home

Clinton Close In Wisconsin?

By Big Tent Democrat

I expect Barack Obama to win Wisconsin easily, by at least 10 points. but the Rassmussen poll (which imo has consistently underpolled Clinton) says it is close:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows Obama with a narrow four-point advantage over Clinton, 47% to 43%. . . . Clinton leads by ten points among women but trails by twenty-three points among men. Clinton leads among voters over 65 while Obama has the edge among younger voters.

Now here is the good news for all Dems:

Obama is viewed favorably by 80% of Likely Democratic Voters in Wisconsin, Clinton by 79%.

< Seton Hall Report: Every Guantanamo Interrogation Was Videotaped | McCain Says Obama Ripped Off Hillary's Economic Plan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:12:26 PM EST
    I had made a comment along the very same lines, but either the Internet swallowed it, or BTD ate it :(

    I saw it before it was gone (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:13:59 PM EST
    I deleted it (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:58:05 PM EST
    it's absurd to say there's a difference between 79% and 80%.

    Parent
    He was joking (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:13:35 PM EST
    Steve M. is a positive commenter. And smart.

    Parent
    then he needs to add (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:25:03 PM EST
    a "/sarcasm" or other symbol so we know that. I had no idea.

    Parent
    I thought THIS one was a joke too? (none / 0) (#40)
    by katiebird on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:28:53 PM EST
    I guess I'm slow today...

    Parent
    I apologize Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:24:05 PM EST
    As BTD says, it was intended as pure snark.  I'm tired of people on the blogs trying to depict Hillary as some kind of reviled Leona Helmsley figure.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:37:16 PM EST
    You know this is just a blog right?

    Not for me to answer (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:49:58 PM EST
    I am calling it as I see it.

    Not as Hillary sees it.

    Parent

    I think they all matter (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:56:13 PM EST
    Some are more important than others foe each candidate.

    For example, Obama does not need to win Texas, but Hillary does. I assume Obama will try to win Texas anyway.

    this is the problem with some of you Obama supporters, you simply can not imagine someone providing honest analysis.

    Hate to break it to all of you - I do. Maybe I am wrong, but I am honest.

    You need to turn it down a notch in your commenting.

    Parent

    yes, you also need (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:59:30 PM EST
    to not dominate the threads and comment on every comment, that's chattering and not appreciated. You'll find yourself limited to 4 comments a day otherwise, per the comment rules.

    Parent
    Are you Obama's director of (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:06:21 PM EST
    blog replies?

    Parent
    Obama also said (none / 0) (#33)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:10:34 PM EST
    that he'd "do the right thing"/do right by voters after the delegates were stripped.  That is, until he lost FL (Clinton really trounced Obama there).

    But now that the NAACP is calling for FL and MI to be seated at the convention, where's your outcry against them?

    Parent

    This is precisely what I am talking about (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:10:57 PM EST
    Look, this site is possibly not for you.

    If you can not tone it down, you will need to leave.

    Parent

    You are in need of a timeout (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:12:38 PM EST
    and reflection as to whether you can conform your commenting behavior to the rules of the site.

    Please leave for the rest of the day and if you are unable to change your ways, please stay away permanently.

    Parent

    BTD, I can't tell (none / 0) (#43)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:35:16 PM EST

    who you're speaking to...the way the threads line up are rather uniform on my end.  Are you speaking to me?

    Parent
    Oh never mind, I reset my view of the threads. (none / 0) (#44)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:37:41 PM EST
    Heh heh, still new, was unaware that I could reset things so I could see things clearer.  :)

    Parent
    please stop twisting already and move on (none / 0) (#51)
    by Polkan on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:02:39 PM EST
    I live in FL. I never heard anyone saying my vote won't count. I knew there was a date squabble between the state party and the DNC. I admit I wasn't paying much attention at the time, but I suspect many others didn't either. But according to you, that's my problem now. So, if you're trying to tell me that a vote and a delgate is the same thing, I'm calling you an opportunistic hypocrite.

    I also find it hard to believe that you would be making arguments about delegate majority on one thread while supporting disenfranchising voters on the other. Yes, I'm a Clinton supporter, but I can separate my emotions and discuss her mistakes. So, let's discuss this calmly and with reason, that's the kind of change I'm hoping for.

    Parent

    Rasmussen National Number - 49, O, 37 C (none / 0) (#60)
    by Bear2000 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:32:25 PM EST
    Obama is now up by 12 points in Rasmussen's national number.  If you don't think this matters, you're nuts.  


    Parent
    good positives (none / 0) (#3)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:54:03 AM EST
    Glad they are both like though.

    agreed (none / 0) (#4)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:54:56 AM EST
    she is spending 3 days there so excuses wont fly.

