and that selection wasn't even in doubt before then.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't agree (none / 0) (#235)
    by Cate on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:22:17 PM EST
    I truly believe if the SD's were for Obama, they would not want Hillary to continue in the race. They would believe she is 'ruining the party' by prolonging the primary. They COULD end it right now by coming out for Obama. But guess what? They haven't....why is that BTD?

    [ Parent ]
    Because the SD's (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by LoisInCo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:12:48 PM EST
    will NOT give Clinton the nomination. They dont have the cojones half of them were born with. One part is the racial aspect, another part is the CDS aspect and the last part is the coward aspect.

    [ Parent ]
    I have to disagree. I think (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:17:14 PM EST
    cowardice comes first.

    [ Parent ]
    Cowardice would seem to be a safe bet (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:25:17 PM EST
    to come in first.  

    [ Parent ]
    I think it is a fair question - (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by nulee on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:16:58 PM EST
    I am guessing the reason BTD is saying this is that he thinks the SDs will go for BO post-primaries in large enough numbers to put him over the delegate finish line.  But yours is an important question to ask.  1) will that happen given that there are polls like these? 2) if HRC just lies low between now and August, will BO self-destruct, or at least look so weak that a convention reassessment of things will not be crucial, potentially putting HRC over the top?

    Bottomline - BTD is making a prediction, totally fair.  We don't know what will happen - and there are definitely scenarios under which HRC could clinch the nomination.

    Remember - there is no nominee until the convention.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD is not making a predication. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:20:38 PM EST
    BTD has said the same thing, consistently, for as long as I've been coming here. For whatever reason, he has been consistent. Obama supporters, however, that I've seen come here, have changed positions over several cycles to see what works. They think it works, it does not. BTD's opinions matter to me and perhaps to others here.

    [ Parent ]
    of course he is making a prediction (none / 0) (#86)
    by nulee on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:23:25 PM EST
    he can't read the future!

    [ Parent ]
    Someone once said: (none / 0) (#125)
    by magnetics on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:37:30 PM EST
    "Prediction is difficult; especially of the future."

    Yogi Berra said: "A ballgame ain't over 'til it's over."

    [ Parent ]

    They Want Access To His Donor Lists (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:20:36 PM EST
    They fear the party will lose the support of the AA community and the youth vote.

    They think that any Dem can win in 08 or at least at this point they want to believe it.

    [ Parent ]

    But they want to send Bill Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#170)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:09:21 PM EST
    out to fix the party unity problem. What is wrong with that picture?? It doesn't make sense to me. If the Clintons are the ones that can bring the party back together after the "unity candidate", and his supporters, fractured it, why isn't Hillary the best candidate for nomination? Unlike Obama, she can get cross-over Republican women who might stay with us, and the AAs and the middle class were always with the Clintons, and the Democrats, until Obama came along. Again, what is wrong with this picture?? Everything.

    [ Parent ]
    I Also Think That Clinton Would Be (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:30:48 PM EST
    the best candidate for the GE and the best president. I also think that this primary is not about who is the best candidate to win. This is an internal power struggle for control of the party and what direction it will take now and in the future. The powers behind Obama encouraged him to run this year with that end in site. They have used the fear of losing the AA community, money via donors and donors lists, promises of future powerful positions and threats of primary challenges to get the S.D.s to fall in line behind Obama. They have been very successful. 95% or better chance that Obama will be the nominee IMO.  

    [ Parent ]
    Because he will have 2210+ delegates (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:12:04 PM EST
    when it is all said and done.

    [ Parent ]
    Because the supers are nominating (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:13:02 PM EST
    Obama.  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    duh (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:14:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ok, fine, but I prefer that to (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:15:25 PM EST
    the lame argument about, well, he won a fraction more pledged delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    When you see me make that argument (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:21:00 PM EST
    Then you should rip me.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:20:30 PM EST
    What would you have me do? I can not change that.

    [ Parent ]
    Really (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:26:44 PM EST
    he probably is going to be the nominee but if he is we also need to deal with the reality that it will be a loss in Nov too. Don't stick your head in the sand on that account either.

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:31:21 PM EST
    Are you seriously accusing me of sticking my head in the sand on Obama's difficult road? REALLY?

    you know what, I am sick and tired of the commenters at this site.

