home

Is It All Obama Now In The GE?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:59:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Kevin Drum writes:

OBAMA vs. McCAIN....Gallup's latest Obama-McCain tracking poll shows exactly what you'd expect: now that Obama is firmly the Democratic candidate, he's making up considerable ground. There will be more ups and downs, especially around the conventions, but I'll bet that Obama never has much less than a five point lead for the rest of the campaign.

(Emphasis supplied.) I'll take that bet - IF Obama does not pick Hillary Clinton as his VP. I would expect an Obama drop the day, if it comes, Obama does not choose Hillary Clinton as his VP.

See, for those who do not get it, I am not arguing that Hillary Clinton is entitled to be VP, I am arguing that it is in Obama's best interest to choose her as it will insure his victory in November.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Did Clinton and Edwards Win The Argument On Health Care? | McCain Snubs Prison Guards Union >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Is It All Obama Now In The GE? | 218 comments (218 topical)
    I will also take that bet (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:00:58 PM EST
    and again, 5 points?  in this climate the dem should be 20 points ahead.

    And how many times do Obama poll ... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:13:39 PM EST
    at least 5 points ahead on the eve of a primary ... only to lose?

    [ Parent ]
    right (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    and
    I think the general is where we really have to worry about the "Bradley Effect".
    people are going to lie to pollsters.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it's more just ... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:33 PM EST
    the difficulty in projecting turnout among Obama supporters.

    There's some pretty shaky science behind any claims of the Bradley Effect in any election, including Bradley's.

    It all sounds very plausible.  But when you look at the data, it's just not convincing.

    [ Parent ]

    well (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:26:14 PM EST
    whatever you wish to call it I am willing to bet that a good 5% or so will tell a pollster they will vote for Obama and go in the booth and vote for McCain.
    I base this on nothing but my feelings from talking to democrats.  many have deep serious doubts about Obama but dont like to talk about it.  even to someone they know.

    [ Parent ]
    I Believe You're Right (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:07:53 PM EST
    and I believe it may be more like ten percent lying about their vote.

    Opponents of Obama have been excoriated as "racists" for so long that the meme has taken hold even among those who object to him for legitimate reasons.  

    Beyond that, there are still five months in which we will learn more about the man selected to be the Democratic candidate.  What do you want to bet there are a lot more skeletons in his closet?

    [ Parent ]

    Right ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:37:55 PM EST
    and all I'm saying is sometimes things feel true, but aren't.

    A five-point lead is barely outside the margin of error for most polls.  A few demographic mistakes, and the potential of a huge loss can be hidden.

    [ Parent ]

    5 Points Where? (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by talex on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:29:53 PM EST
    5 points nationally doesn't mean a lot when it is the Electoral votes in individual States that is what really matters.

    National polls are only worth so much. It is much more important to keep an eye on the electoral maps.

    [ Parent ]

    More problematic in polling (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:33:43 PM EST
    so many pollsters I've read say, is that there is no useful model for the November election, just as their models proved problematic for the primary.

    For example, the models base fall turnout of AAs on a percentage increase from primary turnout of AAs.  Makes sense, except that AAs likely already reached fall turnout levels in the primary, coming out for Obama.  If he and the Dems are counting on the usual level of increase from the primaries to the general election, AA votes may be 'way overestimated.

    Similarly, of course, turnout of women which always has been the majority of Dem voters reached record levels in a lot of states in the primaries, as much as 60 percent.  If it drops back to usual levels, or even drops below . . . problematic again.  For the pollsters, and for the Dems.

    [ Parent ]

    Isn't that what I said ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:39:32 PM EST
    when I commented on the difficulty in projecting turnout among Obama voters?

    [ Parent ]
    The national poll is a set up (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:45:14 PM EST
    You still need to look at state by state polls.

    Clinton's internet supporters were fooled by national polling dats all thru Fall.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, the set up continues to work... (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:51:33 PM EST
    1st...Clinton demonized and chased out.   The goal of the Republican Party was to get Obama nominated.   Mission accomplished.

    2nd...The Right does NOT want Hillary for VP.  She is to dangerous to their win in Nov.   And, the Right wans Clinton voters.