    I don't think its about winning (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:08:32 PM EST
    I think its about Clinton camp realizing they should not have conceeded small unimportant to Obama. I believe the point is to keep it close and stop the "blowout" story line.

    Parent
    Actually, 4 days -- late-decider days (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:59:37 PM EST
    when she does well.  But she'll be in Wisconsin from Saturday through Tuesday, she says, so I wonder why that keeps being reported as 3 days.  (Then again, we can see how many journalists have problems with basic math, from their attempts at delegate counts.)

    And today, Obama went back home, and Bill Clinton -- and Huckabee -- took back the front page online for the leading paper in the state (jsonline.com).  Bill also dominated the local noon news shows in Milwaukee, but the 5 and 6 p.m. news shows are the key in this working-class area.  He has another rally nearby this afternoon so ought to take that time slot as well.  And then we'll see who is on the print front page tomorrow morning.

    But that's when Obama is back for a rally here, I hear, so he may take back the front page tomorrow and Saturday.  And then Hillary comes to town . . . and the battle will be joined -- just as another major storm is predicted, so who knows?

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#7)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:01:00 PM EST
    So the excuses that haven't been made over an outcome that hasn't happened will not be tolerated. Good Grief!

    Don't worry about it cause Jane Hamscher over at firedoglake seems to think that it's all over anyway.

    So why am I bothering to go to the polls here in Wisconsin on Tuesday to vote for Hillary Clinton? Just stubborn I guess.

    Parent

    Hey, Kenosha, we always have fun (none / 0) (#46)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:41:13 PM EST
    with the outsiders who think they can tell us what to do, huh?  Those who think 1960 is ancient history . . . when the way we think in Wisconsin, it was yesterday.  (Well, it's STILL the '60s where I live . . . and as we say, we like it here.:-)

    Parent
    If Obama doesn't win buy more than 10 (none / 0) (#10)
    by badger on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:11:19 PM EST
    then the delegate split will be fairly even (or Clinton could walk away with more delegates, depending on the formulas for choosing them WI uses). The media narrative will likely be "Obama losing momentum?" or "Clinton begins comeback", because of Obama's past margins and Clinton's polling in the upcoming big-state primaries, and because a close race sells more papers than a blowout and offers more opportunity to pontificate.

    Beyond that "winning" a state is pretty meaningless, because it's delegate totals that matter, not winner-take-all electors as in the general election (offer not valid in NE or ME).

    And I don't see Obama winning WI by much, if at all. But my prediction record isn't very good.


    Not so clear; Republican redistricting (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:05:19 PM EST
    of congressional districts -- how delegates are awarded -- was pretty weird here in Wisconsin, with strangely gerrymandered districts in some places to save GOP seats.  See Senselessbrenner's map, for one (and wherever it weirdly veers up, down, and around, it's avoiding minority voters -- with almost all AAs in this hypersegregated state in one congressional district, mine . . . but it also has lots of Latinos/as and Hmongs, although both of those are more distributed around the state).

    Parent
    Which is why (none / 0) (#64)
    by badger on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:00:10 PM EST
    Obama's voters are concentrated in the Milwaukee and Madison CDs and less so in the suburban districts like Sensenbrenner's or the 1st (Used to be - Racine/Kenosha), or the Fox River Valley, or the more rural northern or western districts.

    So Obama could carry two districts by a huge margin, and lag or even lose big in some of the other districts. And if the Rasmussen poll is right, the spread is within the margin of error, and that's statewide, with big lumps of support in those two districts. He could win the popular vote and still come up short on delegates.

    I wouldn't want to bet on who wins Wausau or Eau Claire or LaCrosse, but my feeling is Clinton, especially with the polling close statewide.

    Parent

    This is the best news of the last (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:40:22 PM EST
    couple days for a Clintonista.  

    How is 1% (none / 0) (#17)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:40:30 PM EST
    a big deal?

    Obama favorable by 80%
    Clinton favorable by 79%

    That is good numbers for both of the candidates. makes me hopeful tht the party will unite.

    Interesting Wisconsin Analysis from Chris Bowers (none / 0) (#21)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:50:19 PM EST
    He sees it as a must win state for Obama - here.  I think Obama will win it, but it's not an impossible upset for Clinton to pull off.

    Wisconsin and Ohio HRC supporters, here is a video I came across that was made to respond to the "Yes We Can" Obama video, I think it would be particularly effective with women voter.  Perhaps there are some in those states you know who might enjoy watching it?   The video is courtesy of No Quarter.

    OMG - Superwoman! - Now seriously, BDB (none / 0) (#30)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    talk to me about cultish behavior!!!