    I have been writing, I bleieve, as honestly and forhtrightly as most any blogger around and I get this sh*t from all of you today?

    Eff it. I am in no mood for it.

    Like j., I am gone for the night.

    I'll put up an Open thread and you can all talk to yourselves.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't Be Mad! (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Jane in CA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:55:50 PM EST
    I have been both informed and entertained by your commentary in the month or so I've been here.

    I think what you may be hearing is frustration.  For me, it is the frustration of realizing that the party elite is not going to allow the voters to chose HRC as the dem nom, despite all the evidence indicating that she is more electable. That knowledge, along with all the vitriol the MSM, the DNC, and the Obama campaign has spewed makes it impossible for me to support Obama in  the GE.

    I know you understand this; hence your constant promotion of a "unity" ticket. Unfortunately, I -- and many others, I think -- are not going to support any kind of forced "unity" ticket.  This dichotomy is guaranteed to result in heated exchanges between posters.

    I don't think anyone here believes that you are not a political realist. Speaking only for myself, I'm not ready to accept that the Obama machinations are going to deny us a viable candidate in November. I'd prefer to see more strategizing about how to sway the superdelegate vote rather than how to unite the party behind the weaker candidate, but I can't argue with your logic in promoting the unity theme, if your primary goal is to elect a dem president.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:40:42 PM EST
    I didn't read what you were saying that way. Have a good evening.

    [ Parent ]
    You are 100% correct BTD! (none / 0) (#135)
    by 1jane on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:41:37 PM EST
    The selection of the next Democratic nominee has already been decided except for those who have their head in the sand where they cannot see or hear anything.

    [ Parent ]
    So you back Clinton for VP? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Manuel on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:00:13 PM EST
    IF BTD is 100% correct, I mean.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't have my head in the sand. (none / 0) (#290)
    by mystic4hill on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:34:35 AM EST
    While I still believe there's a chance, albeit a very small one, that the SDs will support the candidate who has a better chance of beating McCain in November (Hillary, of course), I don't believe she should come to Obama's rescue by taking the VP slot, if (and that's a big if) he should offer it. Yes, I'm aware that Presidential candidates choose their VPs on the basis of what states they can bring to the election, but it sounds to me as if those who are pushing the Unity ticket, with Obama at the top, don't think he can win at all without her. So, the SDs and the Dem elders are backing a loser but wanting Hillary to make it okay. That's just bull#@$&. And it's same-old-same-old Dem thinking - let's ask the more competitive candidate to take it over the finish line for the least competitive. I'm no longer buying into that. For the first time since I've been old enough to vote (1972) I have my head out of the sand.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, tell. (none / 0) (#20)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:05:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Imagine it's "the math" (none / 0) (#30)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:09:07 PM EST
    but that can be taken care of in Denver.  Go all the way!


    [ Parent ]
    Your logic has become tiresome (none / 0) (#109)
    by goldberry on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:31:06 PM EST
    We really have no place for it this year.  You must be one of the "old coalition".  They used to be into that rational behavior stuff.  That is so five minutes ago.

    [ Parent ]
    But, as long as Hillary is in (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:06:14 PM EST
    Obama loses, that is the logic.  So, the margin of error will come from the ex Clintonites...or something like that.  "the waters are murky cause of her"

    I am (as an old lady) sick and tired of seeing (5.00 / 10) (#50)
    by athyrio on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:14:35 PM EST
    the more experienced female prop up the less experienced male...have seen it for years and years and it is time to stop this madness...

    Time to consider the alternative, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by goldberry on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:17:51 PM EST
    If Unity is what you want, put Clinton at the top of te ticket and call it a day.  
    You Obama supporters can continue to be stubborn about it and drag us all off the cliff or you can reconsider your options and make another choice.  
    'Cos we are not going to enable you in indulging your fantasy.  
    Think about it.

    Exactly. It's a choice. The wrong choice (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:19:33 PM EST
    is nominating the weaker candidate, IMO.  

    [ Parent ]
    That's what I think! (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by shannon on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:01:36 PM EST
    Besides, that is a big win for Obama, too. He gets 16 years in power -- 8 as VP, 8 more as President after Hillary's term.

    Oops, I forgot. Michell Obama told us this was our only chance.

