How To Read A Poll: Part X

The NBC/WSJ Poll that has Obama leading McCain 47-41, also has a lesson in reading a poll. Let's look at this excerpt from the poll:

Twenty-two percent say that adding Clinton as Obama’s vice presidential running mate makes them more likely to vote for Obama in November; 21 percent say it makes them less likely to vote for him; and 55 percent say it makes no difference.

Hmmm. That does not sound very good. Sounds like Clinton is a wash at best. Ahh, but let's learn about how to read a poll. What is the real effect?

An Obama-Clinton ticket defeats a GOP one of McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by nine points, 51-42 percent.

Ahhh. Clinton pushes Obama over the magic 50% mark, up 4 to 51 from 47. That is called winning folks. It just goes to show you how meaningless some poll questions can be. And the more likely/less likely question is one of the most useless of all.

This is now a consistent finding - Clinton puts Obama over the top, adding 3-5 points to the ticket. It is time for a reality check on this -- Obama can put the election away with his VP pick - by choosing Hillary Clinton.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< FISA Court Asked FBI About Illegal Wiretapping | The Electoral Map >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You make me cry over and over again (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:21:24 AM EST
    If they simply had put Clinton on top, none of this would be happening!  

    Clinton would have been winning!!!  

    None of WHAT would be happening? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:08:38 AM EST
    Obama's leading by a decent margin.

    Obama is leading by (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:16:26 AM EST
    only 6 points -- and this is, of course, before the Republican attack machine has pressed forth all the products of its oppo research.

    And this is in contrast to the 16 point lead Democrats have when the question is asked, which party do you hope takes over the WH. (See my post below).


    The question there (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:29:20 AM EST
    is whether or not his victory bounce is over.  He's at 61-19 with those who voted for Clinton in the primary.  I think that certainly can come up to something more like 75-15 in the end, assuming some will sit it out.  That would push him up to something like 50% nationally.

    Whether or not that happens is up to Obama.  But I don't think we should just assume that the party's done coming together and that these are the "true" baseline numbers quite yet.


    Again, you fail to deal with (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:38:00 AM EST
    the more important point: the impact of the Republican attack machine has not in any way been factored into Obama's numbers.

    What's perfectly obvious is that the Republican attack machine will not be shouted down the way any and all attacks on Obama were in the Democratic primaries. No one is going to be able to say, Oh, how can you damage the presumptive nominee with this negative stuff -- he must be protected at all costs!

    Obama is the most vulnerable nominee that Democrats have ever put up in the last half century, McGovern included.

    I expect to see a real toll taken.


    We'll see. (none / 0) (#157)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:45:03 AM EST
    Personally, I think we've got more on McCain then they do on Obama.  When's the last time you saw a Keating Five story?  You know... a real scandal, involving actual wrongdoing on McCain's part rather than some dumbass statements by associates.  That's not staying under wraps come fall.

    The Wright-Rezko stuff isn't going to be as effective as the swifties were against Kerry; it's already been endlessly news-cycled to the point where I doubt there's much downside left.

    But hey, you want to live in fear that the mean ol' right is going to get us, be my guest.


    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:52:27 AM EST
    Obama has worse baggage than Kerry ever thought of having. You can't argue that this stuff won't be effective. It always has been so there's no evidence that it won't work this year. The only question will be is how damaging is it? Wright did some huge damage there's no doubt about that.

    Key word there is "did" some damage. (none / 0) (#162)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:03:37 AM EST
    As in, the damage is done already.  And Obama's still up.  Some people cared, and say they won't vote for him, and some didn't, and say they will.  You're saying if they see the tapes for the hundred and first time some people will suddenly change their minds?

    I'm not even going to go into the relative efficacy of personal attacks in an election coming in the middle of a recession and an unpopular war (low, FYI).  And we haven't turned the guns on McCain yet.  All in all, there's not much reason to gnash our teeth with a 6-point national lead.


    Here's (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:08:46 AM EST
    the deal: it's not Wright alone. It's the whole narrative using, Wright, Michelle, Pfleger etc. And people tend to forget until Wright pops back up again and then people remember those doubts they had about Obama. Obama has praised Wright effusively for years. He's in a box here.

    The fact that it's only a 6 pt lead should concern you. If all those things are such huge issues then why isn't Obama leading by 20 pts? That is a serious question. And it's why I think the election is winnable by McCain.


    That narrative's already out there. (none / 0) (#170)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:13:50 AM EST
    I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.  The Republicans have been trying to frame Obama that way for a couple of months.  It's worked where it'll work, and it hasn't where it won't.  Barring new developments (certainly possible), there's not much reason to think it'll get worse.  And Obama remains up, with good trendlines and room for growth w/r/t party unity.

    Woe is us, huh?


    The GOP (none / 0) (#209)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:37:19 PM EST
    hasn't even started on Obama. They aren't going to roll anything out until after Labor Day. And as far as the trendlines go, they went up and are now going down again.

    It's not "woe is us" it's the reality that Obama is an extremely weak candidate for the general election. Now, that doesn't mean that he can't win because certainly weak candidate have won. It does mean however that he will have to work harder and do better than he has so far. He simply can't plan to coast to Nov.


    It is clear you want to believe what you (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by hairspray on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:33:31 AM EST
    believe.  It is too bad the O team isn't a bit more circumspect in their opinion of him.  This morning Obama was seen shadowing a nurse for an hour in a hospital to "learn up" and attending an economic conference.  My neighbor who isn't against Obama said "Scary, isn't it?  He is NOW attending an economic conference"

    Some members of the Keating 5 (none / 0) (#160)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:01:13 AM EST
    are part of Obama's group.  I don't think Obama is going there.

    Could you please tell me (none / 0) (#176)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:25:30 AM EST
    which ones?  I hadn't been aware that any of the three living Dems were involved with Obama in any way, and I'd like to check it out.

    See below (none / 0) (#211)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:07:15 PM EST
    Um, big deal. (none / 0) (#213)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:36:35 PM EST
    So two of them endorsed him?  Several hundred Democratic politicians have done so; Deconcini and Reigel are just drops in the bucket, and aren't involved with the campaign in any real capacity.  That pales in comparison to McCain's actual personal  involvement in the scandal.

    Keating's a Dead Story (none / 0) (#161)
    by creeper on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:02:55 AM EST
    That happened in 1989.  How many times has McCain been re-elected since then?

    The McCain spin machine functioned so well after Keating that he came out of it with a reputation for being a stand-up guy...repentant and reformed.  It actually worked in his favor.

    Rezko and Wright are less than six months old.  Rezko may go by the boards, since voters are inured to financial scandals by now.  But Wright has legs, thanks to some unpleasant video.

    Americans understand greed.  "God damn America" is not in their book of forgivable offenses.


    I repeat (none / 0) (#163)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:03:44 AM EST
    you don't know what the Republicans have in the tank for oppo research. We most certainly have not yet seen the Wright/Pfleger/Ayers material presented in a way by a side that is not going to worry about the delicacies of protecting a presumptive nominee.

    Even if the Republicans had nothing further on Obama than what is already known -- quite unlikely, it seems to me -- the repackaging of that material to maximal effect will be very damaging to Obama.

    But, by all means, stick your head in the sand.


    The thing is, I've been following (none / 0) (#167)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:09:49 AM EST
    Obama's career since the early days and I can tell you that's there's just not much there.  The Ayers thing and some of his other friends/acquaintances from Hyde Park are probably the biggest potential issue.

    If you want to panic about hypothetical attacks, that's your business.  I'm by no means complacent, but you seem to be jumping at shadows.


    Really, (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:13:48 AM EST
    this is just incredibly naive.

    You haven't heard anything negative about Obama because no one was paying attention -- he wasn't that important.

    How many people in Illinois knew that Obama attended a church where the preacher yelled "God Damn America", and talked about chickens coming home to roost on the Sunday after 9/11? I'd be willing to bet that was news to you -- I can't imagine that it would not have made the news even in Illinois if the Alan Keyes campaign had known about it.

    So don't preach to us about your superior knowledge of Obama, OK? You have no idea what skeletons may lurk.


    I mean in terms of personal conduct. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:15:32 AM EST
    You can only make so much hay out of guilt by association.

    Not Much There (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by stevenb on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:49:04 AM EST
    I think that what will work against Obama is exactly that there ISN'T much there, in terms of experience, knowledge and years in government working bi-partisan.  That is McCain's golden nugget, because he has.  I don't care for McCain, but seriously, he isn't Bush, and he does have everything that Obama lacks.  

