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 >

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

  • Contribute 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
    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) (#122)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:55:50 AM EST
    even their home state.  Perfect example for this race is Dukakis/Bentsen losing TX to Bush I, even though Lloyd Bentsen was likely the most popular D politican since LBJ in TX.  He didn't help Dukakis one bit.

    Parent
    The VP cannot do anything about a weak (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Prabhata on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:25:49 PM EST
    candidate. Edwards or Bentsen were doomed to deliver.  BO will perform against McCain like Kerry against Bush.  After all the ballots were counted, I could not believe that the Democrats had lost to Bush.  I should have known Kerry would lose because he was so mealy mouthed.  Gallup also had a comparison of Kerry and Obama, they both have the same support and lack of support with blue collar worker.

    Parent
    Other Kerry Demographics (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:50:23 PM EST
    Kerry lost white women 52% to 44% and 60+ 54% to 46%.

    Similarities to potential Obama weaknesses are definitely there.  

    Parent

    Black Vote (none / 0) (#244)
    by Spike on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:22:22 PM EST
    The weaknesses among white men that are being attributed to Obama are common to both Gore and Kerry. And there's no way to know that Clinton would do any better. But Obama will register and turn out black voters to an extent that is previously unimaginable. The Kerry comparison only goes so far. It doesn't project the future.

    Parent
    Hillary won KY quite handily and in the GE she (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:03:10 AM EST
    could do it again.  Anyone who thinks otherwise, should think again.  They do seem to love her there.  She connected with them and they see her as the one who might make a difference.  If obama is the nominee....forget it.  Per PK's column this morning, he thinks obama needs to start making amends.  Frankly, I don't think he has it in him, nor does he want to.

    Aw, I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    I'm sitting in rural-ish Trigg County, KY right now and the cultural divide here is still pretty wide.

    Hillary might win here if she worked her cojones off in places like Louisville or Lexington, but I think she'd have a better shot in TN, AR, or VA.

    Just some 2 cents, not backed up by much.  

    Parent

    I'll bet you she's ahead in TN now (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:12:57 AM EST


    Parent
    God, I would die of joy (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:17:14 AM EST
    Haven't heard any good polling rumors, but I'll see what I can find out and report back.  

    I think she could definitely win TN, especially if she didn't commit the fatal Kerry error of blowing off our egomaniac governor. ;)  Just kidding, kind of....but various people would expect to have rings kissed.

    Luckily Bill C is on pretty good terms with Ned Ray McWherter, former TN governor, who still carries a lot of water in the state despite being like 100 years old.

    Parent

    What a lot of Obama supporters don't understand (5.00 / 12) (#18)
    by athyrio on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:05:00 AM EST
    is that a lot of Hillary supporters don't dislike Obama because of his insulting behavior toward Clinton (along with the DailyKos group) although that is hard to take....We dislike him because he is ill qualified to be leader of the free world...There isn't anything he can do to convince me that he can do the job effectively...His background speaks for itself IMO....That is why it won't work to try to make nicey nice with Hillary supporters, as that isn't our big issue....it is his massive lack of qualifications for the job....IMO

    It's Not Just Clinton Supporters (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by talex on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:24:58 AM EST
    that will think he is ill qualified to be leader of the free world. A whole lot of those people who are not political wonks like some of us who participate in the Primaries will look at Obama as ill qualified also and once again the Dem Party will get it wrong on who they nominated.

    It will be bad enough that 'supporter stacked' caucuses put Obama over the top with delegates but the bulk of the responsibility will be on the backs of the Supers should they not nominate Hillary and Obama goes on to lose.

    Parent

    Very true (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by ruffian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:00:27 PM EST
    In the moments when I get over my anger and am feeling OK about him personally, I remember that I just don't think he will be a good president.  Do we need our troops stuck in Iraq longer than necessary because he doesn't know the ropes of the military?  That's why I want Hillary to begin with.

    Parent
    Quick anecdote: (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:06:23 AM EST
    My hubby was talking to a good friend this weekend. This guy is not obsessive regarding the 2008 election, but he's a solid Democrat and voted for Lamont in the Connecticut primary.

    He said he didn't think he could bring himself to vote for Obama. He likes HRC, but thinks Obama is not experienced enough to handle the job.

