SUSA FL Poll: McCain By 6

SUSA's Florida poll has McCain up 6, 50-44. Again, the SUSA demos are where the action is. McCain leads among whites (73% of the electorate) 57-38, Obama among Latinos (13%) 48-42 and A-As (11%) 84-16 (obviously too low, SUSA has consistently underpolled Obama's A-A support). Making the adjustment to Obama 95-5 among African Americans, still leaves McCain up 5.

Here is why Obama is losing and likely will lose Florida, McCain leads among women 51-44 and voters 65+ (30% of the electorate) 54-41. Obama has one chance to win in Florida, pick Hillary Clinton as his VP. If he does not, then there is no point to wasting resources in Florida.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Can't Get Drunk On Hope Alone: DNC Orientation Video | Evan Bayh 's Record on Crime >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    BTD...you keep saying obama HAS to (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:03:39 PM EST
    pick Hillary, but it seems more and more likely he won't....his loss.  Cubans are part of the hispanic bloc that don't seem to be trending his way.

    There's no way (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by lmv on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:05:53 AM EST
    BTD, I agree with you 100%.  But, I go further.  If he doesn't pick Hillary, he'll lose the election.  PUMAS are not coming home.  Ever.  In a close election, 5-10% of Dems turning PUMA could make the difference.

    Obama is in a terrible bind of his own making.  There is no other legitimate candidate, unless Hillary doesn't want it.  (Hmmm ... and why hasn't she said that.  Plenty of PVs - potential veeps - on both sides have graciously declined.)  If he doesn't choose her, he loses not just PUMA votes but core Dems who have been on the fence about Obama.  No matter how he tries to spin it, it'll be a huge slap to Hillary's voters.  If he does choose her, he'll face a NetRoots backlash about "change" and all that crap.  

    I think he needs the lunchbucket Dems and women voters more than the few NetRoots whiners who defect to Nader.  Those moderate to conservate Dems (and, their votes count, too) need reassurance about healthcare, jobs, and security.  They see Hillary as the answer.  

    There is no logical argument against Hillary as Veep.  And, it might even quell the outcry about not having her name in nomination for a roll call vote.  Might.

    But, there's no way he'll do it.  His ego won't let him.  His wife's ego won't let her.  

    And, he'll lose FL, OH, MI, NV, and probably VA.

    Obama is flailing badly and the ONLY thing that will help him is to choose Hillary.  


    And Pennsylvania. (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:12:52 AM EST
    He also needs to watch out for (5.00 / 4) (#200)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:41:16 AM EST
    the "older" Indie voter. Mod Repubs that were/would cross for Clinton and Centrist Dems. He's not playing the center well, imo. He hops to far to the right, and isn't fighting for "the peoples issues". Many may go to McCain on the experience issue if he doesn't counter it better.  His lack of experience is not going to move some people just because he says McCain is Bush. He needs to get down and fight and let the "people" know that he will work for them. That could make up some of the experience ground.

    for what it's worth (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by desmoinesdem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:03:45 PM EST
    My 60-something Jewish cousin in Florida, who is leaning toward Obama but has serious doubts about him, told me he'd like Obama to pick Biden for veep.

    I think Biden would help Obama considerably with the over-60 voters.

    That said, I don't see Obama having much of a chance  to win Florida.

    I think you are right (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:18:33 PM EST
    The bridge Obama needs to cross with the senior voters is the experience issue, the sense that there's a steady hand at the wheel.  The only thing that will provide this feeling for them is seeing a name that they're familiar with and has been around for years.

    Jeralyn said (1.00 / 0) (#78)
    by hotchildnthecity on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:35:58 PM EST
    that is Obama picked Biden for VP she would not vote for him.

    I would LOVE to see that.  Talk Left would be turned upside down!  THAT would be so hot!


    My gut feeling is that Biden would help (none / 0) (#79)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:36:42 PM EST

    I hope he picks him then (none / 0) (#94)
    by hotchildnthecity on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:46:48 PM EST
    just for the spectacle of what it would do to the netroots who are against him (Biden).

    I would think that would be awkward though because of Biden's comments about him being "well-spoken" and "clean".  


    He (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by sas on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:06:36 PM EST
    deserves to lose Florida after the way he has acted

    The Messiah ain't....

    Is THAT why he's suddenly in favor (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by litigatormom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:16:02 PM EST
    of seating full slates from Florida and Michigan -- now that HRC has said she won't place her name in nomination?  

    Good thing he's not politics as usual.


    did Hillary really say that? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:19:17 PM EST
    I thought it was disinformation.

    I believe Hillary said it would bring unity to (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:20:41 PM EST
    the party if her name was placed on the ballot...

    yes, that's it - thanks (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:21:41 PM EST
    Nope (none / 0) (#48)
    by flashman on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:52:15 PM EST
    that was an "unnamed source"  

    Which cmt are you responding to? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:34:22 PM EST
    Because there's a video of her saying that her name in nomination would promote unity.

    She speaks quite clearly and eloquently on the topic. A snippet:

    I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard....I think that is a very big part of how we actually come out unified.  Because I know, just from what I'm hearing there's incredible pent up desire and I think that people want to feel like ok, it's a catharsis, we're here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Senator Obama.  That is what most people believe is the best way.

    (emphasis Clinton's)


    See response #75 below (none / 0) (#90)
    by flashman on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:44:04 PM EST
    Yes, sorry, I was writing my comment while (none / 0) (#190)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:57:43 AM EST
    you were writing #75

    I totally mis-read your post (none / 0) (#75)
    by flashman on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:33:28 PM EST
    disregard my earlier response.

    It's the biggest red herring (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:21:14 PM EST
    of the post-primary season IMO.

    hmm....wonder what changed? (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:27:03 PM EST
    Obama's mind since May 31 to restore FL & MI.
    All that expense for Hillary and Obama supporters to attend the Rules Committee circus - for nothing!
    And with the added expense to change the location of the last night of the Dem convention, Obama seems to be a high maintenance candidate.

    Josey....because seating MI and FLA (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:30:31 PM EST
    can't hurt him now....it is a b.s. gesture.

    Obama flip flopping on (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by hotchildnthecity on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:37:24 PM EST
    Michigan and Florida, FISA, off-shore drilling, the war, the economy....please, if he DIDN'T change his mind on something it would be FRONT page news.

    That news already proven false (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:24:08 PM EST
    Hillary WANTS her name placed in nomination. Recent video of her saying so was shared and disputed the claim she "didn't want" it.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Amiss on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:26:55 PM EST
    He is wasting his time here in Fla, he opens his new campaign office in Tallahasee tomorrow tho, got an invite.

    Florida will never go for him. He's wasting his $. (none / 0) (#201)
    by BlueDevil on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:49:59 AM EST
    I seem to remember... (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by BrianJ on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:07:55 PM EST
    That Obama was once promoted with the claim that he could be competitive everywhere, and could elect loads of Democrats in red states where Hillary was poisonous for the party.

    If you are right and Obama cannot win Florida, that leaves him with exactly one Southern state where he has a realistic chance, Virginia.  Couple that with his losing the lead in Montana and the Dakotas, and we're looking at another election where Obama will be trying to string together narrow wins in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio.

