home

Clintons, Obama Head Back to North Carolina Monday

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:15:00 PM EST
Tags: North Carolina '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A tv reporter tonight said Hillary Clinton is heading back to North Carolina tonight. Bill Clinton will make 11 stops there tomorrow and Hillary will make 2. (Here's how hard Bill's been working --3,500 came out to see him in Morganton today.)

The Obamas will also be in North Carolina, campaigning in Durham and Fayetteville.

What does it mean that both candidates are spending the day before the NC and IN primaries in NC?

There are 72 pledged delegates at stake in Indiana and 115 in North Carolina. Indiana hasn't voted for a Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. North Carolina voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 (by 13% and 12%). Even native son John Edwards on the ticket didn't matter. Since 1964, the Democratic Presidential ticket has carried N.C. only for Carter-Mondale in 1976..

Here are the latest voter stats, as of May 3, for North Carolina. As for Indiana, the New York Times explains it's very complicated. Maybe that's why the polls are so divergent.

Update: Comments now closed, new thread is here.

< NC: Lessons From VA, SC and GA? | Obama Tells Workers, When They Lose Their Job, They Lose Their Dignity >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clintons, Obama Head Back to North Carolina Monday | 238 comments (238 topical)
    Sounds like both candidates. . . (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:09:44 PM EST
    think North Carolina is more in play than Indiana.  A reading of the polls would indicate that if that's true, they probably think Indiana is in the bag for Clinton while North Carolina presents the possibility of a notable outcome -- the most notable possibility being a Clinton win.

    PS. (4.00 / 1) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:10:03 PM EST
    Which I think is extraordinarily unlikely.

    [ Parent ]
    Carville called it this morning (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:01:08 PM EST
    ala Babe Ruth pointing to the bleachers: she'll win IN and NC.

    Now, Carville can spin a tale like any other good ol' southern boy, but he wouldn't make such a statement unless he thought it was a definite possibility.

    [ Parent ]

    Carville ow the KUSA pundit. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:05:38 PM EST
    Oh...yes!!!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Carville's standard answer. . . (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:08:59 PM EST
    when he's asked if he's ever thought about running for office is "No (three beats) -- I inhaled".  I hope he's not at it again.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd be very happy to see Clinton win North Carolina.  I would just advise people not to nurture unrealistic expectations.

    [ Parent ]

    I haven't seen that quote from Carville (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by angie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:17:53 PM EST
    last time I saw him was on LK two weeks ago when he was saying "I agree with Sen. Obama, IN is the tie-breaker." Is it possible that he was responding to a question -- as in "What happens if she wins both IN & NC?" and not making a prediction?

    [ Parent ]
    Kathy... (none / 0) (#66)
    by lansing quaker on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:10:56 PM EST
    Is there a video or link for this yet?  I like hearing Carville, but can never find any clips online (Richardson excepted).

    Thanks!


    [ Parent ]

    There might be a recent (none / 0) (#150)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:17:48 PM EST
    interview with him, his wife, and two other strategists on MTP's site.

    Carville is always entertaining, but he's best when his wife is with him.

    [ Parent ]

    PPS (none / 0) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:11:12 PM EST
    Which indicates the existence of substantial momentum in Clinton's direction -- Clinton has never polled ahead in North Carolina while even a couple of weeks ago there were polls favorable to each candidate in Indiana.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with your analysis (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:18:10 PM EST
    Though I would suggest that Hillary is trying to avoid being blown out in NC. The early black voting figures that I've heard make it impossible for her to win (38%).

    [ Parent ]
    For whatever reason... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by OrangeFur on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:53:34 PM EST
    ... Obama also led by a wide margin in Texas' early voting. I remember on election night he led by a large margin early on, and Hillary gradually overtook him. I just verified this by checking a few big Texas counties and noting that Obama did much better with the early votes than in final totals; the gap frequently shrank by over 10 points.

    I'm not sure why that would be, but I'm not excessively concerned about the early voting numbers yet. If the pattern holds up on Tuesday, that's a different story.

    Having said all that, I don't expect Clinton to win NC on Tuesday. The Clinton camp is making optimistic noises, which is unlike them, but the demographics are pretty tough.

    Eleven stops for Bill! My goodness--he just loves this stuff, doesn't he?

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary Has Pretty Consistently Gotten The (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:06:32 PM EST
    late deciders (i.e people who decided day of vote).