    He said he might be forced to vote Republican for the first time in his life.

    Yes, PK is right as usual. The Democratic Party is about to make a huge, huge mistake.

    I've been seriously struggling with this (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Virginian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:12:50 AM EST
    issue myself...at one point I thought I may just write in Gore...

    But the truth is, we're choosing between two weak candidates, who will be two week presidents, who come from the legislative body, and will be beholden to legislators; Obama or McCain. I certainly would rather pick the one that has the -D- next to their name, especially considering either way it will be a presidency that is reliant on the support of Reid and Pelosi and Byrd and Kennedy and Clinton...

    Parent

    I'm like that die hard Democrat (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by Prabhata on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:29:31 PM EST
    until Obama came along.  I'm walking away from the party if he is the candidate.

    Parent
    More Importantly, Perhaps (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by The Maven on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:10:02 AM EST
    is that this seems to be the latest in a string of state head-to-heads that appear to show Clinton as the Democratic candidate who would "expand the map".  Whether she could ultimately win states like Kentucky, North Carolina, Nevada, etc., is something the superdelegates ought to be paying attention to (but sadly, they've chosen to be as blind as the media wants them to be).

    Every electoral map that I've seen now has Clinton with a huge lead over McCain, generally with well over 300 EVs; Obama, by contrast, struggles to reach parity with McCain because of his comparatively weaker status in the big swing states (FL, OH, PA and MI) and his lack of competitiveness in some smaller states like AR and WV.

    At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if much of their electoral strategy rested on propping up Bob Barr as the Libertarian candidate, much as the GOP actively supported the Greens in 2004.  Even if successful, that's hardly the basis for any sort of governing mandate.

    Electoral Map Pick Ups (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:59:54 AM EST
    Clinton
    Dem pickups (vs. 2004):
    AR FL MO NV NM NC OH WV
     
    GOP pickups (vs. 2004):
    WI

    Obama
    Dem pickups (vs. 2004):
    CO IA NM OH
     
    GOP pickups (vs. 2004):
    MI WI

    Parent

    economy and gasoline prices (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:10:39 AM EST
    Kentucky is def. winnable this year, with the right democrat

    I'd like to know why you (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:15:29 AM EST
    insist Obama, and only Obama, could win the mountain west, though Hillary is winning NV, NM, and is close or winning CO, yet you argue Hillary can't win KY.  

    Hey (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:25:41 AM EST
    I am in the tank for Obama obviously.

    But of cpourse you are also wrong on some of the polling. Colorado is NOT in play with Clinton at all and Obama wins it.

    You have a strong argument for Clinton, but keep it real.

    Parent

    Not according to Homind views. (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:28:42 AM EST
    They say CO is  48.4 51.6 to McCain.  I AM keeping it real.

    Parent
    This is funny. Today Homind (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:46:15 AM EST
    views gives Hill a 100% chance of beating McCain.

    Parent
    La la la la, (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:47:37 AM EST
    the DNC can't HEAR YOU!

    Parent
    I don't think (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Radix on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:33:13 AM EST
    Co. is an automatic for Obama, only that it is in play with him.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    They thought CO was in play (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:34:31 AM EST
    for Kerry too.

    It wound up going to Bush.

    Parent

    So, is that why you say she won't win (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:34:43 AM EST
    KY?  Because you are in the tank for Obama?

    Parent
    Well, at least relish the fact (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:43:13 AM EST
    that he's finally admitting he's in the tank for Obama.  Tepid supporter, indeed.  He proved the falseness of that statement when he latched onto the sleezy RFK smear.

    Myself, I think Hillary could win Kentucky, just as Bill did.  All she needs there is Bill.

    Parent

    Hey now... (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:45:32 AM EST
    he backtracked from that.  Play nice, please.

    Parent
    He's also been an outspoken critic... (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:05:17 PM EST
    of many who have jumped out of the tank and into the ocean...and many who skipped the tank and went straight for the ocean.

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#90)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:38:54 AM EST


    Parent
    Amazing, (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:47:08 AM EST
    the willingness to trade Florida and Ohio, put Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan and perhaps even New Jersey at risk for the sake of winning Colorado's 9 electoral votes.

    Truly astounding. The madness continues unabated.

    Parent

    exactly! (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by Josey on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:58:40 AM EST
    after Obama has called "bitter" Democrats racists and falsely accused the Clintons of racism - he'll lean on the Clintons to deliver those states Obama needs to win in Nov.
    A Clinton may not be cleaning up after a Bush mess - but both Clintons will be expected to clean up Obama's mess.


    Parent
    Though I did think I saw (none / 0) (#76)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:32:20 AM EST
    a poll with her winning, so I was wrong about that.  But she's less that two points behind, according to the latest poll.

    Parent
    In the Tank (none / 0) (#171)
    by feet on earth on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:19:55 PM EST
    I may have missed something, but the reasons I remember for your preference are two:
    1. Media Darling Status
    2. The DNS, SuperDs & party insiders do not want  Hillary

    I also remember reading that you think she is the better candidate

    So, my questions, if you care to elaborate (I am sincerely and honestly interested)

    What, in your view are the reasons for the DNC et all do not want her? What is in it for them? Who is benefiting from this stand? Who is loosing? What political advantage is in it for them that in greater than winning GE?


    Parent

    I think he was being (none / 0) (#174)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:24:56 PM EST
    a little facetious...

    Parent
    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by mogal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:17:22 AM EST
    won KY.  I heard a young woman on msnbc say KY was no longer a swing state because a democrate had not won it since 1996. No one bothered o tell her that was the last time a dem. won, althought Pat Buchanan looked astounded. Oh well what can we learn from the media?

    How Ironic (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:18:24 AM EST
    The Obama MSM and blogs, dominated by white men, have been gnashing their teeth about those problematic white women ruining Obama's chances. Now, look at the numbers for Montana - it is the white male demographic who will put McCain over Obama. Will we start to hear now how probematic white men are for Obama?

    He's always had a problem with white men (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:29:22 AM EST
    except Wisconsin and in caucuses

    Parent
    Adding to this (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:55:24 PM EST
    In some ways Obama's support in this campaign is smoke and mirrors for want of a better phrase. It's just doesn't show deep strength.

    Of his 32 wins, 15 have been caucuses (47%), 17 have been primaries, but, 9 of those primary wins are in states with an African-American population percentage that far exceeds the national average. That leaves 8 primary wins. One (Utah) is one of the three deepest red states in the nation.  Four (IL,CT,VT,OR)are "traditional" blue states one of which is his home state. Two (MO,WI) are swing states. I call Wisconsin a swing state because in 2000 and 2004 the Democratic margin was razor thin. The other primary win was Democrats Abroad. Yeah I know (can you imagine how deeply wine track that group is).

    The caucus wins IMO obtain delegates but are not as reflective as a primary.  Too many demographics are excluded from caucuses and in Washington and Nebraska the beauty contest popular votes were much closer than the caucuses.

    It's as though Obama's strength comes from gaming the nominating system.

    Parent

    Gaming the System? (none / 0) (#242)
    by Spike on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:04:43 PM EST
    It's just as easy to conclude that "gaming the nominating system" is the same as "knowing how to win." I want a candidate who demonstrates the ability to win by the accepted metric of victory. Obama has done that. Clinton hasn't.

    Parent
    Never understood (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Radix on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:19:16 AM EST
    the "Obama expands the map, Hilary doesn't" trope. It seems obvious she doesn't do much in the mid-west but does open up the South a bit.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Yes, but only Obama can get the (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:39:32 AM EST
    support of those 9 states Hillary didn't campaign in, and no one can find on the map.


    Parent
    I think it made more sense 8 months ago (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by ruffian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:02:37 PM EST
    when people assumed the country hated Hillary and she could never win the kinds of voters she has been winning.  Now it appears the map can be expanded in other directions than westward.

    Parent
    Is that directed to the people (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:28:46 AM EST
    of Kentucky?

    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:30:40 AM EST
    won Kentucky, twice.  It's not a stretch of the imagination that if she were to be the nom, he could campaign there and get it back into the D column.

    Electoral history also dictates that there is NO way Hillary could win CO (Clinton did in 1992 but no in 1996).  WV and AR would be slam dunks for Hillary.

    You're right about MT.  Not in play.  And neither would be the majority of the red states Obama did well in with regard to caucuses.

    OMIGOD, I think you've just won me over...... (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:31:11 AM EST
    ...to the Obama side!!!!!!!!!!!!

    NOT.

    Personally (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by otherlisa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM EST
    I got enough ponies for a merry-go-round.

    Parent
    Sounds like (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by stillife on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:40:02 AM EST
    the Republicans in 2000:  You lost - get over it!  Don't be a crybaby!  

    Parent
    I wonder if it may not be (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:31:33 AM EST
    possible that Hillary would in fact win in KY, as bizarre as that might seem.

    I've been coming to an odd conclusion of late: that politics is really much more about class than it is about policies. In terms of policies, obviously the differences between McCain and Hillary are much, much greater than the differences between Obama and Hillary. But white working class voters now identify Hillary as being on their side, as representing their interests and aspirations and values. And Obama is the polar opposite of this from their point of view, representing the class of people who sneer at them.

    Somehow, I have a feeling that the class identification issues really trump any policy issues. Because of this, I can see many voters in KY voting for Hillary in the general because of how they see her representing them. I suspect that for many of them, it will be hard for Republicans at this stage to portray Hillary as out of touch with them based on any policy things she may advocate -- most especially when there are countervailing policy issues that make Republicans seem out of touch with the working class, such as economic issues.

    Really, in many ways, policy issues for most people simply are stand-ins for their class identification issues -- e.g., on guns, religion, etc.

    With Obama as a foil, Hillary has managed to cross the "policy" barrier and connected directly to working class voters emotionally -- the trick that Republicans have always played in their favor.

    You're largely right (5.00 / 7) (#82)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:34:01 AM EST
    That was Tom Davis's point, and it suggests that McCain couldn't beat Hillary this year.

    Parent
    Thank you, (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by mogal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:47:53 AM EST
    Well said.

    Parent
    Just to add to my previous post (5.00 / 7) (#155)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:09:13 PM EST
    one way to think about the point I'm trying to make is to see the vacuity of the claim that Obama and Hillary advocate much the same policies, so that any Democrat should select whichever one happens to be nominated.

    What this doesn't capture is the fact that they couldn't be more different in terms of their class/group appeal. And I guess what I'm claiming is that often it is the class distinctions that are simply more basic in our society -- more basic than economic issues, for example, since most people can manage to make do under any administration.

    What people in a reasonably affluent society are seeking from politics is respect for and validation of who they are as people -- and in modern day meritocratic America, that comes down to validation of their class/group.

    So is it crazy for a working class voter to vote for McCain if they feel he shows more respect for who they are? Is it crazy for a woman to refuse to vote for Obama in the election if the Obama campaign and their media cheerleaders show great disrespect for Hillary and women generally by engaging in or encouraging a vile sexism?

    I'm starting to come down on the side that respect is the most important and most basic quantity in politics, and that it does make rational sense for voters to choose whom they vote for on this basis, given that the policy differences between the candidates may otherwise figure in a minor way in their lives. Policy differences come and go, but the basic respect, or lack thereof, that a political movement pays toward certain groups of people abides, and determines the overall quality of the lives of individuals in those groups, and, ultimately, the direction of the policies that are pursued.

    Parent

    Well now (5.00 / 7) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:41:08 AM EST
    that is the type of wit and wisdom that SOME Obama supporters have taught us to expect from them.

    for all the people (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by ajain on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:42:52 AM EST
    Who want to have some fun this Memorial Day Weekend - email Howard Dean.
    howarddean@dnc.org

    Lets be creative in our rebuke for the system and disrespect that is being shown to Hillary Clinton. (I do not believe she has a reasonable way to win, but I think they way she has been treated is pretty outrageous and annoying).

    And make Clinton's electability case. And ofcourse FL/MI.

    Thanks for the direct email address! (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:46:23 AM EST
    Now I know where to send my petition.

    Parent
    Dear Madam (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Cate on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:51:22 AM EST
    I just signed your petition! Thanks for your efforts!

    Parent
    Dear Madam (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Cate on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:53:37 AM EST
    I just signed your petition. Thanks for your efforts.

    Parent
    Thanks Cate! (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    I appreciate it. :-)

    Parent
    Me too! (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:48:02 PM EST
    I didn't have to spend time composing my own daily email to my pal Dean or the DNC.

    Parent
    Although (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by ajain on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:48:00 AM EST
    more importantly, a minute of silence for the soldiers who are/were serving their country all over the world.

    Parent
    It is very important to stress the seating and (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:10:17 PM EST
    COUNTING THE VOTES in the FL/MI portion of your email!

    Madamab....how many signatures so far?

    Parent

    200! (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:11:29 PM EST
    Not bad, eh?

    I plan to send it in on Wednesday. Time's a-wastin!

    Parent

    grest petion. (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by jbradshaw4hillary on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:03:09 PM EST
    Hey I just signed the pettion thanks for setting it up.

    Parent
    Cool....every signature helps (none / 0) (#179)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:26:50 PM EST


    Parent
    God...thank you (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by americanincanada on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    I feel so muc better now that I have stopped crying and gotten over it. I feel such...hope...now.

    When do I get my pony?

    He has been delivered... (5.00 / 2) (#240)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:58:31 PM EST
    he is under the huge pile of manure outside your door. Grab a shovel and start digging. He's in there somewhere!!

    Parent
    If Obama is chosen the nominee and (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by athyrio on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:06:47 PM EST
    if he, in fact, loses the general election, I vote for a full scale investigation of the DNC and the superdelegates that pulled this off....Something truly rotten in Denmark IMO for this to happen...

    What a surprise. (5.00 / 6) (#157)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:10:49 PM EST
    Montana's not in play.  ;)

    The GOP hasn't even started (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by nellre on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:12:14 PM EST
    Obama, his wife and everybody who has ever associated with him will be ripped to shreds by the GOP dem masher.
    Polls this early overstate Obama's chances.
    On the other hand, Clinton, being mashed by both her own party, the GOP (for 16 years), and the MSM is less subject to "surprises". I'd think the polls would understate her chances in November.
     

    BREAKING NEWS!!! (5.00 / 8) (#172)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:22:06 PM EST
    AP (Nov 5, 2008) - In an unprecedented election year sweep, Sen. Barack Obama won all 50 states - a never achieved feat.  In addition, he won the 7 states he made up with 100% of the vote.  What's even more amazing is he won all ten provinces and three territories in Canada and all thirty-one states and the federal district of Mexico.  In winning such a huge margin, the respective governments of Canada and Mexico have decided to honor the will of the people and cede their land to the United States, so Sen. Obama is now the President of North America - the largest country on earth.

    Sen. John McCain called Sen. Obama to congratulate him as soon as the polls closed in the east (there was no need to count any states out of the Eastern  Time Zone, as exit polls showed that Sen. Obama received 100% of the vote in every state / territory.

    Sen. McCain, upon not receiving a single vote, was quoted as saying, "Heck, I didn't even vote for myself.  Sen. Obama fills all of us with the spirit of Hope and Change and is surely suited to solve all of problems."

    [UPDATE]  February 1, 2009.  President Obama, being sworn in just 12 days ago, has fulfilled all his campaign promises and then some.  There are no more problems to be solved.  The world is at peace, the environment is safe, all diseases have been eradicated (so no need for health insurance), employment is at 100%, and scientists have discovered the secret to immortality.

    In a related story, Congress has passed by the requisite 2/3, and the states have all voted unanimously to repeal the 22nd amendment, and instead, in a move similar to the Roman Senate, have voted to name Obama, President of North America for life."

    Obama's for Hope and Change! (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by BostonIndependent on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:28:08 PM EST
    Hope that these sorts of polls will change!

    If Hillary should not win the nomination, the question will be how her vote gets split between McCain, no-shows and Obama. I think the super d's are ignoring the first two categories to their party's detriment.

    So, what does this mean ... (1.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Tortmaster on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:17:35 AM EST
    ... when Barack Obama only has 49 delegates to go to win the nomination? Our country doesn't elect a President of Appalachia.  

    But Pennsylvania and Ohio (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:21:21 AM EST
    take in large parts of Appalachia.

    Never mind, you don't care. It's all about "hope."

    Parent

    You forgot about Florida, MA, RI, OK and AZ, etc (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:26:51 AM EST
    also part of Appalachia now.