    In other words, Barack Obama IS John Kerry in John Kerry II:  Electric Boogaloo, with the same probable result.

    VA? Excuse me. No realistic chance, sorry. (none / 0) (#17)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:30:15 PM EST
    I don't know why people keep mentioning VA as a possibility for Obama. Nope, not even close to possible.

    Anecdotal only of course, but one indicator is here in C'ville that's on the order of 80% dem,, there are zillions of houses with dem signs and lots of cars with dem stickers, mostly for Mark Warner. I haven't seen one house sign for Obama. Not one. And I think about 6 bumper stickers on cars for Obama vs. hundreds for MW (only). I'm sure there will be lots more towards Nov., but it seems telling to me at least.


    Obama clearly has a good chance in Virginia (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:32:37 PM EST
    disagree, but time will tell (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:42:35 PM EST
    I mean I do see the polls right now, but my instinct tells me something different. I think poll trends moving forward will either show what I'm seeing, or I'll be eating crow. Mmm.

    LBJ (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by hotchildnthecity on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:39:42 PM EST
    was the last time a Dem "had a good chance there" and won...

    Obama re-writing 40 yrs of VA voting history after Webb BARELY beat Allen even with the macaca moment??  AIN'T gonna happen.

    It'd be nice to see a Dem pick up VA though.


    Hey (none / 0) (#91)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:44:28 PM EST
    We'll have another Dem senator anyways. Mark Warner is going to cruise to victory. If Obama is smart he'll ask Mark Warner to help him in Va. with a couple of joint campaign appearances.

    Considering the gay marriage amendment (none / 0) (#101)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:52:08 PM EST
    was on the ballot, Webb didn't do too bad. The right-wingers were out in force.

    Dems have a better ground game there (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:39:00 PM EST
    I wouldn't charecterize it as good (none / 0) (#42)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:49:52 PM EST
    At best, I'd call it fair. Webb squeaked into office and so did Kaine. The state has a huge military retiree population as well as a number of military bases which may help McCain. The only upside from where I'm sitting is the economy is tanking and Obama could potentially take advantage of that.

    It has a fair number of blacks, (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:51:16 PM EST
    and a growing population of latte liberals and latinos.

    and yet it was only by (none / 0) (#55)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:57:16 PM EST
    a mere couple thousand that put Webb in office (despite the brouhaha over Allen's remarks)and at that Webb did manage to pull off some rural areas and he did have some support back when some of us believed a Dem majority might make a difference.  

    Obama can recreate that coalition IMO (none / 0) (#58)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:00:11 PM EST
    Speaking as one of that coalition (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:08:40 PM EST
    His chances are slim to none. Short of Hill being on the ticket I won't be stumping for him. I'm not the only one either in SW Va.

    latte liberals... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kredwyn on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:46:34 PM EST
    only in the northern part.

    Seriously, the Old Dominion state is currently going through an upheaval. Kaine has seriously lost a major amount of ground that Warner'd picked up down there.

    Warner might get the senate seat. But he's also a semi-blue dog. Kaine's in trouble...


    Someone from Centreville (#17), in Northern VA, (none / 0) (#194)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:08:08 AM EST
    seems to think that it's not a certainty he'll even win there. Centreville is in Fairfax County.

    Obama campaign active in N. Va (none / 0) (#118)
    by aquarian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:06:35 PM EST
    Obama recognizes that N. VA is key to winning state.  Got four calls this week from the Obama campaign -- persistent of them since I blew them off twice.
    N.Va is too tough to call. Lots of houses for sale, and job market has tightened.  Price of gas has not yet affected number of outrageously big SUV's on the road.  But recent wealth is highly leveraged and tanking economy will be big factor in race.  N.VA may seem progressive when compared to its past, but N.Va are still conservative voters.  Look at the democrats we actually elect - and the split government with republicans in charge of Richmond.
    Virginia is an interesting state this year.

    Centerville is not too far from DC, right? If he's (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:46:12 PM EST
    in trouble in Northern Virgina, then he has lost the state. Granted, it's still early, and bumper stickers are not standard polling methods, but it is telling in its anecdotal way.

    I found it very surprising that almost 40% of pro-choicers were for McCain!


    Perception of pro-choice voters (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:40:24 PM EST
    I think that because a lot of the more prominent pro-choice supporters tend to make it a very important (if not defining) issue, there's a perception that anyone who is pro-choice makes it a litmus test issue.

    It's not true, though, plenty of folks are pro-choice but it's just not a litmus test issue for them.


    My mom is pro choice (none / 0) (#123)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:12:27 PM EST
    and would/does vote republican. She will vote for Dem women to protect rights down ticket. Not sure where she stands on Dem men, lol!~

    But, do you think that 38% of pro-choice (none / 0) (#126)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:14:55 PM EST
    individuals typically vote Republican? If so, I'm surprised.

    They do (none / 0) (#129)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:17:03 PM EST
    The number 1 issue for those voters: TAXES.

    Yup. Both my parents are old (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:30:19 PM EST
    school Republicans. Mom is more socially liberal than my dad. Or perhaps she's just more aware than him, lol!~

    They always fall for the Estate Tax gimmick. When they started the Dems are going to take your inheritance stuff this year, I just pulled up Hillary's record on it and her position. I think I have finally dispelled that myth with them. I'm sure there are others that will pop up before Nov, but I can't think of them right now.


    Social Security! (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:48:07 PM EST
    and Obama has waffled on that too much for older folks I know.  They figure that McCain is older so won't tamper with it too much.

    They're wrong, of course.  But Obama is not entirely right on this issue, either.  So it will lose him votes that could come his way if he would stop treating this issue -- as with so many others -- like an academic lecture examining the pros and cons.

    For a Dem, a true Dem, there ought be no "cons" to discuss about Social Security -- at least not on the campaign trail.  This is not Classroom of the Air.


    That's an issue for me (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:28:07 AM EST
    I think it's a non-issue for my parents. Iirc, I would fall between the cracks or get screwed. It's funny, but I never cared much about the Estate Tax (in weighing issues), but if they go messing with SS, I'll be caring.

    The Estate tax never affected my voting either. (none / 0) (#185)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:49:19 AM EST
    I understand my parents POV (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:29:43 AM EST
    so I try and be respectful when they bring it up. They're old school and did everything by the book and want to leave us something. And I see/feel what it means to them. It's not a lot, but it could (prob will seeing where things are going!) make a dif in our lives. My dad is a depression kid from Illinois and was also an orphan at age 11. He overcame a lot of odds to give us what he never had. Mom also comes from that midwest background/mindset.

    I don't know if it would change my voting on the Pres level these days. I think it's a bigger issue in Ag areas also along with the middle class and smaller fam businesses. Hillary was looking out for the modest middle class, smaller fam businesses and  fam farms. Can't remember Obama's, so that prob means he's on the same page (for now).


    Huh... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:43:14 AM EST
    I agree with you.  Strange.

    Which voters? (none / 0) (#137)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:23:31 PM EST
    pro-choice voters who go Republican. (none / 0) (#140)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:25:55 PM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#142)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:30:45 PM EST
    It's all about Warner. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:41:37 PM EST
    Warner's popularity can carry Obama. Obama is lucky he's running-could be his best shot.
    Didn't know you were in C'ville-my son is headed your way in a few weeks. Very excited to finally be a Hoo after rooting for them for years!