    [ Parent ]
    I think it's more than that... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by OrangeFur on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:56:10 PM EST
    For whatever reason, even the people who have committed to her don't vote until election day.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, speaking only for me, as we say (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Cream City on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:52:44 PM EST
    it wouldn't have been enough this time to just lick a stamp and walk to the mailbox.

    This time, my daughter and I managed to mesh schedules sufficiently to walk together into our polling place.  We decided that it was a mother-daughter moment not to be missed.  (Months later, she still talks about it. . . .)

    Maybe it is that sort of historic campaign for lots of people -- after all, about two thirds of the population never has had a candidate of their race and/or gender in American history.  (Unless, of course, more evidence emerges on Warren Harding.:-)

    [ Parent ]

    I haven't voted yet (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by Nadai on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:34:03 AM EST
    I'm in NC, and I'm going to the polls on Tuesday morning like I've done for the last 30 years.  To me, voting is a communal activity.  Going early just doesn't seem the same.

    [ Parent ]
    I voted early in NC (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by angie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:40:58 AM EST
    first time voting early ever -- and you are right -- I wish I had waited for Tuesday -- it wasn't the same, and I will not do it again (even though there was no line, I was in and out in about 5 minutes, etc). I just feel like I haven't really voted.

    [ Parent ]
    As I say. . . (4.66 / 3) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:25:07 PM EST
    I think it's pretty darn unlikely.  I'm sure they're going for the best possible outcome, but at this point the argument "Sure she lost by 7, but she was supposed to lose by 14" is only going to sway true-believers.

    She needs something big -- a North Carolina win or Obama delegate defections -- to capitalize on her recent momentum.

    [ Parent ]

    Indiana is the tie breaker (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:34:51 PM EST
    goal posts shouldn't move so easily.  Besides the "lost by" argument was played for quite some time by the Obama campaign.

    If she losed NC, just go right on to Oregon and push like hell to make sure FL/MI are seated.


    [ Parent ]

    It's not, though. (3.00 / 1) (#27)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:38:43 PM EST
    I mean, it's nice to play "gotcha" if Obama actually said that, but the fact is that he's ahead and if he wins NC and places close in Indiana (even not so close) he'll be further ahead after Tuesday in both delegates and popular vote.

    [ Parent ]
    whaddya mean IF? (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:44:47 PM EST
    Of course he said it

    and of course he was asked about that this morning on MTP and Tim let him dance around his stupid statement...I'm sure there's a transcript of MTP on msnbc's web site but you'll have to fish that one out yourself (or watch the podcast).

    [ Parent ]

    No worries. . . (3.00 / 1) (#36)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:49:49 PM EST
    I just didn't hear it myself, and have only heard it reported on blogs.  But it doesn't matter.  No one's going to call on him to drop out just because he goofed up and suggested that Indiana was the tie breaker, at least, not if he wins (net delegates and popular vote) on Tuesday.

    [ Parent ]
    keep tryin' (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by moll on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:36:48 PM EST
    No one's going to call on him to drop out just because he goofed up

    He sure 'goofs up' a lot when he talks.

    [ Parent ]

    Goofing up when you talk. . . (3.00 / 1) (#106)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:38:25 PM EST
    is demonstrably not disqualifying for the office of President (although perhaps folks are a bit more skeptical these days).

    [ Parent ]
    He said.... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:00:26 PM EST
    This  

    at Meet the Press.  I've linked you to page 5 where he talks about Hillary having to drop out or the primaries come to an end to be the final determining of his candidacy. He's not afraid to say that he believes the supers will give him the nod.

    The first 4 pages are just his ramblings against Hillary's policies and statements on Iran, tax holiday, etc. Not much substance, and it is better to watch it...the speed of his stuttering is often indicative of his knowledge level.

    It's nowhere near as informative if you don't go to the ABC This Week site and watch the available clips of what Hillary said herself about her own policies.  The comparison is startling.  He doesn't even come close to representing her plan accurately.

    [ Parent ]

    Intially (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:45:05 PM EST
    that may be right but if he has demographic problems yet again and it's close with high AA turnout it's not really that great news for Obama.

    I'm not trying to spin here but if he loses the white vote by margins of 2 to 1 it plays right into the media narrative that he can't win the general election.

    Of course, I also think that the media narrative is something to be fought and not to be dependent on. It's one of the problems I have with the Obama campaign. Being dependent on a fickle media is a terrible thing.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah. . . (3.00 / 1) (#38)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:51:50 PM EST
    if he loses the white vote by margins of 2 to 1 it plays right into the media narrative that he can't win the general election.