    3rd...Obama will get swift-boated next.  Demsocrats will lose the General Election.  Republicans strategy will win once again.

    Howard Dean, Reid, and Pelosi won't know what happened.

    When it was a no brainer win for Dems, the Party has screwed up.

    HilLary is needed on the ticket to get a Democrat in the White House.


    [ Parent ]

    Yep -- this ought to have landed (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:45:19 PM EST
    in reply to the comment to which you replied.  Sometimes such matters seem to go awry.

    [ Parent ]
    Same with the youth group. (none / 0) (#208)
    by hairspray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:12:50 PM EST
    I just read that the increase in this group has largely peaked since 2004.  That may be why the O camp is going after the 18-22 the group that still may have some growth.  Wish I could remember where I read it so I could cite it.

    [ Parent ]
    it was a ten point (none / 0) (#160)
    by isaac on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:27:29 PM EST
    swing in NC for helms v gantt

    [ Parent ]
    That is an excellent point. Especially with all (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by hairspray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:18:35 PM EST
    the positive news from the press.  Isn't there a "bump" when these events occur?

    [ Parent ]
    The same "press" as the one below? (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:57:03 PM EST
    This is totally off-topic, but really too funny to not pass on to everyone here:

    I just saw one of CNN Headline News' AWAs (Anchors With Attitude) breathlessly tell us how Alexander Hamiltion's 200+-year-old house is being moved to a new locale in his old hometown of Harlem Heights, NY.  Unfortunately, while she could tell us that Alexander Hamilton was the guy on the $10 bill, she couldn't quite explain to viewers what he did to deserve that honor or why his house was even worth preserving.

    On the air, she then bravely groped her way to some sort of answer all on her own -- and this is a direct quote here: "I think he was something like George Washington's executive assistant."

    (Sigh!) And we wonder why Americans are underinformed ...

    [ Parent ]

    When Obama says he is going to "sit down and (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by hairspray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:06:28 PM EST
    figure out health care" with Elizabeth Edwards I get the feeling that I am listening to the same information level in him that is described  in the female anchor you just cited.  It makes me very worried.

    [ Parent ]
    Jer (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:04:53 PM EST
    can you delete Hillary 2012's account.

    no comments and handing out
    1s like candy on halloween.


    [ Parent ]

    NO (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:38:21 PM EST
    I think the 5 point lead will shrink once Repubs start exposing Obama.  I think McCain will win by a landslide.  It amazes me that HUFFPO still will bash Hillary.  The new one today was how she spent 212 M on her 18 Million voters.  Really!  Because I can remember Obama tripled spent in Ohio and PA and guess what, he lost.

    Huffpo has become nothing other than The National Enquirer or The Sun. Poor reporting and blogging.  It's that site alone that Obama can thank for himself losing the election not the Hillary Supporters for McCain.  Huffpo keeps adding fuel to the flame and Obama will not even get a chance to recover but that's ok.  I'm glad they are screwing it up for him even more than ever.

    Hillary supporters for McCain, we all need to discuss in a separate group (yahoo groups or something), how we will build her up for 2012 election.  I know Obama will be running against her and we really need not to sit on this for 4 years.  Contact me:

    kscatlett  at gmail dot com.

    [ Parent ]

    The Indepedents and Republicans (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:02:21 PM EST
    who told me they were voting  Hllary in the General Electin now say they will vote  McCain.

    I am shocked that the Democratic Party is making such poor choices that they are losing MANY Independents and Republicans.

    I have heard repeatedo6 (and I believe them) that their decisions not to voe for Obama is NOT about race.     I thought they would vote to have something other than the past 8 years....NOT.

    [ Parent ]

    Sister Arianna explains it all to you. (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:04:45 PM EST
    Arianna Huffington has had it out for ther Clintons since her days the GOP's chief pseudo-intellectual parlor doyenne during the headiest days of the "Gingrich Revolution" in the mid-'90s.

    The only thing she's managed to prove, and prove repeatedly over the entire course of her chameleon-like transformation into some sort of left-wing darling, is that some old habits die hard. She remains the chief repository for all things anti-Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Gallup says (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:01:01 PM EST
    that Hillary is continuing to give him an extra 3 points. That could easily be the difference between Ohio and not Ohio.