    Unless (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by hotchildnthecity on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:05:57 PM EST
    the GOP starts using ads that link Obama and Warner.  Remember, the Dems that ran in special elections earlier this year that were "associated" with Obama had to come out and disown any alliance with him TO WIN.

    Warner is in a high profile race, not some backwater Congressional seat.  I doubt that Warner would spend his hard earned political capital on Mr Obama.  He has his own political hide to watch out for.

    And Obama's track record isn't good for backing someone up...his trackmarks from his under the bus throwing, however..........


    Do you honestly think Gilmore has a shot? (none / 0) (#125)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:14:13 PM EST
    I don't. He is the sacrificial lamb because the GOP almost never allows someone to run uncontested.

    Meh (none / 0) (#96)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:47:40 PM EST
    It's a big question mark. I'd say Virginians are probably the closest you'd get to independant minded voters. They'll vote a Dem governor and make the Lt. Gov. a GOP member. I would agree that if I had to come up with a strategy for him that I'd be asking the Warner campaign to help out with some joint appearances.

    Definitely. If I were Obama, (none / 0) (#108)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:58:54 PM EST
    I'd be everywhere with Warner as often as he'd be willing.

    I don't buy the party ID gap (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:08:31 PM EST
    but SUSA says what is says, and doesn't care about what anyone else thinks. I admire that.

    If this is where the race actually is today with Obama having spent $5M and McCain nothing since January, I would tend to agree that FL is off the map for Obama.

    Obama gambles on 7 red states (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:46:04 PM EST
    RCP - Aug 4 - interesting read



    I buy his ability to win (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:48:42 PM EST
    Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota, and Montana. I do think that McCain will come to regret not making an effort in those states.

    do all those (none / 0) (#84)
    by hotchildnthecity on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:40:42 PM EST
    electorally add up to Florida?

    More than (none / 0) (#89)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:43:30 PM EST
    If he were to win them all. Even if he loses one of MT or ND, it would match FL. IN + VA alone is pretty close.

    He will NEVER win (none / 0) (#99)
    by hotchildnthecity on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:50:27 PM EST
    Indiana.  Indiana was the only red spot in a sea of blue back in 92 and 96 when Clinton42 won all the surrounding states.

    IN is usually one of the first states called for the GOP....kinda like CA is called early for the Dems after their polls close.

    Indiana is NOT in play...no matter how close the Chicago media market is around.  He lost the primary.  He will lose it in the GE.


    I believe otherwise (none / 0) (#102)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:52:54 PM EST
    Obama has a midwestern thing going. He doesn't play as well on the east coast.

    The last 5 Montana polls have averaged (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by tigercourse on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:01:42 PM EST
    a 5 point lead for McCain. The most favorable to Obama, Ras, has showed he dropped 5 in a month. Obama is not going to win out west states that elect Democrats like Tester or Scweitzer.

    he would have to spend some (none / 0) (#121)
    by hotchildnthecity on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:09:51 PM EST
    SERIOUS time and money there.  Like Virginia, IN voted for a Dem in 1968.  It seems that there is a lot of pie in the sky'ing for Obama to win states that are painted ruby red and hard coated.

    Next thing you know Utah will be in play.


    My preference was for a candidate (none / 0) (#124)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:14:06 PM EST
    who proved her ability to win in states generally more favorable to Democrats.

    But the numbers don't lie, and one of Obama's strengths is in the midwest. He's successful there partly because of his infuriating (to me) post-partisan rhetoric. If that's how he's going to run, this is where he's going to have to play.


    Obama can be as post partisan as he (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by tigercourse on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:16:03 PM EST
    wants. It ain't gonna turn him into a conservative four fingered rancher.

    It's a cultural thing (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:18:28 PM EST
    He has a way of talking to the midwest, just like Bill Clinton could talk to Bubbas.

    But honestly, my guess is that IN 2008 is to Obama as TX 1992 was to Bill Clinton.


    Maybe the upper midwest (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by standingup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:32:52 PM EST
    but he doesn't have the knack of connecting with the rural population in states like Missouri or Kansas.  Indiana?  Don't know enough personally about the state to say one way or the other.

    Yes, upper midwest (none / 0) (#149)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:39:09 PM EST
    Kansas and Missouri have deep historical connections to the south, and that's a problem for Obama. Indiana does too, but the polling is closer there, and there's probably a compensation from its proximity to Illinois.

    Sounds like an Easterner to a lot of us (none / 0) (#157)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:53:24 PM EST
    in the Midwest -- although he's really a Westerner, of course, but being educated in the East shows.  (And a Midwesterner wouldn't call Midwesterners bitter and clinging to their God and guns.)

    Bayh is better at this, btw, although he also did not grow up in the Midwest, really.  His school years were in Washington, D.C. -- with his father in the Senate -- and then in Virginia.

    Clinton actually was the only one to really grow up in the MIdwest and sound like a Midwesterner.  Yet she's the one representing an Eastern state.  Just one of many oddities this year.


    Some of what you say rings true (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:59:23 PM EST
    and yet the numbers don't lie. There's a reason why Obama is polling better in states like Montana and Indiana than Kerry ever did.

    Numbers lied often enough (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:42:36 AM EST
    during the primary.

    Clearly, I agree. I just wonder what (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:10:31 PM EST
    sort of outrage there would have been if Hillary were the nominee but wasn't asking Obama to run with her.  I imagine it would be massive.  I wonder which states she couldn't win without him?

    She'd lose Kansas (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:52:04 PM EST
    Okay I'm snarking. It isn't like Obama is going to carry Kansas.

    Wow, McCain really wins almost every (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:16:35 PM EST
    breakdown except AAs, age 18-35, and Dems.  McCain even wins women.

    I think I was under the false impression that since FL was so close in 2000 that it was much less Republican than this poll suggests.

    It isn't a question (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:22:55 PM EST
    of Repug or Demo. Floridians are angry at Obama. They do not appreciate his attitude toward them one bit, and I do not blame them. Obama does not have a chance in Florida. It's too late for him to do anything about it too.

    I believe, obama believed, he would get (5.00 / 9) (#15)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:26:36 PM EST
    another free pass with the "oh please seat all the delegates from FLA b.s."  I believe the days of the obama free pass express have gone by the wayside.

    If that's true, will the bitter and clinging (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:53:55 PM EST
    faction respond accordingly? If the "once angry at Obama" demographic follows Florida's lead, then Senator Obama has strong potential for serious trouble in November. Unless, of course, there is a surge in forgetfulness or forgiveness by then.

    This way of framing the debate misses (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:23:48 PM EST
    the issue. It is not simply a question of bitterness as op to forgiveness. BO revealed something very fundamental about his character in his dismissal of Florida. Votes can be counted when they will help his tally. But when they won't, they don't need to be counted. I expect that way of thinking from Repugs. That's not the way Dems are supposed to opperate. We are supposed to be above that.

    He's doing the same with Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:32:07 PM EST
    she can play as long as she doesn't change his scripted outcome. She has to negotiate Denver. That's freakin' nuts. Once he gets the outcome he wants, then he'll want all the Clintons to join his little party and work their behinds off for him.

    after BC's interview I saw (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by hotchildnthecity on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:43:06 PM EST
    today, I don't think you will see the Clintons burning up the campaign trail for Obama this fall.