    [ Parent ]

    Correct, shannon. (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:11:51 PM EST
    Good for the Party, good for the country, great for Obama...but Michelle doesn't like it.

    [ Parent ]
    hilarious (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Ovah on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:44:41 PM EST

    "you Obama supporters can continue to be stubborn"...it has been a close race, one candidate is leading by a slim margin, it just happens that it isn't your choice.

    this site will be interesting to read once Obama is officially the nominee and chooses a VP other than HRC.

    I read a lot of sports blogs and the democratic primary has become   too much like the fanaticism incumbent in a Red Sox - Yankees rivalry. The playground taunts and reasoning is hilarious. You have so many "valid" reasons why your candidate (team)  is better but in the end they both play the same games and their positions are very similar.

    Everyone is railing on about how important it is to have their choice of candidate win the nomination but then turn around and say "well if Clinton isn't the nominee, then I might not vote or I might write her name in"...really? you would rather martyr your vote just to "prove a lesson to Obamites"?

    [ Parent ]

    I just wrote a post on that very issue (none / 0) (#299)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:04:26 PM EST
    And, by the way, you are new here. Read the comment rules and like all new commenters you are limited to 10 comments in a 24 hour period. You've already insulted one reader, I've deleted the comment, so I won't be surprised if you end up being banned.

    [ Parent ]
    If I could (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    maybe I would. I can't. It is not going to happen.

    [ Parent ]
    Never say never, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by goldberry on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:23:16 PM EST
    Funny things can happen when enough people are screaming in their faces.  

    [ Parent ]
    Funny thing... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Pacific John on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:40:26 PM EST
    ... my widely distributed Texas fraud open letter to my friend, a superdelegate, had an effect. I short order, she endorsed Obama, heard from me, and effectively got back on the fence, saying she is willing to go with the winner of the national popular vote. That's saying something: her daughter works for Kerry, and her son in law is Obama's national communications director.

    I have zero doubt that if superdels see similarly compelling evidence, they will slosh over to Hillary in a heartbeat. This is, after all, the party of Gary Hart. I suspect a lot of superdels are damn glad to be able to hold off until Denver.

    I don't think there is a honest person here who does not think it is best for the party to wait until Denver to pick the nominee, and once that happens, force Obama swallow his pride and go with a unity ticket, no matter which slot he has to take.

    [ Parent ]

    Mhmm, yes. (none / 0) (#92)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:25:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Okay, I guess it's time to be resigned (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:32:19 PM EST
    and accept that the Dems will lose.  Because that's what happens if he's the nominee.

    Ah, I suddenly have so much more time ahead.

    [ Parent ]

    you will definitely have more time ahead (none / 0) (#298)
    by Ovah on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:52:18 PM EST

    considering you average about 40+ posts a day on this site alone.

    [ Parent ]
    There has to be a better reason (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:18:10 PM EST
    Other than Obama will lose if not.
    Nope, that's it. That's (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:28:27 PM EST
    it in a nutshell.

    [ Parent ]
    That is the best reason (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:26:30 PM EST
    I could possibly imagine.

    [ Parent ]
    Sometimes the best reason (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:38:27 PM EST
    Isn't enough.

    What role will VP Clinton have in an Obama administration?

    Unity for unity's sake isn't going to cut it here.


    [ Parent ]

    "Harping" on unity (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:19:39 PM EST
    isn't how to make it happen.  This post is just about winning with Obama.  Sounds like the idiot superdelegate from California, Cardoza, although at least he didn't "harp."  He just "hopes."

    I hope for a lot of things, too.  But I don't see Obama doing more than promise "hope" even for those things upon which he and I agree.

    You hope (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:26:04 PM EST
    Obama will not be the nominee. who is being realistic here, you or me?

    [ Parent ]
    Cream City (5.00 / 0) (#222)
    by Valhalla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:49:04 PM EST
    isn't running a presidential campaign on hope.

    [ Parent ]
    I hope Obama will mature overnight (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:49:51 PM EST
    if he is to be the nominee, and if he wins the presidency.  You hope he will win, for the sake of winning.  Why?  You are confident that -- what, he can come up to speed fast, he can be controlled by those firmer in their Dem principles?  I have not seen signs that he thinks he has much to learn, nor have I seen others on his staff who merit that high estimation that they woul