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Lou Grinzo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:51:11 PM EST
    Or PA or FL, for that matter.

    That's what worries me--the fact that there are at least three sizable states in play without Clinton on the ticket, and Obama could well need them all in November.


    [ Parent ]

    I think the longer Obama waits to (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:07:48 PM EST
    announce he wants Clinton as his VP, the less positive impact it will have on Clinton supporters.  

    If McCain picks (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Inky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:11:47 PM EST
    Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate, I'll bet you anything Obama can kiss that 5-point lead goodbye. In most elections, I don't think the V.P. choice matters as much as it does this year.

    I think I might vote (none / 0) (#78)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:43:41 PM EST
    in that case.  The Downs baby would reel me in.

    [ Parent ]
    sorry, does she have a downs baby? (none / 0) (#79)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:44:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#105)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:55:48 PM EST
    She's got 5 children; the youngest (still a baby) has Downs Syndrome.

    [ Parent ]
    if McCain is smart (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:57:14 PM EST
    he will pick a qualified woman.
    and McCain is smart.

    [ Parent ]
    interesting (5.00 / 0) (#206)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:10:43 PM EST
    we have a 20 year old son with downs..i really don't know anything about Palin. I should do my homework!

    [ Parent ]
    She's handled it well. (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:20:19 PM EST
    Gov. Palin is 45 years old, and I heard from a friend of mine who works in the Alaska state capitol in Juneau that nobody up there ever knew that she was even pregnant until she announced it publicly, well into her seventh month.

    To her and her husband's credit, they knew of her unborn son's "special needs" through her pre-natal exams, and her very personal decision to carry him to term thus personifies in deed and act a woman's right to reproductive choice.

    [ Parent ]

    Not sure I would accept a VP (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:57:39 PM EST
    offer under those circumstances, unless she is independently wealthy or has a house husband.

    [ Parent ]
    If she's handling being governor (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:08:15 PM EST
    with five children, she can handle VP.

    [ Parent ]
    She's not only handling ... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Inky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:14:05 PM EST
    being governor, but she handling it with an 86% approval rating.

    [ Parent ]
    It would be an offer to her (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    not to any of us, and she can handle it.  Very impressive person, despite her politics.

    [ Parent ]
    no one turns down the VP (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:21:39 PM EST
    they all say they would but no one does.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, me either (none / 0) (#120)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:05:16 PM EST
    Her husband's a commercial fisherman, but I don't know what that entails for him - whether he's out on the boats or managing a fleet or what.  Plus, judging from her website, her whole family is big into winter sports and outdoor stuff.  Giving all that up to come to DC would be hard even without five kids.  I doubt she does it myself.

    [ Parent ]
    she'll get a book deal (none / 0) (#143)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:17:40 PM EST
    and a relative or two will get fat jobs in DC.

    [ Parent ]
    Tenacity Thy Name Is BTD (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:12:26 PM EST
    The longer Obama leads McCain in the polls the less likely IMO it will be that he choses Hillary as his running mate.

    Well, (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:14:36 PM EST
    See here:
    Since Obama clinched the nomination, Gallup has also asked registered voters for their Obama-McCain preference if Clinton were Obama's vice presidential running mate. At this point, Clinton would seem to give a slight three-point boost to Obama's margin over McCain, with the Obama-Clinton ticket leading McCain by an average of 51% to 42% over the past three days.
    That's over the magic 50% mark. I think that's a compelling case.

    [ Parent ]
    And ... (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:27:52 PM EST
    the difference in the 2004 election was less than 3 points.

    These days, three points could be the ballgame.

    [ Parent ]

    It will be... (none / 0) (#27)
    by sweetthings on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:17:41 PM EST
    If it holds up to late July. The danger to BTD's dream is that after two months of 'All Obama, All the Time' coverage, Hillary's electoral clout may be much reduced.

    Guess we'll see.

    [ Parent ]

    Either That (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:51:08 PM EST
    or she will never look better.

    But then I'm one who doesn't think the summer is going to be kind to Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    But maybe there will be ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:30:39 PM EST
    another shot of him in swimming trunks for his fans to hang on their walls.

    [ Parent ]
    Ok, I wasn't going to share this (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:34:08 PM EST
    But we all need a laugh (although this is not a joke - these are real)

    LINK

    [ Parent ]

    Selecting Hillary would show ... (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:18:08 PM EST
    Obama isn't the media's lap dog, and I think that would help him as well.

    He needs a little more media hate for some of us Dems to really feel he's "one of us."

    ;)

    I am less than impressed that (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:05 PM EST
    all Obama has managed to get out of being the presumptive nominee is this miniscule lead; from the way the media has been going on and on, you would think he was 20+ points up on McCain.

    I think this is going to be one long, hot summer for Obama; it will be interesting to see how he holds up, what his strategy is and how well it works.

    Not good if Obama waits till convention for VP (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Saul on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:18 PM EST
    pick.  He will have no time to correct any damage if he does not pick Hilary.  Best he makes his choice now even if its not Hilary and hope he can do damage control before the election.

    Obama knows his followers are still high (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    on Hillary hate. If he chooses Hillary for VP, he'll need to go very slowly or their tiny heads will explode.


    [ Parent ]
    So he has to appease new converts (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:20:17 PM EST
    who won't let him preach to the old Dem choir who just have to wait -- the ones who just want, in Clinton's words, to have their voices heard.

    So if he doesn't do this on just the very most perfectly calibrated day, both could feel disrespected and become invisible to him.

    My, what a pretty fix he is in, hmmm?

    [ Parent ]

    in my humble opinion obama has the (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:29:52 PM EST
    power groups in the dnc and democratic party who helped him get across the finish line to please. the bill due is in the mail. it says that they don't want hillary. how many times and ways will they say it to be sure everyone understands. i don't agree with it, of course. in fact it makes me angry beyond my ability to express it here. but the reality of this race is what it is.

    [ Parent ]
    He'd really be best served... (none / 0) (#196)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:00:47 PM EST
    ... by deciding soon if he wants Hillary on the ticket. I think the value of choosing her is greater now than later, and if he doesn't want to choose her, the two of them can probably work out some semi-graceful way of putting the issue to bed, even if he's not ready to actually choose someone else.

    [ Parent ]
    Unity can become Disunity in no time (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ajain on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:32 PM EST
    The Obama-Clinton pyschodrama has only just begun. Any percieved slight will be great for ratings and will hurt the Democrats. She is a powerful figure and has too much celebrity to be sidelined in this election and will be part of the story, if not the headlines, through the fall.

    Dems have a head start this year, but that has never stopped the GOP from winning before. It is also true that the GOP has everything against them this year, but Obama's problem is that the public doesnot trust the media and Obama's insane cheerleaders.

    Also, Kevin Drum seems to have gone on the deep end in his Obama love. Its weird to see him this way, but then again, its weird to see Josh Marshall & Greg Sargent do the same, and to see Andrew Sullivan taken as serious progressive voice.

    I am willing to bet that McCain has a 10 pt lead (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:47 PM EST
    before the end of August. IN fact, I would lay odds on it.

    Which is why Obama should (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:25:32 PM EST
    announce now he welcomes Clinton to the ticket.  Get Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea Clinton stumping for Obama now.

    [ Parent ]
    i would take that bet (none / 0) (#151)
    by tben on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:22:14 PM EST
    in a heartbeat

    [ Parent ]
    I seem to remember that (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:32:36 PM EST
    Gore had a double digit lead in Sept of 00 and lost...

    Didn't Dukakis have more than 10 pts lead (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:35:09 PM EST
    in July? So Drum is saying that Obama's not even as good as Dukakis? well, I would agree.

    [ Parent ]
    On the contrary (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:35:33 PM EST
    Bush almost always led.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, and I am wondering (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:39:25 PM EST
    why Obama doesn't have at least a 10 point lead, as I said on other thread...he has some repubs, lots of indies, and supposedly a unified dem party...so why not a much wider margin at this point?

    [ Parent ]
    Bush held a consistent 3-5 (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:48:07 PM EST
    point lead against Gore going back to the Fall of 1999.

    [ Parent ]
    But Kerry (none / 0) (#92)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:49:31 PM EST
    was something like 7 points ahead at this point of the election.

    [ Parent ]
    According to Rasmussen (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:07:08 PM EST
    who was very, very accurate in 2004, the weekly polling of Kerry v. Bush did not change all that much.  The week of June 10, 2004, Bush was up by 1.3%.

    I think Rasmussen may have just been lucky in 2004 because a large Republican turnout helped Bush....This year, Rasmussen has generally been the pollster most favorable to McCain.   Today, Rasmussen shows Obama up by 6%.

    [ Parent ]

    Gore had a lead for short time (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:48:32 PM EST
    But Bush had a huge 10-15 pt lead most of the time.

    I'm not sure how these companies got it so wrong.  Bush get less votes overall.

    [ Parent ]

    not in the mood to google, or argue (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:51:43 PM EST
    but the way I remember it and THIS time in the race.
    before the race had really even begun I seem to remember leads for all of them.


    [ Parent ]
    oh it's cool (none / 0) (#142)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:16:13 PM EST
    I'm running on memory only.

    He was most assuredly in the mid 50s for a long time.

    [ Parent ]

    Did Bush lead in 2000? (none / 0) (#99)
    by stefystef on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:51:52 PM EST
    I don't think so.
    McCain was stronger than Bush and Gore during 2000.

    Up until the Bush machine crushed him in South Carolina.

    I think these numbers will be very different in August/September.  As usual, Obama is being over-hyped.

    [ Parent ]

    Gore, Kerry, Dukakis etc (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:34:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I know alot of people would like Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by stefystef on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:39:57 PM EST
    as Obama's VP, but I honestly don't see it happening.

    I think Obama is going to pick a white man who can help bring in votes from so-called purple states, like Colorado and North Carolina.

    Obama (and Axelrod) will not pick Hillary because they don't want her.  And you know what?  The back-stabbing DNC doesn't want her either.  Many in the Democratic Party want remove the Clintons totally from the Party.  

    There will be NO woman near Obama's VP choices.  His wife will be the only woman in his circle.

    I think you're right (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by ccpup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:26:38 PM EST
    What will be interesting is when Obama loses big in November -- which I sincerely believe he will -- and Hillary ends up with more power (a la Gore in 2000) than before.

    If they were really focused on destroying Hillary and Bill at all costs -- even a General Election loss with a famously inexperienced Nominee --, I can guarantee you it will backfire and make Hillary even more powerful than she was.

    Now people actually LOVE her and admire her strength.  She will be the person to beat in 2012 for the Nomination and I confidently predict she'll be our first female President when she beats the do-nothing Incumbent John McCain.

    As for Obama, I wonder if he'll be able to hold his Senate Seat in 2010.  His enemies have too much on him now that's public and I suspect the people of Illinois may not be as besotted with him as they were in 2004, especially when they keep regurgitating that "Senate work is boring" quote again and again and again and again.

    [ Parent ]

    I was never besotted -- he ran against (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by abfabdem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:45:21 PM EST
    Alan Keys for God's sake, what else were we supposed to do???  In fact it's because of his Senate record that I was suspicious of him from day one.  He has never shown leadership or taken a stake in any issue that could cost him politically in any position he has held--how is he going to do it now?  (PS - This is not Hillary's problem to fix.)

    [ Parent ]
    I trust there will be a stronger opponent (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by ccpup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:54:17 PM EST
    than Keyes in 2010 and all of Obama's garbage (what we have now plus what the Republicans are going to blast us with in the General) will be resurrected plus his upcoming inevitable gaffes and then add to that what looks to be a very slender recored of achievement during his first term as Senator and it looks like Barack Obama will lose his Seat in 2010 and eventually be likened to a political comet:  hit like gangbusters, burned brightly and then sputtered and disappeared.

    [ Parent ]
    i agree with you and just wrote that (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:31:47 PM EST
    in a post. of course i very seriously disagree with their thinking, but it is what it is.