    Maybe Oprah has time.  Her ratings have plummeted so maybe she can just rerun her shows and hang slatecards for Obama in Florida.


    Bill on Nightline - great interview (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:48:28 PM EST
    He left it so he could (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:35:56 PM EST
    he was careful and chose his words. Obama would have to have better control over his people. I don't think they can try any more race BS if they want to have the Clintons out there.

    The Clintons' generosity (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:00:02 AM EST
    just blows me away. If I were them I would tell Obama and the DNC to FORGET IT.

    In politicianspeak, they sort of are (5.00 / 7) (#174)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:31:28 AM EST
    'Member Bill said he'd so whatever was asked of him?  He knows Obama won't ask, but put it all back on Obama's plate.

    He declare Clyburne his 'former' friend.  Ouch.  Why would Clyburne be a former friend if he hadn't started/riled up the racist riff against Bill?

    Hillary has repeatedly said that 'VP is entirely Obama's choice to make.'  What does that mean when he doesn't pick her and gets hit in the polls, it's all on him.

    The stuff Bill said about blah blah Obama's a great politician is interesting if you listen to his actual words.  He didn't say he was a great politician or would make a good President.  Hillary hasn't said Obama would make a great President either, but that we need a Dem in the WH.  Not the same.

    Here's Bill on Obama:

    "I would never begrudge anyone their ambition"

    "He was a superbly gifted candidate in this election and they had a great operation and they thought this thing through"

    Is he ready to be president?  "You could argue that no one's ever ready to be president...he's shown a keen strategic sense in his ability to run  an effective campaign, he can clearly motivate people, and energize them...and he's smart as a whip so there's nothing he can't learn."

    I want to throw out a bit of law here.  In the courtroom, hearsay evidence isn't admissible unless it meets one of a list of exceptions.  One of the exceptions is a statement by a party against their interest.

    That's because we don't trust hearsay enough to allow it to form the basis for punishment, unless someone says something against their interets.  That of course has more credibility, why would someone lie about something that will hurt them?

    So when Hillary or Bill says the stuff you'd expect them to say to protect their own interests -- well maybe it's what they really think and maybe it's not.  But when Bill starts talking about 'former' friends and straight up indicting the media for specific behaviors, it's easier to believe he means it since it won't do him any favors.


    Not good to burn bridges (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:40:20 AM EST
    if you are a politician.

    More than a few have burned their bridges with Bill.  He's letting them know that he'll remember.  (Irish, you know.  Revenge is our middle name).

    He won't burn Hillary's bridges, though.  She's still in the game with places to go and people to do.


    I wasn't suggesting that bitterness and clinging (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:04:01 PM EST
    were associated with the concept of "forgetting and forgiving." In your #14 comment, you referred to Floridians and their anger at Obama. From your reference, I thought of other potential voters who could also be angry with Obama for various reasons, e.g., the bitter and clinging faction, as only one example.

    Thus, if all of the voters whom he had offended in one way or another were disinclined to vote for him, then Obama would be in trouble unless they were able to get over their feelings, hence, forgive and forget. The last part was said with a bit of snark mixed with what I perceive as a slice of truth. As you said, his treatment of Floridians exposes a part of his character; so does his negative characterization of certain groups that didn't embrace him. And let's not forget Michigan.


    Sorry. I see. (none / 0) (#159)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:55:34 PM EST
    Thanks for the clarification. I somehow had the idea that you were making feelings the basis of their decision-making process. My mistake.

    No problem. :-) (none / 0) (#178)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:39:46 AM EST
    Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Amiss on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:30:35 PM EST
    That ship sailed the day the RBC made their determination on the "roolz"

    Other polls have shown different party ID figures (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:18:35 PM EST
    Certainly there are more registered Democrats--but that is often irrelevant.

    In any case the fact that McCain wins women here is very concerning.


    I was guessing (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:46:52 PM EST
    that older women probably represent a proportionately higher percentage of women in FL, compared to other states.

    Florida has a big senior citizen population (of course) and I feel like I've read that over a certain age the male-female ratio becomes very tilted toward females.

    McCain, though, has also got a big lead in the 35-49ers (55/41).  That was sort of surprising, the size of the lead anyway.


    CNN Pundits Hillary No Chance (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by fctchekr on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:30:26 PM EST
    The media is still stuck on itself and evidently most of them, with the exception of Gergen, DON'T WANT HER, even if he would win?
    Anybody detect damage control? Or is it just full bore ahead, blindfolded?

    No reason to panic. Move along now. (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:30:33 PM EST

    yikes! (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:55:24 PM EST
    The national Associated TV/Zogby International telephone poll of 1,011 voters surveyed July 31-Aug. 1 finds McCain (R-Arizona) leading 42 percent to 41 percent over Obama (D-Ill.), which represents a sudden turnaround from the Reuters/Zogby poll of July 7-9 that showed Obama ahead, 46 to 36 percent in a four-way race with Libertarian Bob Barr of Georgia and liberal independent Ralph Nader. McCain made big gains among some of Obama's strongest demographic groups - young adults, women and independents.



    I would like to see Obama solidly (5.00 / 8) (#56)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:57:19 PM EST
    behind by the time the convention starts.
    This will make accountability sooo much easier, if Obama is still nominated.

    As a black woman (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by hotchildnthecity on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:45:08 PM EST
    I stopped supporting Mr Obama.  He lost me after he said that Hillary was "likeable enough."  

    Well, it is Zogby (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:55:05 PM EST
    Granted, Zogby is usually slanted Dem-wise but they're just not that accurate most of the time.

    On the other hand, one of the things Obama had going for him during the primaries (and even now) is that the MSM went nuts over any positive poll for him and spread the word far and wide, giving the definite impression that to vote for Obama was to join the winning team.  Some proportion of people base their votes on winner-association, so the skew in poll reporting can be a create-votes thing, not just crappy reporting.

    The significance of Quinnipac, Rasmussen today (McCain up by 1), and Zogby is that put together, even if they're all wrong or outlier-ish is that it shifts perception among the general public that Obama's not so inevitable after all.


    I suspect Bill Clinton's recent (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:35:26 PM EST
    interviews in Africa may have put the idea of Obama choosing Hillary Clinton as VP to rest for good.

    I suspect (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:21:45 PM EST
    that you may have the symptom and the ailment confused in this case.

    Bill may have a temper but if he genuinely believed Hillary might be only a couple days away from sealing the deal, no question he would bite his tongue.  The reason to spout off is if the issue is already moot.


    You may very well be correct. (none / 0) (#163)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:02:02 AM EST
    I wish SOMETHING would (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:48:23 PM EST
    I'm so tired of hearing the reasons why Hillary should take the second slot on the ticket, and that she should in even the slightest way hope that Obama gives her that chance to advance her political career.

    Hillary will advance her political career to a level where she can and will accomplish so much more than she would be allowed from the VP chair.


    Clinton doesn't have much of a political (3.00 / 1) (#156)
    by tigercourse on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:51:05 PM EST
    future in the United States Senate. Unless you think Reid, Durbin, Schumer and about 15 other Democrats are just going to roll over for her.