    Yes we can. Note the "we". Its a message about empowerment of the citizenry. Tap into your dreams, stand up and fight for them.

    Here we have, by contrast, a video that starts with a mournful list of all that is wrong with the country, then provides the solution - superwoman! The bright and shining heroine who is just so, like, awesomely awesome, who will cure all the ills of the world, like she brings smiles to the faces of babies brought into her presence.

    Wow. I mean, just wow.

    Parent

    Wait, you call... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:32:29 PM EST
    "Superwoman" cultish behavior when it was a one-person fan made video, yet the Obama one was made by a dozen or so celebs?

    I think we have our definitions of "cultish" mixed up here.

    I'm sorry to say that "Yes We Can" will ultimately come down to "Yes, He Can" or "No, He Can't" in the end.  We're not the ones who could be making the decisions in Washington.  Either Clinton or Obama (or McCain) are.

    Parent

    OMG! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:46:35 PM EST
    Yes, because I linked to a fan video using Superwoman as a song, I clearly think Hillary is perfect and, literally, superwoman.  Because I cannot tell fantasy from reality.  

    You know, when all this complaint about an Obama cult started, I thought it was kind of ridiculous and would last a couple of days, at most.  Something to tweak his more over-the-top on-line supporters, but I'm stunned by the need of so many Obama folks to constantly point out how they are not in a cult, but Hillary folks are.    Perhaps it struck more of a nerve than I thought it would.

    In any event, if watching and enjoying fan videos enrolls one in a cult, then I joined the Battlestar Galactica cult long ago and Hillary and Obama are out of luck.  Laura Roslin in 2008!

    Parent

    Nah, we're not a Clinton cult (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:52:07 PM EST
    we're just millions of women who grew up wanting to be in "girl groups" to sing backup.:-)

    You are correct, of course, that many Obama supporters are not cult followers, not sheeple.  Many of them are among my family and friends, and they are thinking, politically active people.  I am concerned by how many of them ought to be brighter than to buy into so many media memes in this campaign -- i.e., "the Clintons are racists" -- so I see a lot of emotionalism motivating them as well.  

    But cultists, they are not.  Just, from my perspective, a bit confused.:-)

    Parent

    Thank you for (none / 0) (#58)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:21:09 PM EST
    a measured and thoughtful response. Seems to be getting rarer around here these days.

    Parent
    I didnt argue that Obama supporters (none / 0) (#59)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:28:10 PM EST
    were not a cult. Obviously, I dont think they are, but that was not my argument in the comment above. I was just pointing out the creepy, cult-like meme of that video. That you thought it was really swell might be indicative of something or other.

    Although I dont want to seriously push any cult meme, I think on a basic level there are two different approaches taken by the two campaigns. Obama is putting himself forward as a leader of a poltical movement - ala his community organizer roots. Thats why he speaks, instinctivly, in the languate of popular empowerment. Hillary, on the other hand, has based her campaign on HER qualifications, her mastery of policy, her experience. Its all about her, and her superiority as a potential president, rather than about you, about us, about leading a movement of empowered people.

    The video is a way-over-the-top embodiment of this.

    Parent

    A "low information" cult. (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:15:24 PM EST
    Yes we can is a pander (none / 0) (#41)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:31:05 PM EST
    He took it from the United Farm Workers motto "Si se puede".  It's pandering to unions and to the Latin@ vote.  As for the video it is what it is.  About the same as the video for Obama an over the top video about a candidate.  It's par for the course.  Did you expect a response to be less admiring for her than for him?  Rather unrealistic of you.  So we have dueling supporters making videos.  LOL This is politics.  

    Parent
    "We Can Do It!" works better (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:47:30 PM EST
    for Wisconsin -- have you seen the Rosie the Riveter poster with Hillary Clinton's face?

    This was one of the leading states to supply WWII, our troops and those of our allies around the world, and we're still proud of it here -- where you see Rosie posters and t-shirts in stores, on walls, and worn.  More than a million women here worked in our factories turned to over to manufacture of troop supplies, and many thousands of them still are here -- as are their daughters and daughters' daughters, darn proud of those women, too.  (Btw, we just lost one of the greats of that group, an AA woman who led the fight for them to get into the unions here, too -- see the obit on jsonline.com last week for Nellie Wilson.  But we have her oral history for posterity in many books, articles, etc; see wisconsinhistory.org.)

    Our many Latinas are rightfully proud of their heritage here and nationwide as well, and of their migrant workers' slogan, and I wouldn't steal it from them.  All women here have their own slogan -- We Can Do It in Wisconsin. :-)

    Parent

    No I hadn't seen that (none / 0) (#52)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:03:39 PM EST
    That's wonderful.  I love the Rosie poster.  Thank you for telling me this.  With so much misogyny going around it's great to see people fighting back.

    Parent
    I'll try to find a URL for you . . . (nt) (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:06:00 PM EST
    Thank you :) n/t (none / 0) (#55)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:07:50 PM EST
    Dem. moderates or Repub. moderates? (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:52:09 PM EST


    What? (none / 0) (#36)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:12:56 PM EST

    "as Obama is a once in a lifetime candidate whom most Americans would be proud to call their president"

    Say what?  How is he a once in a lifetime candidate?

    I would say that Clinton is the once-in-a-lifetime candidate.  We've seen Obama before in various forms.  I won't get into how just yet, I'd like to see how you respond to his being a "once in a lifetime" thing first.

    Parent

    No registered Dems in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:37:53 PM EST
    and Wisconsin is the topic here, where we don't have registered voters -- Dem or GOP.  So we're independent cusses in Wisconsin, the land of the mavericks (look at our man Russ Feingold).

    Please stick to the thread topic.  When it's time to talk about Rhode Island, we will.

    Parent

    I'm more worried (none / 0) (#29)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    about the Dem Party. The unity is the important message here. A Dem candidate needs the support of the Dem base.... otherwise they can have all the Repubs and Indies vote.... but if the base is not there .... then they lose.

    I'm glad to see the base is not splitting hairs and becoming devisive.

    To get that white male vote (none / 0) (#56)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:15:45 PM EST
    the Dems have to reverse the image a-l-o-t of folks have of Dem candidates -- limp wristed weaklings. Kerry even looked the part, despite his war record (have to have the image to go with it -- there's a Buck in Buck Rogers, not a Tuck).

    I liked how Clinton mentioned herself being ready to be the CiC (a major bone of contention with anyone with an ounce of military background). But she also has to walk the walk, by showing how knowledgeable she is about the military -- please no more bad salutes on the flight deck. No matter how the far Left views the military, their responsibility lies with the president, and if the president looks out-of-touch with it, s/he'll NEVER win the GE.

    So if you want that white male vote, enough to get my native Wisconsin father and uncle, who are military retirees, to care to vote (and yes, my uncle was on board the USS Forrestal when McCain had the accident that caused the fire, in 1967 -- and he was a CPO in avionics even), Hillary will need to pump not only Washington military connections, but what she will do for them -- and more than healthcare.

    Many white men have a military, police, and fire background. So they want a s-t-r-o-n-g leader that speaks their language, and will support them. Can Hillary do it? She has no choice, she has, too.

    It's about winning folks, and to win against a warhawk you have to appeal to that American white male image.

    I hope my neighbors, your relatives (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:02:56 PM EST
    in Wisconsin know about her work on the Senate Armed Services Committee -- I have read that generals, admirals, etc., really respect her for it, as well as her work for vets' benefits, the VA, etc.

    My ex, a Viet vet, looked into this and found himself convinced to vote for Clinton.  And this is not a committed Dem but an Independent, sometimes voting Republican.  (Yeh, I had grounds.:-)

    I don't think that she can talk about it now, though -- not with Obama claiming to have voted against the war and with it still an issue for many voters.

    But military retirees are smart and know well never to trust just being told stuff, anyway -- they know to always investigate, verify, and then verify again.

    Parent

    Btw, she comes from a WWII vet's family (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:04:32 PM EST
    and that also was important to my ex.  (See Hugh Rodham on Wikipedia -- the father, not the brother.)

    Parent
    Again (none / 0) (#57)
    by Claw on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:17:42 PM EST
    I'm dismayed by the war that seems to be going here and I sincerely hope that it will not carry over to the general election.  Having an open mind and welcoming honest debate are, to me, a large part of what's so appealing about being a yellow-dog dem.  Commenters in both camps seem to be devoting more time to snark and bile than actual substance.  Let's have an honest, reasoned debate.  This is the best Law/Politics site out there but this should be civil.  We have two candidates poised (pending nomination) to become our next president...assuming the party doesn't fracture because we've become more attached to a candidate than to civil liberties, a better economy, and a Supreme Court that isn't completely republican.  

    Hillary should get Edwards endorsement. (none / 0) (#65)
    by john5750 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:31:46 AM EST
    I hope Hillary does get John Edwards endorsement. I can't imagine him backing Obama after he said Obama is kind of a pussy.  We don't want a pussy for a president.  Joe Wilson said he thought Obama was weak, too.  We haven't even seen the GOP, McCain, and the swiftboaters go after him yet. I don't think he can handle it either. He's great on speeches, but there's a lot more to actually being president.  Hillary knows what it takes and she has it all.