home

SUSA NC Poll: Obama By 5

The final SUSA NC poll is out, Obama by 5, 50-45.

The crosstabs. Key findings - Clinton wins whites 62-32 (64% of the vote). Obama wins African Americans 85-12 (32% of the vote).

From the ABC story:

According to SurveyUSA's 8th and final tracking poll, conducted exclusively for ABC11 Eyewitness News, on the final day of the fiercely fought campaign, Senator Barack Obama holds on with 50% of the vote to Senator Hillary Clinton's 45% of those polled.

. . . In Charlotte and Western NC, there is the slightest momentum for Clinton. In the Research Triangle, in Southern NC and in Coastal NC, there is slight offsetting momentum to Obama. The net is a wash. If Obama wins, it will be entirely from the 19% of voters who describe themselves as liberal. Clinton leads by 9 among conservatives and leads by 8 among moderates.

. . . 1 in 4 of SurveyUSA's likely voters say they have already voted. Among those who say they have already voted, Obama leads by 16 points. Among those who say they will vote on Primary Day, Obama and Clinton are effectively tied.

< NC: An Obama Win May Gain Him Few Delegates | Obama Launches Attack Ad on Hillary >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    A win of under 5% (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Marvin42 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:37:26 PM EST
    I can't believe it, but if I'd believe anyone its SUSA. So if its IN +10 C and Obama <5 NC its gonna be a bad night for the Obama campaign.

    If Hillary were somehow (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by DCDemocrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:42:00 PM EST
    to win both North Carolina and Indiana, the Obama people would call on her the next day to drop out of the race.  It's just their way.

    Parent
    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:47:49 PM EST
    they will once again try to break the momentum by hyping a superdelegate that they already had.

    Parent
    The Magical Unity Candidate (none / 0) (#30)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:50:52 PM EST
    would never do that.

    That's politics as usual!

    /sips more Kool-Aid

    Parent

    Is Ronald McDonald Really A Super D? :) (none / 0) (#64)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:08:57 PM EST
    No, they'd be blaming her (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:48:58 PM EST
    for his losses.

    She should have done something to fix the Wright damage, you know.

    IACF covers it all!

    Parent

    I'm surprised they're not doing it tonight. (none / 0) (#161)
    by derridog on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:27:10 PM EST
    Yes It Will Be (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:47:23 PM EST
    I will believe a <5% win for him (or a Clinton victory) when I see it, but if that happens, then the nastiness we've seen since Pennsylvania coming from some Obama fans is going to get even worse.  Although once you've smeared the son of civil rights workers as racist by dubbing video that has him say something he never said, it's hard to see how it gets nastier.  But it will.  

    Parent
    CNN pushing the "SDs must not overturn... (none / 0) (#121)
    by NotThatStupid on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:16:45 PM EST
    ... the will of the people" spiel hard tonight, with heavy-hitter Jesse Jackson the big gun.

    You know Senator Obama's camp is nervous about NC when they're reduced to the same old rhetoric, but what about the will of the MI and FL voters? I guess they don't count.

    (By the way: why doesn't anyone ever call BS on Obama when he or one of his surrogates says "... we're ahead in this metric, this metric and in number of states."

    Number of states?

    Since when has number of states meant anything? That doesn't even matter in the Electoral College.)

    Parent

    The delegates (none / 0) (#135)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:46:49 PM EST
    don't exactly match the popular vote totals they reflect geographic breakdowns.  Not that the rules should be changed, but it's certainly true that it's impossible to see much of a difference between Obama and Clinton in the actual vote tally.  It is 50/50 and teh geography that Obama exploited to get a lead in dels means nothing in terms of the race we have to run to win the WH.

    Parent
    call me crazy (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:37:30 PM EST
    but it sounds like Texas a little bit there.


    yeah, TX with no faux caucus (fauxus?) (none / 0) (#7)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:42:36 PM EST
    to save face.

    I found this wording rather interesting, though:

    Senator Barack Obama holds on with 50% of the vote to Senator Hillary Clinton's 45% of those polled

    Obama gets the vote, Clinton gets "those polled."

    Wonder if that's on purpose.

    (and I still think KUSA calls it right: Clinton by 3-4%)

    Parent

    fauxus (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:44:24 PM EST
    must . . . not . . . respond . . .

    Parent
    did you see the headline @ the link (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:44:38 PM EST
    Obama clings to small lead over Clinton


    Parent
    Do you suppose (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Nadai on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:58:57 PM EST
    he's bitter?

    Parent
    ROFL (none / 0) (#23)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:48:46 PM EST
    !!!!!!!

    Parent
    Isn't Clinton By 9 for Conservs & By 8 For (none / 0) (#68)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:10:37 PM EST
    moderates a little low?

    Parent
    Not to me (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:29:06 PM EST
    I think Obama is a lot more conservative than she is.  I would expect him to get more of their votes.

    Parent
    Not with his friends (none / 0) (#97)
    by dissenter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:34:11 PM EST
    He might actually be more conservative but he looks like a left wing nut with Wright, Ayers, etc

    Parent
    he's an independence party impostor. (none / 0) (#170)
    by kangeroo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:17:44 PM EST
    seriously, it explains it all.  some think he's too conservative, other's too liberal--so they end up cancelling each other out and everybody just shrugs.  the only way to reconcile all of his contradictions is to see him for what he is:  an independence party opportunist using the dem party for his ambitious ride.

    Parent
    45% (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:41:18 PM EST
    That's the best Clinton has ever polled in NC, I believe.  So she's topped her previous ceiling.  The problem is that it's a ceiling that still will have her losing by 10% if she can't pick up the undecideds.

    My hypothesis that this is a reverse PA (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:44:44 PM EST
    stands for now. But if Hillary picks up the undecideds, this will be a long night. . .

    Parent
    I Tend To Agree (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:50:05 PM EST
    Although I think the fact NC is an open primary makes it more difficult to predict turnout.  Still I'll be pleasantly shocked if Clinton loses by less than 10 and positively astounded, albeit in a good way, if she wins.

    If she wins, as unlikely as that is, I think she's the nominee.

    Parent

    Yup (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:52:43 PM EST
    I'll be looking to see if white indys decide to pull a dem ballot tomorrow.

    Parent
    And To Think (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:55:43 PM EST
    There was a time when independents crossing over was supposed to be a good sign for Obama.  My how the WORM has turned.

    Parent
    Yes and the Clinton campaign knows that (none / 0) (#109)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:50:57 PM EST
    I think they will give it their best shot to try to win and I like the Clintons' chances when they want to win badly.

    Parent
    undecideds+ (none / 0) (#144)
    by isaac on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:28:48 PM EST
    gantt factor=hillary win

    Parent
    she has been doing (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:46:57 PM EST
    a pretty good job of picking them up

    Parent
    The Oracle has spoken ! (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:42:22 PM EST
    Let us now sacrifice the entrails to the gods.  

    Stellaaa, did you see this (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:16:51 PM EST
    on CA Super-Ds?

    LA TIMES

    I love the quote from the CA NAACP Super-D.

    Parent

    sigh (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by boredmpa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:42:30 PM EST
    I wonder when they mailed their ballots? A month ago? I really wish he hadn't gotten such a free ride from January-March

    not surprising one bit (none / 0) (#16)
    by oldnorthstate on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:46:11 PM EST
    that the early votes are in for obama.  remember, obama is the rock star in this race who's supporters are in your face.  stickers, signs, t shirts, and certainly early voting all qualify.

    it still remains to be seen what that quiet rural turnout will be.  i'm guessing this poll will be pretty close to the final margin though.

    Parent

    A lot of those (none / 0) (#31)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:51:05 PM EST
    were the younger voters.

    Parent
    Deadline was just after the recent Wright (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:14:28 PM EST
    debacle a la Obama, so most probably went in before that.  Sometimes, there must be buyers' remorse even before election day!  This is why I wait to cast my ballot by marching proudly into the polls -- and since my great-grandmothers couldn't do so.

    Parent
    In NC the deadline for (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by kateNC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:25:15 PM EST
    Early voting was Saturday.

    My brother, who is 68 and never voted, and I are off to vote for Hillary in the morning.

    Parent

    lol!~ Love the headline @ SUSA . . . . (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:43:35 PM EST
    "Poll: Obama clings to small lead over Clinton"

    Bitterly! (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:45:03 PM EST
    LOL - I missed it! ;-)

    Parent
    That's the kind of headline Clinton used to get (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:59:23 PM EST
    an excellent point (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:06:33 PM EST
    ha (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:45:14 PM EST
    think its because of Washington?


    Parent
    Oops! not a SUSA site! still like it though :) (none / 0) (#17)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:46:24 PM EST
    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:52:36 PM EST
    No knock-out punch in NC, for sure.  And a lot of questions for Obama.

    This shouldn't be this close, given the demographics.

    nothing is for sure (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:57:56 PM EST
    I wouldn't trust the Democratic "leaders" and superdelegates not to make any result a knockout punch for Clinton.  Hillary could conceivable win both states on Tuesday and the superdelegates could flood to Obama anyway if that's what the script calls for.

    Parent
    Oh, well.... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:05:27 PM EST
    I'm more optimistic.  I think a lot of them are waiting.

    But the fact is that he has a problem if he's this close in this state.  This was his to lose.

    And if she's actually within 5 points, she could pull off a real upset here.  5 and below?  She's got the talk going her way, for sure.  

    Parent

    I'm just very reluctant to ever count chickens (none / 0) (#80)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:20:25 PM EST
    before they hatch :)  I think you have reason to feel optimistic.  I will say that Hillary does seem to be sharp and full of energy lately.  I hope she works her "clutch" magic just one more time.  Tommorrow is for all the marbles, imo.

    Parent
    I agree with Carville (none / 0) (#91)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:32:57 PM EST
    SDs and a few headlines will get you a latte in Washington.  :)

    Birds who jump can always jump back.

    She just needs to shock the system.

    Close is pretty darn shocking.

    Parent

    NYT article today says she offered (none / 0) (#141)
    by oculus on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:20:39 PM EST
    to debate Obama on the back of an open-bed p/u truck.  

    Parent
    She did (none / 0) (#148)
    by lilburro on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:38:46 PM EST
    I heard her say it in NC.  It was in good fun.

    Parent
    for all the neg. talk about Hillary she's (none / 0) (#84)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:25:59 PM EST
    impressed alot of people on the stump. She actually is having a great time campaigning, and Bill is too.

    Gosh what wonderful public servants. and they raised a nice kid too in Chelsea.

    Parent

    Clinton by 7 votes in North Carolina (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:02:42 PM EST
    It's only fitting that we get that result.

    GUAMENTUM!!! (none / 0) (#62)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:06:43 PM EST
    Okay, this'll be interesting: NC dems were smeared with Wright/Obama split screens.  I would like to see if local polling reflects a dip (KUSA only does national and only when it favors Clinton), and how the election turns based on those ads.

    This is the downticket argument: how much will Wright's association bring them down?

    Parent

    Frankly (none / 0) (#67)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:10:29 PM EST
    downticket problems are quickly becoming the problem of those many bloggers and people who prefer that the traditional Dems go away.  LOL*

    Let's see how THEY fare.  :)

    Parent

    Of theSD's (none / 0) (#76)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:16:23 PM EST
    who have publicly announced for Obama - who's up for re-election in the fall?  (Especially those with the  mantra WWTSBQ?)  Methinks they could have some trouble too....

    Parent
    No sure (none / 0) (#95)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:34:03 PM EST
    I checked my SD close to me, but it turns out she represents one of the 3 counties that did, in fact, vote for Obama.

    But I'm definitely going to pay attention.

    Parent

    All of the US Representatives who (none / 0) (#127)
    by kateNC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:32:03 PM EST
    Declared for Obama are up. But let's not go overboard.

    The Democrats have to not just get elected but must govern. Almost all of the NC Democratic representatives are good guys and should be reelected.

    Parent

    Ask KUSA how hard we can hit those 527s back (none / 0) (#165)
    by lookoverthere on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:50:37 PM EST
    I hate this split-screen smear crap. Hate it.

    I have a post-production studio and I'm ready to do a little smearing myself. That sounds kinda gross. But I have had it with being all principled and high road. If me and my neighbors and my country aren't worth getting dirty for, then what is the point?

    I'm thinking the GOP needs to learn the sanitation engineers' meaning of the word, "Blackwater."

    Parent

    KUSA says: (none / 0) (#171)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:57:48 PM EST
    hit 'em hard, hit 'em fast and hit 'em low!

    Parent
    Hillary will win NC. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by vicsan on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:14:26 PM EST
    If there's just a 5% difference. It's in the bag for her. :) I'm an optimist. Bill's been working his behind off in small-town NC. They love him for just showing up in their towns. They will vote overwhelmingly for Hillary. She will win.

    I've stocked up on the Rolling Rock. It's going to be a nerve-wracking night.

    Are you sure you're not for Obama? (none / 0) (#83)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:25:23 PM EST
    I find it hard to believe that any Clinton supporter would feel that good about her chances in North Carolina.  All the small towns in the world won't make a difference as long as Obama also underperforms in the cities and at least by a few % among African Americans.


    Parent
    Hillary supporter (none / 0) (#89)
    by vicsan on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:30:49 PM EST
    to the end...which should be soon. I'll give Obama until Oregon, WV and KY. Then he can drop out.:)

    Even if she loses by that 5% (which she won't), it will be a HUGE victory for her because he was suppose to win BIG there.

    She's also going to beat him in his neighboring state of Indiana. He was expected to walk away with that state.

    Hillary will win NC though.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:43:52 PM EST
    you are wrong here. Many elections have been lost in NC because of rural areas. Just getting the triangle and the cities has caused many a candidate to lose in a squeaker. I'm not saying Hillary is going to win, only that your logic on this point isn't totally correct.

    Parent
    Ok I'll take your word for it (none / 0) (#154)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:46:47 PM EST
    I hope you're right.

    Parent
    I'd love to believe that but (none / 0) (#85)
    by lisadawn82 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:26:29 PM EST
    Early voting is 16% in favor of Obama.  I'd love a win but a 7 point loss or so is probably what it'll be.  Sigh.

    Parent
    GROUP HUG FOR HILLARY!!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Angel on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:33:30 PM EST
    It worked for Pennsylvania, so let's keep the magic going for her in North Carolina and Indiana.

    yes (none / 0) (#163)
    by jedimom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:33:57 PM EST
    light a candle for Hillary at 900pm ET and send good vibes out for her

    sounds like NC will be a squeaker after all

    Parent

    Looking at the crosstabs (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:45:22 PM EST
    They show Obama carrying the female vote.  Yes, I know African American women are a big factor.  But still, if Obama carries the female vote then yes, he will win North Carolina.

    For Hillary's sake, I have a strange feeling that Independent and Republican women are going to turn out for her in North Carolina.

    turnout (none / 0) (#125)
    by Double Standard on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:28:31 PM EST
    interesting the gender split is only 52 female, 48 male...so if they are underestimating black turnout (and the 32% indicates they may be doing), I think the gender split makes up for that.

    Parent
    I think that Clinton has a greater chance to tie (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by DeborahNC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:58:09 PM EST
    or maybe eek out a slight win in North Carolina than most people are predicting. Bill Clinton is still very popular here and is greeted like a rock star. Reading the local news reports about Bill has been interesting and amusing. Actually, some people have fainted from the excitement he generated.

    These reports include quotes from some people stating that they were changing their votes from Obama to Clinton after hearing Bill speak. In those settings, their is no politician today who is better than he is. He oozes down-home charm. The tide is turning in this state. How much? I don't know.

    BTW, I'm not surprised by the 16% Obama lead in the "already voted category." I suspect that some of those voters are college kids who registered in Orange, Wake, etc. counties and voted before they left the area. Obama had a huge following at UNC-Chapel Hill.

    Hillary's getting flak for (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by mg7505 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:00:37 PM EST
    winning conservatives, but that was a huge argument for Obama back when he was winning them. This seems to be a contradiction, but let's consult the Obama Rules ... never mind everything's ok.

    I just got my copy of the Obama Rules (none / 0) (#174)
    by mg7505 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:04:20 PM EST
    in the mail, and you are right :)

    Parent
    I wonder (none / 0) (#9)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:44:24 PM EST
    what the undecided figure is?

    I find it very telling that early voters (pre-Wrightapalooza) voted for Obama by 16%, whereas those who haven't voted yet are evenly split.

    The Wright effect rears its head, even in a state where the demographics were incredibly favorable to Obama.

    He's not looking remotely electable in November.

    That would pretty much have to be. . . (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:45:37 PM EST
    5.

    Parent
    Duh! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:46:28 PM EST
    Me no gud at teh maths. ;-)

    Parent
    Greetings madamab (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:50:20 PM EST
    I would be cheered by this poll, if I wasn't  convinced that the SDs are determined to march,
    lemminglike, over a cliff with Obama. ;)

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#38)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:52:46 PM EST
    We'll see, won't we? The Clinton camp appears to have fastened on BTD's magic number of 2209. So much for "he only needs one more delegate" spinning.

    I do think some narrative-changing will be happening after tomorrow.

    Meanwhile, a shot and a beer will help me get through tomorrow night's cliffhanger!

    Parent

    Wish I could join you (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:57:08 PM EST
    But I had to quit drinking almost 25 years ago.
    I will be the one drinking Diet Cokes and bouncing off the walls in an over-caffeinated frenzy. ;)

    Parent
    Undecideds are 1.7% (none / 0) (#146)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:32:59 PM EST
    ... with "Other" (mostly Edwards?) at 3.2%

    Parent
    A lot of the early voting occurred (none / 0) (#45)
    by magster on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:58:20 PM EST
    at the height of the Wright story.  From what I remember, 120,000 as of 4/29, and just shy of 400,000 early voters now.

    Parent
    Looking at early voting (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:59:38 PM EST
    is like looking at unweighted exit polls before the polls even close. Not useful for anyone who actually wants to know anything.

    Parent
    I found this interesting (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:48:18 PM EST
    Among those who say they will vote on Primary Day, Obama and Clinton are effectively tied.


    damn those early birds (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:49:49 PM EST
    Obama's trends in tracking polls (none / 0) (#25)
    by magster on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:49:18 PM EST
    have turned around, and (my opinion) the gas tax pandering is a more of a negative for Clinton than appears in the polls.  The Wright story hit about four days too early for Clinton, and he'll have fully recovered by voting time tomorrow.

    Turned around? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:51:51 PM EST
    he's losing voters in NC and getting beat in IN, how's that turning around?

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#55)
    by Nadai on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:01:31 PM EST
    it's like turning the corner in Iraq.

    Parent
    *wiping my puter* (none / 0) (#157)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:05:02 PM EST
    off.  Good one.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#164)
    by jedimom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:36:10 PM EST
    soda spew on aisle 5

    LOL

    Parent

    The good thing about Wright (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:03:09 PM EST
    is that he has a back-up man in the new pastor.

    Of course, the New Big Thing is going to be Ayers, who is even more damaging than Wright, in my opinion, because he can't be dismissed as a crazy uncle, and he isn't tainted with issues of race.

    Somewhere, someone (probably several someones) is digging into Obama's "former employer," the "unrepentant terrorist," and gleefully chuckling at Obama's stupidity in this toxic association.

    There are all sorts of opportunities to tie Ayers' anti-American rhetoric into Bin Laden's hateful anti-American crap.  Those sorts of scripts are already making the rounds among my military family members.  (the government doesn't tend to frown on forwarding personal emails that bash dems...)

    Parent

    The bombing victim (none / 0) (#74)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    Well, have you seen that video?  Pretty compelling.  Describes how as a kid his house got bombed and Ayers wife took credit.  Makes ya think.  

    Parent
    His tv interview, his op-ed piece (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:34:10 PM EST
    are the makings of a general-election disaster, if Obama is the nominee.  The guy's father was a fine judge whose family was targeted by the Ayers group just because he was assigned to -- wait for it -- a  Black Panthers case.  

    And the guy himself is now a respected lawyer, too.  And he still is as angry as can be about his family's home being bombed while they slept, about the next year and a half of hell they endured -- and he can recite Ayers' "just words" since, word by word.

    Parent

    Ayers is next up, (none / 0) (#90)
    by magisterludi on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:31:12 PM EST
    according to a CSM reporter on Washington Journal this past weekend. The GOP put the word out to the press.

    Parent
    Fan-tastic (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:36:36 PM EST
    You know it's not going to be Obama's relationship with Ayers that hurts democrats, it's going to be all the liberal elites defending that relationship by telling us what a terrific person Ayers is.  I can hardly wait to listen to odes about how wonderful and smart and erudite Bill Ayers is.  

    Sometimes the "creative class" is Obama's worst enemy.  

    Parent

    Exactly! (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:47:22 PM EST
    This Is Why Democrats Lose Election (none / 0) (#129)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:35:16 PM EST
    From an opinion piece in the WSJ by Elizabeth Wurtzel:

    In a way, the public is saying that we don't want the country erupting into a divisiveness akin to what created the '60s scene, the atmosphere of the Weather Underground. Even Jeremiah Wright, an embarrassing pastor who would probably have brought down a less-deft political prestidigitator, will not do in Barack Obama. The Reverend rants and raves. It's a mess. But Mr. Obama's campaign will carry on.

    As for Mr. Obama's friends, the Weathercouple: By all accounts, Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers are unfathomably charming, brilliant and comely people, absolutely irresistible. Everybody who meets them is taken and forgets what they should know.

    Mr. Obama expects us all to understand this, because we understand everything else. He is doing something most unusual: He's acting as if the American people are thinking with their brains. He's giving all of us a lot of credit. Could it be that we deserve it?

    Emphasis mine.  

    I bet the Wall Street Journal was only too happy to print this piece.  

    Parent

    The GOP is probably happy about it (none / 0) (#137)
    by RalphB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:56:50 PM EST
    one more nail in the proverbial coffin


    Parent
    Creative class my eye. (none / 0) (#140)
    by oculus on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:18:53 PM EST
    WSJ letter in reply to that oped (none / 0) (#143)
    by RalphB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:26:57 PM EST
    from someone in law enforcement who is not an Ayers admirer.

    link

    Parent

    My goodness... (none / 0) (#150)
    by OrangeFur on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:45:06 PM EST
    Will they ever stop with the "if only people were smarter, they'd all be voting for Obama?"

    Do they have no idea at all how insulting that is?

    Parent

    You can do a search on DKos (none / 0) (#108)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:47:38 PM EST
    and you will find many many apologists for Ayers.  

    O'Reilly will find every last quote.

    Parent

    Yes they will be! (none / 0) (#128)
    by RalphB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:35:02 PM EST
    but some of them have been this entire campaign.  

    I've got my own feelings about Ayers, but they are not for public consumption.  Certainly not here on a moderated blog.  :-)


    Parent

    I just watched the interview (none / 0) (#155)
    by DJ on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:01:58 PM EST
    with the man whose home was bombed by Ayers wife in 1970.  It's going to be really bad.  It will make Wright look like a fluff piece.  This was out two weeks after Pennsylvania.  Why is the MSM keeping it quiet.  Is it to keep the ratings up during the GE?

    Parent
    Well, there's also an article in the WSJ (none / 0) (#166)
    by derridog on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:53:33 PM EST
    today, May 5, on the front page, about Obama  getting the teamsters' support by telling them that he supported ending "federal oversight imposed to root out corruption."  The independent review board was set up in 1992 to "eliminate mob influence in the union."  This is a "top priority for (Teamsters' President, Jimmy) Hoffa."

    You all need to read more about Obama, Rezko, Hoffa, etc.  This stuff is much worse, in my view, than his association with Wright or with Ayers.   I don't know how to judge some of the things I've read, which are very inflammatory, but it seems that Obama was an active member of a very corrupt group in Chicago. The circumstantial evidence, at the very least, is pretty compelling. Rezko IS on trial for fraud and bribing public officials.  Rezko DID help Obama buy his house and Obama appointed members on boards, including one that dealt with people's pensions, when Rezko was trying to get people on it whom he could bribe.  Just read the trial transcripts, if nothing else.

    I'm sure that Ayers will be a more emotional way for the Rethugs to target Obama, but the corruption stuff makes me worry more about him actually becoming President.

    Parent

    Rezko story (none / 0) (#167)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:57:54 PM EST
    never did get much play, but it's because there's no direct connection in the payoff area.

    The links are really buried and hard to track.

    Parent

    Read this one: (none / 0) (#168)
    by derridog on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:17:04 PM EST
    Sorry. I can't do the link. I'll try again. (none / 0) (#169)
    by derridog on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:17:35 PM EST
    there is a picture (none / 0) (#145)
    by isaac on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:31:28 PM EST
    of ayers stomping on an american flag.  this guy has got be a stalking horse candidate for mccain.  i cant beliieve they would be that stupid for this candidacy not to be a setup

    Parent
    a caricature of every liberal stereotype (none / 0) (#149)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:43:42 PM EST
    National tracking polls? (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:50:43 PM EST
    Meaningless for these purposes.

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#32)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:51:26 PM EST
    and I'm winning the lottery tomorrow. ;)

    Parent
    Don't agree (none / 0) (#33)
    by Marvin42 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    I think Sen Obama hit his bottom with the Wright, but I have this feeling he is staying there (at least until tomorrow).

    Also one factor: how accurate are these polls? Are there any hidden effects that will show tomorrow?

    We'll see soon enough.

    Parent

    not so sure (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:53:07 PM EST
    we have found the bottom yet.
    I dont think that will happen unless and until he is officially the nominee.
    but I agree that if the polls underestimate anything it will be Hillary.

    Parent
    Why not just use the NC polls (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:52:15 PM EST
    for your argument in this thread.

    We need the SUSA crosstabs.

    Parent

    The crosstabs (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:09:20 PM EST
    If I read correctly (none / 0) (#77)
    by magster on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:16:57 PM EST
    are they saying that A-A turnout will be 32%?  If so, that seems low given how many A-A's have participated in early voting.

    Parent
    I have learned to trust SUSA (none / 0) (#78)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:19:15 PM EST
    not to cook those numbers by making assumptions like that. I have done so in the past and been wrong. SUSA is usually right. They don't cook the books, they just report what they find.

    And projecting what's happened in early voting into the future just seems like really poor methodology.

    Parent

    It would be 4% above (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:32:58 PM EST
    their 2004 participation.

    This 3 point difference is pretty crucial. It explains the 5 point difference between PPP and SUSA.

    Parent

    wrong (none / 0) (#41)
    by oldnorthstate on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:54:51 PM EST
    the "pandering" is well appreciated by the people whose votes hillary is seeking.

    and those same people that have had questions set in regarding wright and obama will not just go away over night.  that damage is in place with the would be hillary voters and it is hurting obama badly.  maybe it isn't turning that many from obama to clinton, but it sure might be getting undecides to vote for hillary or even get people out of their chairs to vote that might not have before this came down.

    Parent

    not fully recovered (none / 0) (#51)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:00:36 PM EST
    Magster, you're like a machine! (none / 0) (#63)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:06:53 PM EST
    What's your basis for assuming the gas tax solution (oh I can do it too!) is more of a negative than appears in polls?  Did you get your hands on a dart board of your own?

    Wright hit 4 days too early?  Didn't the tapes first show up about a month ago?  Fully recovered?  So that means he will get about 45% of the white vote then?  That's what fully recovered would mean.

    Parent

    CBS poll (none / 0) (#82)
    by magster on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:24:33 PM EST
    said that more people thought it was a bad idea than a good idea, and an overwhelming number (70%) thought it was just a political ploy as opposed to an idea based on a genuine concern for Americans.

    That and her sidestip to Stephanopolis' question on whether any economist endorsed her plan.

    Parent

    so you are predicting Obama wins back whites (none / 0) (#126)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:31:31 PM EST
    That would mean fully recovered.

    Parent
    The public... (none / 0) (#152)
    by OrangeFur on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:46:09 PM EST
    ... generally believes that politicians do just about everything for political gain.

    It doesn't mean that they don't approve of it.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#156)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:03:33 PM EST
    and low trust numbers don't mean much, either, in my opinion...same reason.

    Parent
    Well, one can dream (none / 0) (#119)
    by goldberry on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:04:37 PM EST
    This has nothing to do (none / 0) (#130)
    by kateNC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:36:53 PM EST
    With rationality and everything to do with getting even with the oil companies. Voters know perfectly well this is a pander and they say, "You go, girl!"

    Parent
    Math please (none / 0) (#40)
    by NYMARJ on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:54:50 PM EST
    My math is sooooo bad -   Let's say the percentage holds and 1 in 4 voters have already voted and Obama is 16% ahead and they are tied for the rest, how does that become he wins by only 5%.  

    Math. (none / 0) (#47)
    by sweetthings on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:59:14 PM EST
    Let's say 100 people have already voted. That means 58 people voted for Obama, 42 for Clinton. (so far)

    300 people will vote tomorrow. 150 will vote for Obama, 150 for Clinton.

    Obama will end up with 208 votes, Hillary with 192. Obama wins with 52% of the vote. In this example, he only wins by 4%...but of course this is highly simplified.

    Parent

    Here's How (none / 0) (#52)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:00:57 PM EST
    A sixteen point lead would be 58-42.  So .58 x .25 = 14.5%.  Now .50 of the remaining .70% (5% is undecided) = 35%.  35+ 14.5 = 49.5 or 50 for Obama.

    For Clinton, you get .42 x .25 = .105.  Or 10.5%, add that to 35% and you get 45.5%, which could be rounded to 46, but - if it's not a perfect 50-50 split of current voters, could easily drop down so as to be rounded to 45%.

     

    Parent

    that's more complicated than (none / 0) (#58)
    by oldnorthstate on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:03:32 PM EST
    what i did.

    multiply 1/4 times .16 to get the winning margin.

    Parent

    there is still (none / 0) (#153)
    by isaac on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:46:46 PM EST
    5 % undecided to divvy up, if she gets most of those she can eke out a win

    Parent
    If they're tied in the. . . (none / 0) (#53)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:01:00 PM EST
    remaining 75% of the vote, Obama's existing lead would be diluted by three-fourths, leading to a 4% victory.  I assume the difference between 4 and 5% is a rounding issue (he may be leading by 16.4% and they may be forecasting a 4.6% win, for instance).

    Parent
    it's a secret? (none / 0) (#54)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:01:30 PM EST
    This real contest on the GOoPer side . . . (none / 0) (#50)
    by wurman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:00:16 PM EST
    . . . may help keep the republikonz out of the Democratic primary.
    In a Republican Primary for Governor of North Carolina with 24-hours until votes are counted, Pat McCrory and Fred Smith run far ahead of other challengers, with McCrory ever-so-slightly likely to prevail when votes are counted.
    Charlotte Mayor McCrory ends at 38%, State Senator Smith at 32%. 12% are undecided.

    ---as per the ABC11 comments.

    I think this is an "open" primary, so maybe the "Rush to Nonsense dittoheads" will stay on their own ballot.

    except (none / 0) (#59)
    by oldnorthstate on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:04:31 PM EST
    "Clinton leads by 9 among conservatives and leads by 8 among moderates."

    Parent
    Those Could Be Dems (none / 0) (#66)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:10:00 PM EST
    Some democrats identify themselves as conservative and moderate in terms of ideology.  

    Parent
    Semi-open? (none / 0) (#103)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:40:41 PM EST
    I thought independents could participate but Registered Republicans couldn't.  Maybe I'm wrong.

    In any case, tehre doesn't seem to be any significant difference in preference between Democrats (50-45 BO) and Independents (51-45 BO).

    Actually, now that I see those numbers, that's pretty huge.  Obama seems to have completely lost the advantage he used to have among independents!

    Parent

    Republicans can't (none / 0) (#104)
    by Benjamin3 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:42:29 PM EST
    vote in the NC primary.  But unaffiliated (Independents) can.

    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#115)
    by wurman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:02:20 PM EST
    But I thought there was a process where they could cross over & then go back & that the close governor's primary sort of stopped or blocked that.  Just pulling up 4 or 5 month-old memory.

    Parent
    Turnout (none / 0) (#69)
    by lisadawn82 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:11:59 PM EST
    I'm wondering what the turnout will be amongst AA and Women.  Does anyone think that the Wright controversy will effect AA turnout and if so how?  The controversy could piss off the AA base and cause them to turn out in really large numbers or it could bum them out and cause them to stay at home.  Of course it could be non of the above.  It'll be something to look for.

    I think the African-American vote (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by kateNC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:42:54 PM EST
    Will be huge. This would be such a  good thing for NC in the future because they've not turned out in significant numbers in the past so that state officials ignore them except at election time.

    Parent
    I cant wait to hear the new superdel talking point (none / 0) (#70)
    by boredmpa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:12:23 PM EST
    "Obama actually lost NC among today's voters. He only won because of the 16 point margin on 400k early ballots--from folks that voted before the Wright and the Bitter remarks came out.  He has clearly lost voters in states that should have gone to him, and as a result there's no reason to assume he can carry swing states in the GE with that level of loss."

    Except for the Wright Part (none / 0) (#79)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:19:41 PM EST
    That was pretty much the Obama explanation for California.  That he won on election day.  At least Clinton would have an argument that something had changed and so the early voters might've voted differently (there wasn't any real news in the lead up to California).  

    If Clinton wins or ties with election day voters, that won't give her a win in NC.  It will be huge, however, because it means that she came within 10 in a state where that should not be possible based on demos.

    Parent

    You've heard superdelegates talk like that? (none / 0) (#81)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:22:50 PM EST
    Superdelegates will talk with their vote or lack of vote for Obama.  Spin is becoming less relevant.  The CNN county by county map results is what will speak the loudest, imo.

    Parent
    i meant (none / 0) (#98)
    by boredmpa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:35:25 PM EST
    that as a talking point to the delegates, not from them.

    Parent
    ok (none / 0) (#151)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:45:46 PM EST
    SUSA Internals (none / 0) (#71)
    by Dan the Man on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:13:57 PM EST
    Charlotte (none / 0) (#75)
    by dissenter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:15:49 PM EST
    She won Charlotte in this poll? That sounds like a positive development

    That's what she would need to do (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:26:35 PM EST
    Like Carville said, she needs to "shock the system" and doing better than expected in a place like Charlotte is the only way that's going to happen.  

    Parent
    Charlotte (none / 0) (#133)
    by kateNC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:44:48 PM EST
    Elects lots of Republicans. It's Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill that will go for Obama.

    Parent
    will someone go check how Big Orange is (none / 0) (#88)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:29:14 PM EST
    taking this? err spin
    ning it?

    Markos is running a survey... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by dianem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:01:37 PM EST
    ...that shows how Obama really could win the general election, now that Wright has faded a bit from the public memory. He seems blisfully unaware that the Republican 527's are waiting in the wings with lots more from where Wright came from.

    The top of the rec list is a diary countering the one suggesting that a million people had been disenfranchised in Indiana. They seem to be concerned the too many wacky diaries have been rec'd and are worried about the site's credibility. I'm afraid, though, that that ship has sailed. I mock the big orange, but it saddens me that an experiment with such promise seems to have failed abysmally.

    Parent

    Amazing spin there by the Orangeheads (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by ruffian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:10:04 PM EST
    Wright has faded a bit from public memory?  After Russert grilled him on it for 15 minutes just yesterday?

    Sweet, sweet, kool-aid...let me drink deep of thy goodness...

    And they are just now worrying about their credibility?  Maybe they have done some demographic polling, and are getting worried about the readership they are keeping vs. the one they threw away.  

    Parent

    Ayers is the real deadly pill. (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by MarkL on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:25:56 PM EST
    Having a close relationship with a terrorist is NOT going to go well with voters.

    Parent
    How many did they lose permanently? (none / 0) (#173)
    by dianem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:00:03 AM EST
    I know that when some left they said that it was just until the election was over. Others, like me, simply lost faith in the system. I feel like I was conned, and I don't really want to subject myself to that again (and it will happen again, unless the rules are changed). I imagine that some of the new Obama posters will hang around, others will move on. Some of the people who wandered off will return when things quiet down, but it won't be the same. The sense of community seems to be gone. It's a straight political blog. After the primaries, it may change. But you can't go back.

    Parent
    The DNC cannot be happy about this (none / 0) (#94)
    by dianem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:33:51 PM EST
    Obama should be blowing Clinton away in NC. She should not even be within 10 points. This does not bode well for the general election.

    We Should Probably Wait for the Vote (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:38:21 PM EST
    before we decide what NC actually shows.

    I know SUSA has been great, but Obama could still easily win by 10.

    Parent

    I expect him to. (none / 0) (#105)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:43:03 PM EST
    You are correct, of course (none / 0) (#118)
    by dianem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:03:44 PM EST
    But, according to his projection sheet, he should be taking NC by 13. Even 10 represents a significant let down for his team.

    Parent
    anybody familiar with NC demographics (none / 0) (#99)
    by Double Standard on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:35:30 PM EST
    I'm trying to figure out what kind of voters are in the Charlotte and Raleigh areas.

    Are they more like people in the suburbs of PA or the suburbs in Virginia?

    When I look at the demographics, they are younger than the suburbs in PA (slightly older in VA), they make less money than both the PA and VA suburbs (VA has particularly high incomes), have less education than VA and around the same education as the PA suburbs.

    Also, where you have areas that have a very high black population, low income, low education...are the white voters in those places Hillary Clinton-type voters that could go to her at about a 60-70% rate?

    We saw Obama win big in central Virginia, but one thing to point out is many of those places were higher educated and higher income than most of these North Carolina counties.

    So if anybody has a feel for the type of voters we're looking at, speak up.

    Personal experience (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:48:53 PM EST
    speaking here:
    I can't say about Raleigh but I can say that the suburbs in Charlotte are more like PA than VA.

    Parent
    The suburbs of Raleigh appear to be (none / 0) (#138)
    by DeborahNC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:04:45 PM EST
    more progressive than Charlotte 'burbs. The Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area has universities, the RTP area (research), and in general provides more upper-income employment. Actually, Durham is different than the other two cities, with many more African-American residents.

    Parent
    Raleigh (none / 0) (#139)
    by Nadai on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:11:58 PM EST
    is a mixed bag.  A lot of the people here are Northern transplants, including those (like me) from NoVA.  Overall, it's more conservative than NoVA and more religious.  It's not as much of a latte town as Chapel Hill, but there are a lot of highly educated technical/scientific workers who make I-40 a living h3ll in the morning heading into Research Triangle Park.  I'd say fewer of us have the latte mentality, so to speak, than people in Chapel Hill, but we're not particularly working class, either.  We make less money than people in NoVA, but it costs a lot less to live down here, so it's not that simple to compare.

    I don't see Clinton winning the Triangle area (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill) white vote by 70%, much as I hope she does.  She'll blow Obama out of the water in the western part of the state, but the Triangle not so much.

    Parent

    Down here in the southeastern corner (none / 0) (#147)
    by lilburro on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:36:50 PM EST
    of NC, there is an interesting mix of people.  Wilmington has professionals and lots of students, a mix of AAs and whites.  But Wilmington does not seem "creative class" dominated to me.  There are a lot of retirees around here too.  (Pluses for Hillary).  I think Hillary will certainly do decently around here, as she attracted 5000 people to her rally on 24 hours notice.  She also has a strong squad of volunteers.  People have been giving Obama 2-3 points at times based on the superiority of his ground game, and I think those points cannot be awarded here.    
    But I'm new to NC.  Who knows what will happen?  I'll be interested to see if Hillary maintains her grip on the white female vote.  That would be good for her and in the end should guarantee her either P or VP in the White House of 2009+.

    Parent
    If my experence today was any indication, (none / 0) (#102)
    by pie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:38:27 PM EST
    Obama's Wright fiasco has hurt him.  I had lunch with two people I work with today.  Two months ago, they were firmly in Obama's camp (we live in MI), so we haven't talked about it because I told them I firmly supported Hillary.  Today, they both admitted that Obama's association with Wright puts his chances in real doubt.  One seemed almost angry about som of the things Wright said (she's of Asian descent).  She even said that a person is known by the company he keeps, and as a politcian, Obama blew it.  Ouch.

    I guess I was surprised though.

    This is good enough to make me optimistic (none / 0) (#117)
    by ruffian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:03:15 PM EST
    that she will lose NC by less than 8, which should mean that she loses NC by less than she wins IN.  Some wise one here over the weekend (maybe andgarden?) said that would be a good way to judge tomorrow's outcome, and I agree.

    Whether it is good enough to either freeze the SDs or shake them up remains to be seen.  She needs a win in NC to guarantee that, and I just don't see that happening.

    I would be ecstatic with a 5% loss, just on its own merits though.  I think that would be a real coup for the campaign in general, and especially Bill as a campaign asset.

    Given the crazy method of calculating delegates (none / 0) (#122)
    by daryl herbert on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:20:47 PM EST
    in North Carolina (see previous thread), is it possible that Sen. Clinton would get slightly less of the popular vote, but an equal or greater number of pledged delegates?

    With a distance of just 5% between the two candidates, equal to the number of undecideds (who will break for Sen. Clinton), she has a real chance of winning or at least coming very close.

    BO leads by 10 of 606 who have not yet voted (none / 0) (#142)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:25:48 PM EST
    A big turnout day could make for an interesting night.

    One thing (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:05:16 PM EST
    to think about: Major Garrett reported last night that the Obama campaign was concerned that they couldn't get their numbers over 50%. If this poll is showing his top line number it could be a very loooong night.

    Once again (none / 0) (#162)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:28:27 PM EST
    we ask "who's likely to get the undecideds?" If Hillary gets most or all, it will be a long night indeed.

    Parent
    I want to believe... (none / 0) (#159)
    by OrangeFur on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:11:03 PM EST
    ... but I'm not going to until tomorrow night. Too many times I've hoped that Hillary would be close in a southern state, only to watch the margin be pretty big.

    Bill will make the difference (none / 0) (#172)
    by gandy007 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:27:56 PM EST
    I've been in and out and around politics for some
    58 yrs from putting up yard signs as a 7 yr old
    to being a state office holder, always as a Democrat.

    I sense something special is happening in these 2 states with Bill Clinton. Shockingly, given their proclivities, I have seen 3 articles today in the MSM, all of them highly favorable, about Bill barnstorming the boonies. Bill has made 43 stops in different towns in the past month, Hillary 29 , and Obama only 12, in NC alone. Today, he had an additional marathon 9 scheduled.

    All told at least 20 counties in Indiana and NC have had their first ever presidential visit courtesy of Bill Clinton,

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24466326/
    Bill Clinton: Small-town ambassador

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/04/AR2008050401846.html
    In Small Towns, Bill Clinton Finds A Campaign Niche

    Sorry, but I've misplaced an AP article. It was a great story and touching in the way it made one truly understand Bill's sincerity and affinity for the country and country people.  They get it also.

    I'm going out on a limb and saying from my gut and
    a poll of polls, I predict the spread in NC will be between +1 to -5 for Hillary.

    Rather than bore you with the details, I'm predicting a late break towards Hillary, surprise surprise, in Indiana.  The net result, Hillary
    from +7 to +12.