    With 18 million voters backing Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by gram cracker on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:17:43 AM EST
    she will be a power to reckon with.  Hillary has the power to help down ticket races.  Her donor list will be much sought after.  She is likely to receive many requests to campaign for candidates in states where she won primaries.

    Ted Kennedy hasn't done so bad after losing his challenge to Carter, now did he?


    She's already taking advantage (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:34:36 AM EST
    of her now being heard voice. She's basically been set free to power on on the issues that matter to her (and us). I'm glad to see she'll run for something again in 2012. If she didn't, I suspect she would get her own wing of the Clinton Foundation  ;)

    I never mentioned the Senate (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:46:21 AM EST
    as the place where Hillary Clinton will find her strongest voice. She will find her place, and I don't pretend to know where it will be.

    Ted Kennedy did okay (none / 0) (#162)
    by caseyOR on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:01:38 AM EST
    A lack of a formal leadership position certainly hasn't hurt Teddy's senate career. Hillary doesn't have to be Majority Leader, or, if it comes to that, Minority Leader, to lead on and influence legislation. In fact, she might actually accomplish more outside of the formal leadership structure.

    I don't think that this (none / 0) (#189)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:52:11 AM EST
    is true at all. What do you base this on?

    Agreed (none / 0) (#23)
    by BrianJ on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:38:19 PM EST
    I think you're more likely to see Hillary as McCain's running mate now.  By that, I mean odds of 500-1 instead of 1000-1.

    Im not familiar (none / 0) (#34)
    by Chisoxy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:45:37 PM EST
    with any recent interviews. Do you mean the GMA interview, or something else? Thanks.

    see BTD's earlier post and (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:52:57 PM EST
    my link (last night?) to AP interview (via Newsday).  

    I think a lot of polling is going to start (5.00 / 9) (#25)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:40:05 PM EST
    revealing just how soft support for Obama is, and we are going to start seeing downward trends in almost all of the demographics that Obama was expected to hold and improve on.

    That Obama may be willing to announce a VP pick almost three weeks ahead of the convention, giving John McCain all the time in the world to pick his VP, should be a concern to Obama supporters.

    Memo to the Obama campaign: the primary is over - this is the general election, McCain is not Clinton.  Throwing bones to Florida and Michigan won't help.

    As for picking Clinton, that ship has sailed without her, and if you look very, very carefully, you might see the name Titanic on the side.

    TL=The Cassandra of blogs (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:42:02 PM EST
    I would like to see one of the things that is happening now that was not in some way predicted by the TL team and commenters?  

    Jeralyn did mention there are lots (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:45:04 PM EST
    of angry comments today.  So true, what w/Obama's reach out to FL and MI and Bill Clinton's partial baring of his soul.  

    All relative I guess (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:52:27 PM EST
    At it's worst the commenters on this blog still can't touch other blog's commenters for sheer fullblown rage.

    The glass is always half full on TL.


    It's called restraint. (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:50:55 AM EST
    We could outdo any of the wacko screamer bloggers if we really wanted to but mostly we never did like 7th grade that much...and that is the reason why...a lot of uncontrolled juvenile acting out.

    TL draws the more mature tho hostile bloggers.

    Works for me.


    I sometimes (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:03:44 AM EST
    try to outdo them.

    I always fail.

    Lines need to be drawn, you can't just say "they're not responsible" and be friends.

    Not when Markos himself is saying what he's saying.  I mean he's literally WORSE than half his commenters at this point.

    I just can't let this one go.  The primary is over.  Obama is better than McCain.  AT least that's the bet I'm forced to make. the hand i've been dealt.

    But I can't let this one go.

    I'm not going to.  not to be nice.  not to just get along.  not to be jovial or for any reason at all.


    We didn't see (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:08:45 PM EST
    the GOP going after Obama's celebrityhood.  Sure, we know the GOP loves to attack the opponent's strengths, but that was a new tactic.

    Other than that, everything is going as predicted.  Dull older white man for VP pick seems to be right on target.  Clintons still being blamed for Obama's troubles - check.  Obama weak on the issues - yup.  


    I hate to say it . . . (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:16:30 PM EST
    but I'm kinda looking forward to seeing what else they do. He put a lot of usable video out there and McCain's ad guys seem to be having a good time with it.

    Yeah, Axelrod was probably (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:33:16 PM EST
    laughing at Hillary who was very careful and deliberate.  The Clintons have been burned too many times and learned the lesson that the media and your opponents will take that clever ad lib and make you regret it.

    Obama/Axelrod might have learned so much by studying campaigns and media interactions from Bill Clinton's first presidential run, his White House tenure and the Gore and Kerry campaigns.  Could have.  It seems more likely that they'll make the same danged mistakes and reinforce the image of Democrats as bumbling, wishy washy candidates.

    And the adoring and attentive media?  Gone.


    Well, the Obama supporters DID predict (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:42:27 PM EST
    a landslide in November..

    Where in the Creative class (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:44:14 PM EST
    enclaves and bars?  

    Honestly (none / 0) (#41)
    by BrianJ on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:49:30 PM EST
    I don't see a landslide, at least in the EV.  California has moved far enough to the left to keep McCain from winning it, and that combined with the Dem strength in the Northeast should prevent a Dukakis-esque Electoral College result even with a Dukakis-esque popular vote margin.

    Hillary, save Obama! (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:44:13 PM EST
    At this point, those who supported Hillary, have moved on and are looking at McCain, Nader, McKinney and Barr or decided to skip voting for the presidency.

    Of course, you are generalizing. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:47:04 PM EST
    Not all Hillary Clinton supporters are determined to not vote for Pres. or to vote for someone other than Obama.  I am sorely disappointed in the latter, but do not fit your generalization.

    Not this one. . . (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:55:36 PM EST
    and not the vast majority of Clinton supporters, who will vote for Obama in November.

    Barr?  McCain?  Feh -- no one who actually supported Clinton could possibly vote for either of those far, far right conservative anti-women Republicans.  Anyone who could even consider voting for them can not possibly understand anything whatsoever about Hillary Clinton's positions or her personal or professional history.


    Actually (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:05:31 PM EST
    I think alot of folks consider McCain from a strategic standpoint because they figure that it is better to have McCain destroy the GOP brand then have Obama move the Democratic party more right and destroy any inroads we have made towards moving the window leftward. Additionally many feel that rewards rigging the primary cycle sets a bad precedent(this is the argument that makes me pause personally).

    Hillary's positions aren't Obama's positions no matter how often some may wish to extol we are all Democrats. Harryu and Louise ads damaged our shot at getting health care for everyone.


    It's more a matter. . . (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:12:36 PM EST
    of Obama's positions being Clinton's.  And they are, mostly.

    I like Clinton and voted for her, but if you were looking for a leftward mover of the party you placed your money on the wrong person.  Clinton is a sensible centrist who didn't hold grudges (at least publicly) against Republicans and worked across the aisle.  What pisses people off about Obama -- both Clinton supporters and Obama's self-deluded disciples -- is simply that Obama turns out to be exactly the same as Clinton politically and temperamentally when he was seen to have promised something different.