    Obama's largest liability as President is his lack of experience, which I'm sure the Republicans and McCain will take full advantage of starting, oh, about now.

    Scandals can always be forgiven -- especially if you're Christian -- but lack of knowledge and experience isn't something one can make up during one summer campaign...


    The problem I have with Obama is the (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by hairspray on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:46:00 AM EST
    campaign lies about him.  Okay distorts. He was raised by a single mother on food stamps?  Really?  When I dug around I found a boy raised in pretty upper middle class standards, elite schools and no real hardship. And they continue to peddle this story.  I think the GOP will refute this a lot when they want to pull the Hillary "hillbillies" to their side.  Same story with older women:  they kept pushing the "over 65" meme.  Pretty demeaning and it was meant to be.  But when you look at the breakout, that was the only group that went solidly for Clinton.  BUT Obama began losing women pretty solidly at 40 (actually splitting them). I could go on for hours on this stuff.

    baggage (none / 0) (#189)
    by margph on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:23:36 AM EST
    Pegasus, you are obviously not old enough to remember the Willy Horton ads.  As the saying goes, "You ain't seen nothin' yet."  

    Wait until you see Rev. Jeremiah Wright everyday, all day, screaming "Damn this and damn that."  It is coming right after Denver.  The Republicans really know how to be nasty.

    Rezko?  That is another gold mine for them.


    In 1988 Poppy wasn't running (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:34:15 AM EST
    with a REpublican Recession and a Costly Unpopular War, nor was Reagan by then quite the unpopular incumbent that he was during Iran-Contra and the Repub REcecssion of 1982.  He also was greatly advantaged by having a hapless wimpy opponent who refused to "dignify my opponent's charges with a response".  

    Say what you will about O, and the Repubs -- and a certain number of curious pro-McCain posters at TL will, and often -- O didn't prevail against Hillary by rolling over meekly.

    Character attack ads will get far less traction this year as all that will be trumped by voters' concerns about the tanking Repub economy.

    Advantage Dems.  By a solid margin.


    Keating Five? HA HA HA HA. (none / 0) (#210)
    by MarkL on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:41:40 PM EST
    Cronyism is hilarious... I guess. (none / 0) (#218)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:08:50 PM EST
    10 comments per 24 hours (none / 0) (#219)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:14:50 PM EST
    New commentors are limited to 10 comments per 24 hours.  Please come back tomorrow.  Thanks.  :)

    Mmkay. (none / 0) (#220)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:25:04 PM EST
    Out of curiosity, how long am I "new"?  And where's a FAQ I can look at that has that rule and any others I might not know?  I've been having trouble finding one.

    10 comments (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:37:54 PM EST
    for typically 30 days.  The 10 comment rule is per Jeralyn.

    May 08


    Well (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:26:17 AM EST
    it's not going to happen. The Obama campaign and their minions can't seem to keep from trashing Hillary. To me that's an obvious message about her chances on the ticket.

    by the time Obama finishes throwing people under t (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:36:42 AM EST
    Hillary will be the only one left to offer VP to.

    Even assuming.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:30:12 AM EST
    ...I accepted your starting grounds, if the roles were reversed, the rabid anti-Obama wing (small though it be) would be OK with an Obama VP?

     If Obama is such an "empty suit," why risk an Obama presidency? And if willing to risk it, why OK with a Clinton VP spot if in fact no one votes for the VP spot?

     Don't make no sense, IMO.


    You comment makes no sense (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:43:21 AM EST
    Who argued that the VP makes no difference? The argument is that Hillary Clinton makes a 4 point difference. I cite yet another poll that provides that info.

    Hillary for President!! (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:48:14 AM EST
    Not VP!  Not Secretary of State!  Not Supreme Court Justice!  (I think that last one is just an absolute HOOT!)



    Reply... (1.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:46:49 AM EST
    ...to my on topic posts, please, and not my responses to others.  

    Excuse me? (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:49:22 AM EST
    you are instructing me as to which comments I can reply to.

    Careful Alec.


    BTD, it's more than 4 points (none / 0) (#187)
    by zebedee on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:13:30 AM EST
    From the argument you made on an earlier post, when it's announced that she's being bypassed for VP, his numbers will drop. Possibly even lower than his pre-clinching levels as a lot of her supporters will become disaffected.

    His current numbers have an expection of Hillary as VP partially built-in (like a stock that doesn't go up much when a company announces good results because the market was already expecting them). So the real comparison is between Hillar as VP (+4 from today) to someone else as VP (-n from today). n is probably at least 6 and maybe as much as 16, depending on how the VP announcement is made.


    Obama as VP (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:45:22 AM EST
    Would be fine.  

    Be good experience for him.  


    I second this! (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:50:04 AM EST
    Obama for VP!!!

    whoop!  whoop!  whoop!  whoop!!


    I don't know one of us (5.00 / 13) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:51:59 AM EST
    Who hated Obama going into this.  Not one.

    1.5 years of character attacks on someone we respect combined with the "zeal" of people like Alec, what do people expect?


    So true (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:37:19 AM EST
    so very, very true.

    They'll never get it because they honestly can't fathom any reason why someone would dislike Obama other than racism.


    Actually (5.00 / 8) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:09:24 AM EST
    the problem that a lot of people have with Obama is the fact that he really isn't qualified to be President. So, yes, him as VP would probably be okay.

    If he's not qualified (none / 0) (#200)
    by oldpro on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:49:40 AM EST
    to be president, he's not qualified to be vice president either....given how many of our vice presidents have inadvertently become president in my adult lifetime:  Truman, LBJ, Ford.  It matters.

    In this case, however, if Hillary were the nominee she would have to take Obama to keep the AA vote in the Dem column.  

    The Obama team doesn't think the reverse is true, since 'Clinton Dems' haven't threatened any riots in Denver or anywhere else...or strongarmed any supers who endorsed Obama.

    Tell ya what, tho...we little old ladies are rethinking that strategy.  It's a mistake to make us mad.  We don't have a lot to lose nowadays.

    Just sayin'....


    Ahhh! Or maybe not. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by germanliberal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:37:04 AM EST
    Given that this is supposed to be a lesson in reading polls, I would suggest looking very closely at the actual tickets. They are McCain/Romney vs. Obama/Clinton. I'll have a wild guess here and say that the lead probably has as much to do with Romney's "appeal" as it does with Clinton's.

    Personally, I find the first figure much more revealing. We still don't know the breakdown of those numbers, though. It would, for example, be rather meaningless if strong Republicsns were even less likely to vote for Obama with Clinton on the ticket.

    In general, I don't think VP polls mean all that much. For instance, name recognition always plays a role, and that can be expected to help Edwards and Clinton, or Gore for that matter. What is relatively reliable at this point is that the party is not so utterly divided that Clinton would have to be on the ticket. That's a good thing, either way. Obama can win without making her VP, but if he does it's not out of weakness.

    Ha! (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:41:05 AM EST
    It is a ROMNEY EFFECT not a Clinton effect? That is one of the more ridiculous comments we have had here.

    You haven't answered... (1.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:42:57 AM EST
    ...the more obvious and substantive critiques of your analysis.

    I saw no substantive critique (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:47:58 AM EST
    but I did respond to your comments.

    Ha? (none / 0) (#95)
    by germanliberal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:04:17 AM EST
    That was not my point. I'm arguing that if you want to show how to read polls, you have to look at what the poll says, and only that. This poll says McCain/Romney lose decisively against Obama/Clinton. That's good news for Obama, for Clinton, and for the Dems as a whole.

    I would just be careful in interpreting the poll. Clinton supposedly brings in women and blue collar workers. Romney is probably not very strong in those demographics. I'm sure McCain knows that, and he gets to chose after Obama. So this is a very hypothetical matchup, and other McCain VP choices may be much stronger also on Clinton territory.

    I think the first and most important lesson about reading polls (including those showing a healthy Obama lead now) is that you need a bunch of them to be able to draw any conclusions whatsoever.  


    There have been a bunch of them (polls) (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:20:21 AM EST
    this is not the first one with this result, indeed it is the FOURTH.

    As for what your point was - you wrote "I'll have a wild guess here and say that the lead probably has as much to do with Romney's "appeal" as it does with Clinton's."

    I think I read you quite correctly.

    Look, you seem to not have a good knowledge base on this issue. do more research.


