CNN Poll: It's Tied

Like the Ras poll, the CNN poll shows a tied race:

A new national poll taken entirely after the end of the Republican convention suggests the race for the White House between John McCain and Barack Obama is dead even. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll out Monday afternoon has McCain and Obama tied at 48 percent each among registered voters questioned. Three percent of voters are undecided in the survey, which was conducted Friday through Sunday.

This is where we are at now. Obama will likely slide a few points ahead by the end of the week as the GOP Convention bounce fades. It remains Obama's race to lose imo.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Wolfson: Go After McCain-Bush | MSNBC is Not the Enemy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    As usual, the polls vary greatly and (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:50:00 AM EST
    depending on who you are for will likely determine which one you choose to like :)  Let's really check them out a week or so from now.

    Very True. Polls do vary. (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by fercryinoutloud on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:29:35 PM EST
    And some are even flawed due to their sampling. This poll even admits it is an outlier to other polls when it comes to convention bounces:

    Has the Republican convention and the naming of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate given McCain a bounce in the polls?

    "Other polls are showing `convention bounces' for McCain, but ours does not,' says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "The reason is probably due to the fact that the CNN poll has had a very low number of respondents who say they are undecided for several months. Bounces tend to occur when undecided voters switch to a candidate, but with so few truly undecided voters in our polls, there was little room for a bounce for Obama or McCain."

    Well we all know that all of the other polls have been showing a significant number of undecideds. this poll does not so I can't put much stock in it.

    On the flip side Ras shows Obama loses Women
    Link Here

    and USA Today/Gallup is: 50-46 McCain Registered voters and 54% to 44% Likely voters, posted as a response to the link up above.

    Again regarding convention bounces both Ras and Gallup showed convention bounces for Obama & then a bigger bounce for McCain. So this no bounce/no undecideds poll is not inline with other credible polls. I think they have a sampling problem.


    Follow this if following any of them (none / 0) (#101)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:45:39 AM EST
    Seen all together and even state by state,
    there is a lot of work to be done.

    FWIW (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:00:03 PM EST
    If only we had been able to start a movement a year or more ago to get enough people to make it clear to democratic candidates, all democratic candidates, that they would lose the congressional majority and not win the presidency this year unless and until the democratic congressional leadership had defunded and ended the Iraq occupation, repealed the MCA, shelved telecom immunity, impeached Bush and Cheney, and laid war crimes charges where needed, and then rewarded democrats for results with all the support they need, those things would all have been completed or nearly completed by now and Obama could be cakewalking his way into one of the biggest landslides in history this November... instead of running right now with a skinny point spread between him and McCain? Christ, Mcain should have been buried before he started.

    The whole situation right now is utterly stupid, imo.

    Politics of fear, indeed.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#87)
    by lousy1 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:46:34 PM EST
    If you could have caused defeat before the victory became patently obvious then that might have been a winning strategy.

    Seems rather unethical though.


    Who would have thunk it (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Prabhata on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:04:17 PM EST
    McCain, a 72 year old Republican, voted with Bush 90 percent, the economy is in shambles, foreign policy is without direction, and McCain ties the Democratic candidate with less than 60 days left to campaign.  Short of some very bad blunder from the McCain camp, I've always predicted that Obama would lose because he is a weak candidate, but I'm not happy to have another 4 years, maybe more of Republicans in the WH.

    Remember (5.00 / 11) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:08:51 PM EST
    what the smartest political mind the dems have had in decades said:

    Strong and wrong beats weak and right every time--Former President Bill Clinton.


    calling it a tie is (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:53:56 PM EST
    putting the best spin on it.  Of all the new poll results out a tie is the best of the bunch for the dems.  There are other polls that show McCain with a lead from +1 up to +10.  There are no longer any polls at all showing on the Real Clear average where Obama is leading.

    Where McCain may continue to gain points (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by nulee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:10:59 PM EST
    is with the Palin pick as Tammy Bruce


    lays out, I think, very effectively.  Many perceive the Republicans now as "walking the walk" of feminism - as tough a pill as that may be to swallow.  DNC, not so much, under the "leadership" of Dean, Obama, etc...

    Revealed For The First Time Anywhere (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by fercryinoutloud on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:38:28 PM EST
    It is a little secret that is on every Democrats mind but no one wants to say it.

    But I will.

    Democrats are scared to death that it will be the Republicans who are the FIRSTto put woman in the WH.

    There I said it!


    they can't be (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:44:46 PM EST
    that scared or they would have taken advantage of the perfect oppurtunity they had to do so this year.

    CNN had the race tied last week ... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:17:22 PM EST
    when other polls showed the beginning of Obama's bounce.

    Back then it was called an outlier.

    Gallup Tracking has it McCain +5% with registered voters.

    Not by me (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:17:55 PM EST
    Please do not judge me by the actions of others.

    Sorry ... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:37:22 PM EST
    didn't intend my comment to be read that way.

    Gallup tracking has him up 5 (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by az on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:17:53 PM EST
    I don't believe he would gain the lead again until the election.

    It is not obama's race to lose , its anybody's race..  

    Biden now getting called a latter day Dan Quayle.. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by nulee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:27:25 PM EST
    by CNN commentators.  Sigh.  Could we screw this election up just a little bit more please?!


    that's misleading (none / 0) (#21)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:34:43 PM EST
    the written commentary is by one CNN Republican pundit: Ed Rollins. He is never favorable to Obama because he is a partisan.

    I like Biden (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:33:08 AM EST
    (though not as a snarly yelling campaigner -- liked him best as a committee Chair).  I remember Dan Quayle (vacuous stare) and let me say, happily, that Joe, you are no Dan Quayle.

    You misunderstand me (none / 0) (#38)
    by nulee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:03:06 PM EST
    I wasn't meaning that it was the opinion of CNN or that it was cast as a news item, I know the guy is a commentator - I was just pointing out that I thought it was an effective jab at our side from the right.  A damaging one.  Something akin to Michael Dukakis in the helmet.  It is not a good label for our guys to be hit with during the current positive hysteria for McCain.

    Palin has also been (none / 0) (#45)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:14:52 PM EST
    called a Quayle pick and, of the 2 vp Candidates she would be more like DQ than Biden.  I just don't think the Biden as Quayle label will stick.  It doesn't make any sense.

    It only makes sense as Biden=bad pick (none / 0) (#51)
    by davnee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:26:00 PM EST
    Biden is no Dan Quayle because Biden is competent.  But Biden may be a Dan Quayle if he goes down as one of the all-time worst VP picks.  And he just might - but that would have nothing to do with who Biden is, but rather everything to do with who Biden isn't.

    It isn't BIden's (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:30:11 PM EST
    fault that Obama didn't pick Hillary.  Maybe that will cost him Obama election, maybe not.  But I still say comparing Biden to Quayle is way off.

    Of course not (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by davnee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:39:12 PM EST
    The problem with Biden is entirely independent of Biden.  He has no control over not being Hillary.  I agreed that the Quayle analogy was not particularly apt except from one perspective - being a highly ill-considered choice.  And I don't think anyone can now argue that picking Biden was quite ill-considered on Obama's part.  Whether it ends up costing Obama the election, we'll see, but it is definitely a mistake of that kind of magnitude.  And once again that's not Biden's fault.

    not sure about that (none / 0) (#91)
    by Salo on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:19:31 PM EST
    Biden was proposing the tripartate division of Iraq into three new coantonments or three Republics.  He's a cretinous pick because he was all over the map on Iraq. Pro war-and then he says dumb stuff like divide up iraq on a chopping block.

    For what it's worth (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:51:54 PM EST
    and considering the source, Zogby's post convention poll of LV's puts McCain up 4. He atrributes it to bounce and on XM said he too believes it is essentially a tie.

    But the underlying numbers are worrisome. Pre-Palin, McCain was getting 22% of people that had supported Hillary in the primaries.  Post-Palin that number is 29%.  Also post-Palin, McCain's lead among Catholics has gone above 10%, surpassing the lead Bush had over Gore or Kerry in that demo.

    I think Obama better dispatch the Clintons to Appalachia ASAP.

    I think (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by CST on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:54:26 PM EST
    Obama better dispatch HIMSELF to Appalachia ASAP.

    I'm thinking the Clintons (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:58:32 PM EST
    are better spokespeople for Obama than he is for himself in small towns.

    If Obama can't talk, if Obama can't hear (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    what small-towners have to say, he better not be their president.  If he wants to be their president, he better start practicing now, rather than when he is back in DC.

    Maybe there ought to be an automatic disqualification for any nominee who has not been to West Virginia.  Almost heaven, indeed it is.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CST on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:06:34 PM EST
    Maybe they should be there together then.  My point is, they need to see him making the case.  If she can make a better case for him, he should at least be there to drive the point home.

    bs (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:08:39 PM EST
    Obama is an adult and, some insist, a talented politician.  If he needs the Clintons to quite literally prop him up and GET him the votes, then he has no business sitting in the White House making decisions that will affect these people.  Bill and Hillary are NOT on the ballot.  Obama is.  It's his job to convince people he's the best choice.

    But this inability to get the Democratic Base to support him has been an issue since at least early-March in the Primaries.  Did the DNC just ASSUME Bill and Hillary would take the knives out of their backs and work like dogs to get these votes for Obama that Obama can't get himself and then quietly disappear while Barack took the prize, took his bows and made history?

    Perhaps we should have nominated the person who doesn't need her hand to be held while crossing the Electoral College street.

    Nothing personal, but I'm getting really tired of people insisting the Clintons get out there and win this for Obama.  How about OBAMA win this for Obama?!?!?!  If he can't do it, then he doesn't deserve to be President.


    Personal responsibility (1.50 / 2) (#77)
    by iMambo on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:54:55 PM EST
    I appreciate your insistence that a presidential candidate stand on his own. But jesus, when was the last time we saw a truly decisive victory in a presidential election? (1996) So it's been two, going on three election cycles with some quite well-qualified candidates in the running. At its essence, a presidential election is a collaborative effort - no one guy (or woman) can win the presidency all alone. Obama isn't my neighbor or senator, and I may rely on people I trust to help me make my decision.

    You can also see my reply below about the knives in the Clintons' backs, or the lack thereof as I would argue. In party politics, we climb the ranks from community organizer to elected official to higher elected official and so on, and we rely on those networks to help get out a common message to a greater number of people. So as Obama has paid his dues to the system that helped get the Clintons in office in the first place, it is no time for them to "take their bat and ball and go home." We need them to be on our side (for clarity, our side meaning the majority of Democrats who nominated Obama), and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to work like dogs when many of us have done the same for them while it was their turn.

    And really - they're not working for the Obama camp. They're getting the guy most of us want into office, which is their professed mission and in my opinion their obligation. Their job doesn't stop when they're not winning anymore; the goal of serving the will of the public should be more noble than that.


    in all actuality, (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:24:44 PM EST
    though, the majority of Dems (in the Primary) DIDN'T choose Obama and that's why we, as a Party, are in the pickle we're in now.

    The DNC chose Obama, not the Party's Base.  Their votes went decidedly to Clinton.  But she's not on the ballot, Obama is.  Therefore, he's already starting from an unfortunately weak position.  But he and he alone needs to be out there making the case why HE is the best choice.

    As for the Clintons "working like dogs" for Obama as a way of repaying those of us who've worked for them, that'd make more sense if you could point to a time when Obama has campaigned as hard for anyone else as Hillary is now expected to do for him.

    I get the sense Obama looks out for Obama and if you can help him get what he wants, great.  But don't expect him to return the favor.  The joy at seeing him succeed will be reason and thanks enough.

    I trust the Clintons -- and most Dems -- will say "Thanks, but no thanks", as well they should.


    Well now wait a minute... (none / 0) (#90)
    by iMambo on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:09:17 PM EST
    Again very interesting viewpoints, and I have to tell you I care about this subject because I like Obama, at one point I liked Hillary, and I thought they should have done a ticket together, critics be damned. I think it's a shame that so many Clinton supporters have fallen out and the whys are really beyond me. But let's get the facts straight - according to everywhere I look, Obama won the popular vote in the primaries. The only way to work the numbers so Clinton comes out ahead is if you include Florida and Michigan, and/or without any state caucus results. Which is clearly unfair. (sources: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html, http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/clinton-obama-popular-vote.html, etc.)

    But again, whatever part Obama had in Bill's campaign if any (I can't find any information offhand about that), the presidential election is not an Obama-Clinton tit for tat. I am arguing that the Clintons owe a debt to the party, to the old organizers and the new voters, and to the democratic process. By your logic, how would most anyone have made it into office if all they could rely on were people they had "worked like dogs" to help? And also again, holding office is not a symbol of personal glory and it's not about a personal vendetta. It's about working together to get a job done, no more and no less.

    I don't know where you would have gotten the idea that Obama looks out for Obama, but a lifetime of public service would seem to refute your statement. Who else helps someone much wealthier than they are pay off a $25 million debt? Personally, though I am ticked off at Clinton supporters who refuse to get with the program and help get her party's choice elected, I would gladly donate a few bucks or volunteer to help defray her campaign debt. That's the attitude we need to have if we want to sway the country our way.


    Let's be serious (none / 0) (#92)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:19:31 PM EST
    Obama wrote Clinton a check for $2300.  That's the maximum he can personally do under the law.  Let's not pretend his kids are going without food or ballet lessons because he wrote that check.

    Clinton also did the maximum check for Obama.  And she's not looking to pay off any of her debt that came from personal loans.


    The penalties for Fla Mich were removed (none / 0) (#100)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:42:37 AM EST
    Those are state certified votes that are real.  Both Obama and Clinton made bad decisions when not engaging in caucuses or when removing a name from a ballot for strategic reasons only.

      Bad business for you to bring this all up.  REALLY bad.

      It's a great way to encourage disinterest (disgust) from possible Obama supporters.

      But he's not been teaching unity lessons, I realize.


    I might have agreed with you, (none / 0) (#96)
    by denise on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:42:18 PM EST
    had Obama not practically run against the Democratic Party right up until the convention.

    Their obligation? (none / 0) (#99)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:38:40 AM EST
    This is unity we can't believe in ..
                                                . .
                                                  . . .

    I think we're saying similar things (none / 0) (#72)
    by CST on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:25:28 PM EST
    I agree it needs to be Obama not Hillary out there making his case.  Others seem to think she can make it better than he can.  To which I say, fine, let them do it together.  But the main point of my post is that Obama needs to be front and center on this, not Hillary.

    Also, no one here is "insisting" Hillary do anything.  But if she wants to help (and it seems like she does) this is one of the ways that she could help.


    Other places (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:26:07 PM EST
    I've read comments in other forums that do insist HRC should be on the trail for Obama - more than that, that she should be his full time attack dog.

    To which I ask why on earth that would be a good idea for either her OR obama?  It would make Obama look weak, like he couldn't fight his own fights.  And it would be bad for her reputation.  I can just imagine her going full attack dog, helping Obama win and then hearing after the election that she can't be out in front on any issues that matter to her because she's too "divisive."

    She can campaign for Obama, but she shouldn't be expected to be the "shadow vice president."


    You feel that's it's still a shoe in for Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Saul on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:24:02 PM EST
    I do not think so.  I think it will be a dead heat race up to the election. Unless a major gaffe on either side takes place.   Dem need to be worried.  McCain is bad news.  

    It's Obama's race to lose (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:16:08 PM EST
    and he's doing a bang up job doing it.

    The more I think about it, the whole Obama phenomenon feels like a plot by Karl Rove.

    Actually Rove did say it would happen this way (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:48:05 PM EST
    Last fall on MTP (I think) he said he hoped and believed the Dems would be so overcondident that they would feel free to take a risk and nominate Obama.

    I don't think he made it happen though - unless the total disintegration of the government under his watch was a ploy to make Dems overconfident.


    To quote Hannible Lechter (none / 0) (#88)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:53:41 PM EST
    for Karl Rove, the total disintegration of the government is incidental.

    What is important is to have a nominee of the opposition party who is so wishy-washy and nebulus, who waves the flag and the cross of Jesus, that the people in power have nothing to worry about.

    not causation but correlation. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Salo on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:21:25 PM EST
    strong correlation.

    So, can I climb off the ledge now? (none / 0) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:51:45 AM EST

    I agree (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:52:56 AM EST
    If it's just tied or about tied now, Obama can salvage this.

    Salvage. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:08:44 PM EST
    All by himself?

    Doesn't appear so.

    Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall when he lunches with Bill Thursday?

    Anybody know who else will attend?


    I would love to see Bill in an ad for Obama (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:11:25 PM EST
    Good politicians need good surrogates.

    40 Million people (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:16:05 PM EST
    already saw that 'ad' at the Democratic convention...both the male and the female versions.

    Gee...that's not enough?  They have to go door to door now?


    Well, it worked (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:27:56 PM EST
    So show it again!

    How many times (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:28:31 PM EST
    has Bill Clinton announced 'publicly' that he will help Obama any way he can. He said he will travel around the country for Obama...anything. How many ads have you seen? None. How many speeches have you seen Clinton give for Obama. None.

    I would like that both, HIllary and Bill, are involved but boy, does this irritate me.


    to clarify... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by huzzlewhat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:38:17 PM EST
    What's your thinking here -- that Bill C. said that he'd help,  but isn't, or that he'd said he'd help, and Obama isn't using him?

    That Obama is not asking him (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:30:37 PM EST
    Clinton has an ego...heh, and Obama needs to ask.
    In fact he said that,if asked he would do anything, go anywhere to campaign for him.

    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:39:00 PM EST
    Obama needs to ask.  No one, not even Bill Clinton, can just go out on their own and campaign for someone.  It has to be coordinated with the Obama campaign.

    thanks- (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by huzzlewhat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:57:24 PM EST
    We're on the same page, then. Just wanted to make sure before I got all huffy. :-)

    Clintons (none / 0) (#67)
    by AlSmith on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:57:24 PM EST

    It is actually counter to the Clinton's best interest for Obama to get elected. If he does then she cant run in 2012.

    If he loses then she is the heir apparent and his national chances are probably spent. Kerry got the second most votes ever and he didnt get a second crack at it.

    Not that she hasnt been helpful and wont be helpful. But it would be pretty gauling to ask both of these people to put their lives on hold to help bail him out.


    I personally (3.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:11:43 PM EST
    don't want the Clintons to do more than they have to.

    Seriously, if Obama can't play ball with the big boys on his own, he should get the h*ll off the field.

    And, judging by what we've seen so far, he can't play ball with the big boys.  There's only so much Daddy Howard and Mama Donna can do in a national campaign.  And it's so far not enough.

    Barack's on his own now.


    2016 (none / 0) (#74)
    by WS on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:46:05 PM EST
    I think the Clintons want the goodwill from Obama supporters especially from African Americans when Hillary runs again.  2012 and 2016 isn't that big of a difference (this is from a diehard Hillary backer).  

    If Obama loses, the right will make sure to split the party and pin the loss on the Clintons. I'm sure she can still win in that environment, but for full scale party unity and the "her turn" goodwill, the Clintons know 2016 is the way to go.  


    no way (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by AlSmith on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:28:11 PM EST

    2016? She would be 68 and Bill would probably be dead.

    And I am assuming that Obama would have an incumbent VP that would be the presumed party leader. Bill ran in '92 when it was supposedly "too soon"... I cant see him consuling her to wait most of a decade to be positioned back in the pack.

    "The Right" wont pin the loss on anyone. Thats up  to the democratic party insiders to decide, and from history Kerry didnt fare so well. If he loses a winnable election this will be Obama's fault squarely.


    Hey (none / 0) (#97)
    by denise on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:45:03 PM EST
    Bill will only be 70 in 2016. Don't kill him off yet.

    no (3.66 / 3) (#82)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:31:15 PM EST
    According to a Poll done during the SC Primary, at a time when all the racism charges were flying, nearly 80% of AA polled said they would be fine supporting Hillary if she were the Nominee.  To suggest that AAs will turn against her should Obama lose -- and I think that's what you were suggesting -- and she runs in 2012 is disingenuous.  Her support with those core Democratic constituencies (AAs, women, Hispanics, Latinos, blue collar, rural) is rock solid.  In fact, judging by the latest cross tabs on the Polls, her support is a lot more solid than Obama's is!

    And this support will be just as strong in 2012.

    As for "her turn", if -- and when -- Obama loses in November, there will be many in the Democratic Party who will feel, much as they did with Al Gore in 2000, that Hillary was "robbed" by the DNC in order to run an inherently weak, flawed, inexperienced candidate.  There will be no question she will be the odds-on favorite in 2012.  

    And, based on what we saw in the Primary from March onward, she'll be a very strong candidate with an equally strong support network of Dems hungry to take back the White House.


    iMambo (none / 0) (#94)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:24:51 PM EST
    the 1 Rating is for posts that don't follow the Commenting Rules laid down by the Moderators.  It's not to be used simply to show disagreement with what a Poster said.

    Just FYI


    Hillary is No Kerry (none / 0) (#102)
    by WS on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:24:17 AM EST
    I was in no way implying that African Americans would turn on the Clintons if Obama happened to lose.  Its just that there would be less division in the party and less resistance to a Clinton if Obama were to win. If Obama loses, Clinton would be the favorite to win in 2012 since she only needs to win 40-50% of African Americans to add to her coalition but why stop there.  Again 2012 and 2016 isn't that big of a difference and she'll be 4 years younger than McCain is now.    

    Biden would be too old to run as the incumbent VP and even if he did, I don't think he can compete with Clinton unless Dean decides to install himself as DNC chair for life and cancel the primaries/divide the delegates based on how they think people would have voted, the sentiment of the non-voting population, and a few for Obama had he run for a third term (if he gets that far).


    ...fly on the wall.... Obama could (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by nulee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:20:43 PM EST
    get a Strickland answer from Bill if Obama asks Bill to campaign:

    "If drafted, I will not run; nominated, I will not accept; and if elected, I will not serve."

    I mean Bill is a good Democrat but I think he sees Obama through the prism of how Obama treated Hillary and for how Obama was happy to accept ample support from sexist talking heads and to go around trashing the likes of Bill himself, etc....


    I think Bill would do whatever (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:27:22 PM EST
    Obama asked him to do.  He won't forget the disrespect shown to Hillary, but he'll save that for another time and place. Same for Hillary.  Neither one of them wants to be accused of being responsible for an Obama loss.

    I wonder how much of a bump McBush would have had if he hadn't picked Palin, and had gone with a more conventional pick like Pawlenty or Romney? My guess is that it would have been much, much less.

    Still, at the end of the day, I think that all Palin does for McBush is cement him with the right-wing base.  I don't think she appeals to moderate Democrats, and I don't think she gets many people to cross-over. And if picking her has helped mobilize Bill and Hillary's energies in support of Obama -- as I think it has -- it may be a good thing for us after all.


    I don't agree on two points: (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by nulee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    1.  I don't think either Clinton is that much in the 'will do whatever Obama asks them to do' basket.  I think they will put up polite cover as they have to, but they know that Obama is actually not that powerful - he hasn't actually won anything yet except 200 extra superdelegates.  

    Bill has won the White House - twice.  He knows the next climb is the steepest and I suspect he thinks Obama is actually not strong enough to deal with the Republicans once Obama's media honeymoon is over.  Thus the rationale for not busting ass for Obama is that in the long run Obama may not be what we need, not enough of a fighter.  Don't get me wrong, the Clintons will continue to help as the they have, a lot.  But they won't work any miracles - Obama doesn't deserve it.  And I think the Clintons' think we (the rank and file of the Democratic Party) don't deserve Obama, we deserve better, starting with someone who will not tolerate sexism or race-bait to get votes.

    2. Second - please check out Tammy Bruce's article on feminists voting for Palin (link is above) - I disagree, I think by botching the Hillary issue, Obama will see a fair number of feminists recognizing that the promotion of a woman to the nation's second highest office is totally important to many women, and that they may go for this over hiring two dudes (Biden and Obama) to ostensibly be the watchdogs of feminism from the left.  They'd rather actually see that change happen, not talk about it.

    Personally I think NOW will have some serious wrestling to do with this Palin nomination.  I don't see how they cannot support her.  After all are they not the National Organization for WOMEN?

    Finally, I think the constant refrain of potentially blaming the Clintons for an Obama defeat does Obama no favors.  From this point on - OBAMA-OWNS-THIS.  Blaming a non-nominee for Obama's defeat frames Obama as a weak candidate.  The Clintons will never be blamed for this.


    NOW won't have to (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:08:13 PM EST
    wrestle with this at all.  They didn't support Hillary and she agrees with them on the issues.  Why would they support Palin?

    Check out this anti-Palin post on NOW's front page (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by nulee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:33:34 PM EST

    This clearly amounts to a non-endorsement of only the second woman to ever hold a spot on a national ticket.

    I just think that they are between a rock and a hard place here, there is no denying it.  I mean there really is an issue of saying Biden is a more a of a feminist, so women should put aside the notion of ACTUALLY having a woman in office and elect a man who is a feminist.  This is a pretty complex situation.  I don't think a lot of women will go for that.


    Biden is more of a feminist than Palin (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Lil on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:37:46 PM EST
    Biden is more of a feminist than Palin (none / 0) (#65)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:33:57 PM EST
    Just like I, and so many others, are better advocates for AA's than Justice Thomas.  Being a woman is not enough, if you do not advocate for women's issues, in general.  

    "There's a special place in hell for (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by tootired on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:06:38 PM EST
    women who don't help other women." - Madeleine Albright. Second choice - do no harm. NOW has the option to remain silent and endorse no one. Why haven't they? Biden is also pro-life and believes life begins at conception in his personal views, but does not oppose choice as it is the law. Sounds like he behaves the same as Palin does. NOW has lost a lot of its credibility over the years, and this decision isn't helping.

    Biden's not pro-life in terms (none / 0) (#85)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:42:24 PM EST
    of public policy, which is all that matters to me. I really don't care what a candidate's private religious beliefs are. I care what policies s/he promotes or opposes.

    Sarah Palin is a working mother with a demanding job and a demanding family life. By all accounts she is tough and aggressive and doesn't let anyone push her around. But by my lights she is not a true feminist. Homemakers can be and are feminists; high powered women who espouse policies that make womens' lives hard, and deprive them of their privacy and their control over their own bodies are not.


    There is so much more to it. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Jeannie on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:30:33 PM EST
    Most women don't put the abortion issue first - except perhaps the far right. And after the treatment of Hillary from the Obama camp, there is a great deal of doubt about his attitude towards women. After the extreme sexism, why would many feminists want to come back for more and trust him to improve things for women? Now that's a leap of faith! Why should an abused woman want to come back to support the abuser?
    The chances of abortion becoming illegal is nil. We are very tired of being threatened with it. It has become a control issue. Fall in line, or.....

    Palin is to feminism what (none / 0) (#59)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:00:38 PM EST
    Clarence Thomas is to civil rights.

    No rock and hard place.


    That doesn't nullify what I am saying (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by nulee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:14:01 PM EST
    ...Thomas may not embrace the viewpoints that many see as going hand in hand with the advancement of AAs but he IS the advancement of AAs.  

    Palin may not embrace the viewpoints that many think go hand in hand with the advancement of women but as a VP candidate she IS the advancement of a woman.  

    Both of them are actually living, breathing examples of the desired change happening - not a future fantasy. Many in the party found Hillary's treatment in the primaries by Obama and Obama's willingness to surf a sexist wave in the media - as falsifying the notion that Obama really stands for women when it counts.  I think Bruce does a good job


     pointing out that many women -right or left- fighting their own career battles remain totally put off by the primaries and at this point do not believe that the male elite of the Dem Party - and yes that includes the likes of Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Biden and Obama - were about advancing women when they had the chance to support HRC.


    it was not only (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:36:01 PM EST
    their willingness to NOT support Hillary during the Primaries that still turns so many people off to Obama and his supporters today.  It was the apparent joy they had in crushing their collective boot in Hillary's face in such an unnecessarily public way.  

    The insistence that she drop out (as she won Primary after Primary), the shrill cries that she was hurting "Party Unity" (as she won the Dem Base on a regular basis and he didn't) and the infamous RBC meeting in late-May still sticks in the throats of many who considered themselves Democrats and now have no intention of supporting the "new and improved" DNC with a vote for Obama.


    Advancement of a woman (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:45:07 PM EST
    does not necessarily mean the advancement of women.

    I was a Hillary supporter, a very fervent one. I would no sooner vote for the McCain-Palin ticket than I would sever my right arm. Palin's selection makes me think less of McCain than I did before, because his selection of her was a totally cynical capitulation to a right-wing fundamentalist base that only likes women willing to hold other women back.


    Nulee, to post a link at TalkLeft, (none / 0) (#64)
    by tootired on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:22:55 PM EST
    type what you want to call the link in the text box where you want it to appear, highlight it, then click on the icon right above the textbox that looks like a chainlink. Another text box will pop up, and you should paste the url of the page you are linking to there. When your links run into the margins, Jeralyn will need to delete your comment. You can check to see if your link is going to work by clicking "Preview" and trying out the link. See - one woman helping another. (If you're a guy, well, you still deserve help.) ;^)

    Yes, yes, yes!!! (none / 0) (#66)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:35:04 PM EST

    Bill Clinton invited Obama (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:17:52 PM EST
    to lunch. I doubt he did that to say "I won't help you in the campaign."

    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:18:03 PM EST
    I doubt very much the Clintons are going to bend over backwards to help Obama and the DNC to consolidate power and, eventually, oust them once they are inaugurated in 2009.

    As I said on another thread, the evidence is crystal clear that Obama has no hesitation in throwing people under the bus once they've done what they can for him.  The Clintons aren't stupid and, frankly, aren't going to go gung-ho for a man who's shown himself to be untrustworthy.

    They will do what they can, but no more.  In fact, Hillary is in FL today, but she probably realizes FL is an impossible get for Obama right now, so she's using her time there to support downticket races as well.  

    Frankly, this race is Obama's to lose.  And there will be those who will blame the Clintons regardless of what they do or don't do.  


    I think Palin (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    will help with Indys in the western states and will help with "conservative" dems in states like OH, PA, IN, WV, KY, NC.  WV and KY don't really matter, because they won't possibly go dem.  But the others are important to the dem chances.

    What disrespect? (1.00 / 5) (#71)
    by iMambo on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:22:16 PM EST
    I get upset when I hear Clinton supporters criticize Obama for being disrespectful of Hillary or otherwise treating her poorly. Look, maybe this is an especially touchy subject because no one's spouse has been a likely candidate for a major party presidential nomination - and perhaps because Bill is still so popular amongst many Democrats. But Obama did absolutely nothing that hasn't been done in any other political race. In fact, I think he treated her with kid gloves in most cases, offering to help pay her debt even though the Clintons are millionaires and he has only just recently been able to pay off his law school loans from the proceeds of his books.

    For what it's worth, I think the Clintons are incredible egotists. I saw Hillary Clinton as simply assuming that she would get the nomination by name recognition, and that she was above reproach from all other candidates. But guess what - the American voters turned out in record numbers to say they didn't want another dynasty president, and that Obama's message was the more innovative and inspiring.

    Anyhow, I foresee the Palin pick blowing up in McCain's face. She'll pull the evangelicals, but she is so far right of center and so incredibly deficient in experience on a national or international scale that I think the complete inappropriateness of her being VP will become glaringly obvious. Biden shouldn't hold back on her, in my opinion.


    you're joking, right? (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:40:01 PM EST
    Either you've been living under a rock since mid- to late-January or you've overdosed on the Kool-aid and have, in your pleasant, little fog, decided Obama is somehow blameless in all of this.

    And I personally have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you about the many instances of sexism, tarring with a racist brush and other tasteless, underhanded tactics used by the Obama Campaign and the DNC to drag him over the finish line.

    Try Google next time before making a fool of yourself again on a site like this.  Many of us are too familiar with what actually happened to take your Post seriously.


    I get upset by low-information voters (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:03:50 PM EST
    trying to tell us here, a high-information voter site, such nonsense.  I'm just brushing your post away like "Dirt Off My Shoulders."

    I'm sure BIll Clinton (none / 0) (#49)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:22:31 PM EST
    has a more mature take on the primaries than what you described.  Was he mad at Hillary losing? Yes.  Does he think he didn't get enough respect from Obama? Sure.  But it was BILL that invited Obama to lunch.  I think he may be getting over the primary battles and is ready to offer his advice to Obama.

    I think he was ready (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by tree on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:02:46 PM EST
    to offer his advice a long time ago. Hopefully Obama is ready to listen.

    Question: isn't it really bad (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:38:22 PM EST
    That we have to even use words like "salvage" in a slam-dunk election?

    short answer: (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:43:22 PM EST

    Who it reflects badly on is another question.


    We nominated a supposedly ... (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:45:09 PM EST
    transformative politician and got ... John Kerry?

    I'll pull out my tried and true analogy (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:56:04 PM EST
    from the primaries - you can't transform a sinking ship.  You have to get it righted before you paint it and point it in the preferred direction. Voters may say 'yes' when asked if they want "change", but what a lot of them mean is that they want the ship to change from sinking to floating.

    Right ... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    when voters say they want change, they mean from bad to good.  They might even live with bad to just okay.

    But they're not calling for bad to "most excellent awesomeness."


    Though of course that would be nice, (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:51:52 PM EST
    just highly unlikely in one cycle.

    Kerry, Gore and others (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:15:10 PM EST
    at this point were really far ahead right?  So, maybe Dems need to be underdogs to win?

    well (none / 0) (#78)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:16:20 PM EST
    Kerry was getting creamed at this point. Much worse than Obama-McCain after the GOP convention.  He managed to come back and get the spread down to 2.

    Diageo/Hotline 44-44 tie (none / 0) (#15)
    by magster on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    OT: McCain/Palin Original Mavericks Ad (none / 0) (#26)
    by cosbo on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:42:26 PM EST
    Shouldn't they use ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM EST
    the theme to MAVERICK in that ad?

    lol. nope they're going for the (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by cosbo on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:06:20 PM EST
    mainstream maverick market. Going that far back would only remind people that McCain is not young.

    The cross tab (none / 0) (#31)
    by Makarov on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    I keep looking for is Obama's support among self-identified Democrats. It's missing (along with all the others) in almost all of the recent polls.

    One I did find, the Diageo poll I think, did include it and noted Obama's Dem support was the same as McCain's Rep support - about 85%. Unfortunately, it had no historical data.

    Poll is tied? (none / 0) (#48)
    by bocajeff on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:19:14 PM EST
    Wow! When did they get rid of the electoral college?

    good (none / 0) (#73)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:35:42 PM EST
    The EC isnt looking bad yet either.. Hopefully we see some more good news in the next two weeks.