    If he wins on Tuesday while losing 66% of the white vote then it does play into that media narrative -- but he'll still be the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    And (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:53:33 PM EST
    we're knowingly going to nominate a loser then I guess. Besides, I thought Oregon was the new firewall for Obama to prove that he could win the white vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunately (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:55:01 PM EST
    It's not just a narrative.

    Or rather the denouement of that narrative is Obama calling McCain to congratulate him on his victory.


    [ Parent ]

    I don't agree (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:56:37 PM EST
    If he loses big on the white vote (which means a close race), loses IN, and then loses OR then I think he is toast.

    [ Parent ]
    I Love Me Some Toast....Evan Bayh On Face (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:33:15 PM EST
    the nation is feeling good about Hillary's chances.  Clyburn sure changed his tone today, trying to say he didn't say Hillary was trying to ruin obama's chances at winning, but was passing along what they are saying on the campuses...whatta putz.

    [ Parent ]
    Y'all keep saying he'll be the nominee (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:05:10 PM EST
    but logic it out here: if he's the nominee no matter what happens in these elections, then why hasn't the delegate shift occurred to hand him the nomination?

    They are waiting for something to happen.  It hasn't happened yet or we wouldn't be having this conversation.  These next primaries are extremely important-probably more so than any of us can imagine.

    [ Parent ]

    I completely agree with this, Kathy - (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Anne on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:19:01 PM EST
    if the SD's truly thought Obama was The One, that he could handily beat McCain, the nomination would have been wrapped up weeks ago.

    There isn't even a credible argument that it's just the SD's in states that have not voted yet - I know in my own state, one of my senators is still uncommitted; we voted Feb 12th, and the state went for Obama.  He easily could have committed to Obama using the "will of the people" argument, but he hasn't.

    So, like you, I believe that they are waiting, and if Clinton keeps winning, and/or exceeding expectations, and the trend lines continue to move in her favor, I think we will soon see the existing uncommitted SD's committing to her and some movement to her from some who had prevously committed to Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Waiting? As long as it isn't Godot (none / 0) (#86)
    by Lahdee on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:23:06 PM EST
    wearing his electability cape or the populars to clear the fog.
    If Dr. Dean has his way the waiting will end in June, Obama'd like an end on Tuesday and Hillary'd like to be viable into the summer.
    What's that about waiting till the last moment to make a decision?

    [ Parent ]
    Logic? (none / 0) (#87)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:23:44 PM EST
    There doesn't seem to be any logic behind the "he's losing but will still be the nominee" argument.  Unless of course, they plan on losing in November.  Duh.


    [ Parent ]
    A scenario (none / 0) (#116)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:48:04 PM EST
    is they are waiting for a decent win.  They may have to wait until the end with Montana and South Dakota where he will win and then endorse and try to get as much media attention and try to end him on as positive a note as possible (he's going to need it.)

    [ Parent ]
    MT and SD (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:56:10 PM EST
    do not a decent win make.

    My guess is they were waiting for the press to unleash on him.  It has--a bit--and he has not managed it well.

    Something is going on with him.  He looks defeated.  He wouldn't be acting all hangdog if he knew that he had this wrapped up.

    [ Parent ]

    b-b-but... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:14:24 PM EST
    It's all he has.  

    I almost feel bad for him, his narrative is terrible.  Say he gets NC.. so what, Clinton gets IN. Next week is W Va, and he isn't going to look good after that.  The next week he may get OR, so what, Clinton's going to do much better in Kentucky.  Then comes PR.  Not looking too good.

    The only thing he has is SD and MT and if doesn't do his projected 15 and 11, he's looking bad.

    The party is so pathetic, unless Clinton wins something unusual, they are going to push him over the finish line.  It isn't going to be pretty when/if they do.

    He has reason to look defeated. It's a sad story line.

    [ Parent ]

    I've been saying this since PA. (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:24:43 AM EST
    no offense but he sounds like a blubbering candidate. Nice appearance, haircut, Armani suit, but not ready to serve.

    [ Parent ]
    If (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by sas on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:13:24 PM EST
    he's still the nominee after losing the white vote by 2 to 1, then the Democrats are dumber than I thought they were.....let's not offend the blacks or the young...but let's lose in the GE....DUMB

    [ Parent ]
    Sadly. . . (4.50 / 2) (#78)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:19:02 PM EST
    for your outlook, at least, we have a democratic process to select the nominee.  And that process in some ways runs contrary to producing the best general election candidate.