    I'm skeptical about methodology, not content (none / 0) (#181)
    by germanliberal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:47:28 AM EST
    First, yes sure. My point about Romney is that he is a weak VP and does not challenge Clinton's unique strengths. Other GOP VP choice are likely to do so. So asking specifically for Romney matters. I remember two other polls (Gallup and CNN), which rather weirdly put McCain up alone against Obama/Clinton. The effect was smaller there, but that doesn't prove or disprove much, either.

    My problem is that hypotheticals are difficult in surveys and VP matchups at this point are about as hypothetical as it gets. Good survey methodologies go for straightforward questions that don't require a lot of imagination. This is why I don't really understand your conclusion that the VP matchup figures are somehow more informative.


    I agree (none / 0) (#109)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:22:32 AM EST
    I don't want Hillary to be in the VP slot so adding Hillary to the Obama ticket is a negative for me.  However, I definitely do not want Mitt Romney in a better position to be President in the future so Romney in the VP position might make me not vote for  McCain.  That double combo would be a real dilemma for me. Who McCain picks for VP will matter.

    The freakin' DNC got the ticket upside down! (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:51:27 AM EST
    Clinton on top!

    Obama on the bottom!

    Can I get a witness??!!  :) :)

    To what end? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:52:44 AM EST
    Clinton to the top!! (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:57:12 AM EST
    Oh yeah!!

    You got me dancing here!!  Clinton on top and we put the Obama on the bottom!  Just like nature planned it, baby!  Women should always be on top!!    


    I'm cranking here....  Gotta get the train rollin'...  Woohoo!!!

    (C'mon Armando!  It's a train!!)  


    Yeah baby!!!!!! (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:59:18 AM EST
    Let's start a movement!!!!

    Seems that's what works in politics these days.


    Umm (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:58:23 AM EST

    I wonder how much difference Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:02:42 AM EST
    makes in Florida, New Mexico, etc. (possible swing states with a substantial Latino voting population).

    I suspect she'd make a big difference.

    Well, maybe not (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by mikeyleigh on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:05:43 AM EST
    the entire world.  Most of it, yeah.

    Like Edgar08, I went into this campaign liking what I knew of Obama.  I didn't just give him my antipathy on a whim; he's earned every bit of it.

    I guess what it comes down to is (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:12:33 AM EST
    whether the Obama people will ignore the state-by-state polling, and go out of their way to avoid what it is showing, or keep the suspense going and hope that "the Clinton problem" just goes away.

    Apparently, they have learned no lessons from a primary season where, despite their concerted efforts to make it happen, Clinton would not leave the race.

    Whatever.  They will do what they will do, and consequences will follow.  Maybe a couple more weeks of increased - negative - media attention will remind them of the good ol' days when Clinton took all the heat, allowing Obama to be above the fray.  I guess it all depends on how much he misses his media darling status.

    Obama may not want to need Clinton, but pretending that he doesn't just makes him look petulant and immature.

    you bring up an excellent (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by ccpup on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:22:46 AM EST
    often overlooked point.

    Obama was allowed to appear above-the-fray because Hillary took all the media incoming fire.  Now that she's -- allegedly -- out of the way, they've turned their attention to him and I'm suspecting that the Primary (which he thought was so difficult) will seem like a wonderful memory by the time we round out of July August.

    With several Congresspeople/Delegates refusing to support him and unwilling to attend the Convention -- has that every happened to a presumptive Nominee before?  I don't know -- and Barack's continuing inability to run a strong campaign, it's quite possible we could see a floor fight in Denver to save the Democrat's chances in November.

    Because by then it'll be more than obvious that with Barack at the top of the ticket, the Dems will be headed for four more years in the wilderness.


    I hope he picks Daschle as his VP (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:46:20 AM EST
    and feckem both.

    The biggest problem I have with (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:27:45 AM EST
    Clinton as VP is this:

    I think she should have top billing.
    I don't want her to be on a losing ticket.
    I don't know if I would vote for her in second spot since I think she deserves top billing.  

    I would be very torn with a ticket with Clinton as VP.  

    I kind of wish she wouldn't accept a VP spot.

    I'm here (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:41:47 AM EST
    because I'm a registered Democrat!!!!!!

    And you?  Are you a Democrat too?  

    Is there a law that says all Democrats must believe the same things?  

    Or can we kind of believe what we want?  Do you think?

    I'm a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton?  Did you support Hillary Clinton?  If not, what are you doing here?  The rest of us supported Hillary Clinton!!!!!!  

    I hope I answered your questions properly.  I will be voting for Democrats who are running for other offices besides the Presidency -- and perhaps I'll change my mind about Obama -- but that is going to be tough work for your ilk!!    

    So Hillary received 18 million votes in spite of (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by carmel on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:42:12 AM EST
    her high negatives? Which polls are being used to tout Hillary's "high negatives"? It seems the media used everything to slam Hillary over the primary season, including "the voters just don't like her". Well, they liked her enough to vote for her over the chosen Obama. Is it possible that competency wins over likability? Or are we to believe the media's spin of the election and treat it like it's a junior high SGA "popularity contest"?

    I've heard (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:01:05 AM EST
    That's what this has been all along.

    Funny about those unfavorables for Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:21:26 AM EST
    As I think Cream City pointed out a few weeks ago, even where she had high(er) unfavorables, she still won.

    Most folks just switch to whatever polling stat proves their case.  But she won the popular vote -- oops -- and a good 20% of her supporters look ready to support McCain now.  As much as I'd like to think that 20% is PUMA-like folks, realistically, it's probably not.  It's more likely to be folks who crossed over just for her.  The 'but people don't like her' talking point is getting old.  And Obama's not doing much to recapture that 20%.

    I don't agree with BTD on the result -- I don't want Clinton to run for VP for a bunch of reasons.  But the argument against her as VP if a Democratic victory is what you want is a big fat 'maybe'.

    Maybe there's a running mate that won't provoke further defections to McCain and stay-homes.  Maybe McCain will pick a running mate which will take him out of contention altogether.  Maybe the Republican 527s will take a holiday this year.  Maybe the MSM will continue his media darling status.  Maybe Bill will refuse to be vetted.  Maybe Sebelius will solve Obama's 'woman problem'.

    If Obama were truly kicking butt in the polls right now, risking the whole show on a bunch of maybes would maybe make sense.  But it sure doesn't now.


    huh? (none / 0) (#110)
    by tben on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:23:40 AM EST
    All elections are popularity contests. People go to the polls and choose who they like. What else do you think it is?

    Hillary has high negatives in every poll ever done on the subject. Half the people in the country like her, half cant stand her. Getting 18 million votes (out of an electorate of over 200 million) in your own party's primary is not inconsistent with that fact.


    But the electorate of 200 million did not vote, (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:57:20 AM EST
    Hillary received more than l/2 of all of the votes. I'd call that pretty impessive and a force to be reckoned with. And, by the way, citing Hillary's negatives, we must not forget that as the primary went on, Obama's negatives increased up to Hillary's negatives!!

    not quite (none / 0) (#188)
    by tben on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:23:16 AM EST
    most recent CBS and Gallup polls, fav/unfav

    HRC: 41-39
    BHO: 41-31

    HRC: 54-43
    BHO: 58-37


    Here's a quite (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:45:49 AM EST
    unsurprising result from the poll:
    Sen. Obama leads Sen. McCain by 47% to 41%, a spread that is twice the edge he had in the previous poll, in late April. Still, that lead is significantly smaller than the Democratic Party's 16-point advantage, 51% to 35%, when voters are asked, without candidates' names, which party they want to win the White House.

    The record unpopularity of President Bush and the Republican Party, combined with economic worries among voters and a broad desire for change, would normally make this "the single best year for an Obama-type candidacy, and the single worst year for a McCain-type candidacy," says Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with Republican Neil Newhouse.

    But Sen. Obama continues to do poorly among white male voters, according to the poll. More ominous is his weakness among white suburban women, who generally are open to Democratic candidates and whose votes could be decisive. While Sen. Obama has a slight lead among white women generally, a plurality of suburbanites prefer Sen. McCain.

    This portends the sort of damage that Obama will wreak on the Democratic brand, depressing its appeal greatly.

    I have very little doubt but that Republicans will, quite successfully, be able to beat back massive losses downticket by tying other Democrats to Obama.

    Thanks loads, Senator Obama.