    Complicated ideas about destroying the village to save the village were tried in Vietnam.  The inevitable result was No More Village.  Politically, exactly the same logic was pushed by the Naderites in 2000 -- it would make me heartsick to think that the Clintonites are the Naderites of the 2008.


    Total BS, IMO. Obama is quite different (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:13:42 PM EST
    from Hillary, both on specific issues (those where he has one stand anyway), and in temperament.

    I agree he is different (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Amiss on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:37:55 PM EST
    but have you noticed him trying to take on her "positions" more and nore, just as he did in the primaries? He would be up there hemming and hawing around, Hillary would put forth her plan and then his would come out, always AFTER hers, but almost identical to hers every time. He is doing the same thing again, I believe, but dont think it will work for him, because he definitely is no Hillary Clinton.

    Positions (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:28:55 PM EST
    I won't argue that Clinton is a centrist(I believe she is). Obama I am not as sure of. That said, their positions on things like health care or even economic issues are not the same.

    Clinton - mandated health care that ensures everyone has medical coverage.

    Economic stimulus package includes government spending on programs like oil for elderly.

    Obama is far more free market(which is why he touted his support for the do nothing economic stimulus checks). Furthermore I agree with MarkL temperamentwise Clinton is far more pragmatic and seems less ego driven. I don't for a minute think we'd be having the discussion on who will be VP if Clinton had won the primary. She'd have been respectful and aware that she needs the Obama supporters. I base this on how she courted Edwards supporters.


    Hillary also stuck to her guns most of the (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:01:00 PM EST

    We've discussed this before, and I think I remember analysis and numbers to back it up, but a lot of people prefer someone who's a fighter for the wrong thing than one who's wishy-washy for the right thing.

    Which is why I think Obama would have been better of sticking to his no-drilling stance.  Sure, he would have taken heat for it, but switching to McCain's position doesn't gain anything on McCain while making him look like he can't make up his mind.


    dead wrong Larry (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by hotchildnthecity on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:55:41 PM EST
    Naderites were about being the anti-corporatists.  Clintonites were about pro-experience.  

    To say that Clintonites not supporting Obama are Naderites is an insult.  Just because I don't lockstep doesn't make me anything but a voter who is not willing to compromise her principles.

    Watch that broad brush, please.


    Spot on, actually. (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:01:31 PM EST
    Whatever their motivations were, their logic was exactly that described by the anti-Obama Clinton voter in the comment I responded to -- that is, that true reform will only come about by punishing the wicked electorate with terrible government by the Republicans, and that then their candidate will finally be hailed as the one true messiah.

    That's precisely what Nader himself advocated and it's precisely what c. was advocating above -- the only true reform will come about from electing the Republican.

    It was nonsense in 2000 and it's nonsense now.  The next four years are too important to trust to a moral reprobate like John McCain.


    Some (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:11:51 PM EST
    consider the way Obama campaigned during the primary as just as morally reprehensible. Additionally his vote on FISA was the vote of a moral reprobate. Better to know what your gonna get(as crappy as it might be) then to go in with eyes tightly shut and high hopes that will be dashed(and considering the changes on positions I can see where that could happen).

    Not really (none / 0) (#114)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:03:26 PM EST
    No messiah complex here.

    Relatively similiar on issues (none / 0) (#112)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:01:41 PM EST
    Clinton a wee bit more to the left.

    Worlds apart in terms of temprament and professionalism.


    National security voters will be (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:06:24 PM EST
    very scared about voting for Obama, no matter what their feelings towards McCain.

    Kerry thought McCain (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by Leisa on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:21:30 PM EST
    was honorable enough to ask him to consider the VP slot...  now, McCain is an ill to even think about...

    IMHO, when we compare Hillary to the two major contenders for POTUS, well... woe is the day(s) that the DNC and the crazy, undemocratic primary that seemed designed to select our presumptive nominee.

    The insane primary is all water under the bridge, I know.  Just do not discount those of us that researched Obama and found him wanting when we try to find those vaunted democratic principles that so many choose to ascribe to him.  To me, his candidacy for POTUS is without merit.  He is not who his packaging proposes him to be.  Does that opinion make me not a Democrat?


    There is no way (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:19:14 AM EST
    I would vote for McCain. I might not vote at all, but I have no plans to change party. My dad was an Edwards supporter then a Hillary supporter. Now he has decided not to vote. He and I are both over sixty. I have eight living uncles and aunts all over sixty. Half will not vote at all for the first time in their voting lives; the other half will vote Obama. Fine. That's their choice. I have not moved on in the way you mean it. I am still a Hillary supporter as I have been from the beginning. And I am still angry.

    As I have said before many times, I still have not gotten over Gore or Kerry. This "Hillary supporters are moving on" non-sense from those who would have us move on -- as though saying it over and over is going to make us mindlessly get over it -- is not going to work. It just makes me want to get out the wine bottles: You Obamakids get off my lawn! Wap! Pow! Krunch!


    Come November (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:45:34 PM EST
    most polls will show Obama losing.  

    McCain is running a very humorous campaign right now.  That's going to attract a lot of voters.  

    I don't know how Obama can counter this since Obama has no sense of humor.  The few jokes he makes are so gentle they don't even make waves.  They aren't even interesting.  

    McCain (The "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran") jokester has the lead on humor.  Obama is seen as humorless.    

    Obama should hire Carville. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:47:45 PM EST
    Never! (none / 0) (#39)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:48:17 PM EST
    If Keith O's latest at dailykos (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by catfish on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:50:48 PM EST
    is any sign, the trend of insulting undecided voters will not let up any time soon.

    Very effective, so far. (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:51:24 PM EST
    The Keith O's of the world will continue to hurt (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:22:49 PM EST
    Obama tremendously! Is the campaign oblivious to this? Since they regularly communicate with reporters, one would think they'd suggest that Keith et al. tone it down.

    I almost never go to TPM anymore, but went over there this afternoon through a link and then glanced around. I'd been on the site only a couple of minutes when I noticed the words
    "Clinton w?ores" in a thread and left the site immediately. They seem to forget Obama's not running against Clinton anymore!

    Many of his supporters are turning people away, and it's not just Hillary suppporters. In the GE, even more people will find this distasteful.


    I stopped listening to Keith O (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:29:53 PM EST
    when he started bashing Hillary. I have no intention of dipping back until we have a president.

    His latest dk diary (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:04:32 PM EST
    is just sad.  Commenters gossiping and gloating I can handle.  A supposed journalist gossiping and gloating?  

    Sorry to hear you intend to return (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:50:38 AM EST
    to giving KO ratings after the election. I can't imagine he is going to improve his rants after Nov 4th. He's either going to continue blind devotion to Obama, or vicious hatred toward McCain.

    I intentionally (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:26:26 AM EST
    used the expression "dipping back" to express extreme caution. Besides, I live in Japan so I can only view him on line. Does that affect his ratings? I honestly don't know.

    SUSA poll's cross tabs (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by ajain on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:51:00 PM EST
    I think they are overstating Republican votes in this poll. Is it really true that 43% of Floridians are Republicans?

    This poll is pretty bad news for Obama considering how much he has invested in that state. McCain on the other hand hasn't spent a dime there and is still up in the polls.

    Florida elects lots of Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:59:00 PM EST
    so maybe 43 percent is a good number.