    It's not easy to define "most electable" (obviously supporters of each candidate are completely convinced that their candidate is more electable), but primaries aren't really the best way to do it.

    BTD feels that Obama is the most electable for considerations completely distinct from the capabilities of the candidates themselves.  Personally, I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether Clinton or Obama is more electable in November.

    [ Parent ]

    actually, we don't have a democratic process (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by sancho on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:32:49 PM EST
    if by that you mean one person, one vote. we have a very rigged process (thanks george mcgovern!) that has not given us strong nominees since '72. in this election, obama's reliance on caucus victories is decidedly anti-democratic b/c by definition caucuses exclude many eligible voters (the elderly, the chronically employed, many single-parents) from voting. and then there is the throw out two states strategy. that's really democratic too.

    [ Parent ]
    it's not really that hard to see (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by moll on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:41:55 PM EST
    Personally, I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether Clinton or Obama is more electable in November.

    It seems to me pretty obvious who is more electable.

    I have only heard one argument suggesting that Obama has an edge - and that is based on him being the 'media darling'. But I don't see how that will help him when he's up against the Republicans. After they start advertising it won't matter whether MSNBC likes him or not.

    Every other argument I have yet heard for Obama is based on some variant of entitlement. AAs are entitled to a President. Obama is entitled because he has more delegates. Etc.

    When was the last time there was such a massive campaign to make the candidate's obvious weaknesses into "the voters' fault"?...oh wait, wasn't that Kerry?

    [ Parent ]

    he'll be the nominee when he gets the nomination (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by moll on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:39:02 PM EST
    ...and so far he hasn't.

    Ultimately it comes down to superdelegates.

    Sorry, but he lost his chance to win by pledged delegate lead. He didn't earn enough. Now the rules kick it to the superdelegates, and pledged delegate lead is just factor to take into consideration - and if it were the most important one, the superdelegates would have all come out for him by now. But they haven't.

    [ Parent ]

    The media isn't fickle (none / 0) (#154)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:22:10 PM EST
    they just hate being wrong, so they change their position/prediction ahead of the outcome so they can fall back on having "called it" correctly. That's especially effective when they call it both ways.

    [ Parent ]
    He did actually say that (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:46:00 PM EST
    but substantively, you're right.

    Hillary needs to survive to KY and WV.

    [ Parent ]

    True but don't ignore (none / 0) (#34)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:46:08 PM EST
    that if FL/MI are seated, that vast delegate lead goes down to about 14.

    For the rest, I suggest waiting until the votes are counted before giving him a larger lead.


    [ Parent ]

    But What If Edwards Releases His Delegates (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:34:42 PM EST
    and they go for Hillary?  That would be a game changer also.

    [ Parent ]
    What states is he holding delegates? (none / 0) (#105)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:37:59 PM EST
    He didn't have many, did he?  I thought Iowa already caucused some of his off to Obama.

    Wouldn't each state have their own rules on how to handle those?  

    [ Parent ]

    Java....I Believe Edward Had About 100 (none / 0) (#128)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:56:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Spread across all the Super Tuesday states? (none / 0) (#155)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:24:00 PM EST
    He doesn't have a say in who they go to, though, does he?

    [ Parent ]
    Edwards can ask his pledged delegates (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by eleanora on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:15:08 AM EST
    to support another candidate, and they'll probably do it for one ballot anyway, since they're liable to be strong Edwards supporters to have held out this long. But he's only got 19 delegates left after the Iowa defections, 33 if you count FL. So him releasing them to either Clinton or Obama would be a help, not a gamechanger.

    [ Parent ]
    my own PS (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:20:17 PM EST
    Clinton is clearly polling head in IN. Her campaign would otherwise not risk needling the Obama people about the spreadsheet.

    [ Parent ]
    Sounds like Obama campaign campaign (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by athyrio on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:13:35 PM EST
    deciding they can afford a loss in Indiana but not a loss in NC....HMMMMM.I thought Obama called Indiana the tie braker.....

    spin...counter spin... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:16:02 PM EST
    and up is in the other direction from where we originally thought it was.

    [ Parent ]
    I think (none / 0) (#96)
    by Makarov on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:33:21 PM EST
    it may be more "we've done what we can in IN", but we need to meet expectations in NC.  What are the NC expectations?  I think he should win by 15%, since it looks like African Americans are over 1/3 of registered dems.  Given recent polls, the media will probably give him a 10% threshold.  If he only wins NC by say, 5%, and Clinton wins IN by 10%, the story "Obama can't win non-AA working class" will be cemented.

    I don't think the movement by the Obama campaign means they're afraid of actually losing the state.  I think they're not comfortable with their margin.

    That said, I still give Hillary a small chance to pull it out.  They're smart to be working hard in NC.  A 5% smaller margin of victory in NC for Obama is more important than a 5% greater margin for Hillary in IN.  My predictions:

    Obama wins NC by 10% or more (simply because he outperformed polls in similar states like VA and MD)
    Hillary wins IN by 10%

    Media narrative in this case - "nothing has changed, except Obama only needs 'x' delegates to sew this up".  They've adopted the Obama campaign's tactic of pretending MI and FL don't exist.  May 31, when the RBC committee meets about them, is the most important day for both campaigns this month (unless Hillary pulls out a miraculous win in NC, in which case she'll be the nominee).

    If Obama wins by less than 10%, I think it's a clear sign that OH and PA are not unique in their view of his candidacy.

    [ Parent ]

    I got the distinct impression... (none / 0) (#117)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:48:46 PM EST
    that NC has gotten really really tight and that is why they are all closing there tomorrow and why Carville is actually talking about NC.

    I do believe that the SUSA poll that showed Obama getting only 30% of the white votes in NC is proving to be pretty accurate and that indicates that Obama has a huge problem...even if he does squeak out a victory.

    [ Parent ]

    I hope you're right (none / 0) (#168)
    by Makarov on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:35:37 PM EST
    I just see 70-30 white vote split as very difficult.  She did get it in Mississippi.  I'm just guessing NC will be more like 65-35.  Obama won whites in VA, even though that was a month before the Miss. vote.

    [ Parent ]
    He did before he didn't (none / 0) (#147)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:13:34 PM EST
    He denied it to Tim Russert this morning.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh, she won Texas. (none / 0) (#202)
    by tigercourse on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:08:09 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Clinton won Texas by 100 K n/t (none / 0) (#209)
    by eleanora on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:19:49 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    TX State Convention June 4th (none / 0) (#226)
    by eleanora on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:43:03 AM EST
    See you then :)

    [ Parent ]
    How many days has NC already been voting? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:17:26 PM EST
    Isn't NC Newt Gingrich country? He said on The View last week that he believes Hillary will get the nomination.

    John Edwards should stay quiet for now. Elizabeth can speak, though.  

    Why did Newt Gingrich believe that? (none / 0) (#114)
    by bridget on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:43:49 PM EST
    Sounds too good - just wish it will be so.

    I did hear him say after the O'Reilly/Hillary interview that all bets are off if Hillary wins NC.

    (weird for me to ask about Gingrich all of a sudden - pretty much ignored him since the 90s).

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe the sort of story like the one (none / 0) (#180)
    by Cream City on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:48:12 PM EST
    on the link from BTD to what's up in Morganton has been happening all along, whenever a Clinton hits a small town that has been ignored for too long -- and turns out 3,500 from every nearby hamlet, too.

    Wow.  What a terrific story to read, so many great quotes from folks of all ages.  Thanks for the link, BTD.

    [ Parent ]

    This is when superstition (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:17:44 PM EST
     takes hold.  Now we all must do what we have done in the past for the wins.  C'mon, no slipping.

    I'm constantly in awe (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:20:25 PM EST
    over the non-stop energy the Clinton's have. Their commitment to this country is so inspiring.

    Well you see, (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by angie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:30:23 PM EST
    the Clintons actually like meeting the people, listening to their concerns and talking to them -- yes, they are pols, and they want their votes, but they actually do care about helping these people -- unlike other pols, who only care about getting the votes and who are "bored" with the whole campaigning/having to talk to people thing.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep, The Clinton's Are People People! (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:39:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    NY Times Poll (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by diogenes on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:07:31 PM EST
    Current NY Times poll of Past/future dem primary voters has Obama ahead 50-38.  Popular vote, anyone?

    We (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:08:42 PM EST
    already discussed this bogus poll on another thread.

    [ Parent ]
    This is a stupid poll..... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by sas on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:22:06 PM EST
    check out the description by BTD

    [ Parent ]
    Could Pres. Clinton's visit to (none / 0) (#4)
    by katiebird on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:12:54 PM EST
    the small towns have an effect?  He's been tireless.

    Did you hear the NPR (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:19:38 PM EST
    story on that?  The creepy boy reporter man, he spun it to make it seem so horrible.  That Bill was just pumping his legacy and telling people how great he was.  NPR is just as bad.  

    [ Parent ]
    By the time this primary is over (5.00 / 9) (#55)
    by angie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:05:06 PM EST
    nobody will be getting any of my money.  I already revoked my monthly pledge $ to NPR (which I've been supporting loyally for the last 15 years), told Dr. Dean to go ___ himself when he emailed me for a donation & canceled my subscription to The New Yorker.  If I find out the World Wildlife Fund, the Susan B. Komen Breast Cancer foundation and/or the SPCA endorsed Obama I'll stop my donations to them too.

    [ Parent ]
    I stopped (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by sas on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:16:20 PM EST
    giving money too....and am really ticked at my PA Dem congressman (soon to be a one termer) for endorsing Obama when my county went for Hillary by 63-37.

    He says he's not worried, but he should be....he won by only 1600 votes....

    [ Parent ]

    Considering the (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:20:30 PM EST
    fact that the candidate in LA eked out a win over a five time loser with corrupt business dealings he should be worried. Do any of these people listen to their constituents?

    [ Parent ]
    You are a great example (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:30:02 PM EST
    of how to achieve change! No wonder you support Hillary. Action is so much more impacting than simply talking about it.

    I cancelled my cable TV 3 months ago in protest of the lousy media, cut off the DNC and told them so multiple times that they won't see another dime until they fairly handle FL & MI, and the money they would have gotten goes to Hillary.

    I also don't follow links to HuffPo, or DKos.

    [ Parent ]

    NPR (none / 0) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:22:39 PM EST
    Robert Smith
    Most of Clinton's speech was made up of serious policy arguments about Hillary Clinton's agenda. But on every topic, he couldn't quite help slipping in a plug for the good old days of his own administration.


    [ Parent ]
    They should be (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by MichaelGale on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:28:05 PM EST
    down on the knees praying for another administration like his.

    Also, NPR is a public channel so why are they being so opinionated. Don't tax dollars and contributions pay for NPR?

    Sounds like Michael Powell is still there.

    [ Parent ]

    Oi. (none / 0) (#21)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:34:01 PM EST
    First off, almost no tax dollars pay for NPR -- as you'd know by listening to any of their pledge drivers.  They're mostly supported by listener contributions and private foundations.

    Michael Powell was at the FCC, not CPB.

    And that report was hardly "opinionated".  If Clinton talked about his administration then reporting that fact is generally referred to as "journalism".

    [ Parent ]

    Listen to the "tone" (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:38:14 PM EST
    One thing I learned this election cycle, "tone" is important in helping one make an opinion.  

    [ Parent ]
    Please do not answer (none / 0) (#45)
    by MichaelGale on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:56:19 PM EST
    or correct my posts with a childish "0i" or by being rude.

    "But on every topic, he couldn't quite help slipping in a plug for...." is not journalism buddy.  It's a snipe and opinion.

    Now you can correct me but do not post to me in that tone again.

    [ Parent ]

    Now, now. . . (none / 0) (#89)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:25:06 PM EST
    I was correcting you -- your comment contained incorrect information about NPR's funding and Michael Powell's role in government -- information sufficiently incorrect to make me believe you don't follow the issue of public broadcasting closely.

    When you say "But on every topic, he couldn't quite help. . ." isn't journalism, you're right.  But that's a quote from the commenter, not from the reporter.  If you take the editorial tone out of the comment you're left with the fact that the reporter stated that Clinton injected many comments about his own Administration.  If that's an accurate description of the speeches he gave it constitutes reportage.

    I'm sorry you don't like the Britishism "Oi", I'll attempt to remember not to use it in your presence.

    [ Parent ]

    Having heard a "Bill" speech in OR, (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by seeker on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:45:30 PM EST
    I do not remember him referring to his administration.  I may have missed it.  He did talk some about his foundation's activities, but only as a means of making a point about the things he is involved in.

    [ Parent ]
    he loves to talk to people. It envigorates him (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:32:12 AM EST
    He's such a natural people person. I read that after a rally, and before he went to his hotel room, he talked and talked to some people attending a whippitt convention. Now I've never knew what a whippit was, but they said he almost didn't want to leave late into the night.

    [ Parent ]
    And I bet that if he didn't know (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:43:23 AM EST
    what a whippet was going in, he was a walking encyclopedia on whippets by the end.  I have read that he is just voracious for information and finds just about everything anyone has to say fascinating.