    As I've said before, (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:47:07 AM EST
    and as this poll shows, if Obama wins in November, it will not be because of who he is, but despite it.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:48:11 AM EST
    the downticket losses can be minimized by throwing Obama under the bus like Childers did. I expect lots of this going forward.

    Do you (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:46:21 AM EST
    not realize that TUCC is a huge problem? It it okay for Rev. Wright to be a racist? That's what you are implying.

    Rev. Wright is a big issue for me (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:57:31 AM EST
    What he said about the Clintons is a big issue for me.

    I don't know if he's racist or not.

    I know he was a pastor at a mega-church and now has a giant house.

    Some of us "zealots" (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:13:45 AM EST
    were never "Democrat zealots".  My support was and always has been for Hillary. I never once said that I would support the Democrat no matter who it was. Many Hillary voters are independents or Republican crossovers, and I don't mean the Rush Limbaugh listener types. I think that's a disconnect that some Obama supporters have.  It's why the "if you're a good Democrat" argument fails.

    Fine (none / 0) (#103)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:15:54 AM EST
    But this site supports the presumptive Democratic nominee, not McCain.

     So freerepublic, or a third party site, is more up your alley now.


    Presumptive nominee is right (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:55:47 AM EST
    When Obama's the actual presidential nominee I, a Proud Liberal and Independent, will consider whether voting for him (and the Dem "brand" LOL) will

    (a) be in the best interest of returning the core Dem values I cherish back into government or

    (b) simply guarantee a century of oppressive conservatism, with Republicans having their way whether in the minority or majority and Dems just showing up to get their lights punched out.

    Obama's more interested in fighting DEMS than in standing up against the hard right, who he's embracing hard.


    This Site Welcomes Civil Arguments (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by creeper on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:18:24 AM EST
    Your comment is a classic example of the OFB mindset.  "If you don't agree with us, go away."  Do you have any idea how many votes that attitude has cost him?

    The mind-blowing news here is that in a year where Bush's approval rating is hovering at twenty percent and even Republicans are sick of him, Obama can't muster more than six points against an aging, warmongering pol.


    Yeah, well, see... (none / 0) (#178)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:32:43 AM EST
    a) GOP picked McCain for a reason, because they knew he was the most electable.  A "maverick" Rep, so to speak.

    b) The site welcomes civil dialogue but is attracting pro-McCain bots.  The site is talk"left," not "striaght talk express." And this site, unlike others, has moderators.  So no, this is not just about welcoming differing points of view.  These are attacks on the presumptive Democratic nominee, often personal and awful.


    I don't think I've heard (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:51:19 AM EST
    a single person here say that he or she is "pro-McCain". There are several of us who are outraged at the  behavior of the DNC and will find whatever way we can to send them a protest - which may mean a vote for McCain, but nobody who supported Senator Clinton deserves the name "McCainbot". The attacks here on Senator Obama refer to his lack of experience, his associations, and his ability to change his stand on a dime. Those are not "personal attacks".  He has put his judgment out there as a reason to vote for him so it is within bounds to question it.

    well thank goodness then (none / 0) (#192)
    by tben on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:33:29 AM EST
    that we didnt nominate Clinton, given that she does no better, and, in some polls worse against Mccain.

    So you want TL to become (none / 0) (#168)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:12:38 AM EST
    an Obama echo chamber? I would think a little disagreement as long as it isn't disagreeable would be good for discussion.  Aren't you interested in how Obama's message is playing out to people who aren't committed to voting for him no matter what?

    Were pro-Obama shills... (none / 0) (#177)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:29:20 AM EST
    ...welcome during the primary? I don't think so.

     Changing the rules of the game in midstream?

     And that is kind of the issue, for those of us who waited around and engaged.  And promised to vote for the Democratic nominee.



    Yes they were (none / 0) (#185)
    by CST on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:09:34 AM EST
    As long as you were respectful.

    I came here all during the primary as an "Obama Shill".  So have a number of others.  No one told us not to voice our opinion.  Disagreements are fine as long as they stay respectful and don't get personal.


    that is a total untruth (none / 0) (#191)
    by tben on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:30:26 AM EST
    unless you consider "being respectful" to mean keeping quiet. I have seen many Obama supporters driven away from this site, some were never disrespectful in the least, some were kinda disrespectful to Clinton, but not even close to the levels of disrespect hurled at Obama on a daily basis. Yet they were troll-swarmed and sometimes banned.

    This was NOT a site where there could be respectful discourse between the two sides. It was, at best, an oaisis where Clinton supporters could have quiet discourse amongst themselves without much challange. But that came at the cost of being totally thuggish to even respectful Obama supporters.


    I know you're new here so maybe you (none / 0) (#208)
    by tree on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:36:32 PM EST
    don't know any better. But Alec 82 has been here since late February and made over 700 comments here. Some were respectful, some not so much. He hasn't been driven off or banned. And CST has been here just as long and knows what he's(she's?) talking about.  I think you owe Jeralyn a big apology for your untrue statement.

    Are you saying that YOU (none / 0) (#201)
    by tree on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:54:00 AM EST
    weren't welcome here during the primary season? I know you got flak for your posts, but Jeralyn never banned you just because you supported Obama.

     Do you really think it necessary to have a blog purge now that your favorite candidate is supported by Jeralyn? Should we have a formal ceremony where the Hillary supporters are made to prostrate themselves and admit the error of their ways, or be sent off to the reeducation camps?

    As far as I understand Jeralyn's rules, as long as we all abide by the blog rules then we get to stay. The only think that's changed is that those that don't support Obama are now under the rules for opposition posters, the same ones you were under a few weeks back.  



    faulty logic, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by tben on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:20:42 AM EST
    The poll does not prove that Obama should choose Hillary. To do so, it would need to show that all other VP choices fail to push Obama over 50%. It doesn't even report results for any other VP choice.

    For all we know, choosing someone else, like Mark Warner, of Bill Richardson, might push him up to an even bigger lead.

    I'm not saying that is necessarily true, just that this poll is not evidence in favor of Hillary over any other choice.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:36:04 AM EST
    5 points is a LOT for a VP to add to the ticket.  It defies reason to suggest that Warner or Richardson might add 5 points, frankly.  But yeah, maybe Justin Timberlake would add 20 points in the VP slot, you never know!

    huh? (none / 0) (#123)
    by tben on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:48:20 AM EST
    Sorry, but I dont see your point at all, nor your math.

    The straight head to head had 12 pts for undecided. The matchup with VPs had 7 points undecided. All the poll shows is that fleshing out the ticket causes 5 pts of undecideds to make up their mind.

    Hillary pulled 4 pts, and Romney 1, for a net gain of 3. Thats great, or at least good. I am not saying that Hillary is a weak choice. I am just saying that it is not obvious at all that other choices would do any worse.

    Even if you assume that they do - then say it that way. I assume Hillary is the best choice. Dont tout this poll as evidence for that though, because it doesnt provide the relevant comparisons to be informative about the respective strengths of different choices.


    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:01:21 AM EST
    I'm not touting the poll for anything.  I'm saying that, as a general proposition, 5 points is a lot for a VP to add to a ticket.  Absent hard evidence to the contrary, it's silly to believe that a relative unknown like Mark Warner could add more than 5 points nationally.

    That's not a correct characterization (4.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:37:12 AM EST
    of BTD's argument, which is:

    Here's the thing, Obama CAN win without Clinton. He WILL win WITH Clinton.

    There's very little state by state polling on VPs, most of what I've seen is from SUSA, and Clinton gives him the biggest advantage over any other VP candidate, excluding Gore.

    Disclaimer: I don't defend SUSA's numbers, it's just all that's out there, afaik.


    really? (none / 0) (#127)
    by tben on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:52:29 AM EST
    is there a place to see those SUSA polls? I remember seeing a few, coming out in drips and drabs, and the ones I saw didnt include Clinton at all in the matchups. I seem to recall Edwards was by far the strongest of those that they tested.

    Yes go to SUSA's website n/t (none / 0) (#205)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:10:41 PM EST
    BLT fuses politics and theology (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Josey on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:35:05 AM EST
    the spiritual component of Christianity is secondary.
    Obama is too Bush for me.

    I thin (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Mary Mary on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:46:03 AM EST
    you started posting here because you are trolling.


    we need to keep a close eye on TX... (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:48:33 AM EST
    There are a lot of Electoral votes to be had in TX.  If Obama can keep TX within a few points of McCain, I think he'll be able to pull it out in the caucus they will have after the polls close.

    Oh, wait a minute, I forgot, nevermind....

    ROTFL! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by zyx on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:39:09 AM EST
    Your play book is out of date. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:50:04 AM EST
    If you really had "signed up" when you said you did, you would have been aware of how we have been over and over your talking points. Your tone needs some improving as well. We are not the enemy, none of us, and we prefer to "discuss" the issues, pro and/or con, not argue them.

    If You Are An Obama Supporter The Rulz (5.00 / 5) (#140)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:08:58 AM EST
    say that you are incapable of making a racially insensitive remark. Exhibit A: McCaskill's remark after Obama's Greatest Speech on Race Evah. To paraphrase: It is the first time a black leader approached the subject without portraying themselves as a victim.

    Now I thought that was a serious put down of MLK and other black leaders but since Claire supports Obama it was just fine and dandy.

    Speaking of other polls... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:12:59 AM EST
    I did some tossing and turning last night over the Gallup "poll" (really aggregated results of tracking polls in May) which was mentioned last night. My previous comment is here  (and I made a couple of other comments expanding on that a bit).

    What bothered me last night was wondering why Gallup had done such an odd (to me) thing - pooling all their results for the month. The object of tracking polls as I understand it is to follow trends or to see if there are any, so aggregating the results would hide any trends that showed up.

    A big problem with election polling in general is that you're always taking a "snapshot" of the evolving opinions of the voters. (I always tell my statistics classes that the only poll that matters is the one that takes place in the voting booths on election day.) Here it's like we've been given a blurry time-lapse photo - do you see what I mean?

    The benefit they get from aggregating is that they end up with a huge sample, 25000 people, which means very small (mathematical) margin of error and that may make the margins of errors in the subgroups tolerably small as well.

    But dang, I would have liked to see the trends...

    Sorry to be a bit OT (off the topic of the effect of a choice of Clinton as VP), but I wondered if BTD had put his mad poll-parsing skillz to this one. Any thoughts on this "poll"?

    When Polls are Aggregated (none / 0) (#195)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:35:05 AM EST
    How does one know that they are not polling any of the same voters as opposed to 25,000 different voters?

    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by abiodun on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:21:20 AM EST
    "Nifari" Bill Clinton is the best Dem brand. Pls do not perpetrate RW talking points here! While dems demonize Clinton, repubs built St Reagan!

    Well apparently Obama reveres (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:24:56 AM EST
    St. Reagan and wants to attract his followers.  

    Here, here! (none / 0) (#152)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:33:15 AM EST
    I just finished ranting about this. You've said it much more calmly!

    I mean, hear, hear! (none / 0) (#154)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:37:35 AM EST
    I guess... more coffee needed...

    Again, you cannot post your (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:35:06 AM EST
    comments w/o insult. Too bad..is this tone the "change" we've been hearing so much about? Jeralyn has said that we can discuss Obama v McCain, but rationally w/o insult and name calling. McCain is not the enemy...he is running for the same office as Obama and I think that s/b respected. No one is asking you to agree with him, or like him, or vote for him. But look who is is courting and Obama is not. I betcha I've been a dem longer than you..I am educated, informed (no tunnel vision here), raising young dems. and I am a leader..I value your opinions because it makes the world go 'round, please value mine, both are valuable. Thanks.

    BTD, do you know if (4.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:31:15 AM EST
    the size of the post-clinch bump Obama is getting is about what should be expected?

    I guess it's hard to judge yet how many Hillary supporters are going his way.

    This was always an on the margins thing (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:36:58 AM EST
    Chuck Todd said it needed to go to double digits even to 15.

    Obviously it is not doing that.

    Here's the thing, Obama CAN win without Clinton. He WILL win WITH Clinton.


    since the electoral college results .... (4.00 / 1) (#63)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:32:56 AM EST
    are NOT based on a national popular vote, wouldn't it be much more helpful to use individual state polls and come up with the electoral college score ihstead?

    Do these national polls even ATTEMPT to take into account a sample of the entire country?  Or, is it possible that one pol could lead another by a few points, but that lead all come from a few NON SWING states that don't really matter anyway?

    Sure (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:39:02 AM EST
    But it is rare that the popular vote winner not win the electoral college.

    there is certainly a higher chance this year as Obama has strength in deep red states that he can not win but that can help his popular vote result.

    It is rather ironic that an Obama vote COULD yield LESS Electoral votes than a McCain vote. It is ironic because an Obama vote in the primaries yielded more delegates than a Clinton vote.


    i guess what I'm trying to say (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:42:17 AM EST
    is that even though the national poll is showing Obama with a lead, isn't it quite possible that most of that lead is coming from states like NY, CA, IL etc and making the natinal lead look BETTER that it might really be?

    their methodology (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:58:54 AM EST
    should prevent that.  yet it could oversample other areas too.  Quite a lot of Obama's vote comes from the south. But none of it will get him any Electoral College pts.

    here are some probs (4.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:53:06 AM EST
    First he's the presumtive President id=f they keep polling him as the winner.

    (That means the press will attempt to upset him at some point.

    Also Obama may get inflated numbers in the south which reflect his popularity among black voters. (approx Half the black population lives there)  We know he's unlikley to win any ECV points in the south.

    It's built for a repeat of 2000 however uncommon those split decisions have been in past.


    We aren't likely to see (none / 0) (#71)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:37:39 AM EST
    good state by state polls for weeks or months yet.

    So we'll make do with whatever less-than-ideal data we can get.


    It depends on the state, doesn't it? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:17:22 AM EST
    For your analysis to be at all meaningful, she would need to deliver the following states: PA, OH, WV, AR and, if propoganda is to be believed, KY.  Without that delivery with a Clinton VP pick, why do you assume she would not be harmful in CO, NM and NV?

     BTW, I don't think 50% in polls is a magic mark.  This is about electoral votes, not popular votes.  

    Well if Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by mikeyleigh on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:22:23 AM EST
    could deliver PA, OH, WV, AR, and even for fun say KY, then CO, NM and NV probably don't matter when looking at the electoral map.

    That said, I still want her to stay in the Senate.


    You missed... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:23:47 AM EST
    ...the "without that delivery" language. ;-)



    I didn't miss (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by mikeyleigh on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:26:55 AM EST
    it; I assumed said delivery.  Much the same way you seem to be assuming that Obama can win CO, NM, and NV without Hillary.

    Nope (none / 0) (#9)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:32:17 AM EST
    Reread.  I make no assumptions about the ability of either candidate to deliver any states.  Particularly not against that "maverick" McCain.  The Clinton brand has high negatives in the West, fairly or unfairly.

    In which states? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:46:17 AM EST
    Not New Mexico or Nevada.

    Based on skewed... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:49:35 AM EST
    ...primary results?

     You'll need to cite some polls on swing voters to get me to buy that argument.  If she was a sure thing in NM the vote would not have been nearly as close as it actually was.


    Excuse me (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:51:50 AM EST
    you need to cite some polls for your assertion that Clinton is a drag on Obama in New Mexico and Nevada.

    I have seen polling in Colorado on the subject but nothing out of New Mexico or Nevada.

    Where is your evidence?


    Oh I get it now (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:00:22 AM EST
    If I asserted, without backing it up with a link:

     1. Obama cannot win Latino votes

     I would be welcomed, my comments unchallenged. See, for example, multiple posts you do not bother to monitor.

     But if I assert:

     2. Clinton would have a problem in the West.

     I not only need evidence, I need link upon link.  

     Fine: Here.


    You chose to discuss MY post (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:35:12 AM EST
    And I am responding, btew you insisted I respond to them. to your comments about my post.

    Some silly comment not about my post's argument is not worth responding to imo. But you knock yourself out.


    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:45:37 AM EST
    Colorado 9 EVs. Nevada and New Mexico, no evidence at all that Clinton hurts.

    You know where Clinton hurts Obama? Utah, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota.

    To make a states argument will only help the argument. Clinton will help in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Count the electoral votes.


    Outreach to right-wing religious types (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:48:22 AM EST
    has had me thinking ever since it was posted.

    I think it's probably a very clear sign that Obama is going to focus on trying to make himself attractive to the right and assumes the regular Dem. voters will have no choice but to vote for him and so he can afford to take them for granted.  I think we're going to see more and more evidence of that as time goes by.

    Therefore, I think he will not put Hillary on the ticket but look for as conservative a Dem as he can find, or a low-profile unobjectionable Republican, if there is such a thing, probably pro-life.  (Not a Hagel, he's hated by Republicans.)

    He wants to get some of those Republican votes, but maybe more importantly suppress Republican voter energy for voting against him.  The Repubs are not wild about McCain to begin with, so he'll try to look as unthreatening as possible so they don't feel compelled to come out and vote for McCain in droves anyway.

    I'm thinking this is a big part of the reason for trying to undercut the fund-raising for 527s and other outside groups.  He does not, for one big example, want them calling attention to McCain's anti-choice record, and he won't do it himself, because to do so would highlight him as pro-choice, even though he's been careful from the beginning to fudge on the issue.

    In his camp's mind, I bet, the focus of attention is on Hillary's high negatives with the Republican base.

    I'm seeing little evidence, so far at least, that his GE strategy is thoughtfully based on state-by-state electoral math.  It seems more to be based on the idea he can ride into office on a great wave of bipartisan votes and claim a god-like mandate for whatever he wants to do.  And of course, be adored uncritically by all but us bitter clingy washed-up old ladies.

    Almost all the VP guessing going on has been on the assumption he wants to consolidate the Dem. Party voters and mend fences with Hillary voters.  I don't think so anymore.  I think he's more likely to be looking for someone who will appeal to, or at least not turn off, Republican voters.  I think Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy are intended as cover for that.


    Running to The Right? (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:04:55 AM EST
    That relies heavily on image control.  Not message control, which is far easier, but image control is susceptible to media framing and 527 attacks.  If Obama can hold onto his Media Darling status, it might work.  If he can't....

    If that's the tactic, then there's no possible way he'd pick Hillary.  He'd pick someone who appeals to The Right.

    The one question I want pollers to answer is:
    Who IS the Democratic Base now?

    Ask it once a month and see if the answer changes.


    Quite. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Landulph on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:55:15 AM EST
    The 527s will compensate for the GOP base's lack of enthusiasm for McCain by making it about Obama. They will convince the "extra-chromasome conservatives" [in Lee Atwater's phrase] that Obama is either a crypto-Muslim Manchurian candiate, or the literal individual prophecied as the Antichrist in the Book of Revalation.

    I disagree. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:53:28 AM EST
    I know the meme they'll use on Obama, but I won't mention it here.  I'll just say that it's highly unlikely we'll make it to November without seeing it.  I'm just curious if they'll ever frame it explicitly or not.

    The tactics you mention are Rally The Base memes.  In order to suppress the vote, you need to be more subtle, less whacko.


    My prediction for Veep: (none / 0) (#128)
    by Landulph on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:52:50 AM EST
    Sam Nunn. Closing off any chance I will vote for Obama in the fall.

    In order to attract Reagan dems (none / 0) (#137)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:03:50 AM EST
    and repub. lites, the Dem. platform will have to be amended and revised to accommodate and attract those voters, ie a more conservative slant. Dem. voters will notice...I have always agreed with BTD that Hillary is his best choice. He will not pick her, however, Pelosi, Rein etal have said she will not be the vp. This ticket would allow me to vote for him, otherwise, bye bye!!

    sorry, should be Pelosi and Reid!! (none / 0) (#138)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:05:00 AM EST
    Good (none / 0) (#141)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:09:20 AM EST
    Step 1: Senator Clinton is a Reagan Democrat.

     Hence not liberal.

     A moment of clarity.  Let us never speak of Obama's "conservatism" again.


    I haven't a clue what you are (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:16:35 AM EST
    talking about..your tone is offensive, however, I will try and respond based on speculation..Obama will bring a "conservative" slant in. He already has, ie. meeting with some religious leaders, saying there will be this sort of agenda in an "Obama white house," Senator Clinton is a liberal dem. whose message has not changed since day 1, Obama's message has greatly changed. Watch the dem platform, it will, imo, not sound like the very dem platform of days gone by. Hillary, imo, would outshine him, he must shine for ego's sake..she brings gravitas, respectability, experience and class to the ticket..it is a winning ticket, like it or not.

    Alec 82, Hillary is a (none / 0) (#165)
    by mikeyleigh on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:07:34 AM EST
    Reagan Democrat.  I wonder, just how much rent do you pay to live in that alternate universe of yours?

    Huh? (none / 0) (#186)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:10:57 AM EST
    Who the heck said Hillary is a Reagan Democrat?

    C'mon BTD (none / 0) (#83)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:48:28 AM EST
    Hillary is the BEST!  She's absolutely the BEST!

    I know it's hard to admit it, but she's really really good.  She can lift those big heavy states into the Democrat column because she's a weight-lifter, a vote-lifter...  She's just the best!!  

    You love her!!!!  C'mon!  I know it's hard to admit but she's just the greatest female politican alive!  

    She's HAWT!!!!  Ask Paris Hilton!!  :)  


    Grace, we love you but... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:54:29 AM EST
    the post is about polls, not Hillary.

    Now, I can give you my friend's email if you want to evangelize someone.  He's a good dem who has been soaking up too much media coverage of the primary season.


    foe heaven's sake.... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:17:31 AM EST
    Hillary beat Obama in NM and has always polled better than Obama there, why wouldn't she deliver NM for Obama?

    I think Obama needs to set Clinton free (none / 0) (#8)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:30:42 AM EST
    So she can float high above us all.....

    Seriously, I don't think it's a good idea to run the two together since I think there are enough people who would like to See a 2012 Hillary campaign.  

    Ha! (none / 0) (#10)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:34:47 AM EST
    See, that is where the Clinton camp is just fooling themselves.

     2012 is not an opportunity for Senator Clinton if she (or her supporters) are perceived as working against the nominee in this election.

     The Democratic base isn't going away, and they distrust Senator Clinton.


    The Clinton Camp? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:41:39 AM EST
    Um how did you come up with that?

    We are like Boy Scouts (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:44:08 AM EST
    We go to camp together.  :)  

    Oh (none / 0) (#18)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:44:20 AM EST
    You think Senator Clinton would have an easy ride to the nomination in 2012?

    Nonsequitor (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:47:02 AM EST
    Where did you get Clinton camp from one commenter at Talk Left?

    The Base (5.00 / 12) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:43:14 AM EST
    Is split.

    Right down the middle.

    If the people who voted for Clinton are no longer the base in your mind, then god love ya' in November, you're gonna need all the faith, hope, and Christian evangelists you can get.


    Since you didn't (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by mikeyleigh on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:50:51 AM EST
     like my first try, here's another.  I said IF Hillary can deliver, which you should have read as taking note of your "without that delivery" rhetoric.

    Not quite sure what you're talking about when you mention the Democratic base.  Would that be the base that gave Hillary almost 18 million votes?  That Democratic base doesn't trust Hillary?  You know, I'm beginning to suspect you're not here to pump up Obama, but rather to attack Hillary.  


    Clinton Camp: (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:00:53 AM EST
    2 weeks in late August at Lake Appalachia.
    Uniforms: tasteful pantsuits
    Campfire horror story: The October 30 Debate
    Counselors: former members of the eunuch chorus

    marshmallows: yes (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ccpup on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:17:57 AM EST
    but waffles not allowed

    Hillary was a Girl Scout (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:21:27 AM EST

    Obama's No. 1 campaign strategy (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by Josey on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:22:20 AM EST
    >>>>The Democratic base isn't going away, and they distrust Senator Clinton.

    was Beat the Beetch!  No focus on issues and solutions. Just Beat the Beetch! Make false accusations of racism against the Clintons and target them with character assassinations - and teach young Kidz and Blacks to hate and distrust the Clintons. Viola!

    otoh - Obama's own words and deeds (or silence) demonstrate his immaturity, dishonesty, and lack of decency.

    Who is currently the "Democratic base"?? Not Hispanics! Not older loyal Dems!
    But there IS an "Obama base" based on hate - and even now Obamabots are still on the hate-Hillary crack which is so much easier than admitting Obama is much like Bush - staying the course with associates and positions, and unable to envision the controversies until he's forced to change course.


    And the media darling effect is fading. (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:31:42 AM EST
    Two critical Obama pieces on NPR Morning Edition.  Yesterday's bit would have been familiar to anyone on Talk Left - Obama's lack of momentum and demographics problems.  Today it was Johnson resigning.  

    Clinton is last week's news.  Time for Obama to stand on his own two feet, without the anti-Hillary crutch.


    The Base (none / 0) (#118)
    by Dave B on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:38:03 AM EST
    The Democratic base isn't going away, and they distrust Senator Clinton.

    Are you serious?

    The entire Democratic base distrusts Senator Clinton?

    Can you support that?


    Just saying NBC/WSJ Poll together makes the (none / 0) (#55)
    by carmel on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:26:10 AM EST
    poll altogether suspect in my book. Let's see, NBC, not the biggest supporters of Hillary or the Republican agenda, and WSJ, owned by Rupert Murdoch, who has said he thinks Obama would make a good president, HA! What's in it for Rupert?

    Oh, come on (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:56:37 AM EST
    The polls aren't designed by and carried out by Keith Olbermann and John Fund personally.  Some of these polls are better than others, but major media institutions hire independent polling orgs to do them and they are not deliberately biased.

    NBC/WSJ polling lacks integrity (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Pol C on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:11:19 AM EST
    I remember earlier this year after the Reverend Wright story broke. They conducted a poll evaluating the impact on Obama's negatives, and the poll said his negatives went down--people had a higher opinion of him afterward than they did before. This made no sense, until a closer look at the polling sample indicated that NBC/WSJ had doubled the size of the African-American sub-sample from the appropriate 12.5% to 25%.

    I don't think there's any doubt that NBC is in the tank for Obama given their campaign coverage. That poll was skewed to bolster his campaign. As such, I wouldn't trust any poll from them not to be skewed in favor of Obama, including this one.

    I wouldn't be paying a lot of attention to November election polling right now in any case. A lot can happen between now and November, and I'm seeing double-digit undecideds in a good deal of what's up over at electoral-vote.com.


    Hillary's Negatives Are High (none / 0) (#57)
    by Niffari on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:29:32 AM EST
    This is something that has been very conveniently forgotten for several months as Obama became the favorite Right-Wing whipping boy. Hillary Clinton's negatives which were high to start with, did NOT drop once she began attacking Obama. His rose and so did hers, although by far less since hers were so high to start with.

    Furthermore, many democrats, including myself, were unhappy with the Clinton years, the scandals and the unambitious agenda. This is why so many don't want Hillary on the ticket. Personally, I would accept her on or off the ticket. It's not a deal-maker or breaker with me. The real fear I have is not Hillary anyway, it's Bill. He has behaved like a buffoon and he has (knowlingly or not) undermined Hillary as a leader. I am embarressed all over again and reminded how much I don't want HIM near the presidency.

    Hillary, OTOH, has demonstrated that she can be trusted to stick to a script so to speak. She'll be strong in any role she takes. She has focus and discipline. Bill, not so much.

    The poll tells you (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:31:50 AM EST
    a bottom line.

    all the rest is just blather.


    Actually the poll has a confused variable. (none / 0) (#173)
    by Rigelian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    The confused variable is Romney.  It would be difficult to logically derive anything more from it unless you consider other alternative matchups.  

    SOS (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:33:50 AM EST
    (Stereotypical Obama Supporter)

    Obama the right wing whipping boy for months?  Hoo boy.  What will you call the next few months?


    So Who else took the hits from the Right_Wing? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Niffari on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:52:52 AM EST
    Any answers? Even Scaife lauded Clinton!!! (Personally, I'd have been checking for voodoo brickdust or dolls or something but Hillary managed to sit in this sick man's presence, unbelievable after what he's said and done to her family.)

    The facts: The GOP operatives very deliberately held fire on Hillary Clinton. They went after Obama, McCain went after Obama and so did Hillary Clinton. And Obama still pulled out a win. That said, Hillary still can be an effective running mate. There's work for her to do though.

    The results from the Democratic primary show that there are many more democrats voting than ever before and while some clearly prefer Hillary, the most reliable democrats prefer Obama. There are also independents and Republicans that won't vote for a Clinton but will vote for Obama. This is a change cycle election and Obama has to weigh the advantages of an ultimate insider like Clinton with the negatives she draws as well.


    I'm thinking you weren't really paying attention (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:27:10 AM EST
    to the primary results.  If you back through the primary results and include registered dems only, I believe Clinton won that vote, not Obama.

    So, if by most reliable dems, you really mean to only include blacks, i guess you're right.  But, otherwise, you're wrong.


    Still Parsing Wins? (none / 0) (#197)
    by Niffari on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:44:08 AM EST
    Obama won. Fair and square. That's why he is the nominee.

    Back to the original thread though. Hillary's approval ratings were the lowest of ALL the candidates by April 2008. NBC-WSJ poll. I've heard some derision about this poll but I haven't figured out WHY yet. Hillary's  positives were rock bottom in 2006 (37%)  and she was just starting her presidential run. That time it was Gallup.

     She has always had an amazingly low approval rating and yet could still run for president. Bush, it should be noted though, has held a far lower approval rating for many months.


    Let's parse! (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by oldpro on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:04:32 PM EST
    Fair and square?

    Ummmm...could be some disagreement about that, Floridawise...Michiganwise...strongarming AA superdelgateswise...I could go on...

    Nevertheless, he is the nominee because the superdelegates helped him over the finish line...so far.

    It's a long way to the end of August.  Let's see if he still has those votes after a long, hot summer.

    Nothing is final until the votes are cast at the convention.  Until then...smoke and mirrors and 'great expectations.'


    Scaife's a Clinton fan? That's your 'gotcha'? (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:27:36 AM EST
    Oh my.

    On the invitation for an interview, Sen Clinton went into the dragon's den, faced her two-decades long enemy and came out with Scaife admiring her guts for doing so.

    She went on Keith Obamann's show too: you know, the finger waving head-exploding sexist darling of Clinton-hating fauxgressives for calling for her assassination. She faced him straight up too and he was a chickensh!t coward in her presence.

    She straight up won MI, FL and PA with hard work and gumption.

    Obama didn't win those voters, he played to influential party insiders and was rewarded with their decision to shred votes and even award him what Clinton earned the hard way.

    I think the polls show that Obama can't expect to automatically take over Clinton's votes. Ouch, he may have to earn support honestly instead of gaming caucuses and sucking up to Donna Brazile.


    Here, Here Naffari! (none / 0) (#77)
    by 1jane on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:45:22 AM EST
    how has Bill undermined Hillary? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Josey on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:13:26 AM EST
    Please don't encourage them. (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:21:29 AM EST
    They are just repeating the Obama Gospel: Book of Clinton.  

    They apparently don't know that Bill Clinton is and was an amazing campaigner.  


    Why are we Dems always (5.00 / 5) (#150)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:31:13 AM EST
    shooting ourselves in the foot?!

    Bill Clinton is the best thing we've got going for us. Two-term president. Left office with high positives DESPITE the Republican Noise Machine media smears and the impeachment. Peace and prosperity and all that.

    No, I don't love every single thing about him. But overall, a positive and he's got tons of charisma.

    Shouldn't we be making him into OUR "Reagan"?

    Why do we repeat Right-wing talking points? What is wrong with us???

    Sorry. End rant.


    Axelrod wants Bill Clinton to Campaign (none / 0) (#190)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:28:44 AM EST
    for Obama -
    what does that tell you?

    They have to ask Bill. (none / 0) (#202)
    by Niffari on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:56:20 AM EST
    No one wants a former president running around with hurt feelings. Bill also has potential to do a lot of good...as long as he reigns in his most inflammatory behavior. Again personally, Hillary is the better bet for Obama as a surrogate. I don't think Bill Clinton brings the love like he did before. JMO.

    Dead wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by oldpro on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:08:23 PM EST
    Ever been in a room with Bill Clinton talking?

    Even on his off days...


    Bill Clinton is not that Popular anymore (none / 0) (#215)
    by Niffari on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:51:06 PM EST
    Period. That's it. Bill has work to do and so does Hillary for that matter. And BTW, I voted for Bill twice and rooted for Hillary in NY. Doesn't mean I have to support them in every scenario. I don't want either back in the White House but I would accept Hillary on the ticket. She certainly earned her spot with the primary campaign.

    As the kids say.... (none / 0) (#228)
    by oldpro on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:20:13 PM EST

    We need to remind ourselves (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:30:21 AM EST
    About such promises, and just what lurks underneath the calm veneer of the movement.


    The best, and I mean the very best you can do here is "two wrongs don't make a right."

    And that best isn't going to be good enough.

    Yeah, um... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:33:16 AM EST
    ...that wasn't me.

     Unlike you, I was always planning on voting for the Democratic nominee.  Little known but fun fact: signed up here before I signed up with Kos.

     So dismiss them all you like, I was always going to vote for the candidate with a D in front of her (or his) name.


    I was planning on it (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:53:56 AM EST
    Something got in the way.

    It's just good for you to understand what you're grouped with.  For you to see the underbelly of what you support.  Especially before you use the first person plural so liberally.


    WE are implying? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Josey on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:05:47 AM EST
    Wright, Phleger, Obama, etc have shouted it from the rooftops!
    Black Liberation Theology is based on victimhood, blaming Whites for Black oppression. Racism and Hate fuel Trinity Church and without it there would be no church. That was evident during Wright's rant to the National Press Club after he'd become a liability.
    Obama was indoctrinated with BLT for 20 years and has demonstrated it throughout his campaign.

    I Wonder Too (none / 0) (#120)
    by daring grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:45:27 AM EST
    As an Obama supporter, I've been wondering about Senator Clinton's desire or willingness to serve as VP when during the primaries one of the common beliefs about her attitudes toward Obama's candidacy was that he is not electable.

    I don't think I ever saw her actually quoted about this, so maybe it was just others pretending they knew her mind.

    But if this were true, why waste her own political capital shoring up a potentially losing effort, when she could run again in 2012 if he does lose?

    Well, she does believe in the Party (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:51:12 AM EST
    and with her, he becomes electable.  And at heart, she's an optimist.  

    It's really a crazy, crazy dilemma strategically.


    Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by daring grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:00:55 AM EST
    With all my disagreements with her senate voting record and the behavior of her campaign at times, I've always felt enormous respect for the way she works hard to get what she wants.

    Some people act as if she sashayed into New York, a carpetbagger, to grab the senate seat, but I saw her work her butt off for that seat in a way no other candidate in my memory of such things (oh, thirty-five years or so) ever did. She earned it.

    I've felt similarly in this campaign. The sight of someone eight years older than me seemingly going-going-going 24/7 in all of these often so tedious campaigning efforts with such gusto and aplomb...I take my hat off to her and those hot peppers of hers!

    Now to possibly be facing a question like this...


    Obama is only "electable" (none / 0) (#156)
    by Josey on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:42:56 AM EST
    with the corporate media's assistance. The same media that sold us Bush in 2000 and the Iraq War and now advancing another corporate icon to enhance corporate interests - not ours.
    Don't look for any media reform during an Obama presidency.

    and with the Caucus strategy (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:33:36 AM EST
    that won't work for the GE.

    After Wright story broke, Obama lost majority of primaries and popular votes.  I'm not pointing this out to put anyone down, but rather to raise concerns.  I believe Obama does need the Hillary voters to get elected; it remains to be seen if he reach out to get them.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#171)
    by daring grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:15:27 AM EST
    'Corporate media reform'?

    I thought we were discussing the potential for Hillary Clinton as VP.


    the Establishment ran a newbie senator (5.00 / 0) (#198)
    by Josey on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:48:21 AM EST
    to keep Hillary OFF the ticket! and the media and press have assisted by concealing damaging info about Obama.
    iow - Obama, like Bush, owes his "win" to the media and Establishment.

    I Guess You Mystified Me (none / 0) (#214)
    by daring grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:18:41 PM EST
    Because whatever these comments relate to that you're posting seemingly in response to me, they still don't relate to what I wrote even after you repeat them again.

    But, whatever...


    Addendum (none / 0) (#212)
    by chopper on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:24:26 PM EST

    Obama moves DNC operations to Chicago

    In a major shakeup at the Democratic National Committee -- and a departure from tradition -- large parts of the committee's operations are relocating to Chicago to be fully integrated with the Obama campaign.


    Oh, really?  He hasn't even been nominated yet!

    Obama is the Nominee (none / 0) (#216)
    by Niffari on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    Thanks for the link.

    Obama has one thing in spades over many in the DNC- he knows discipline. That has been a defining feature of his campaign. It will be refreshing to see the Democratic Party operating as a cohesive unit instead of several competing entities.

    If there's one thing I've often envied the GOP (and there's only one thing), it's been their ability to bring all members into lockstep. Yes, it has pushed some members out also, but it has been a far more disciplined organization. That isn't true now which is very good for us. I love that a group of GOP congressmen have openly discussed their non-endorsement of McCain on a variety of contentious issues, such as Iraq.


    Obama has... (none / 0) (#223)
    by John Locke on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:50:07 PM EST
    In addition to discipline, he has shown himself to be an excellent manager and organizer.  He put together a stellar team of over 700 skilled campaign workers and managed them superbly.  This is not the first time he has shown exceptional organizational skills.  When he first entered the Senate, he assembled a team of very experienced political aides and assistants, more in keeping with a far more senior Senator.

    He immediately impressed the other Senators, who had never seen a first-time Senator assemble such a high quality team right out of the box.


    A difference of opinion. (none / 0) (#231)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:46:13 PM EST
    I think Obama hides when there are difficult issues out there.
    He doesn't like to take unambiguous positions on issues.
    I don't see him as any kind of great manager or organizer. And even if he were, who cares?

    I want to know what he will do to end the war in Iraq.

    Is that asking too much?


    Polls this early... (none / 0) (#222)
    by John Locke on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:45:59 PM EST
    You are just kidding yourselves by reading polls at the start of the general campaign.  They are almost NEVER even remotely realistic in June.   In June of 1992, for example, the presidential polls had Ross Perot leading at 39%, George H. W. Bush in second at 31%, and Bill Clinton trailing with only 25% of the vote.   Things didn't exactly stay that way throughout the campaign.

    I know many of you are casting about for any possible pretext to make some sort of case for putting HRC on the ticket, but you are merely indulging in idle fantasies and daydreams at this stage.

    You are merely believing what you want to believe, not what is realistic.

    Polls Do Serve a Purpose (none / 0) (#225)
    by Niffari on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 05:15:13 PM EST
    Obviously, polling patterns are not written in stone and fluctuations occur over time. However, I think they can help campaigns successfully target issues that might be particularly important to certain demographics. This is where polls can be very accurate. The key then is to establish a successful message rather than to just go by general polling trends.

    However, this year I would be astonished if polls taken NOW successfully predicted the fall election. There are so many variables that could easily sway large portions of the electorate: the Iraq War, the housing crisis and unemployment. Any major movement could throw a wrench into voting patterns in November.


    Polls are a means of distorting reality. (none / 0) (#230)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:40:44 PM EST
    Polls are used to make people believe that a particular point of view is the right one. Polls are used to influence peoples' behavior, not to reflect the thoughts of people.

    McCain was toast. Then he was the nominee.
    Clinton was inevitable, and then she was a pariah.

    That has nothing to do with the fact that millions of people think she is brilliant, experienced and highly qualified to be vice-President or President of the U.S.

    Many also feel that they would be inclined to vote for a ticket that included her. I know I would feel safer if she were included. I think Obama is a loose cannon and she could be a stabilizing influence.

    This is not, as you put it, indulging in idle fantasies.
    These are the honest thoughts of honest people who are hoping to be able to vote for someone that they believe will represent them.


    Hillary Clinton is a woman... (none / 0) (#229)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:32:53 PM EST
    And, according to Jeralyn, that is a problem for Obama.
    She said, in discussing a possible Obama-Sebelius ticket, that Sebelius would not be chosen because, "...I do not think Obama will pick a female for his running mate."

    If this is so, it cancels out the possibility of and Obama-Clinton ticket. And if it is cancelled for the reason that Jeralyn says, and I think she is right, it is quite an indictment of the democratic standard bearer.

    All of this speculation.... (none / 0) (#232)
    by HsLdyAngl on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:51:41 AM EST
    about Hillary becoming Obama's VP is just that......speculation.  My hunch is that Hillary wants to be Obama's running mate, otherwise she would have declared, in no uncertain terms, that she would not want the position, would decline it if it was offered and has firmly decided to go back to the Senate and fulfill her term in office.  This would be a clear indication from Hillary to her diehard supporters that she is not entertaining any possible VP position on the Obama ticket.  

    OK......now this is a long shot, but the one person more qualified than Hillary in experience, knowledge and electablity on the Obama presidential ticket is AL GORE.  His name is not mentioned in the possible choices for Obama's running mate, but there may be some very secretive, closed door meetings about the possibility of this ticket.  An Obama/Gore ticket would win in a landslide over an Obama/Clinton ticket.  What better choice for VP would be the man who was denied the presidency through a ruling of the USSC in 2000?