home

Electability KY Style

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:50:55 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A peace offering. Ras polling on Kentucky in the GE:

Obama 32
McCain 57

Clinton 51
McCain 42

For the record, I do not believe a Dem can win in Kentucky this year but the poll results say what they say.

BTW, Mason Dixon says Montana is not in play. McCain leads both Obama and Clinton handily.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments closed

< Krugman On Unity | Memorial Day >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Electability KY Style | 241 comments (241 topical)
    Wow! (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by themomcat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:54:26 AM EST
    Doesn't Ras lean Republican in their samplings? Iirc, they do, so this is significant.

    Hillary never ceases to amaze!! (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ghost2 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:08:46 AM EST
    WOW! JUST WOW!

    [ Parent ]
    It's a d**m shame (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by themomcat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:12:40 AM EST
    that the hierarchy of the DNC doesn't acknowledge that. I am very certain they recognize how amazing she is and are scared to death of her.

    [ Parent ]
    We Can Hope...At The Convention, The SD's (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:17:36 AM EST
    vote via secret ballot, is that correct?  That may make the difference in their voting.  They might be more inclined to vote for HIllary based on the telling numbers.  We know they would be foolish not to, but who knows.

    [ Parent ]
    Makes me a little nervous (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:20:13 AM EST
    Many of the undeclared SDs are DNC members....not accountable to voters....they're going to wait and see what favors they can curry most likely....

    [ Parent ]
    Good Question (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by themomcat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:20:22 AM EST
    Can anyone answer if the SD's vote via secret ballot?

    [ Parent ]
    I want to know that too (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Hope on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:40:39 AM EST
    I think it's her only chance. I think people would be too intimidated to vote Clinton if the votes are public. You can vote your conscience no matter what if it's secret.

    Which is why I have respect only for secret ballots (and why I think caucuses are profoundly undemocratic).

    [ Parent ]

    Secret ballot? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Cate on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:21:02 AM EST
    Is that true? If so, could that be the reason so many of them are hanging back - fear of reprisals from their constituents (like never being elected again) for being for Clinton?

    [ Parent ]
    Unless the rules have changed (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:25:32 AM EST
    the only voting I recall is around the floor by state delegation. Inside the delegation, it's probably like a jury where they vote by show of hands, or secret ballot, or tally sheet depending on what the chair of the delegation decides.

    I don't ever recall the states giving their votes broken down by elected delegates and supers.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it is more the DNC being a problem than (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:52:04 AM EST
    constituents for the SD's.  However, I remember when obama thought the SD's should endorse per the voting of the state...you win the state, you get the endorsement. That was until he thought it was okay for them to go either way, as long as it was for him...flippity-flop, flop, flop.

    [ Parent ]
    Bill Clinton came out swinging at (5.00 / 7) (#208)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    that very thing. Here is the link where he lays it out for all to see..
    "She is winning the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence," Clinton said. "And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running."

    "Her only position was, 'Look, if I lose I'll be a good team player. We will all try to win, but let's let everybody vote, and count every vote,' " he said.

    The former president suggested that if the New York senator ended the primary season with an edge in the popular vote, it would be a significant development.

    He also mentioned the prevailing attitude of the DNC..or "Democrats"

    Clinton also suggested some were trying to "cover up" Sen. Clinton's chances of winning in key states that Democrats will have to win in the general election.

    " 'Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.' "

    I love a guy who calls it as he sees it..especially when he sees it the way I do. Heh.

    [ Parent ]

    Talk about WOW (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by talex on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:16:15 AM EST
    Let me sneak in a couple of National polls in here:

    Pres '08
    May 25 Gallup
    McCain (R) 47%, Obama (D) 45%

    Pres '08
    May 25 Gallup
    Clinton (D) 49%, McCain (R) 44%


    ---------------
    Pres '08
    May 26 Rasmussen
    McCain (R) 45%, Obama (D) 45%

    Pres '08
    May 26 Rasmussen
    Clinton (D) 47%, McCain (R) 45%

    That Gallup poll is Killer! I HOPE the Supers are paying attention!!!

    [ Parent ]

    A friend of mine (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:33:51 AM EST
    is dating a guy who's writing a book about polls and polling methodology. He says Gallup is the gold standard. Rasmussen is pretty good. Everything else is pretty much crap, including SUSA because it's still too easy to game the Internet polls.