    [ Parent ]
    Then Why (none / 0) (#149)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:21:07 PM EST
    Did Obama's communications director, Gibbs, this morning say, in response to questioning on Morning Joe, that they fully intended for Hillary to play a prominent role in the campaign and the Obama campaign also wants Bill Clinton involved in campaigning?

    [ Parent ]
    They want her to get more votes (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:33:27 PM EST
    ditto with Bill.  Campaign is not administration. They are nothing more than vote getters to Obama, imo. And he'll have no problem "using" them and then casting them aside.

    [ Parent ]
    I am in Hold Pattern (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:40:32 PM EST
    It all comes down to if he picks Hillary. That is the make or break deal for me and a few of my friends. The funny thing is that they have all said they feel no guilt this time around. Obama will make the choice for them. Let's see if he will do the right thing or not.

    I don't want her to go near him . . . (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by abfabdem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:46:32 PM EST
    he has too much baggage in the GE.  It will bite him and whoever is his running mate.

    [ Parent ]
    This plays into (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:46:44 PM EST
    a story I saw today (forget where, so no link) that says the Republicans are "worried" about the fall.  I personally think it's a ruse - they licked their chops to get Obama and now they don't want the mantle of inevitability.  This kind of stuff is perfect - McCain looks like the underdog.

    I don't think Republicans like being (none / 0) (#139)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:15:06 PM EST
    the "underdog."  That is inconsistent with the Republican psyche--they want to win and be seen as winners....Bad poll numbers depress contributions and take the macho out of Republicans....

    Democrats do well to be ahead.....as longs as they don't let it go to their head....

    [ Parent ]

    Democrats love underdogs (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:19:56 PM EST
    Republicans want to be on the winning team....

    [ Parent ]
    front runnner is always dangerous. (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:03:12 PM EST
    Especially if it is in national polls instead of state by state match ups.

    Build it up and tear it down; my fair lady...

    [ Parent ]

    I think this year is different (none / 0) (#156)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:26:07 PM EST
    When Obama as the Messiah looks inevitable, any gaffe (which we all know he WILL make) or any other shady association of his (Meeks, Ayers, McClurkin) really gets attention, the harder he will fall.

    [ Parent ]
    underdogs (none / 0) (#189)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:53:08 PM EST
    are often the winning team.  Minority status.  Under siege by lib values.  Never say die.

      Feed the beast.

    [ Parent ]

    Pretty tough for Republicans (none / 0) (#197)
    by 1jane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:01:08 PM EST
    to be on a winning team when they are desperately trying to hang on to 41 Senate seats. The RNC is very low on funds, the political tide is against them with 80% of Americans looking for a new direction.It only took 8 years to break the country's back, even Tom Delay says it will take years and years to rebuild the Republican Party.

    [ Parent ]
    An addendeum (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:48:25 PM EST
    Team Obama / the MSM (one in the same) is already positioning that their loss in the fall will be HRC's fault:

    Link

    Blaming Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:12:17 PM EST
    That's more passive-aggressive lameness from Camp Obama.

    What we need is a specialist in cult psychology to tell us why that appeals to his followers.


    [ Parent ]

    That article is so discouraging (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:25:48 PM EST
    and very counterproductive. If Hillary's going to get blamed no matter what, why should Clinton supporters factor saving her reputation into our votes?

    [ Parent ]
    Ding, ding, ding! (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:26:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think... (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:49:13 PM EST
    and this is just me, mind you.

    But I think that it'll be close--the candidates practically neck and neck--right up til the week before the election. And suddenly poof...it'll go one way or the other.

    Unless something very interesting happens, my guess is that it'll go McCain 51/49.

    If you're right (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:57:31 PM EST
    I'd better start growing my fingernails now.

    [ Parent ]
    fingernails? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:07:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    For biting, I guess? (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by tree on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:11:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Interesting to compare 2004 (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by HenryFTP on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:52:47 PM EST
    to today:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/148573.php

    (OK, I know there are reports that Josh has been kidnapped and replaced with a replicant, but this was a piece by Spencer Ackerman).

    How depressing to read the sunny optimism of four years ago.

    I don't expect this election to be a re-run of 2004 -- what I do expect is that we'll find, as in 2004, that it's still a very long way even to the Conventions, much less November.

    Note (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:52:53 PM EST
    that Gallup switched from a 5-day rolling average to a 3-day rolling average (if you read the whole article).  If you factor that in, the bump is no bigger than the last "bump" he got in mid-May, followed by McCain's "bump".

    But yeah, now the attacks from McCain will start.

    I see that Andrea Mitchell had to apologize today for calling Virginians rednecks.  (see TVNewser).  And on another blog, someone mentioned that CBS News pointed out that Penn might not go for Obama this fall because of "racism".

    If there is a Bradley effect, it may be a "reverse Bradley" effect, meaning that people won't vote for him because they are tired of the media insults that he does nothing to stop.

    racism is racism and it doesn't matter (none / 0) (#172)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:34:16 PM EST
    where it comes from. any group can be guilty of such things.

    [ Parent ]
    If He's Smart (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Alegre on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:54:05 PM EST
    He'll go to Hillary and BEG her to join the ticket.

    Its the only way he can win in November and I'm pretty sure he knows that.  Question is, can he actually rise up to the challenge and make the right call... for the good of the party and for party unity.

    I actually think he can win without her. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    I just think they would win big together.  Everyone would have a stake in the election.  It's best for the Party and the country.  Most importantly, she's a huge asset in the WH.

    [ Parent ]
    Obam's Choice (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:08:11 PM EST
    Obama is at a fork in the road.

    He can choose Hillary Clinton and hope to win.

    Or he can choose to lose.

    "two roads diverged in a yellow wood (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:35:29 PM EST
    and sorry i could not travel both." personally i think obama will take the more traveled road with a man as a veep from a swing state.

    [ Parent ]
    Polls (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by clinton dem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:25:46 PM EST
    does not prove anything at this point. macCain has not even started campaigning against Obama yet and he is doing well. Just imagine when he start attacking him will all the materials exist against him.
    I will never waist my vote on the "chosen" nominee!

    He clearly won't pick Hillary. (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    That's done, over, caput.  If he is "partnering" with Elizabeth Edwards on Hillary's signature issue, I think we can safely say he won't pick Hillary.  Let's just stop all this talk.  It's not going to happen.

    I'm afraid you're right. (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:54:45 PM EST
    I really liked your diary about her being a smart pick for him, BTW, but the comments alone show you how the Obama crowd are thinking. Too bad  politically, even though I kind of hated her taking second place when she's more qualified. But I hope they work out a way where it seems like he offered it, this won't end well otherwise.

    [ Parent ]
    1,2 (5.00 / 0) (#207)
    by Addison on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:11:19 PM EST
    Two things:

    (1) the expected drop in Obama's numbers -- which would probably be shallow and temporary, IMO -- after he doesn't pick Clinton could be mitigated. The "Bill Clinton must be vetted" line is persuasive, since I think we all agree that whether anyone wants it or not Bill will play a larger role as the VP's husband than as "merely" a former president. And, Lord knows, Hillary has a LOT of jobs open to her, and that could be set up and "announced" (in the ways cabinet posts and such things are "announced" before an election) in advance of the VP selection. So, I think there could be effective damage control, and it wouldn't be impossible to pull off.

    (2) Of COURSE Obama will not be at least 5 points ahead for the next 5 months. That's ludicrous. Political horse races are like basketball games, in which there's an average buffer for the better candidate but the margin can, in any short-term period, fluctuate wildly outside of the general average. See yesterday's Celtics-Lakers game. The Celtics were, on average, ahead by about 15 or so, but to expect them to maintain that through all 4 quarters is silly.

    The fact (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:19:45 PM EST
    That Obama isn't 20 points up worries me. With Bush's approval ratings in the tank, the Dem's should be able coast into the WH. Even the Republican have turned against him. I realize McCain isn't Bush, but the Republican brand has been dragged through the mud. And McCain's platform is the same. Also supposedly the hardcore Republican's aren't backing McCain and yet it's close?

    in obamabotland (4.33 / 12) (#32)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    hope, change, unity, and bright swirls of purply magic will effortlessly carry him to the white house, where flowers will bloom, birds will sing, and we'll all hold hands as freedom, peace, and prosperity flow from the heavens.

    are you double posting as squeaky? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    not sure (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:24:45 PM EST
    i get the reference. i may not be well-oiled, but i'm not squeaky.