    Republican governor, republican state officials, (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:04:52 PM EST
    republican legislature.  They are partly the reason for the Florida fiasco re: delegates.

    Florida is becoming (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by hotchildnthecity on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:57:49 PM EST
    the new Texas:  an electorally rich state, that should for all practical purposes be Dem go Republican.

    sounds (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Amiss on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:42:55 PM EST
    about right to me and I am a Floridian, not a lot of democrats for a while.

    The CTs are funky for a variety of reasons (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:52:04 PM EST
    But SUSA doesn't massage its numbers and is right more often than it's wrong.

    The AA vote and undecided (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:56:30 PM EST
    The AA vote in FL may not be as high as other states because the AA has seen all the manipulations from BO and have decided that McCain is not such a bad egg.  The 3 percent undecided is lower than other states, like MO (7 percent), and it's significant because these numbers would tend to be more static.

    Is Obama still a shoo-in? (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:00:38 PM EST

    I think he's downrated to sure thing. (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:01:46 PM EST
    Not to mention the campaign strategy... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by dianem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:11:05 PM EST
    ..of arguing that old people are unable to think coherently is not likely to go over well with your average 65+'er.

    The thing is, we know stupid (5.00 / 4) (#196)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:15:41 AM EST
    when we see it and we have little patience for stupidity, having observed a lifetime's worth.

    Florida (5.00 / 7) (#92)
    by Miri on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:44:52 PM EST
    McCain will win Florida and he will win easily.

    Hillary can't help Obama carry Florida or any other state for that matter.

    If Hillary was the nominee she would have a good chance of winning Florida.

    VP candidate cannot help the nominee carry a state. Nobody votes for the VP candidate.

    Obama will lose Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan. Hillary won these states during the primary and she would have been able to win as the Dem nominee.

    All this VP talk is a waste of time. All the talk about Hillary campaigning for him is a waste of time too. Nobody votes based on who is campaigning for whom. It won't make any difference. And yet the pundits and bloggers chatter on.

    People vote based on their perceptions of candidates. Who they think would be a good president. Based on that McCain is the stronger candidate. People have a comfort level with him as commander in chief. He is the less risky choice. They know him. They also know he has a record of working with Democrats.

    Sounds right to me! (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by hotchildnthecity on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:17:23 PM EST
    Obama bit off more than he can chew.  Too bad the likes of Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, Brazile and all the hangers-on that could never have the power of the Clintons decided to hook up with Obama.

    All that money and still couldn't beat Hillary in places like OH and PA.  FL is too much like those states.  He has NOT one chance in Florida. IMO anyway.


    Silly argument (5.00 / 7) (#98)
    by Miri on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:48:55 PM EST
    "If Obama loses without Hillary, there will be resentment toward Hillary/Hillary supporters."

    It won't make any difference.

    Obama's cult followers will blame the Clintons, Edwards, whomever.....because they think Obama is the Messiah and can do no wrong.

    The rest of the population will blame Obama and move on to the next election.

    Campaign (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Miri on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:56:25 PM EST
    "I don't think you will see the Clintons burning up the campaign trail for Obama this fall."

    No, they won't be. They will make a few appearances and offer lukewarm support.

    You will also not see them campaigning against McCain.

    Hillary gets along with McCain and would want to have a good working relationship with President McCain.

    So you will see the Clintons make very few appearances, smile, offer platitudes and not do anything to hurt their friendship with McCain.

    If the FL numbers by SUSA are close (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by wurman on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:57:48 PM EST
    & similar numbers "hold" until Nov, then Sen. Obama has no chance of becoming president.

    Sen. McCain is capable of some really dumb stuff that could cost him FL, but the Obama Campaign may even be the best in the overall gaffe contest.

    And FL is overwhelmingly GOP; that 43% number is so bogus that it's laughable.  Come on!  The guv, both houses, most county poobahs--it's a joke.  Either lots of self-styled Dems are voting for the rethuglicans, or the party identification & registration system is run by the 3 stooges.

    Oh, wait . . . !  Some folks may remember Katherine Harris--ha, ha, ha, ha, ouch, only 1 stooge.

    Bogus? (none / 0) (#147)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:34:25 PM EST
    "As of the end of May, the most recent figures available on the state Division of Elections' Web site, 41.2 percent of Florida voters are Democrats, 37.2 percent are Republicans and 21.6 percent are minor party or no-party.



    Charlie Crist won 52.2% to 45.1 (none / 0) (#176)
    by wurman on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:37:31 AM EST
    over Jim Davis.

    Apparently, the guv picked up 90 percent of the minor & no-party voters.

    Or about 17% of the self-styled Democrats voted for the former Attorney-General.

    George W. Bush won FL by 52-47 percent in 2004.

    Mel Martinez, at the same time, became a senator by a margin of of 70,000 with a 49-48 percent split.

    From my point of view, you can attribute party affiliations in FL any way you like, but as Big Tent often writes: [paraphrase] <<there ain't no undecideds in the voting both or the exit polls>> & your 41.2% Democrats just can't seem to get the job done--going back a long, long time.

    Or maybe that 21.6% actually consider the GOP to be a minor or no-party choice, ha, ha, ha, ha.


    Dems for a Day Effect? (none / 0) (#180)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:41:59 AM EST
    Registration figures can also be questionable because of Florida's closed primaries, in which only voters registered in a party can participate. Voters often register in a party they don't agree with, simply to be able to vote in the primary.

    That has long been the case in North Florida, for example, where Democrats dominate in registered voters, but almost never win statewide or presidential elections.

    MacManus agreed that the changes are too small to allow predictions of Democratic wins in Florida in 2008, but she said they could have a long-term effect, particularly if the young people registering Democratic because of Obama see their candidate win.

    from your link


    Not true (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Miri on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:31:43 PM EST
    "Whatever their motivations were, their logic was exactly that described by the anti-Obama Clinton voter in the comment I responded to"

    Not true.

    I prefer McCain to Obama for one simple reason. They would both be failed presidents. And if we are going to have a failed presidency I prefer that he be a republican. That way at least Dems would keep control of Congress.

    I am glad Bush is not a Democrat.

    I fear Obama would be the Dem version of Bush. He is inexperienced, in over his head, little accomplishment, arrogant with Messianic delusions of grandeur.

    Deluded Dems (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Miri on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:46:49 PM EST
    ``Too bad the likes of Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, Brazile and all the hangers-on that could never have the power of the Clintons decided to hook up with Obama.``

    This crowd is deluded. They believe the US is a liberal country and Dems can win states like Georgia and Kansas in presidential elections.

    This is the root cause of Kossacks rage against Hillary. They blame her husband for not expanding the Dem coalition. Why didn`t he put together a New Deal size coalition. Why didn`t he try to win Kansas.

    They ignore the fact that US is a very conservative country. New Deal coalition happened during the Great Depression.

    They think winning states like Florida is a piece of cake for a Democrat. They are completely deluded.

    BTW, this was Ted Kennedy`s argument against Jimmy Carter when he challendged him in 1980. He was angry that Carter did not support single payer health care and other liberal programs. Of course Carter did not have the votes for it. The country was very conservative. Reagan won a landslide that year and then a landslide reelection in 84 and then his VP Bush won another landslide election in 88.