    After all, he has to keep up in conversation with his wife, and we've seen again and again this season how wonky she is. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Whippet as in dogs? (none / 0) (#232)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:48:56 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    yup. (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:51:32 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Duh, Roger. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Marco21 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:00:33 PM EST
    We're all hoping another Clinton can bring us back to what life is like under a Clinton administration.

    Takes a Clinton to clean up the mess left by a Bush, after all.

    [ Parent ]

    That is for sure. (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by bridget on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:04:11 PM EST
    Eight more years.

    Bill rocks!!!

    btw. Pres Bill Clinton is also making history while he gives it his all to help Hillary take the White House. He is the first one ever travelling down that road together w. Hillary and he is doing a great job.

    I have also been v. impressed with Chelsea. Saw a clip - she was addressing students and she answered questions without notes in great detail and calmly and patiently. Looked great too.  I still remember when she was 11 yrs old in 1992.

    [ Parent ]

    Can you imagine (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:35:24 PM EST
    being the only child of two such incredible over-achievers? Talk about overwhelming. Chelsea could end up being the daughter of two US Presidents. How awesome is that?!?!

    [ Parent ]
    NPR Was Pretty Bad In 2004 Too (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:25:47 PM EST
    Extremely biased against Dean and pro Kerry. They did give Edwards some decent coverage but not like Kerry.

    Immediately after it was obvious that Kerry was the nominee, they decided all of a sudden they needed to do a little more vetting.

    Stopped contributing to them because of it.

    [ Parent ]

    I heard it and was shocked (none / 0) (#42)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:54:10 PM EST
    It really was a bad piece. Every positive comment was followed by some snarky unprofessional comment by the reporter. It was truly horrible, I was surprised they let it on the air. And it was supposed to be a fluff piece.

    [ Parent ]
    Check out Time's (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:12:41 PM EST
    reader letters this week re: the love-lick Obama got over his relationship with his mother a few issues ago.  Lots of angry folks there.  "Give up the charade and change your name to 'Obama Weekly'." ; "Time's pro-Obama slant is so transparent..."  One even pointed out: "[the statement that] Ann Soetoro 'decided not to follow' Obama's father back to Kenya neatly overlooks the fact that he was returning to Kenya...with an American wife whom he had married in Massachusetts, after he left Ann and Barack in Hawaii."

    It seems that readers and listeners are doing a better job of vetting the candidate than the news sources are.  To see NPR fall into this abyss is like watching a friend decline into addiction.

    [ Parent ]

    And, the small towns LOVE him (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:36:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    hell, i love him too. (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by kangeroo on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:34:33 PM EST
    it's hard not to if you're a loyal rank-and-file dem.  he's a hero to me, and i have an enormous amount of affection in my heart for him.  

    i invariably find that his harshest critics contribute far, far less (if anything) good to the dem party, our country, and the world than he does--but that doesn't stop them from denouncing him, does it?  must be awfully convenient from where they sit...  

    [ Parent ]

    THEY ARE LOVING BILL CLINTON and (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:36:32 PM EST
    don't let anyone tell you differently.  I still contend that some of the AA's might break for Hillary.  I cannot believe so many of them will vote for obama just because he is black, kinda sorta.

    [ Parent ]
    USA Today online says- (none / 0) (#14)
    by kenosharick on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:24:04 PM EST
    that both are working hard in Indiana because "polls show a dead heat" they never say which polls, mind you. And here I thought polls showed Hillary in the lead.

    if NC his 115 delegates (none / 0) (#15)
    by MichaelGale on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:24:21 PM EST
    and Clinton comes in, say 5 less, how many delegates does she get?

    And same with Obama...at tight race where he loses by 5?

    Also the question about same towns:  If there is a hugh turnout in the small towns, is it possible to win with some votes from the larger cities?

    Dem delegates (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Makarov on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:14:09 PM EST
    are apportioned two ways:

    1. 2/3 by Congressional district.  Some districts may have only 3 delegates, and some may have many more, up to about nine.  The odd number delegate districts are more important because they give a winner an extra delegate.  In a district with 6 delegates, you need something over 60% (think it's about 67% actually) of the popular to gain a 4-2 split.  Win 58-42 and you could take home the same delegate count as the loser.

    2. 1/3 by statewide popular vote.

    You really have to know how congressional districts are drawn in the state, and the general demography, to predict how candidates will do on the delegate count.

    Because of this somewhat novel method of apportionment, you can win the popular vote by 5%, and come out even or even lose in delegates.  Conversely, you could win by 5% and come out 15 delegates ahead.  It comes down to the congressional districts.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh oh (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:32:26 PM EST
    to Obama campaigning in Durham. This tells me that he needs to jack up the vote in this area to win. Mabye SUSA was right and he's losing votes in the triangle area.