    Just a little insider perspective there. ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    But what's he say about KUSA? (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:35:31 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'll have to ask him (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:40:27 AM EST
    to include cat-polling! :-)

    [ Parent ]
    KUSA Best Pollster Evah!!! (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:50:39 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What does KUSA mean? (none / 0) (#117)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:52:25 AM EST
    I've seen that before and assume it's a joke of some kind.  But I have no idea what it means.

    [ Parent ]
    Kathy's Personal Poll (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by jes on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:26:25 PM EST
    Many changing criteria, the main one being Clinton always wins. Google "kusa site:www.talkleft.com" for fun changing metrics.

    [ Parent ]
    Kathy's Own Personal Polls (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:26:51 PM EST
    Kathy is a regular commenter on this site and in her polls Clinton always wins. Normally by a landslide. IIRC she polls her cats.

    [ Parent ]
    SUSA (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:51:45 AM EST
    is robocalling, not Internet, I thought.  Zogby is the big Internet guy.

    [ Parent ]
    heh (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:34:58 AM EST
    I'll be sure not to buy it!

    [ Parent ]
    Hee! YMMV of course. (none / 0) (#98)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:40:45 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Forget the polls.... (none / 0) (#233)
    by Dadler on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:37:31 PM EST
    ...how easy are the voting machines to game?

    Very.

    [ Parent ]

    Here is a more complete list (3.00 / 2) (#49)
    by riddlerandy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:21:08 AM EST
    via C&L

    CBS/NY Times: Obama, 11 points

    USA Today/Gallup: McCain, 1 point

    Ipsos: Obama, 4 points

    LA Times/Bloomberg: Obama, 6 points

    NPR: Obama, 5 points

    Quinnipiac: Obama, 7 points

    ABC/Washington Post: Obama, 7 points

    Reuters/Zogby (including Ralph Nader & Bob Barr): Obama, 10 points

    GW-Battleground poll: Obama, 2 points

    Investor's Business Daily: Obama, 11 points

    Newsweek: Tie


    [ Parent ]

    You and or the polls (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:23:35 AM EST
    left out Clinton - not good poll results as they are incomplete.

    [ Parent ]
    Plus (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by talex on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:31:32 AM EST
    many of those are old polls!

    [ Parent ]
    Good Point (none / 0) (#169)
    by Spike on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:19:14 PM EST
    If the results are different because they are "old," it only show how much the polls will change between now and November. Such polls won't mean much until Labor Day when both convention bounces are over.

    [ Parent ]
    yes, supposedly Republican (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Josey on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:10:54 AM EST
    and although Ras included Hillary in the poll, they omitted her name and her data altogether in the article.
    Yes, Republicans want Obama to be the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    I suspect that the Republicans (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by themomcat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:15:41 AM EST
    are afraid of her as the DNC is.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course she can win Kentucky. (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:55:57 AM EST
    Her husband did twice.  But what is really telling here is how many primary voters she brought out.  Yes, we ought to nominate her.

    She's the only candidate who doesn't (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:00:16 AM EST
    resemble GWB. She could easily win KY, and any state that Obama says he could win.

    [ Parent ]
    I think you hit it on the head (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:01:50 AM EST
    "she least resembles Bush"

    [ Parent ]
    Hey, not trying to be a jerk (none / 0) (#32)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:13:55 AM EST
    but wondering if you guys have in-state experience in KY....cause I'd love to hear what you think her strategy should be here.

    I dunno.  Maybe it could really happen!  Especially with Beshear winning the Gov mansion...

    [ Parent ]

    (just a weird aside) (none / 0) (#43)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:18:55 AM EST
    I have a lot of family near the KY/TN border and they're all politics maniacs, so I know a little bit about what's happening in both states...and have a little campaign experience in both....they're not all that dissimilar in a lot of ways...

    [ Parent ]
    She should go to the Belmont (none / 0) (#219)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:10:45 PM EST
    and watch Big Brown do his best to get the Triple Crown, and whether or not he succeeds, she should make a statement about how horse racing has all kinds of people in it, from the working poor to the rich horse owner, from farmers who supply the feed and hay to bettors who supply the purses with their bets. And how it is America's oldest spectator sport. That will get not only KY, but a huge slice of CA, FL, NY, VA, even IL, all states with big economic interests in horse racing. Go to the races, Hillary, and say nice things about racing. Then KY will be in the bag. And visiting and talking to the non-horse people will do well too, but horse racing is one of the main supports of the KY economy, lots of peripheral businesses from farmers to tourist venues depend on it. And if she is there when Big Brown wins the Triple Crown, and manages to get a photo op with him, that will seal her image as a winner.

    [ Parent ]
    But then she'd lose the PETA vote. (none / 0) (#243)
    by oculus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:13:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It seems to me... (5.00 / 4) (#212)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    ... that the ugliness of this campaign has made Hillary supporters out of a lot of people who weren't when it started. Eight months ago I couldn't really have pictured Hillary winning Kentucky in the general election. Now I'm not so sure.

    [ Parent ]
    actually, the opposite (1.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:56:36 AM EST
    She seems to be consciously following a Rovian paradigm - go for the lower-income, lower-education white voters by drinking a beer, characterizing your opponent as "elitist", sucking up to Murdoch and Scaife, and trying to equate stubborness with toughness. Right out of the ol' playbook.

    Yeah, she just might be able to win Kentucky.

    The Reagan Dems are NOT the Democratic BASE.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh yeah, (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:03:25 PM EST
    Obama did not suck up to Murdoch and Fox News.  Sure didn't.  He fought them, just as his staff told TPM he would.  

    Sure did.

    Is the Democratic base registered Democrats?  She still generally wins them.

    [ Parent ]

    Then who is (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:05:46 PM EST
    If the Democratic Party is not for the less-fortunate, or lower-socio economic, then who is?  And what is the "base"?  People who drink over-priced coffee?

    [ Parent ]
    Dems are supposed to be (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:17:42 PM EST
    the party of the people. Seems there are "people" being left out.

    [ Parent ]
    Democratic Base (5.00 / 5) (#160)
    by formerhoosier on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:11:36 PM EST
    The so-called Reagan dems were the FDR dems.  They vote more on economic issues rather than values issues.  There have been several studies that refute the meme that lower income and middle class voters vote against their interest.  In fact it is HIGHER income individuals who more likely vote on values issues.  When lower income and/or class perceive there is not any difference in candidates on economic policy, then they consider values.  If the thinking of Obama supporters, campaign, and surrogates is 'Reagan' dems do not matter, they will lose in November.

    [ Parent ]
    Holes in this Argument (none / 0) (#187)
    by Spike on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:33:43 PM EST
    It's just as easy to make the case that "Reagan Dems" were "Truman Dems" and their motivation was neither economic or cultural values, but foreign policy/national defense. Some on the right are now claiming that the decline of conservatism began with the end of the Cold War because the right lost the power of the anti-communism argument on national defense. Bush II tried to use 9/11 to regain that advantage -- and it worked in 04 -- but Iraq has so damaged the Republican brand that the national security argument has lost its potency.

    Regardless, 2008 is not 1980. "Reagan Dems" are no longer an issue. Times have changed too much for that outdated concept to continue to have meaning.

    [ Parent ]

    The Reagan Dems are not the base (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by Prabhata on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:14:50 PM EST
    You are sort of right in that many of those left the party to become independents, but you miss a point.  The Republicans have been getting their vote and winning the WH, while the Dems have lost that block of votes and lost the WH.  Take your pick which one you want.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree that it is important (1.00 / 3) (#177)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:26:38 PM EST
    to win them, or at least win some other swing group.
    I think it important to emphasize though, that they are not our base.

    And any campaign that mocks and ridicules part of its own base ("egghead elitists" for anyone who actually has gone to college) with the same language that the enemy does, or takes other parts of its base for granted (Obama only gets 30% of white working class - thats fatal, Hilllary gets 10% of blacks - no problem, they will come around), while chasing some swing demographic, is nuts.

    [ Parent ]

    You're right (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:30:21 PM EST
    So I guess the Obama campaign is also 'nuts'.

    For mocking and ridiculing white working class voters, rural voters, women, using right-wing talking points about Hillary, smearing the Clintons as racists, etc.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh but there allowed to (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by janarchy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:36:05 PM EST
    See, they're not elitist. They're just BETTER than everyone else. ;)

    [ Parent ]
    oops (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by janarchy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:36:30 PM EST
    "they're" not "there". Bloody homonyms melt my brain!

    [ Parent ]
    hey, I am white, and working class (1.00 / 4) (#198)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:47:57 PM EST
    and I dont feel dissed by Obama in the least.

    And Obama has done much better than Clinton in manyt rural states - ever hear of Iowa for example?

    And no one called the Clintons racists. They played the race card, yes (we cant win SC - all the blacks just vote for Obama, thats what the race is all about - hint, hint, white folks), and were called on it. But no one called them racists. It is, ironically, the Clinton people who, in their relentless drive to portray themselves as victims, claim that they were called racists, but it aint true.

    [ Parent ]

    You don't want to be taken seriously (5.00 / 5) (#206)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:56:42 PM EST
    here do you?  Clinton played the race card?  No, they were race baited by the Obama campaign though.

    The only professional victim in this race is Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    get real Ralph (1.00 / 4) (#210)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    Playing the victim card is about all that goes on in the Clinton circles these days.

    If you cant understand how they played the race card, then you must be willfully making an effort not to understand.

    I guess its just not a nice thing to have to admit that your candidate does. But hey, thats what being "tough" is all about in a campaign, right? You do what you have to do to win.

    [ Parent ]

    get real my @ss (5.00 / 4) (#224)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:13:26 PM EST
    If you think Obama is "tough", you've got a surprise coming.  If you have to race bait to win a primary against another democrat, then he's toast against the GOP.  They don't give a damn about his yelling racist every few minutes.


    [ Parent ]
    yelling racist every few minutes. (1.00 / 5) (#227)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:26:24 PM EST
    Hmm.
    I'll wager that the word has not crossed his lips a single time this primary season.

    Would it be impolite to use the word "liar" Ralph? And to ask of you why you feel the need to say these things?

    Obama did not race bait. In fact, he got a fair amount of abuse from the AA community for not "being black enough" - not promoting his blackness.
    THe Clintons, perhaps thown for a bit of a loop by the Iowa loss, tried to dismiss Obama as another Jackson, another symbolic black candidate who could be expected to get the black vote, but shouldnt be taken seriously as a real candidate.

    That was obvious, plain as day. It is not racism, but it is playing the race card.

    [ Parent ]

    So, Bill Clinton in South ... (1.00 / 6) (#218)
    by Tortmaster on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    ... Dakota today clsiming that there is a "cover up" of Hillary Clinton's chances to win in the general election because of some apparent vast left-wing media conspiracy isn't playing the "victim" card?

    They do it daily.

    [ Parent ]

    yes... (5.00 / 3) (#222)
    by urduja on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:13:00 PM EST
    Hillary won the rural votes in Iowa (according to the entrance polls anyway -- since it was a caucus). To be fair, she didn't win it by much but then too, Edwards was still in the race.

    As elsewhere, she also won the over-65 demographics -- the group that votes the most consistently.

    [ Parent ]

    I Have Yet To See A State Poll (5.00 / 4) (#194)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:40:38 PM EST
    of Clinton vs McCain that shows Hillary getting only 10% of the AA community. The average range is around 70% with 6% to 14% undecided. Please stop making stuff up.

    [ Parent ]
    making stuff up? (1.00 / 3) (#225)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:21:02 PM EST
    Ah, that would be you Mo.

    I didnt say Hillary would only get 10% of the AA vote vs. McCain. I said that is what she is gettting vs. Obama, and no Clinton fan seems to think that is a problem.

    Yet Obama getting 3x as much amongst white, low education voters, is supposedly some fatal flaw.

    Thats called taking AAs for granted.

    [ Parent ]

    Considering Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#196)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:43:05 PM EST
    ain't the one calling Reagan "transformational" I'm not quit sure what your point is.

    She isn't looking for the Reagan Dems, she is looking at gaining the working class vote.

    [ Parent ]

    what is that supposed to mean? (1.00 / 3) (#216)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:03:38 PM EST
    Obviously Reagan was transformational. If you dont understand that, then you dont understand anything of what happened to us this past generation. How are you going to transform America in a good way if you feel compelled to deny how we got to where we are?

    [ Parent ]
    How we got to where we are.. (5.00 / 2) (#232)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:33:27 PM EST
    is thanks mostly to Republican policies. Out of the entire national debt since we started having one, 70% of the deficits have been due to three Presidents..Ronald Reagan, GHWBush, and GWBush. 70% of the total national debt since the inception of the country. 70%.

    The current war is due to Republican policies. The obscene profits of corporations and the gutting of the social safety net are due to Republican policies. Tax breaks for the rich while the middle class gets to pay off the debt is due to Republican policies. How is the transformation from peace, prosperity to war and debt a good thing?

    The only relief we have had from that is the bright spot that was Bill Clinton's presidency. We ended up with a surplus, peace and a nice economic boom.

    Blown out the hatch by GWBush.

    Thanks for the transformation.

    Can we un-transform now??

    [ Parent ]

    What is your point? (1.00 / 1) (#236)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:47:22 PM EST
    Nobody would disagree with anything that you write here.

    Untransforming from Reaganism is what all of us are trying to do.

    Denying that Reaganism was a transformation though is just dumb.

    And claiming (not saying you are doing this, but it seems you might be implying it), that when Obama said Reagan was transformational he meant that in a good way, is just a ludicrous lie.

    [ Parent ]

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#51)
    by mogal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:21:56 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Wild. (5.00 / 14) (#3)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:57:12 AM EST
    Technically, there are more Democrats than Republicans in KY, right?

    Never mind, let's nominate Obama. La la la la la!

    I think Ky would be a cake walk to her (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by athyrio on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:59:09 AM EST
    this fall and her election might well exceed her husbands numbers....Hope she gets the chance to prove it but the Superdelegates don't seem to be too brave about standing up and being counted...How sad...If Obama is struggling right now, how on earth will his numbers withstand the onslaught of GOP 527's....Answer: It won't.....

    Have to disagree.... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:37:39 AM EST
    I think that what we are looking at in KY is the flip side of what we see in places like North Carolina..........

    basically, because of the attention paid to the primaries in those states, most everyone in the state "took sides" -- and we're looking at the hangover from that.  Clinton looks good now in KY because of the contrast between her and Obama is foremost in people's minds.  If Clinton is the nominee, people will refocus, and the contrast between Clinton and McCain will play a more prominent role in people's preferences.  

    I think the same thing is happening in Red States like NC where the GOPers are full of Hillary-haters.  Obama is viewed positively as the vanquisher of Hillary....but if he is the nominee, 'Hillary hate' will no longer be a factor in people's decisions, and Obama's support will fade.

    [ Parent ]

    Except according to SUSA (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:39:31 AM EST
    Hillary runs ahead of Obama in NC.

    [ Parent ]
    Um, except according to the (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:40:32 AM EST
    latest poll out of NC, Hill wins the state.  BO does not.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary is winning against McCain in NC (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:40:37 AM EST
    What we're seeing is that Hillary is an absolute lock to win the Presidency if she gets the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton a Lock? (1.00 / 1) (#234)
    by Spike on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:41:35 PM EST
    To claim in May that any candidate is an "absolute lock to win the presidency if she gets the nomination" is so outlandish that you have diminished the credibility of anything you say. Does that matter to you?

    [ Parent ]
    I think Hillary has vanquished a lot of the (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by ruffian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:46:43 AM EST
    Hillary-hate by coming out and letting people get to know her for who she is, and not the trumped up caricature the noise machine produced in the 90's. People may have originally just been voting against the Obama elitism, but along the way found the real deal in Hillary.  I think a lot of them would stick with her against McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed, there's a Primary afterglow effect (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:36:21 PM EST
    ... which dissipates over time.

    And agreed, Hillary-hate distorts current polling in red states, making Obama's chances look better than they are.

    Most but not all Hillary-hate in red states (and red turf in other states) will transfer to Obama as the Democratic standard bearer, just as most red-state aversion to McCain (as an insufficiently-reliable exemplar of contemporary Republican posture) will erode and be replaced by reversion to conventional partisan alignment.

    GOP is a damaged brand, however, and not all the old red states Republican votes will come home.

    [ Parent ]

    I actually believe these numbers (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:00:29 AM EST
    Problematic, to say the least.

    I do too. (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:02:51 AM EST
    Her appeal in Appalachia can hardly be denied.

    Imagine if she had the favorable press Obama's been getting?

    [ Parent ]

    Well, she was never going to get (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:03:50 AM EST
    favorable press. But I think it's pretty clear that she would destroy McCain in November. She's just not going to get that opportunity.

    [ Parent ]
    Can I just dream? (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by ghost2 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:12:01 AM EST
    Dream that she has been nominated and elected president.  I dream of waking up the morning after election, and seeing pictures of Tim Russert, Markos, Chris Matthews, KO... on one of my favorite blogs, telling them where to go.

    [ Parent ]
    What's playing in my mind (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:13:24 AM EST
    is the real nightmare.

    [ Parent ]
    Never say never. (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:23:30 AM EST
    :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Yes! She USED to be loved! (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Cate on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:34:45 AM EST
    Remember way back in 2007 when she was vastly favored to win? The Dems LOVED her...then the corporate media turned its revolting gaze her way.

    [ Parent ]
    Everyone knows the numbers will contract (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Virginian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:15:18 AM EST
    come November...places where Obama is ahead will tighten (or flip) and vice versa for McCain...

    polling a head-to-head for the GE right now doesn't mean much...I think come the convention bounce if the numbers have not had any or much change, we're in trouble...

    [ Parent ]

    is there any actual evidence (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Chisoxy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:54:14 PM EST
    of convention bounce? Besides, repubs have one too, dont they..

    [ Parent ]
    Yup (5.00 / 4) (#230)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:29:13 PM EST
    And the Dem bounce will be exactly 4 days long. The convention will end on Thursday and the Republican convention will start on Monday.

    [ Parent ]
    I think historically there is (none / 0) (#247)
    by Virginian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:32:29 PM EST
    a poll bounce after the convention...but what's your point?

    [ Parent ]
    Recount was a good reminder (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:01:05 AM EST
    of the "Democratic Electoral Brilliance"

    I am not convinced that Clinton's (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Virginian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:01:33 AM EST
    top ticket electibility would transfer to a joint ticket should she be the VP nominee.

    I can't think of many (read: any) modern presidential elections where the VP nominee actually benefited the ticket outside of providing a single state (home state).

    I agree... (5.00 / 13) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:02:48 AM EST
    and I hope she does not accept it.  Let the drown, either in the GE or trying to govern.  

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama should be the president (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Virginian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:05:33 AM EST
    I certainly hope for his surpassing my low expectations...I don't think our system could survive many more poor years of poor leadership...with that said...I think Obama would be a very WEAK president...we really should focus on expanding a Dem majority in both houses of Congress...

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by ghost2 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:13:27 AM EST
    You think Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, Leahy, and McCaskill will somehow add to the collective wisdom in Washington?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Virginian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:24:16 AM EST
    much more so than the alternative...

    Who instead would you have in those leadership positions? Given that we currently have a razor thin majority, and a president operating outside of the balances of power, I think Reid and Pelosi have done walked the political tightrope well...they have not in anyway deminished our opportunity to push forward a Democratic agenda in 2008 with expanded majorities and potentially a Democratic president...

    Would I rather that president be Hillary, of course...but the Congressional leadership is scared of Hillary as president because that means power will not return to balance, and Congress will remain weak...with Obama Congress will become strong again, and can actually "matter." In some ways Obama will be better for the long term of the party (not because of his own doing mind you), while Hillary will be better suited to CORRECT the destruction from the Bush administration...

    [ Parent ]

    Agree re (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by oldpro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:57:44 AM EST
    balance of power and congressional leadership preferring Obama for that reason.

    Fact is, though, the same could be said for McCain.  So, they are playing with fire by betting on Obama and sidelining the Clintons.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm for a stron Congress but (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Prabhata on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:19:29 PM EST
    not for a weak president.  The problem with a weak president is that there is no leadership.  Congress cannot be a good leader; it's not its nature.  Leading by consensus is a catastrophe.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe Not (3.00 / 0) (#200)
    by Spike on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:48:23 PM EST
    I think Obama will be a very strong president. He will be the first president to truly understand the power of the internet not just in winning elections, but in governing. He will bring pressure on the Congress from their home districts to support his policies. The Dem leadership will welcome it. They want strong leadership from their president. There are no more than a handful of Senators or Representatives who have experienced strong presidential leadership -- not since Johnson before he was crippled by Viet Nam. Carter never knew how to either lead in Washington or summon the support of the American people. Clinton spent his first two years quarreling with Democrats in Congress and his last six years triangulating with Republicans in Congress. Obama will be the first president since the mid-60s with both strong Democratic majorities in both Houses and the political skills to mobilize the support of the American people behind a platform of progressive change.

    [ Parent ]
    Will he be strong (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by zyx on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:56:14 PM EST
    before or after he learn what and where Hanford is?

    [ Parent ]
    You mean every time he wants (5.00 / 5) (#235)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:42:30 PM EST
    something from Congress, instead of going and doing the work of talking them around himself using arguments based on sound policy he is going to get his little internet minions to flood the Congress with emails and faxes??

    Oh yeah, that'll work. snicker..


    [ Parent ]

    Um.... (5.00 / 3) (#246)
    by Virginian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:31:18 PM EST
    I am not sure how you could be any more wrong...

    Obama has no clout on Capitol Hill...he won't be able to ram bills through Congress...even with a Dem majority...it just isn't going to happen...he doesn't even have a good policy team, he just cribs HRC...there isn't any competitor to crib from when your president...

    Not that I am a fan, but for all intents and purposes, Bush is a strong president, Clinton was a strong president (see government shut down, surviving impeachment, if you don't believe me), Reagan was a strong president, Nixon was relatively strong, Johnson was the epitome of strong...I'm going to go out on a limb and say most of the people in Congress have experienced AT LEAST (obviously Bush) one strong presidency...

    The American people don't have to be mobilized behind a progressive platform...look at some polling...progressive agendas are already supported by a clear majority of Americans...

    Again, I'm not entirely sure what it is you're talking about...

    [ Parent ]

    now there ya go. (1.00 / 5) (#133)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:59:24 AM EST
    If Hillary cant be president, then the Dems should lose, and/or the country should go to hell.

    And 8 people rank this comment highly.
    This site has become truly pathological.

    [ Parent ]

    so how is that different (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:31:44 PM EST
    than the philosophy at DailyKos, HuffPo, etc. that repeatedly states that they'd rather lose with Obama than win with Hillary?

    [ Parent ]
    if thats what they say, (1.00 / 3) (#190)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:36:18 PM EST
    then it is no different.

    Obviously.
    So ya proud of that?

    [ Parent ]

    I want to destroy (5.00 / 7) (#201)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:48:56 PM EST
    Obama/Axelrod and Bush/Rove politics.  This hysteria of demonizing and sanctifying needs to be destroyed.  That is why I want him to fail.  I do not want this to be our democracy.  Our democracy needs to end this manipulation.  It's Obama's tactics that need to be destroyed.

    They create the poison, then stand back and talk of change and new politics.  I have had enough.  

    [ Parent ]

    thanks stellaaaa (1.00 / 5) (#207)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:56:45 PM EST
    for making things absolutely clear.

    If I had accused you of such sentiments, I would probably be banned.

    You really are a [can't say it], as has been clear for the many months where you have been polluting this site with your hate-mongering. I hope everyone here rejects you vile poison.

    You ARE a practioner of Bush/Rove politics. You ARE, more than anyone else here a "hysterical demonizer", as you put it. Maybe you think that you are just playing the same game that is being played against your candidate, but I think you take it even further.

    Either you have lost all perspective, or you never had any, and are not a Dem at all.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the compliments. (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:01:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    keep up the good work stellaaaa (5.00 / 3) (#214)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:03:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    aha! hey, lets do a poll (1.00 / 3) (#220)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    how many people here think that destroying the Democratic party, because they dare to nominate Obama, and wishing for Democrats to fail, is "doing good work".

    It really would be good to get a sense of who it is that has become the dominant voices at this site.

    [ Parent ]

    Your hyperbole (5.00 / 3) (#226)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:25:30 PM EST
    is just silly IMO. Why do people HAVE to be democrats?

    and if they disagree with current democratic tactics they are 'vile poison' and 'hate-mongerers'. good god. project much?

    [ Parent ]

    nobody HAS to be a Democrat (1.00 / 2) (#231)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:33:08 PM EST
    ITs just good to know who is and who isn't.
    Especially since this is a Democratic site.

    Y'know, talk LEFT.

    The vile poison, and the hate mongering is, obviously, not a simple function of "disagreeing with current tactics". Stellaaa and a few others here "disagree" in a qualitativly different way than most people express disagreement. If you cant see her characterizations of Obama as hateful, or her calls for the destruction of our collective efforts as poison, then you be pretty blind yourself.

    [ Parent ]

    what if someone thinks (5.00 / 4) (#221)
    by Chisoxy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:11:14 PM EST
    Mccain with dem control of congress would do less harm, both to the country and the dem party, than an Obama presidency?

    What do we always ask of Republicans? To place country before party. Would it not be hypocritical to act the same?

    [ Parent ]

    No! (5.00 / 2) (#228)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:26:27 PM EST
    You MUST accept Tano's dictates!! You MUST vote for the democrat NO MATTER WHAT! Step into line man.

    [ Parent ]
    hey, if thats how you feel (1.00 / 3) (#239)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:57:33 PM EST
    then go vote for McCain. There are lots of Republicans who feel exactly like you.

    And stop coming 'round here. There are plenty of sites around for people who think that a President McCain would be better for this country than a President Obama.

    By all means. Follow your heart.

    [ Parent ]

    Faulty Logic (none / 0) (#237)
    by Spike on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:52:07 PM EST
    I don't think a true Democrat can logically say that a McCain presidency would be better for both the country and the Democratic Party. It would be very difficult for me to ever affirmatively vote for Clinton at this point. But I would never wish for or support a McCain presidency. His values are simply inconsistent with mainstream Democratic values. For a Democrat to reach that conclusion if Obama is the nominee sounds more like sour grapes than conviction.

    [ Parent ]
    You have been very insulting here (none / 0) (#248)
    by IzikLA on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:36:37 PM EST
    This site is 1/100th as insulting as those Other places and you should know it.

    I will vote for Obama in the GE because I find the alternative much worse.

    Do I think Hillary is the strongest candidate we have?  Yes, absolutely.  The willful ignorance of her strengths in the GE and the EV count is what baffles me.

    [ Parent ]

    I think that's essentially correct (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Y Knot on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:03:43 AM EST
    A VP slot for her might and I stress might, mollify the base, but it won't help him win over many new voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Dan Quayle (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by riddlerandy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:14:48 AM EST
    Oh, you mean his own ticket

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:24:44 AM EST
    Maybe McCain will choose Dan Quayle as his VP... we might have a shot then...

    [ Parent ]
    ROFLOL (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by barryluda on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:28:26 AM EST
    Best line of the long weekend!

    [ Parent ]
    I hope she wouldn't accept it, but if she did (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:33:23 AM EST
    she would be the reason the ticket won in the fall. Lazy Obama would have his VP doing most of the work, anyway.

    The DNC isn't going to let her get the spot. They need their version of Cheney who can pull the strings on the presidential puppet.


    [ Parent ]

    I don't know (5.00 / 2) (#241)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:01:42 PM EST
    about that.  The DNC may see the VP spot as a way to get rid of her.

    I really don't know if she'd fall for that.

    [ Parent ]

    I Don't Think VP Selection Will Help Obama (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:50:07 AM EST
    IIRC in 04 there was much excitement about a dream ticket with Kerry and Edwards. Polls and the media were overwhelming in favor of that combination. In hind sight, I don't think that Edwards did much to offset Kerry's weakness with the same demographic groups that Obama is having trouble with now.

    The funny thing is that the two state polls that showed polling with VP match ups has Edwards once again polling the best among the four options. Of course, Hillary is not one of the options.

    Disclosure: I'm not a fan of an Obama/Clinton ticket.

    [ Parent ]

    But Edwards was never that strong (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by ruffian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:57:14 AM EST
    on his own with that demographic group to begin with. If he were, he would have lasted longer in the 2004 primaries himself.

    [ Parent ]
    This isn't any other year (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by ruffian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:54:02 AM EST
    and she would not be like any other VP candidate.  No VP candidate I can think of came with this big a constituency of their own, as well as star quality.  

    Whether she thinks it is the right job for her personally is of course a decision only she can make, but I hope to god it is offered and that she takes it.

    Yes, I talked myself off the ledge I was on the other night and am back on the unity pony - riding bareback now, and holding on for dear life - one more false move might throw me off for good.

    [ Parent ]

    Good for you... (5.00 / 5) (#131)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:57:47 AM EST
    the only way I see Unity is with HRC at the top of the ticket.

    Obama as nominee is not working for me.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by ruffian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:12:00 PM EST
    I would very much prefer that as well.  But just practically speaking it seems that it is not going to happen.  I haven't given up on the possibility of another scandal erupting - I just hope it happens before the convention rather than after.

    [ Parent ]
    VPs don't always deliver (5.00 / 2) (#