    Parent
    Last I heard CA and possibly NV (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by Virginian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:30:10 AM EST
    have joined the ranks of Appalachia too

    Parent
    Don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:38:23 AM EST
    that Appalachian state of NY!

    (Yes, I still believe McCain could be competitive here, causing Obama to waste resources on a supposedly "safe" blue state. Call me crazy.)

    Parent

    You're not crazy (5.00 / 4) (#197)
    by janarchy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:45:42 PM EST
    People in upstate New York are NOT happy about what's going on. There are a lot of conservative Democrats and a lot of moderate Republicans who come into play and they don't like Obama (at least the ones I know and the people THEY know). People always forget that upstate NY is a totally different place than the New York City metro area. Of course, all the Long Islanders I know are also firmly not-for-Obama so I'm not even sure how well that's doing. I think in the end, O. will win NY but it won't be a cakewalk.

    Despite my local newspaper's insistance otherwise because of the RFK thing, HRC is still our senator and still well-loved. (The only 2 people they could quote as being apalled were Donna Brazille and Al Sharpton - all the local supers/elected officials were firmly on HRC's side)

    Parent

    That's right, over here in NV, we are part of (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:01:48 PM EST
    the appalachias....recently purchased a still ... :) j/k

    Parent
    MO Is Definitely Part Of Appalachia n/t (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:04:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Also southwestern Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:42:06 PM EST
    as many migrated west to the Mississippi and then up the river.  Btw, Wisconsin's first territorial governor was a Missourian -- and brought his slaves with him to Wisconsin.  And you no doubt know that a famous Missourian who came from Kentucky, Dred Scott, claimed his freedom based on his years in what then was Wisconsin Territory, where he met and married the Wisconsin slave Harriet Scott, the forgotten colitigant in that freedom suit.

    Thus the wisdom of Gore's and Kerry's campaigns in working hard up and down the Mississippi in that "superstate," the swing state of "Minnewisowa."  So they won some towns in southwestern Wisconsin and thus, barely, the state when combining those votes with Milwaukee and Madison.  I doubt that Obama could do so -- although I also don't know about McCain there.  But watch for the LaCrosse area to make the difference again in Wisconsin.

    And Appalachian migration to Michigan's auto towns is legendary, where country music was heard more than the Motown sound.  Appalachian pockets of the upper Midwest are many, as well as so much of that anomaly of the Midwest, Missouri.

    Parent

    Your math is off. (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Radix on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:24:08 AM EST
    Florida and Michigan are going to be seated. Since they will be seated there will be a new magic number.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    The attitude (5.00 / 9) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:24:20 AM EST
    that could sink the Obama campaign.

    The stupidity of SOME Obamaa supporters is truly astounding.

    the one good thing about this is we now do not have to hear anymore about how Obama is going to run a 50 state strategy.

    Parent

    We can add Kentucky (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:27:26 AM EST
    to the list of states that don't mater. (Yes, I relish throwing that BS back at them.)

    Parent
    you are right (none / 0) (#166)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:16:58 PM EST
    I need to post that one.

    But we got caught up in this crazy RFK business.

    Parent

    It doesn't elect a president of.... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:29:53 AM EST
    ...Creative Classia either.

    Parent
    She shoots, She Scores n/t (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:06:07 PM EST


    Parent
    That's fuzzy math (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:32:00 AM EST
    I think the number hasn't officially been decided until there's a resolution of FL and MI.

    I say it's 2210

    Parent

    Feelin' the Unity! (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by otherlisa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:32:27 AM EST


    Parent
    I know that most of you will disagree, but (1.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Politalkix on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:52:27 AM EST
    IMHO, I am quite confident that Obama will win every state that Al Gore won in 2000 (yes, he will win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, Wisconsin and Minnesota where Bush ran Gore pretty close).
    However, Obama can also pick up the following additional states (those that Gore lost) from the Republicans with targetted efforts.

    Colorado
    Ohio (strickland, sebelius as vp will help)
    Virginia (warner, kaine, or webb as VP will help)
    North Carolina (warner, kaine or webb as VP)
    Georgia (Nunn as VP, the Barr influence)
    Missouri (Sebelius as VP)
    Kansas (Sebelius, as VP)
    Nebraska (Sebelius, Hagel as VP)
    Nevada
    Montana
    New Hampshire
    Indiana (Bayh as VP)

    Obama will lose Florida at the end. This is the only state where Clinton as VP can help Obama in any substantive way.


    Wow. (5.00 / 10) (#121)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:55:16 AM EST
    How many VP's does he get? Seems like the guy needs a lot of help. (You're right, most of those states are pure fantasy.)

    Meanwhile, HRC seems to be able to cremate McCain without relying on a VP to try to boost her electability.

    Parent

    I really do not see HRC (none / 0) (#217)
    by Politalkix on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    expanding the Al Gore states map to such an extent that a Democrat victory will be assured in a HRC-McCain match. Yes, she will add Arkansas and Ohio (Obama will also most likely win Ohio) but may lose Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Oregon. Florida and West Virginia will remain toss-ups in a GE (between HRC and McCain). Kentucky will remain Republican.

    Parent
    Obama has already lost FL to McCain (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by Josey on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:29:01 PM EST
    Hillary brought back voters to the Dem Party and added new voters.
    Blacks, Kidz, latte sippers, hippies, voting for Obama, were always welcome to register and vote Dem.
    But the "unity" candidate couldn't win the nomination without dividing the party.


    Parent
    Al Gore won Florida (5.00 / 9) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:55:58 AM EST
    Obama won't.

    Parent
    Obama's strategy (5.00 / 7) (#128)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:57:10 AM EST
    seems to be fighting his way to an EC tie.

    Parent
    You give him too much credit. (5.00 / 6) (#136)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:00:20 PM EST
    His GE strategy is non-existent.

    Example: He's supposedly been "the nominee" for how long now? Yet he still continues to demonize Clinton, despite saying he was going to move his focus to McCain.

    I have no faith whatsoever that this man can be elected President.

    Parent

    Georgia? (5.00 / 7) (#125)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:56:00 AM EST
    heh, whatever.

    Parent
    Atlanta maybe. (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by Burned on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:37:54 PM EST
    A little blue boat trying to sail in a sea of red clay.

    Parent
    Plus your list is funny (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:56:51 AM EST
    Why not add Texas, Oklahoma and Alabama to it as well.

    Parent
    Why sure (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:28:26 PM EST
    BTD he could add Dan Boren to his cadre of running mates to secure Oklahoma.

    Is that nine or ten running mates?  I've lost count.

    Parent

    Ah delusions of grandeur (5.00 / 6) (#138)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:00:55 PM EST
    this kind of comment never ceases to be entertaining :-)

    Parent
    From all the states you list (5.00 / 5) (#140)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:02:36 PM EST
    He might win Nevada.

    Parent
    We shall do everything we can over here to (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:11:32 PM EST
    make sure that doesn't happen.  I think the large population of hispanics might not make a win possible.

    Parent
    Sebelius isn't even helping him (5.00 / 6) (#144)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:04:12 PM EST
    in Kansas.

    Parent
    whatever you're on is against the law! (5.00 / 8) (#146)
    by Josey on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:04:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Yer killin' me (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by ruffian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:06:21 PM EST
    I'll add th othe other comments on your list that McCain will in all probability select Tim Pawlentey as VP and take Minnesota, and possibly Wisconsin.

    Parent
    I meant 'add to the other comments' (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by ruffian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    I can't type today

    Parent
    Pawlenty will help McCain in Minnesota (none / 0) (#203)
    by Politalkix on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:50:45 PM EST
    but will make McCain more vulnerable in a state like Georgia.
    I expect both Obama and Clinton to win against McCain. However, such a win is not a given for either Democrat candidate (emphasis-not even for HRC). I really do not believe that Clinton is a better candidate than Obama on the issue of electibility. She will probably win Arkansas but will be more vulnerable than Obama in places like Wisconsin, Oregon and Minnesota (states that Gore had won). She may fare better than Obama in Florida, but doing better may not translate to a win.

    Parent
    Does this mean he will need a committee (5.00 / 7) (#152)
    by Anne on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    of VP nominees in order to win?

    Maybe if he can do VP for a Day, travel into each state with his VP of the moment - I'm sure the media would be captivated by its brilliance, and Obama would act as if no one in any of the other states could see or hear it.

    Obama is a weak candidate, who will continue to weaken between now and the convention, where there will be a massive case of "what were we thinking?" right before they nominate Clinton.

    Parent

    No, Obama will just have one VP :-) (none / 0) (#188)
    by Politalkix on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:34:20 PM EST
    Any one of the VP candidates that were mentioned will have maximum impact in states mentioned alongside their names. However, irrespective of the VP choice, Obama has a very good chance to win in each state that I mentioned. These states will be toss-ups in the GE between Obama and McCain.


    Parent
    Nine VPs Are Now Part Of The Rulz? (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:13:13 PM EST
    Who would have thunk it?

    BTW Sebelius will not win MO for Obama. If Claire McCaskill and the Dem machine couldn't get moderate and conservative Dems to vote for Obama in the primary, Sebelius will not be able to do it in the GE.

    Parent

    And bob casey in PA. (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:28:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Surprised They Missed That One (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:01:25 PM EST
    We'll just change the Rulz and have 10 VPs now. What is one more VP in the scheme of things.

    Parent
    Not only that (5.00 / 5) (#223)
    by Brookhaven on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:13:11 PM EST
    But, who in their right mind except some Obama supporters or some jackasses in the DNC or morons in the MSM or some pro-Obama blogs would ever for one nanosecond believe that McCaskill or Sebelius are qualified to step into the office as POTUS (which is a large part of the VP job)?  I have no respect for McCaskill and when I saw Sebelius in January giving the Dem response to Bush's SOTU, she was not only boring but incomprehensible to boot.  God almighty save us from any one of these two let alone Obama.

    Parent
    McCaskill Is Not Particurly Popular In MO (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:28:25 PM EST
    If Obama loses the GE, her endorsement could very well result in her being a one term Senator. Not sure she could have endorsed Clinton w/o fall out from the AA community but had she been smart she would have endorsed and then kept quite instead of making one inane statement after another. Her endorsement will cause her problems with the conservative Dems especially after Wright and the SF fiasco.

    I'm one of her constituents and I disapprove of her because of her votes on Iraq and FISA. The Obama endorsement didn't change my already low opinion of her.  

    Parent

    hey you forgot bill richardson (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:13:41 PM EST
    he'll help in New Mexico

    Parent
    Barr is at what 8% (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:18:54 PM EST
    in his own state?

    ::eye roll::

    Parent

    Fantasyland (5.00 / 5) (#173)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:23:30 PM EST
    You're living in fantasyland. Just incredible.

    First, your choice of potential VPs is just plain foolish.  You would trade a potential pick-up in the Senate, Mark Warner, for a shot at Virginia that probably won't work anyway.  To make matters still worse you're willing to vacate a Democratic Senate seat, Jim Webb, in a Republican state.

    Then you think you can take Ohio by removing a Democratic governor from office. You don't understand that the top of the ticket in Ohio is what counts.  You really think Ohioans are that provincial?  Downright insulting to Ohioans.

    In fact your choices depend upon a huge wave of provincialism.

    Sam Nunn you think will bring Georgia? He retired from the Senate when he saw the writing on the wall.  That writing was the demise of the Dixiecrats.

    Chuck Hagel? Do you have any idea how far right Chuck Hagel is? I didn't think so.

    Your North Carolina logic is astounding. Apparently you think your Virginia oriented ticket could win because NC is next door. is that the logic? You think they're identical twins?

    According to your plan Obama would require eight VP running mates to win some states that no current Democrat could win even with Jesus as a running mate.

    Parent

    So true but look at his chart (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:26:44 PM EST
    If Sebelius is winning that many states then she should be running for President

    Parent
    I thought RAS (none / 0) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:58:48 AM EST
    was going to stop polling Clinton. ? Or is it Zogby?

    Zogby isn't a real pollster. But it (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:59:35 AM EST
    was Ras.  

    Parent
    Yeah, pollsters, just ignore HRC. (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by madamab on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:59:40 AM EST
    She'll go away. Cause that's what she does.

    LOL!

    Parent

    She's going to the convention (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:20:40 AM EST


    Parent
    Nationally (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:50:19 AM EST
    I thought they said they weren't going to poll her nationally?  I prefer the state by state polls myself and lots of them.

    Parent
    Electability KY Style | 241 comments (241 topical)