    What Are The Demographics In Fayetteville? n/t (none / 0) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:35:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:38:52 PM EST
    the home of Ft. Bragg. There's also lots of minorities there. Perhaps the AA turnout isn't going to be as strong as he thought. I can't imagine him getting the military vote though.

    [ Parent ]
    I would think (none / 0) (#171)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:40:58 PM EST
    the military like Hillary's firm commitment to getting them out of Iraq with complete honor in having accomplished everything they were asked to do. I don't hear Obama giving the military such honest accolades when he talks about bringing them home. Certainly, the families here waiting for their return must be more certain of her commitment.

    [ Parent ]
    fox had some guy named 'Major' (none / 0) (#20)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:33:00 PM EST
    who gave a rather insightful analysis on the NC campaign...

    He said that Obama's poll numbers seemed to lock at about 50% which from past history, suggests that he's not likely to get more than 51 or 52% and thus it's likely to be under 5% in NC and perhaps even closer.

    I got the impression that Obama's campaign is a bit panicked and is trying to maximize NC and hold on to whatever they can and that Indiana is already lost and it's only the margin.

    So both candidates are now all-in for NC and it's apparently going to be extremely close...a lot closer than anyone has been expecting

    His name is (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:50:27 PM EST
    Major Garrett.  He's one that says he has seen Obama's superdee list and that's why he wasn't surprised about Andrew.  and I know all of this because??.... I watch Fox. That's right!  I watch Fox!  Ha! Ha!

    [ Parent ]
    Superdee list for Obama (none / 0) (#187)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:52:56 PM EST
    is probably fairly close to the same people on the donations list from his Hope PAC. I almost want to see him get the nominaton just so we can find out how many of them were promised the VP position.

    [ Parent ]
    yep (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by bigbay on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:43:20 PM EST
    He hasn't cracked 50 % in NC in quite a while.

    I think most undecideds are actually Hillary voters, who don't want to go against Obama out loud.  Being accused of racism isn't too fun, which is continually implied of public Hillary supporters. Why deal with it ?, a good number of people are thinking , is my guess.

    I predict a 52-48 Obama in N.C...Hillary by 10 in Indiana

    [ Parent ]

    Obama tends to outperform his number (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:34:49 PM EST
    in the south.

    In Indiana, his best number will probably be as good as it gets.

    [ Parent ]

    In the (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:37:33 PM EST
    past that is true. Don't bet on it happening in NC. The AA numbers in NC aren't as high as they are in places like GA.

    [ Parent ]
    The one comparable example (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:44:11 PM EST
    that Hillary won is Tennessee. But there's more of Appalachia in TN.

    [ Parent ]
    There (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:49:30 PM EST
    might be more of appalachia but there's tons of NC that's not Obama country. There's the entire state outside the triangle that Obama will probably lose by about 40 pts. Also he's losing the suburbs I hear. I'm not saying that he won't win the state but it really is more like TN than like GA.

    [ Parent ]
    I think NC looks a lot like (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:55:40 PM EST
    GA circa 1995. That is to say, there are still a lot of white people who identify as Democrats, and many of them aren't latte liberals.

    HIllary could make it close or even win if this works like an old fashioned southern election and the vote is dictated exclusively by race. If people vote in NC like they did in MS, it's a single-digit race.

    Bad for the party, good for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    I think (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:02:27 PM EST
    you are right there. NC has lots of working class whites that will vote in the primary whereas GA didn't have that many. But even at that, Obama lost the white vote here in GA.

    [ Parent ]
    Can we please have it said that (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:22:28 PM EST
    Folks in the south who vote against Obama are not necessarily doing it because of the color of his skin.   There are so many more factors-especially now- and GA6th might support a GA5th here when I say that if GA were to vote on Tuesday, I don't think Obama would win by as wide a margin this time around because many issues, from Bittergate on, but especially because of Wright.  Obama would lose some voters based on content, but mostly, he'd lose on how he handled the fall-out.  

    When Obama starts to look like a politician, he starts to lose.  I have seen Obama signs in my intown neighborhood and Decatur/DeKalb coming down since the debacle.  He is losing some of the more sane "creative class," who are coming to the realization that Obama isn't gonna change much of anything, so why not stick with the devil you know?

    (and, point of order: aa's are southern, too)

    [ Parent ]