    Kerry (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by Miri on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:50:05 PM EST
    `` if he gets only one and keeps all the Kerry states.``

    That is a big IF.

    McCain has a very good chance of winning states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, NH.

    Midwest (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Miri on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:14:17 AM EST
    ``Obama has a midwestern thing going``

    What midwestern thing? He lost Michigan, Ohio, Penn.

    Indiana is solid red. McCain will win it easily.

    Iowa? (none / 0) (#170)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:17:12 AM EST
    Obama is guaranteed to win (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by daryl herbert on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:14:38 AM EST
    That's what David Gergen said on one of the talking head shows this weekend.

    But then, just a few minutes later, he said that Obama desperately needed Hillary to be his running mate.

    Unless Obama picks Clinton to be his running mate, I think he loses Florida (and probably the election).

    The only way Obama can win is if he stops assuming that he's already won (and that means sucking it up and choosing Clinton even though he doesn't want to).

    I said it once, I'll say it again, (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by g8grl on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:14:49 AM EST
    Obama has probably been given a bit of time to prove that he can win this on his own.  If the polls go against him, they'll try to make him pick Hillary.  If it looks like he can win on his own, he gets his own choice.  I hope he sinks or swims on his own.  He should get two bites of the same apple.  After the way he had his people disrespect the Clintons with racist accusations, I hope she doesn't bail him out and he sweats it.

    Then should she play hard to get? (none / 0) (#172)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:19:27 AM EST
    I say since he's so sure he's the annointed one (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by g8grl on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:38:48 AM EST
    he should go it alone.  Pick someone that won't outshine him.  Of course, that means he'll probably lose.  With him and someone less than him, he'll only get the drunkest of the Kool-aid drinkers.  FYI, I'm indifferent to his winning or losing this thing.  There are definitely reasons I want him to win and there are definitely reasons I think he should lose.  I think it would be bad to have another Republican President, but I also think it will be bad to have a Democrat who cheats and caves to Republicans.  

    i think i'm confused. (5.00 / 5) (#191)
    by cpinva on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:03:04 AM EST
    please explain, in simple words us non-creative types can understand, why sen. clinton should save sen. obama's bacon?

    this would be the same sen. obama who's campaign (presumably with his endorsement), villified sen. and pres. clinton as racists, and utilized the most disgusting, mysogonist characterizations against her, to "win" the primary.

    this would be the self-same sen. obama, who doesn't appear to ever have had an original thought in his life? would this be the sen. obama, that sen. clinton should lower herself to save? perhaps his lovely wife could help him out?


    frankly, the only difference i can see, between sen. obama and sen. mccain, is that sen. obama is taller.

    let him sink in the mudhole he made himself. it'll make him a stronger person. or he'll drown.

    oh well, you reap what you sow.

    Virginia VP no help (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:43:06 AM EST
    Concerning Obama in Virginia.  Many voters will support Mark Warner not realizing that he's not John Warner.  Unless Obama can get Mark Warner on the ticket there is no way that he will carry Virginia.  Tim Kaine hasn't exactly been a great Governor.  Many people in the state are angry at him for wanting to raise all kinds of different taxes.  That won't win Obama any votes in Virginia with Kaine on his ticket.  Mark Warner is his only hope and Mark doesn't want the job.  

    I"m sorry, but I think Biden is an awful choice.  NO WAY could I vote for that ticket.  

    Let's face it, only Hillary can help Obama win this election.  

    Florida is not critical (2.00 / 0) (#144)
    by Ennis on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:32:52 PM EST
    It's only one of seven red swing states, which Obama is elected if he gets only one and keeps all the Kerry states.

    Obama will win it or lose it on his own merits - regardless who he chooses for VP.  

    I think he'll win it.  His popularity among Latinos and Jews will be a big factor, plus youth and Blacks in record turnout.

    If a poll based on old turnout patterns and land-line users gives McCain a 6-point edge, that means Obama is up by 4.

    SUSA reports what it finds and makes (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:40:14 PM EST
    no artificial assumptions about turnout.

    I think he can win Florida too, but not with these numbers.


    The more I think about it... (none / 0) (#29)
    by HypeJersey on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:43:47 PM EST
    The more I come to the conclusion that the only way out is for Obama to pick Hillary as VP.  

    If Obama wins without Hillary, there will still be so much (justified, imho) resentment.  If Obama loses without Hillary, there will be resentment toward Hillary/Hillary supporters.

    I can't think of a way out but for him to pick her for VP.  

    The Fiasco At Invescoc (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by hotchildnthecity on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:01:18 PM EST
    This is Obama's fight.  Let him lose it or win it without the Clintons.  If the Clintons were as smart as I know they are, Hillary should just go over to Africa and help Bill until after Labor Day.

    Let the fiasco @ Invesco play itself out.  Just another prop/event that the GOP will use against Mr Obama.


    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:17:40 PM EST
    "If Obama loses without Hillary, there will be resentment toward Hillary/Hillary supporters."

    I'm not sure this is true; at least I'm doubting there will be more resentment than there already is.  Plus although I'm sure Obama and many supporters would hate to lose, they'd love it if his loss did increase CDS.


    Shouldn't Obama be doing better (none / 0) (#77)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:34:28 PM EST
    with Latinos? I thought he had a larger lead over McCain in that demo?

    Cubans are very Republican in Florida (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:41:18 PM EST
    and there are lots.

    Ah, thanks! (none / 0) (#134)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:20:05 PM EST
    de nada (none / 0) (#139)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:24:09 PM EST
    Why is McCain leading among women? (none / 0) (#120)
    by bridget on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:09:33 PM EST
    "Here is why Obama is losing and likely will lose Florida, McCain leads among women 51-44 and voters 65+ (30% of the electorate) 54-41."


    that surprised me ...

    Why is McCain leading among women? Are these mostly Republican women?

    qwatz (none / 0) (#164)
    by 2liberal on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:03:20 AM EST

    pollster.com tells a different tale.  is it really right to cherry pick polls that support the point you want to make?

    SUSA came out today (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:52:00 AM EST
    so it's being discussed today.  No reason to fling about accusations of cherry picking.

    Though, since you linked to pollster.com:

    Quinnepac has Obama up by 2, within MOE, for July 23-29 (Rainbow Tour)

    McLaughlin has McCain up by 5, can't find MOE but with 1600 polled likely to be around 2, for July 20 to 28 (also Rainbow Tour)

    then it starts getting into polling proceeding the Europeanpalooza.


    Per NYT, GOP voter registration nationwide (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:15:56 AM EST
    is decreasin, while Dem. and undeclared is increasing. NYT


    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:45:00 AM EST
    In closed primary states, folks have to go one way or another or I really think there would be a lot more indies. I stayed Dem because in NY you have to switch a year in advance and I "do" primaries. I dropped the party after this years Pres primaries and in Ca I'll need to check the rules before I decide how to register. I like being an Indie and prob would have been all these years if I didn't live in closed primary states.

    I think it would be interesting to have voters be party free, and only politicians have to declare. At least for a cycle or 2, lol!~


    Women (none / 0) (#169)
    by Miri on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:16:09 AM EST
    "Why is McCain leading among women?"

    This is not surprising.

    Bush won among white women.

    Pro choice women vote for anti choices candidates in election after election. They voted for Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr.