home

SUSA MI Poll: More Support For Unity Ticket

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:17:50 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

For the first time SUSA included Hillary Clinton among the potential VP picks for Obama. This was in Michigan and with the exception of Edwards, every other one of the names being floated in the SUSA polling got Obama destroyed against a McCain/Romney ticket.

Michigan is actually the kind of state where you might think John Edwards might help Obama more than Clinton but it simply was not the case. More and more it becomes clear that Hillary Clinton is the must pick VP should Obama become the nominee.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama Says He Will Be the Nominee Tuesday | Late Night Open Thread: Working Girls >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SUSA MI Poll: More Support For Unity Ticket | 225 comments (225 topical)
    Hillary MUST be on the top of the ticket. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:21:35 PM EST
    Someone told me today they read BO was going to put a woman "who wasn't divisive" on the ticket.  That would be Sebelius, I assume.  What a disaster ticket in the making.  No FP experience between them.  

    Hills MUST be on top.  She can win.  We'll take BO as VP, though we are not so happy about it.

    Obama and Hillary should not be a ticket (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by felizarte on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:33:55 PM EST
    The republicans will use Hillary's issues against Obama and vice versa.  The two will have no synergy.  Obama will be better off picking another running mate and hold Hillary to her promise of campaigning her heart out.

    The same for Hillary,.  She should pick a running mate that reinforces her strengths and softens her weaknesses.

    With these two running together, the republicans would want to emphasize anything that might be perceived as conflicts between the two.  

    [ Parent ]

    In my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:40:11 PM EST
    the public would be fascinated by the soap-opera aspect of the storyline.  I believe it would make it hard for McCain because the Democratic ticket would suck up all the oxygen.

    [ Parent ]
    History suggests (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:35:45 PM EST
    that runningmates only add, and do not subtract.

    Hillary needs to be LBJ to Obama's JFK.

    [ Parent ]

    OMG- This so much does not work for me (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:43:09 PM EST
    Obama as JFK? the wish of a toad do become a prince.

    [ Parent ]
    It's a different time (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:24:44 AM EST
    The Rev. Wright issue will be back; Michelle Obama's "I'm proud . . . comment will be repeated over and over again; Obama's bitter/cling remarks will be in play.  

    There's nothing Hillary can do about that.  And then, what will be the HealthCare plan?  Hillary/s or Obama's?  What about the gas tax holiday?

    I personally prefer Hillary to be the top of the ticket and picking someone else more complimentary to her.  If she is not the nominee, she's better off staying in the Senate and shepherd her causes via bills she could introduce.

    [ Parent ]

    She could be (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:47:56 PM EST
    Cheney to Obama's Bush.

    [ Parent ]
    hillarifying (none / 0) (#220)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:05:05 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Uh-oh (none / 0) (#228)
    by nene on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:39:57 AM EST
    You know what happened next.

    [ Parent ]
    Not gonna happen (none / 0) (#179)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:53:11 AM EST
    So don't worry about.  Obama's far too arrogant to let any Clinton be on HIS ticket.  He'll pick someone who couldn't possibly over shadow him,  some quiet unknown, like Jim Webb of Virginia.  While someone like that won't add much to the ticket, he won't outshine Obama.  I'm afraid Obama's ego won't allow any real powerhouse, like Hillary, on his ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    What you mean "we?" (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:23:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The typical Hillary supporter, (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:24:36 PM EST
    who doesn't really care for Obama at this point, but is pragmatic enough to see how this would have to play out.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#15)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:31:53 PM EST
    What does "a woman who isn't divisive" mean?

    I'm guessing it's code for "anyone besides Hillary or Ann Coulter."

    [ Parent ]

    Don't forget (none / 0) (#28)
    by standingup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:36:58 PM EST
    Ferraro!

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's group fantasy (none / 0) (#48)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:43:39 PM EST
    is that they will have absolute power.  They will get the Congress, have rule of the party and their so called bipartisanship will be because they squelched all other voices in the party.  At this point any unity efforts by Obama are for absolute power of his wing.  The only choice is to resist.

    [ Parent ]
    This so reminds me of (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Grace on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:36:17 AM EST
    the run-up to Dubya's Presidency.  

    I tried to think today of the similarities between the Obama campaign and the Dubya campaign.  Both were light on experience.  Both had powerful insiders behind them (as advisors).  

    Unfortunately, we got to see how a Dubya presidency played out.  


    [ Parent ]

    both are built on illusion (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by kempis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:14:08 AM EST
    Bush was a "regular fella."

    Obama is "The Grrrreatest Orrrrator of Our Age!"

    In reality, both are balloons filled with the script in the teleprompter. And that's evident when they're  unplugged.

    [ Parent ]

    Tut Tut (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Rictor Rockets on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:32:51 AM EST
    There are many parallels to Hillary and Bush as well, especially in regards to cronyism.

    Hillary has shown that she cares far more about "loyalty" than about people who will tell her when she is wrong, will call her out on it. Look at James "JUDAS" Carville, her hitman and consigliere.

    I think a lot of the reason that SD's are nervous about calling it right now is that they remember how ruthless the Clintons and their DLC clique are. They're trying to muster a backbone to share amongst themselves.

    Obama isn't the devil, and Hillary certainly is no angel.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama will be a drag (none / 0) (#69)
    by themomcat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:58:25 PM EST
    on down ticket candidates. The Democrats stand a chance of unseating Mitch McConnell by Bruce Lunsford. Rasmussen has McConnell down 5% (49% - 44%) against Lunsford. Vito Fossella (R NY CD 13) is up for grabs and the Republicans can't find a strong candidate to go against any of the proposed Democratic candidate. But none of this will happen if Obama is the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep. Remember that letter that Congressional (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by kempis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:20:06 AM EST
    Dems sent pointing out that Hillary polled MUCH better in their districts than Obama did?

    I know I sound like a broken record, but I know that here in PA, the Dems picked up seats because they ran candidates who strong on national security while opposing the Iraq War. Obama may have opposed it, but he's too weak on national security to win in the  'burbs and rural areas. It would not surprise me to see the 06 gains reversed to considerable degree if Obama leads the ticket.

    How much help it would be to have Hillary on it, I don't know.

    At this point, I'd rather Hillary not be on the ticket. I'm not sure that she alone could make the ticket a winner, and god knows she'd get blamed for the loss if McCain ends up the president.

    I think she can promote "unity" in other ways and stay in the Senate. Then she can run in '12.

    [ Parent ]

    Dame Edna? (none / 0) (#100)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:10:59 AM EST
    She'd be a man for men and a woman for women.  The ultimate triangulator! ;-).

    I've been working too much.  I think I'm going crazy.

    [ Parent ]

    Non-divisive woman ? (none / 0) (#213)
    by andrys on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:43:25 AM EST
    That sounds like a woman who's busily in the kitchen!

      Why choose a woman?  We're not in this because Hillary's a woman.  It's that she's so incredibly interested in and totally involved with the tedious details of our country's (and our world's) problems and how we might fix them.

     Re divisiveness as usual from Obama supporters themselves,
    here's HuffPost showing how to do that, on behalf of Obama.

    Here's one of today's special "HuffPost's Pick".

      It got their check mark and orange box for an especially good post.

    "And all you folks who are going to start screaming at me...I'm not gay or lesbian hating, But the only folks I know personally, who are voting for Hillary, are TRULY mullet-wearing, tatooed, toothless, uneducated, minimum-wage earning she males.

    I don't see any men supporting Hillary. I don't see any women supporting Hillary. I don't see African Americans or Native Americans supporting Hillary. I see the weird folks...the tatood, mullet sporting, illiterates...the toothless...the lazy....supporting Hillary. Normal folks...single moms, hard working families, regular gays and lesbians, single celibate folks....we're all supporting someone other than Hillary. Despite what Hillary and Media will tell you...only the freaks are supporting Hillary...that has become her base...at least here in the south..it's really sad."

    I'm so optimistic about Obama and media in their ways of showing faith in Hope and New Politics.

    Jerilyn - do you know anyone who knows Arianna?  Does she actually stand behind this kind of 'seal of approval' for that kind of post on her site ?

    [ Parent ]

    There are (none / 0) (#225)
    by Nadai on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:20:40 AM EST
    18 million "mullet-wearing, tatooed[sic], toothless, uneducated, minimum-wage earning she males" in this country?  Wow.  I never would have guessed.

    [ Parent ]
    Top of the ticket (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:34:42 PM EST
    simply must be Hillary. Let's nominate her.

    He won't pick Hillary for his VP. (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by vicsan on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:07:04 AM EST
    In fact, one of the first things his people started screaming after Hillary committed the greatest sin by mentioning Bobbie Kennedy's assassination was.... "SHE JUST LOST HER CHANCE TO BE THE VP!" They were just waiting for an excuse to give him an "out" on choosing her as his running mate. He won't pick her.

    PLUS, Michelle isn't very fond of Hillary and Hillary is too good to be on his ticket. Why should she help him win? Just look at how she's been treated by him, his campaign, the DC elites, theDNC and his supporters.

    Lose her chance? (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Foxx on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:32:38 AM EST
    Who are all these people who think Hillary WANTS to be VP? That she is just yearning for it? Give me a break!!

    If she takes it, it would only be for the good of the party.

    I fervently hope she does not.

    [ Parent ]

    Answer. (none / 0) (#227)
    by Rictor Rockets on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:33:44 AM EST
    Who are all these people who think Hillary WANTS to be VP?

    Bill Clinton, for one...

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe he should choose Cindy (none / 0) (#91)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:07:50 AM EST
    McCain. I know she would earn a lot of votes for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    She's got deep pockets. (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:19:41 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No who else has got deep pockets? (none / 0) (#127)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:23:43 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    or Laura Bush! (none / 0) (#133)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:26:50 AM EST
    I mean, talk about a unity ticket that has everything!

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, BF_killer will keep Obama in (none / 0) (#137)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:28:44 AM EST
    line.

    [ Parent ]
    She's certainly (none / 0) (#144)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:32:16 AM EST
    passed the CIC threshold -- what with being first lady for 8 years and all.

    [ Parent ]
    He won't pick Hillary for his VP (none / 0) (#190)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:06:23 AM EST
    and this is why he will lose the election. You have no idea how the Obama campaign has split the party down the middle. When Hillary drops out you will see a big bump in McCains polls. She will take with her all his hopes with her.

    [ Parent ]
    This only shows (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:22:48 AM EST
    that Hillary can both carry Obama on her shoulders to a win if she is the veep and has a better chances of winning herself if she is the presidential candidate.
    Whereas Obama as of now is the weaker presidential candidate and weaker veep candidate for Hillary also.

    Yet we are being told that Obama is the inevitable nominee and that we should be grateful beyond everything if Obama offers Hillary the veep position.
    Can life be more unfair!

    Anyways, I still hope that if Hillary looses this nomination she should wait it out and stake her claim for 2012. By being Obama's veep she will only harm herself further because then if Obama wins the GE all his faults thereafter will be blamed on Hillary by the Obama loving media.
    And I can also envision a term where team Obama will be constantly trying to undermine team Hillary instead of getting any job done.

    You know (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:31:16 AM EST
    I was just reading the comments at an ostensibly pro-Hillary blog and I could not believe the vitriol directed at Hillary and her supporters in the comments by Obama supporters. Why do those blogs put up with that crap?

    No wonder so many folks who are for Hillary come here.

    My gawd, are there no more safe havens for reasoned discourse anymore?

    There's here. :) (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:33:31 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I've noticed the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:36:13 AM EST
    Why are so many democrats SOOOO angry and SOOOO nasty?   That's one thing I really hate about my party.  I wish we could stop it.  It doesn't do us a bit of good.  

    [ Parent ]
    hate to say it, but... (5.00 / 6) (#165)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:41:58 AM EST
    many of the things Bill O'Reilly used to accuse the "angry left" of doing have been revealed this primary season.  He wasn't that far off the mark.

    For example he used to rail about possible anti-Israel sentiment on the left and especially at the orange blog and I was among one of the people who used to fight back against those people way back in the day.

    Keith Olbermann and his rants have made O'Reilly reasonable by comparison.

    [ Parent ]

    This primary race has been a bit (5.00 / 5) (#177)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:51:19 AM EST
    of a revelation for me as well.  Seems the GOP side has not been wrong about quite a few things which I always denied.

    I've always been fairly conservative  but lately I just keep turning further right.  Soon I'll be calling for more tax breaks for billionaires and more wars if this thing doesn't end soon  :-)

    [ Parent ]

    was it MYDD or Taylormarsh? (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:37:15 AM EST
    I used to visit MYDD but it has been swamped by an army of rabid anti-Clinton jerks that have drowned out much of the reasonable discussion there.  Taylormarsh has a lot less trolls but they do come out at night.

    You know what one of the best Hillary blogs is?  Hillaryclintonforum.net

    It is growing dramatically in the last few weeks according to Alexa and it is almost completely troll free.  Just Clinton supporters having pretty positive conversations.

    [ Parent ]

    The problem is that there is no place (none / 0) (#167)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:42:04 AM EST
    that Obama supporters and Clinton supporters can have reasoned discourse.  At least in my mind that's what the problem is, I don't speak for BTD of course.

    [ Parent ]
    how about right here? (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:45:28 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Aha! I was just going to add my 2 cents about that (none / 0) (#185)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:00:44 AM EST
    As an Obama supporter I do enjoy coming here and have been doing so for about 6 weeks, I think.  I am very careful where I comment though.  Some issues are like a briar patch and I stay far away.  Other times I don't comment when I know that I can't be reasonable (any discussion of Obama giving the finger for example).

    Considering my candidate choice I'd say I've gotten along fairly well and have enjoyed my time here and those that I have come in contact with.

    Though I was suprised when someone jumped all over me for slamming Joe Lieberman.  Guess I'll have to stay away from that discussion too.  No way I can be rational about Joe.

     

    [ Parent ]

    was it because (none / 0) (#230)
    by isaac on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:09:55 AM EST
    lieberman is obama's political role model (outdoing one another on who is more reasonable by spouting and giving credence to repug memes)?

    just a guess

    [ Parent ]

    No and when Obama (none / 0) (#231)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:05:35 PM EST
    lost an election in Chicago he didn't leave the party.  Obama has campaigned for other Democrats and he has pledged to do so for HRC if she should win the nomination.

    No matter what the subject matter some must find a way to slam Obama.  ODS.

    [ Parent ]

    heh... (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:38:45 AM EST
    and some of us came here just to relocate the actual discourse we'd come to appreciate.

    Me? I'm here for the bbq and your charming presence.

    ;-P

    [ Parent ]

    Gosh (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:39:17 AM EST
    I wonder what blog you could mean, given the plethora of pro-Hillary blogs out there.

    What's even funnier is how they whine and stage demonstrations any time there is the slightest whiff of moderation.  It's like they think they have a constitutional right to bully.

    [ Parent ]

    You're talking about Jerome's place (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:39:25 AM EST
    I assume?

    Let's just put it this way: you and Jeralyn provide a better environment here than can be found anywhere else with the same traffic, so far as I am aware. At least in the political arena.

    [ Parent ]

    over at MYDD, the change was obvious (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:45:02 AM EST
    sometime around 1 month ago there seemed to be an orchestrated "wave" of nasty, bad natured pro-Obama GOONS (the only appropriate word) that took over many of the threads and started recommending diaries en-masse.  For weeks prior to that almost all the diaries and commenters were pro-Clinton.

    I got the feeling that they came over to that blog in an effort to "conquer" it and expand the orange army.  See, to many of them it seems to be a video game.  A World of Warcraft primary.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:47:01 AM EST
    The Creative Class in action.

    And the only way to hold them at bay is to run a site as Talk Left is.

    [ Parent ]

    Like the attempt (none / 0) (#187)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:01:59 AM EST
    by the Blog Pirates way back when?

    [ Parent ]
    Blog pirates? (none / 0) (#193)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:08:31 AM EST
    I know of only one.  His webpage is the best in the universe, he claims.

    [ Parent ]
    There were several... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:11:47 AM EST
    it was a year or two ago over at the orange. A group of these guys who called themselves pirates came in, wrote a few stupid talking point diaries and announced that the Orange had been boarded and conquered.

    Apparently they did something similar to Shakespeare's Sister before invading the Orange.

    It was an interesting afternoon.

    [ Parent ]

    hah (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:16:16 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    no one... (none / 0) (#201)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:17:56 AM EST
    got to walk the virtual plank.

    Tho' many were banned that day.

    [ Parent ]

    I post on another board (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Grace on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:42:00 AM EST
    where some of the Republicans actually support Hillary.  I guess they get a kick out of watching the Obama supporters get riled up.  

    [ Parent ]
    The Obama folk are extremely aggressive and (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by andrys on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:07:34 AM EST
    and, as a group, not very hope-filled in that older-fashioned way we have used the word.  A lot of venom there.

    Maybe the pro-Hillary site you mention has a host or hostess who's more worried about what happens after June 3, and, testing the currents, has let it be known that Obama supporters while welcome before when not insulting Hillary supporters, are now just plain welcome.

      That's to keep the space viable because it has been, unlike this place, too dependent on the fervor of Hillary supporters who were looking for an insult-free zone and a sort of chat space! -- and unless the focus is changed, the site traffic more or less dies after June 3 if Obama is the clear presumptive nominee (and then survives more investigation up to August convention) because members there have been promising not to support Obama.  From what I've seen all Democratic blogsites do have a focus to support Democrats in this election.  This is the site most of us would come to, no matter what happens in this election, because the moderators have a focus on Reason and Civility and because they are so well-informed.  As a result the base here reflects that focus.

      Now Obama supporters are overrunning that other site (if it's the same one I've been watching) and insulting away, which is not very helpful to Obama's presumed unity-message.
    But since he has been making good use of good cop/bad cop in the RFK/June debate (sending Olbermann rant to the entire press while saying they were moving beyond it), his followers may just take their cue from him.

      See some media criticism of that Olbermann comment.

      And current pro-Hillary members from the site I've been watching have announced plans to withdraw from all that unnecessarily poisonous atmosphere from the newly enabled Obama supporters.  (No moderating seen.)

      I don't know what will become of the cyber portion of Democrats because I have not, in 48 years, seen anything as divisive as what I see in Obama supporter comments directed at Clinton supporters.  While there is a little of the same done by Clinton supporters, it's overwhelmed by the volume and depth of it to Clinton supporters.  It may be because the Obama campaign has been able to afford paying hundreds of bloggers, per tv news headlines seen, and because Clinton commenters are generally not inclined that way.

    [ Parent ]

    Every pro-Hillary (none / 0) (#216)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:50:09 AM EST
    site that I go to, and I go to many, is constantly swarmed by Obama trolls. The confluence does manage to eradicate the nasty ones most of the time. Other places, not so much. Civil discourse? Maybe that's the biggest change of all.

    Used to be Dems/Libs had to duck Conservative trolls all the time. Now? Obama trolls worse. Much worse.

    [ Parent ]

    TL is a safe haven (none / 0) (#224)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:55:56 AM EST
    for reasoned discourse?

    well I guess as long as you are pro-hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    We are so screwed (5.00 / 5) (#152)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:34:18 AM EST
    If we can't win Michigan, we're just screwed.  The more people learn about Obama, the less they like him.  We can't win Florida, we're likely to lose Ohio and Michigan.  

    Sorry guys, I hate to insult my own kind, but Democrats were dumb to vote for this untested, unvetted, unknown, candidate, Obama.  Too many of us fall for the nice speech and empty suits. We let our emotions over run our brains. I just pray that we're not stuck with him on the top of the ticket.  There is no way we're gonna win with him. This is just making me sick.  We should have won this easily.  

    On top of all that, we'll never hear the end of the race issue.  Obama will lose, and the voters will be called racists, forever. We will have to hear over and over what racists we all are.  I am SOOOO friggin' sick of the race issue, when for 95+% of Americans it simply is NOT an issue.  Obama losing has nothing to do with race and everything to do with who he is, or rather, who he isn't.  I am so bummed.  

    Today on talk radio am, the moderator (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:47:04 AM EST
    (don't know who it was) asked if anyone ever heard Obama discussing substantive issues with factual support sans script.  This question stemmed from an earlier comment about his comment about his great uncle's military experiences. Moderator suggested his skill set might be law teacher/lawyer, not policy advocate/polititian.  

    [ Parent ]
    even us profs... (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:59:30 AM EST
    talk about some substance.

    [ Parent ]
    Worth noting... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Siguy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:23:57 PM EST
    Romney's family is deeply linked to Michigan and his dad was governor there.

    This is a weird poll because usually they tried a bunch of GOP veeps, not just Romney, who frankly, is not going to be the nominee.

    Obviously it's still troubling that Obama is listed as losing this race at the moment, but I find this poll particularly strange and pointless given the Romney element (which drags in every other state poll they did).

    The primary story of Obama's polling numbers is simple: he loses the match-ups because Clinton supporters don't vote for him and all Republicans vote for McCain. Hillary does better in these same polling match ups because Obama supporters say they'll vote for her and so she gets a higher percentage of Democrats (there are exceptions, such as Arkansas, West Virginia, and Kentucky).

    I still think Hillary would be a more electable candidate, but the race is quite clearly gonna go to Obama and I'm not convinced yet that she's the best VP choice given the gas tax and other issues she's brought up that would mess up Obama's message. Still, if she could actually bring her supporters to the table so that Obama got the 80% of Democrats he should get, then it's a ticket that would almost certainly win.

    She's the only choice (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by dianem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:38:18 PM EST
    I'm not happy with it, either, but anybody else simply won't be acceptable, given the number of voters who chose her. If Obama puts a token woman on the ticket it is going to signal the world that it doesn't really matter who runs, as long as it's a women. This would insult every woman who supported Clinton. It would be as if Clinton won and chose a black running mate - a token black, so to speak. We don't want a "token" woman. Clinton's appeal has nothing to do with her being a woman, and any suggestion otherwise is insulting and demeaning.

    It may not be the best option - it may be the only option.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:33:43 PM EST
    It really makes no difference as long as you're just measuring the relative merits of the Democratic VP candidates.

    If you're trying to go further than that and argue about whether Obama would win MI against McCain, then I agree that the Romney name has significant cachet in the state.

    [ Parent ]

    If McCain wants to put Michigan as a focus (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:37:07 PM EST
    then Romney is his man no question.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain/Romney (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by RalphB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:58:31 PM EST
    probably also takes CO in a walk.  So much for the Western strategy.


    [ Parent ]
    It bothers me quite a bit that we win NO (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:24:08 PM EST
    MI matchups.

    Would be interesting (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:12:13 AM EST
    to do a Clinton/Obama poll with the same McCain matchups.  Might win then!

    [ Parent ]
    the crosstabs make no sense (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:25:32 PM EST
    The A-A vote for instance is absurd.

    What is REALLY interesting id the big junmp for Obama among women voters with Clinton as his VP.

    [ Parent ]

    Good catches (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:27:10 PM EST
    The meager black support for Obama simply isn't credible. Fix this SUSA!

    [ Parent ]
    You two have been saying forever (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:44:25 PM EST
    MI and FL won't go Dem. in the GE if their delegates aren't seated while it still matters.  Were you excluding AA voters in those states if Obama is the nominee?

    [ Parent ]
    If I am one of the 2 (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:54:07 PM EST
    I said MI was more in play than it should be because of this. I actually expected Obama to win MI.

    but if McCain picks Romney, it seems that MI can only be won by Obama/Clinton.

    And if that is true for MI, it must be true for PA I think.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh, obviously. (none / 0) (#54)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:46:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    michigan is possible not florida (none / 0) (#55)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:47:39 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Look at our state (none / 0) (#61)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:53:43 PM EST
    not is this nuts or what?

    McCain/Huckabee wins California?  go figure.  this state is nuts and no one believes me or am I reading something really wrong here?

    [ Parent ]

    We are Cassandras, pure and simple. (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:58:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Can you or the resident polling masters (none / 0) (#107)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:13:32 AM EST
    explain the McCain/Huck combination winning California?

    [ Parent ]
    I think it's simply wrong (none / 0) (#110)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:15:24 AM EST
    We're not losing California. My suspicion: cruddy Hispanic sample.

    [ Parent ]
    Only a fool thinks CA is in play. (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:28:14 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Singing: I am fool then (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:32:22 AM EST
    cause...I just keep remembering back in the Bradley election.  California is never what you think it is.  

    [ Parent ]
    I think it's in play too (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Grace on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:54:42 AM EST
    Just nobody realizes it.  

    [ Parent ]
    But (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Jane in CA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:37:45 AM EST
    if you keep telling yourself CA's not in play, then you can imagine doing all kinds of evil things because your vote won't count anyway.  Like ... I dunno ... sending McCain $10 or $20 everytime Obama or the DNC asks for money and cc'ing them on your response? "Another donation to McCain from a Clinton supporter and former Democrat!"

    LOL.  Not that I'd ever do something like that or anything :)  What was Donna Brazile's email address again?  LOL.

    [ Parent ]

    well (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:31:51 AM EST
    I live in SF, and i know several people that are considering voting for mccain in the fall.  All somewhere on the LGBTQI spectrum, and if it looks like the prop against gay marriage isn't going to pass it'll probably be much more likely.  

    I will vote for mccain, vote independent/dem in other areas, and oppose several state and federal dems that have failed, failed, failed at leadership (federal) and good government (state).  At the local level, since we have IRV I will trend ind/green->dem.

    The party needs to be slapped hard at the national level and at the state level (though it's probably pointless at the state level).  Supporting/enabling misogyny, abandoning the working class, selectively disenfranchising voters as a result of party politics, and helping a noob hijack the primary....  Not to mention discouraging people from supporting issue groups and instead trying to get them to fund the party directly (which will not improve policy at all).

    IMHO, a randomly selected group of 12 people would have done better than the democratic leadership in this election.  


    [ Parent ]

    Combo of military, immigration, (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:15:40 AM EST
    and all those Appalachians tipping the state east.

    [ Parent ]
    it's name recognition (none / 0) (#221)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:10:18 AM EST
    screwing with both sides i think:

    who's rendel? hagel? sebelius?

    and what portion said "don't know?" vs opted for "unknown dems" vs opted for "known repubs"

    [ Parent ]

    And white vote too (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:28:31 PM EST
    According to this poll, Obama loses A-A voters if he picks Clinton which seems impossible to believe.

    ewhen you look int side the numbers you see that Clinton helps him in every group he needs help with - whites, women, seniors, Latinos.

    [ Parent ]

    That's the nail in the coffin (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:40:27 PM EST
    for not picking her as VP.  The assassination rumor was really big in the AA community.  What Axelrod did is link her to that possibility.  I tell you this was all planned.  They knew what they were doing.  Axelrod, killed the unity ticket, cause he does not want the Clinton's around.  This was the tactic.  Absolutely, no way a black SD sticks with Hillary now.  He has destroyed that chance.  This was the swiftboating that was in Rove's wet dreams.  

    [ Parent ]
    Daily Howler has a great article about this (none / 0) (#53)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:45:59 PM EST
    Somerby

    [ Parent ]
    I read it. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:54:54 PM EST
    It was brilliant.  The damage was done.  There will be a special place for Axelrod.  

    [ Parent ]
    I agree. Hillary will always be suspect (none / 0) (#138)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:29:14 AM EST
    because of this.  This unity ticket is overrated.  It's not a simple one plus one equals two.  It is more like -1+1=0.

    Nah! I think Hillary should just take it all the way to the convention.  There won't be a nominee until the convention.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, it does (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:29:58 PM EST
    You're obviously right about the unity ticket.

    And this black sample really bothers me. It's FUBAR.

    [ Parent ]

    Oops not Latinos (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:31:41 PM EST
    But thatmust be a quirk.

    she has to at leaqst be neutral for him with LAtinos.

    but the white numbers and the women numbers are really statistically significant.

    this poll is obvious.

    clinton is the CLEAR choice. Hands down.

    [ Parent ]

    Hispanic sample can be ignored. (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:33:47 PM EST
    At 2%, it's meaningless.

    [ Parent ]
    All those groups, huh? (none / 0) (#11)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:30:17 PM EST
    Prolly best to put her on top then.

    [ Parent ]
    Kidddo (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:32:59 PM EST
    If I could I would, but I can't make it happen.

    Now I am trying to figure out how we can get him across the finish line. This polls is strong evidence that Clinton is the one to do that.

    [ Parent ]

    Here's how we get him over (none / 0) (#24)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:35:04 PM EST
    the finish line.  Seriously.  We run him as VP.  He builds a resume.  In 8 years, those working class whites will be eating out of the palm of his hand.  That's the ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    I think that's (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:03:00 AM EST
    Passive aggressive and condescending.


    [ Parent ]
    You know what? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:10:35 AM EST
    you have grown beyond tiresome.

    Do me a favor and stop commenting in my threads.

    [ Parent ]

    Hey kiddo (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:18:46 AM EST
    It's not our fault you got the primary wrong.


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, but it's too late, I think (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:34:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Of course it's not too late. (none / 0) (#56)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:47:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama/Edwards Does 2% Better (none / 0) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:49:32 PM EST
    than Obama/Clinton.

    McCain/Romney 43%  Obama/Edwards 40%  16% Undecided
    McCain/Romney 45%  Obama/Clinton 40%  15% Undecided

    Black vote looks screwy all across the board. Hightest percent (Obama/Edwards) is only 67%.

    [ Parent ]

    But that's my point (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:56:29 PM EST
    No way Obama/Clinton get 51%. It gets 95% of the A-A vote, just like Obama/Edwards.

    the only choice that moves Obama up with whites and women is Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (none / 0) (#70)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:58:30 PM EST
    Almost all of the black vote is Obama's, and no one he could choose would change that. The problem is with. . .everyone else. If you turn up the black support to where it should be, Obama begins to look better.

    [ Parent ]
    Would a female VP (none / 0) (#9)
    by Chimster on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:29:43 PM EST
    be a slap in Hillary's face?

    I think so. It would tell me that Obama likes the idea of a female running the country alongside him, just not Hillary.

    Do we have to go through a VP vetting process as well since the VP is only a heartbeat away from the presidency?  Doesn't sound very promising.

    I'll go with a wild card prediction: John Kerry as VP.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:38:02 PM EST
    The issue is not really whether it would be offensive to Hillary, but whether it would be offensive to her supporters.

    Unless it were clear that Hillary didn't want the job, I have to think that the choice of a woman other than Hillary would alienate more women than it would mollify.

    [ Parent ]

    You got that right. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:38:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:41:05 PM EST
    Well, I wasn't sure if the population of this website was truly representative, so just to be sure, I polled my household before posting :)

    [ Parent ]
    hmmm (none / 0) (#223)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:38:45 AM EST
    well, my cat Marmalady (aka marma_w_itch) seemed pretty unhappy with the idea of another woman.  She's generally in line with the lesbian vote...soo the CA vote might bump a couple points.  

    Who was it that was polling NC cats?

    [ Parent ]

    There we go again with the Unity Pony (none / 0) (#12)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:31:28 PM EST
    The chances for it to happen are now below zero.

    He won't offer it. If he does offer it, she's not going to take it: much better things for her in many other capacities as discussed in other threads here.

    Nada, no way, rien de rien, capish?

    Looks like (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:31:44 PM EST
    Edwards would be the best pick for Obama here.
    Nope (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:34:30 PM EST
    You need to read the crosstabs.

    According to this, Obama loses A-As by picking clinton. That makes NO SENSE.

    In the key demos Obama needs helps with, women and whites, CLINTON really helps him. No one else.

    This poll is strong evidence that Clinton is the right choice.

    [ Parent ]

    Occured to me (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:37:01 PM EST
    They'd made such a good team in that one debate.


    [ Parent ]
    You say this (none / 0) (#64)
    by phat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:56:26 PM EST
    But I wonder.

    Clinton has been very effectively painted as a racist.

    Would that suppress the vote among African-Americans if she were on the ticket?

    [ Parent ]

    Uh, no. Honestly, really, come (none / 0) (#66)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:57:39 PM EST
    on now.

    [ Parent ]
    With Obama at the top of the ticket? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:58:20 PM EST
    Ridiculous. Note, SUSA has been unable to poll A-As right this entire campaign.

    I have been adjusting their numbers on A-As for a while now.

    With every other demo they are spot on.

    Every miss they have had has been because they mess up the A-A vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Why that is I don't know (none / 0) (#74)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:59:35 PM EST
    They did just fine with Philly mayor last year.

    I almost wonder if people are lying about being AA just to screw with SUSA.

    [ Parent ]

    What would be a good term for that? (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:03:20 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Polling failure (none / 0) (#103)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:12:18 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well at least it is consistent (