    [ Parent ]
    read some of the other threads today (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:29:23 PM EST
    youll get it.

    [ Parent ]
    His team (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:38:23 PM EST
    I can only hope that his campaign team knows that what Drum is saying here is not only unfounded speculation, it is also dangerous. Obama will have to work hard for every single vote.


    [ Parent ]
    if his campaign team (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:58:36 PM EST
    was as oblivious and inept as are many of his online supporters, he would not be the presumptive nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, his campaign team is going to (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:01:46 PM EST
    kick a$$ in the fall caucuses!

    [ Parent ]
    give them credit (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:04:33 PM EST
    they worked the system as it is, and they will likely do the same in the general. if clinton's team had had but a fraction of obama's team's understanding of how delegates are allocated, she'd be the presumptive nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    I hope you are correct (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:09:47 PM EST
    and it is not just a matter of manipulating democrats with guilt and threats which will not work nearly as well in the general.

    [ Parent ]
    their focus on the caucuses, (none / 0) (#135)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:13:54 PM EST
    and their ability to motivate people to attend, speaks for itself. we're definitely in a different landscape, now, but i assume they have a similarly well thought out plan for the next phase.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not so sure (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:19:41 PM EST
    I'll give you three reasons why: Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Ohio.

    [ Parent ]
    yes but you fail to note that the folks (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:40:29 PM EST
    being inspired as it were is limted to a rather small group ie aa, creative, latter drinkers, and well educated/good income. the rest have been told there are no reservations available.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes but in the GE people only get to vote once (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Nike on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:54:27 PM EST
    They clearly "worked" the system--but it is unclear how much of the Obama caucus wins came from 1. busing in out of state college students (see Iowa); 2. Dems for a day (see Texas). In the GE, it is much harder for people to vote twice and that may prove a problem. I assume the Obama campaign will have new ways to game the system, but these ones won't obviously work. See Jeralyn's post from last week, I think, talking about the disparity between the number of votes that it took Obama to win each delegate vs. the number it took for Hilary to win each of hers.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not possitively certain that is true. (none / 0) (#132)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:13:01 PM EST
    There are other contingencies.

    If edwards had stayed in for supertuesday, I suspect Obama would have had an insurmountable defecit.

    Also the pre and post wright returns. If The Clinton's had made sure edwards was kept in and had ruthlesslly used Wright in January or December Obama would have had enormous trouble.

    I don't think this was about organization on the ground.  They blew the big set piece plays.  Whereas Obama was able to ride the media and the drop out of the Edwards campaign.

    Clinton would not have won in the Rockies even if she'd paid for Caucus voters to turn up.  She needed to knock the halo off Obama's head and keep the anti Clinton vote split between Edwards and Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    i partially agree (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:20:43 PM EST
    but clinton didn't need to win in the rockies, or in the potomac primaries (which were really the turning point), she just needed to not get blown out. had she held to manageable losses, obama wouldn't have had the popular vote or delegate advantages he did.

    i agree that the repugs will fight dirty in ways the obamabots do not understand. they think clinton fought dirty- they have no idea!

    as for edwards, i have a hunch his voters split somewhat evenly, on super tuesday. and he just didn't have enough money left to make much of an impact. as i've been saying all along, it's no coincidence that the two best-funded candidates ended up as the final two standing. edwards's entire campaign was a fight against special interests, and in our money-driven system, that cost him. for all the talk of obama's online fundraising, he still raised tens of millions from bundlers.

    [ Parent ]

    the only thing that would impress me (5.00 / 0) (#194)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    would be to get on a bus or train right now and head off for the heartland. i'd go where all of this tragedy with the weather is taking place. i'd have some of these young people out there asking people what they need and want instead of telling them. how's that for campaign stragedy. maybe i am old fashioned.

    [ Parent ]
    OT!!! (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    now Michelle says he'll (none / 0) (#83)
    by kimsaw on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:45:41 PM EST
    make us work too... I think we take turns polishing his halo! ;)

    [ Parent ]
    I