home

Gallup: Boost and Tie for Hillary in Daily Tracker

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:44:31 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Gallup Daily tracking poll shows a boost for Hillary Clinton and a tie between her and Barack Obama wth Obama at 48% and Hillary at 47%.

The latest results, based on Gallup Poll Daily tracking from April 22-24, include two days of interviews conducted entirely after Tuesday's Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Support for Clinton is significantly higher in these post-primary interviews than it was just prior to her Pennsylvania victory, clearly suggesting that Clinton's win there is the catalyst for her increased national support.

Obama's lead dwindled steadily all week, falling from a high of 10 percentage points in interviewing conducted in the three days just prior to the Pennsylvania primary. However, the percentage of Democrats supporting Obama has changed little (declining from 50% in April 19-21 polling to 48% today). Most of Clinton's increased support (from 40% to 47%) has come from previously undecided voters.

Hillary is also doing better than Obama against John McCain: [more...]

Clinton fares slightly better than Obama against John McCain in hypothetical matchups for the November election. Although both races are too close to call given the poll's margin of error, Clinton is running two points ahead of McCain, 47% to 45%, while Obama is running one point behind, 45% to 46%.

< 3,000 Crack Cocaine Sentences Reduced To Date | Fair Or Not >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Gallup: Boost and Tie for Hillary in Daily Tracker | 151 comments (151 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Obama's Humiliating Loss in Pennsylvania (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:46:41 PM EST
    It seems to have turned the table a touch.

    Please (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:47:28 PM EST
    I really, really hope you're right.

    Parent
    And it's a "dead heat" in Indiana, too (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:57:26 PM EST
    and the post-PA bounce is real, per this report.

    Parent
    You notice that Carville (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:18:51 PM EST
    is now saying Indiana is a must-win?

    I'll bet the campaign's internal polling shows she is doing well. Otherwise, he wouldn't say it. :-)

    Parent

    I think any reasonable person... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:23:15 PM EST
    ... would admit that Indiana is a must-win for Hillary. So it makes sense they'd try to paint it as a must-win for Obama as well. It's not quite, but it is important if he wants to avoid a protracted slump down the home stretch.

    Parent
    In the GE (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by themomcat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:31:32 PM EST
    Indiana is a swing state that could go either Dem or  Rep. It is a must win in the primary for either candidate as a show of strength for the GE. IMHO

    Parent
    IN is not a swing state (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Prabhata on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:52:21 PM EST
    It has gone Republican since time immemorial.

    Parent
    Specifically (none / 0) (#144)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:42:21 AM EST
    Indiana has gone Democratic exactly three times since 1932 the last time in 1964.  So that's 10 straight Presidential elections.

    The three elections carried by Democrats include unusual circumstances. During the depression in 1932 and 1936 and in 1964 when the GOP nominated right-winger Barry Goldwater who, unlike Bush and to an extent Reagan, did not try to hide his extreme positions.

    Indiana is automatic GOP.

    Parent

    I don't think its a swing state (none / 0) (#86)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:55:09 PM EST
    That said, its electorate is made up of an electorate that Obama is notably weak in. He needs to cement the fact that he can win mid to low income level white males. If he doesn't win Indiana then Clinton can continue with her argument that she appeals to voters that Obama just can't close the deal with.

    Parent
    Uh, Obama said it, too (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:32:07 PM EST
    and possibly first, I've seen it quoted so much.

    Parent
    Yeah look for "cherry picker" kos... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:37:17 PM EST
    ...to put this poll asap.

    Parent
    (smiling) (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by katiebird on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:52:04 PM EST
    That was a good night, wasn't it?

    Parent
    Yes, but the OFB (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:57:43 PM EST
    will never believe it.

    There can't really be that many racists in this country, can there?

    Parent

    LOL! (none / 0) (#27)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:19:16 PM EST
    snarkalicious!

    Parent
    I cannot hear this enough (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:41:29 PM EST
    Obama's Humiliating Loss

    His argument from the moment Edwards dropped out was that the polls showed him with higher favorables and as more electable than Clinton.

    Now what?

    Parent

    I doubt it (none / 0) (#6)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:53:06 PM EST
    but thats my opinion

    1. Obama is moving more to a GE focus with his new 50 state plan, and the new joint DNC-Obama committee to raise money.

    2. Hillary just had a major fundraiser defect to Obama.

    3. the reporter who said talked to some supes who basically say PA didn't change much


    Parent
    Don't you mean 48 state (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:56:40 PM EST
    as long as he isn't willing to engage Michigan or FL he doesn't get to use 50 state.

    Parent
    Hillary signed the same pledge (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by lilybart on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:32:14 PM EST
    as Obama did regarding the exclusion of Michigan and Florida.

    So, her signature is meaningless I guess.

    Parent

    You have been told this is not factual (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:36:30 PM EST
    about the pledge and what it said, repeatedly.

    So this is just chatter on your part, using up the limited bandwidth of this blog.  Stop it.

    Parent

    You are wrong on this issue (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:43:21 PM EST

    Jeralyn covered this already.

    Here is the text of the pledge itself.

    Please point out where it says the votes in Florida or Michigan wouldn't count or to the non-seating of the delegates.

    Four State Pledge Letter 2008
    Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
    August 31, 2007

    WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

    WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

    WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

    WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

    THEREFORE, I _____, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.



    Parent
    The difference is (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:46:20 PM EST
    that Hillary is willing to take her chances and advocate a revote in the 2 states not counted. She can call her effort a 50 state effort because she supports every states right to weigh in. Obama does not and will not unless he allows a revote and allows all 50(with emphasis on the 50) states to have a say on the nominee.

    Parent
    50 (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:30:39 PM EST
    states, other than MI and FL?

    Come on.......that's a joke.

    Parent

    slight OT, but has to do with MI/FL (none / 0) (#142)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:44:58 PM EST
    According to Ben Smith

    LINK

    MI, FL hearings May 31

    The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet on May 31 to consider appeals from Michigan and Florida, Marc reports.

    The challenges -- from Michigan DNC member Joel Feguson and Florida DNC member Jon Ausman -- ask that the DNC seat all of the rogue states' superdelegates and at least half of their pledged delegates.

     

    Parent

    Nixon tried a 50 state ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:31:32 PM EST
    strategy in 1960.

    Didn't turn out so well.

    Once again, Obama turns to a Republican playbook.

    Sigh.

    Parent

    Yeah its because she only won by 9.48% (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:56:48 PM EST
    Not 10, only if she had 9.51 then she'd be ok!

    </snark>

    Seriously, PA may yet become the point where Obama lost the nomination. Not saying it is yet.

    Parent

    10 (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:37:26 PM EST
    I'm getting tired of this inaccuracy. OK, again by the numbers, with 100% reporting, we have:
    Clinton at 1,260,444 (54.64%)
    Obama at 1,046,220 (45.35%)

    And we round that to the closest whole number (as all other contests have been reported), we get 55% Clinton, 45% Obama. That makes 10.

    Parent

    who cares? (none / 0) (#66)
    by CST on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:39:58 PM EST
    Also, I don't think there is 100% reporting yet...


    Parent
    100% reported (none / 0) (#119)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:11:55 PM EST
    so the media outlets know the final numbers. But the official tally isn't completed yet because, well, they like to take their time.

    Parent
    The media (none / 0) (#129)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:31:37 PM EST
    sometimes behaves like children about this stuff.

    Parent
    I was being snarky (none / 0) (#110)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:31:05 PM EST
    Hope you didn't take me seriously.

    Parent
    oops (none / 0) (#118)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:10:48 PM EST
    noticed the snark after I wrote that. Well, we all get heated in battle. :-) But I like making the point anyway. Keeps people on their toes.

    Parent
    but the Kos Kids and DU are making it (none / 0) (#120)
    by thereyougo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:14:40 PM EST
    an issue. Really. They have diaries and threads about if its 9.2 or whatever. kids with computers, you know?

    Parent
    the DC/Dem establishment and elites (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:01:18 PM EST
    support Obama. Therefore he has no problem raising money and offering carrots to Hillary defecters.

    Males have always controlled the White House, Congress, Wall Street, the media, etc. and they want to keep it that way.

    Parent

    and some women too (none / 0) (#93)
    by sancho on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:01:15 PM EST
    Pelosi.

    Parent
    Hardly (none / 0) (#121)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:15:19 PM EST
    Ms. "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi?  She's abidcated her responsibility as the Speaker to not have a knock down drag out on impeaching those destroyers of the Constitution.

    She's doing their bidding, IMO.

    Parent

    link in #3 - (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:13:07 PM EST
    House Democrat admits they're supporting Obama because they're fearful of alienating AAs.
    And that about sums up Obama's candidacy based on fear, hate, and the Race Card.

    Parent
    I just stopped watching a CNN video (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:51:48 PM EST
    talking about Obama's crossover appeal!!  Really.  What does it take for theses idiots to report the facts??

    Of the core democratic constituencies:

    Obama wins AA's.
    Clinton wins seniors.
    Clinton wins women.
    Clinton wins working class democrats.
    Obama wins the Adlai Stevenson affluent 'creative class'. Among them are bloggers and the pundits.
    Clinton wins the low earners.

    She wins much more of the democratic core constituency than he does, and yet pundits keep refering to her as "polarizing" and to him as "uniter".

    Couldn't we somehow get rid of idiots polluting airways like this?


    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#92)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:01:01 PM EST
    and as I said earlier, they're managing to alienate the rest of us Hillary supporters.  I've voted for presidents in every election since I was able to do so.  I realized long ago that dems, though not perfect, were far better for the country's welfare than republicans (and that was amplified a hundredfold in the last seven years).

    I'm delighted some others are finally paying attention.  Where were they before?

    Parent

    in PA they didn't turn our for him as expected (none / 0) (#122)
    by thereyougo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:16:17 PM EST


    Parent
    OK that answers my quesion (none / 0) (#135)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:56:52 PM EST
    about why Clyburn etc went off the deep end on the Clinton's on Fox tonight.  The Clinton's are vicious, lacking in grace and dignity, imploding the party, arrogance over the party, running for 2012 will do anything so Obama is unelectable,

    Armstrong Williams and Mark Lamont Hill agreed with everything Clyburn had to say and then some.

    Parent

    So get them on the record or don't count them yet (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:22:21 PM EST
    That's a fairly basic part of The Math.

    Otherwise, the muttering being cited in your last point doesn't actually count.

    She's "divisive", "polarizing" (or the latest "unfavorable" slam Team Obama has been using) do precious little in the way of illuminating or recommending his credentials for the presidency.

    Obama isn't markedly less divisive, polarizing or unfavorably rated.

    Parent

    You mean 48 states... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Josmt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:57:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Good thing she raised $10mil (none / 0) (#38)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:25:42 PM EST
    all on her own, eh?

    Parent
    That's only to give him time (none / 0) (#99)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:07:03 PM EST
    to come up with an answer or an equivalent policy statement to Hillary's Deterrence Umbrella.  It is difficult to come up with something that is really a copy of something and make it look like it is different.

    Parent
    HA! (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:51:51 PM EST
    Unfortunately the same people that touted the Gallup poll when Obama was up by 10+ points are calling it a meaningless poll at this time.

    What I found concerning (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:01:08 PM EST
    Earlier someone posted that Obama's electoral win would be 280 but that 280 included Virginia. I don't think Obama will win here. We barely managed to get Webb into office here and I think by the time the GE rolls through McCain will win a state that has a heavy military retiree population.

    Parent
    Pipe dream (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Jim J on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:16:39 PM EST
    but a strangely popular one in Obama Nation. They seem to be somewhat fixated on a Virginia win, almost as a fait accompli.

    Reminds me of some of the even-crazier talk about Obama flipping Kansas, S.C. and/or Ga.

    The internet has one huge drawback: Its ability to bring people closer together despite distance basically means the same two or three stupid ideas get bounced back and forth all the time to the exclusion of nearly everything else.

    Parent

    The only way (none / 0) (#41)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:30:01 PM EST
    I see him possibly pulling it off is if his running mate is a popular Virginia Democrat. He might have a shot if he chose someone like Kaine for a running mate. Otherwise I don't see it happening and even then I don't see it as a sure thing.

    Parent
    If Obama is the nominee ... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:37:05 PM EST
    I predict him only carrying 8 states.  If he's very, very lucky he might stretch that to 11.

    I'm going to vote for him if he gets the nom, but I think he will lose badly.

    Parent

    He might carry Illinois (none / 0) (#72)
    by themomcat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:43:27 PM EST
    but remember that Gore lost Tennessee.

    Parent
    Hmmmm... (none / 0) (#50)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:33:14 PM EST
    that could help.

    Still, if he's the nominee and wants to come close in VA, he'd better pick a military man, IMHO. Otherwise, he's not gonna get that state.

    Parent

    Kaine isn't military (none / 0) (#82)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:52:11 PM EST
    but he is pretty popular neither is Mark Warner. I think either could offer some support from Virginans despite their lack of credentials because of their economic credentials here. Webb could offer some help military wise(he narrowly squeaked out a win but now that he is in office is respected) . That said, with Kaine or Webb we'd have to expect they might get hit on "opportunism" for not finishing out their term from the GOP and we'd have to find replacements for them which might not be THAT easy of a task..

    Parent
    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:15:09 AM EST
    Anyone who suggests Mark Warner should get a psychiatric examination.

    Warner has a superb chance of winning Warner's vacant seat and giving us a pick-up in the Senate.

    I've seen that suggested on the Obamablog circuit. I've also seen Hagel's name suggested in Obamablog world along with Webb who has only 16 months in the Senate.

    So that would mean either ditching a potential pick-up in the Senate (Warner)

    Or possibly forcing the early potential loss of a seat from a GOP state (Webb)

    Or putting a right-winger a heartbeat away and with a tie breaker vote in the Senate (Hagel)

    So we blow a chance at a pick-up in the Senate or have to defend a vacated seat or give a right-winger a platform in the executive branch.

    But it would fit right in with some Obama supporters who want Obama in the White House and a GOP controlled Congress. Unity and all that.

    Behold the brilliance of Obama supporters.

    Parent

    Unfortunately, Obama Can Not Chose 48 VPs (none / 0) (#136)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:08:29 PM EST
    Obama's so called electoral map seems to be shrinking all the time.

    Webb won because Allen imploded. Without the Maccaca (sp) video and Mark Stark publicly hounding him about his use of the "n" word, Allen would have won.

       

    Parent

    mydd has a counter on its site (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:56:06 PM EST
    Today it is instructive:

    Obama 243 McCain 295
    Clinton 279 McCain 259

    Moreover, Clinton's 279 DOES NOT include Michigan or Arkansas or New Hampshire or New Mexico.  She wins OH and FL.

    Obama's totals include CO, IA, MI, but don't include FL, OH, or PA.

    Need we say more?

    Parent

    WOW...was my response (none / 0) (#98)
    by nashville on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:05:59 PM EST
    when I saw that.  Maybe there is still hope.

    Then I began reading some of the comments and quickly remembered why I can not read any comments except those at this site!  

    Parent

    That is a really cool tool (none / 0) (#101)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:11:07 PM EST
    Thanks for pointing that out. I wish they had a another two maps that emphasized where the polling between McCain and the frontrunners are too close to call. The site allows for having a state be UNCALLED.

    Parent
    Not sure if this helps (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:27:04 PM EST
    I don't go to MYDD since they banned people, but this one breaks out according to how close the polling is....

    Clinton

    map

    Obama

    map

    Parent

    This was the site used by My DD, I think (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:49:22 PM EST
    and it has been around for quite a while -- I was using it in 2004, still bookmarked from then.  It's worth a daily look, as it does some different things some days as well as updates of its standard stuff.

    Parent
    The last time (none / 0) (#146)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:48:40 AM EST
    I examined that site I noticed that the most recent polling was April 16.  

    Some polls in March and some I believe in February.

    I have a feeling that an updated version would show an even stronger Clinton showing.

    Parent

    I have family that lives (none / 0) (#23)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:16:35 PM EST
    in Virginia.

    You are dead-on, IMHO.

    I just don't think his electoral map is realistic. And I'll bet the supers are starting to think the same thing.

    Parent

    Blue, Blue, Virginia (none / 0) (#123)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:19:59 PM EST
    I sadly have to agree as a current resident of the old dominion that Obama can't win the GE . Clinton would have an uphill battle, but I think a better chance than Obama. Virginia is definitely turning blue. We'll have Mark Warner and Jim Webb as our senators, fingers crossed. We have Kaine as our gov. And we're getting bluer every election in our  state legislature. But these issues of late have closed the door for Obama if they were ever really open. Too many bitter whites, too many military folks, and it still leans right even with the dems in office. The running mate of either Clinton or Obama could help. But if I were them I wouldn't pick a VA running mate to help with VA when you could pick a running mate to help with more likely states.

    Parent
    This setbacks show Obama's severe (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:52:18 PM EST
    limitations, IMO.
    Look how Hillary has risen to all her challenges: by adapting, by fighting, by coming up with new proposals. Her "umbrella of deterrence" is the most recent example. What about Obama? He had some great proposals on open government and net neutrality, but since that time, how has he grown as a candidate?
    Aren't we just left with the "hope" that he will improve?

    this is what I been sayin (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:53:07 PM EST
    its not the time to go all wobbly.  the press is starting to get it and she is finally starting to get some traction.
    dont let go now!

    Never give up, (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:21:13 PM EST
    never surrender!

    Parent
    mebbs (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:33:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Don't ever count on press. (none / 0) (#89)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:57:35 PM EST
    She reminds these weenies of their first wives.  They hate strong women with a passion.  

    Parent
    No wonder that Pelosi, Reid, Axelrod et all (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:06:18 PM EST
    are in such a frantic rush to anoint Obama any which way they can.  It is foolish on their part; basically reinforcing the idea that the rest of the states still to hold primaries do not count.

    This poll is the reason why they are all (none / 0) (#55)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:36:19 PM EST
    running scared and Obama is launching 50 state voter registration gimmick and the combined fund raising deal with the DNC... !!

    Really!! DNC and its party are truly neutral players (not) and they are showing it via their neutral actions !! Actions speak louder than JUST WORDS.

    I also am sore at Clyburn's deal that he got when he COMMITTED to remain neutral while getting NC primary perponed unlike FL/MI.. they were again JUST WORDS!!

    Obama campaign is the epitome of JUST WORDS and blatant hypocrisies.

    Parent

    This Action By The Establishment Dems Is (none / 0) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:15:03 PM EST
    beyond foolish IMO. There is no way I would rush to anointing Obama the nominee before I determined how the N.C. Rev. Wright ads influenced the chances of the candidates that endorsed Obama.  

    Parent
    Any tracking poll post should include (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by magster on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:13:37 PM EST
    Rasmussen's as well.

    49-O 42-C

    "so far, there is absolutely no indication that Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania has changed the overall dynamic of the race."

    And Rasmussen fluctuates as well... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:22:40 PM EST
    Bottomline: They have both in the 40s in both tracking polls for the last two months, with neither ever breaking away the same way McCain did on the Repubican side.

    Parent
    Go compare Gallup to Rasmussen (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:37:03 PM EST
    They are often very much opposites.  Go figure.

    Parent
    In GEs (none / 0) (#147)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:13:00 AM EST
    Rasmussen leans Republican. Their model must skew that way, overstating the percentage of Republicans and party turnout percentages.

    The national polls for party nominee are in some ways bizarre.

    Republicans and Independents are a part of the polling.

    Further, if the polls are to predict the outcome of primaries are only those states included in the poll?  If the polls are meant to reflect current preference (most likely) it still contains the non-party wild cards.

    Granted that Rs and Is can vote in open primaries but their votes in those primaries should be taken with a grain of salt. It's not really possible to tell if the non-Dems are making a sincere choice indicating a potential vote for their pick in the general election or if they're there to game the vote.

    To me it means that the polls have no utility.

    Public caucuses and open primaries should be reformed away.

    This may be one issue that both parties can agree upon.

    It's not necessary that they agree since it's a private matter but they can provide cover for each other.

    Parent

    please remember (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:31:12 PM EST
    I am the one who has been saying for months that Hillary was going to take it and no one was going to stop her.
    Me Too! (none / 0) (#91)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:58:37 PM EST
    MSM,  'the progressives' et al.  They've tried and are trying everything.  Now they really don't know what will work anymore. Hillary is the only one of them who has the brains to contend with the problems of the country.  

    Parent
    honestly (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:05:34 PM EST
    to me, every day of this campaign she as looked better stronger smarter than anyone around her.
    McCain would never know what hit him until about christmas of 08.

    Parent
    HAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#102)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:14:16 PM EST
    cause he's old!

    (Seriously, his age cannot be stressed enough, IMHO. ;-) )

    Parent

    Can we please (none / 0) (#148)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:41:40 AM EST
    lay off the cracks about age.  It's like reading comments on Obamablogs.

    I mean no offense to anyone at all but ageism is another blight in our society.

    Believe it or not, with luck, you'll get chronologically old and far sooner than you think.

    The only reasons why electing a 72 year old is problematical is because health can suddenly deteriorate or there could be some difficulty with the rigorous schedule. Even the rigorous schedule is controllable.  Personally I believe Presidents travel far too much anyway (and it incredible expense) and of course much if not most of the domestic travel is for fund raising.

    In a normal, active person judgement and understanding certainly improve with age.

    I'll take a wise old owl over a young turk any day.

    So far as McCain is concerned he's probably no worse than he was 30 years ago.

    I can think of a dictionary length list of reasons for not voting for McCain but age is not one of them.

    Parent

    she's quick on her feet too. (none / 0) (#124)
    by thereyougo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:22:30 PM EST
    Reminds me of a tennis match. The seasoned player, the one whose 'tournament tough' wins more matches.

    Parent
    Obama is going ahead as the nominee. (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lilybart on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:29:47 PM EST
    Obama is doing what he needs to do now, he is starting a 50 state voter registration drive and doing fund raising with the DNC for other candidates.

    Hillary can flail about all she wants but it is time for CHANGE.

    I have been reading posts here and on the other blogs and we have to rise above all this petty crap and that is what Obama brings.

    Hillary has too much baggage and I want to move ahead into the future, not back into the past. I loved the 90s and Bill Clinton but we can't go back. The world is a different place now with NEW problems and we need fresh thinking. Obama brings that, Hillary does not. It really is that simple.

    We need to clean house, get rid of everyone from the old ways of doing things.

    Well, now, bless your heart for that thought (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:34:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, the rumors are true. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:37:56 PM EST
    Senator Barack Obama has patented the word "change."

    Please refrain from using this word unless you favor Obama. It is clear that Senator Clinton's proposals of promoting universal health care, investing in green energy and creating jobs, reviving science, repairing our economy and our reputation abroad, and bringing the troops home from Iraq are nothing more than a continuation of the disastrous policies of George W. Bush.

    Thank you for your kindness and understanding.

    Yours in unity,

    The Obama Campaign

    Parent

    simple (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:32:10 PM EST
    thats one word for it I guess

    Parent
    I guess we'd better start with some of those (none / 0) (#49)
    by Teresa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:32:17 PM EST
    Senators working so hard for Obama then?

    Parent
    No, meant the Federal Government (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by lilybart on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:35:31 PM EST
    all the agencies, all the cabinet offices and Secretries and civil servant management and advisors and.....

    If Hillary is breaking bread with Scaife, then she is not going to clean house!

    Parent

    I wonder (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:41:10 PM EST
    if he was still persecuting her would you be cheering him on?


    Parent
    May I remind you that we are a country of laws? (none / 0) (#103)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:14:26 PM EST
    and anything that is mandated by law cannot be changed except by an act of congress. If you meant what you said, I feel sorry for you because Obama cannot deliver any of the things you mentioned.  Get rid of civil servants?

    I hope you are joking.  Can't tell.

    Parent

    didn't Obama meet with Scaife too? (none / 0) (#128)
    by thereyougo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:31:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama's breaking bread with FoxNews (none / 0) (#151)
    by kempis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:35:41 AM EST
    Does that mean he's gone over to the dark side?

    C'mon. You seem like a bright, nice person, but I think you've been too immersed in Obama-friendly sites. It happens. :)

    Parent

    You mean 48 state strategy (none / 0) (#64)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:39:26 PM EST
    Mr. Change has abandoned Florida and possibly Michigan.

    Hillary had a decisive victory in Pennsylvania.  I have to really convolute myself to see that as flailiing about.

    Parent

    well, (none / 0) (#96)
    by ccpup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:05:26 PM EST
    when was the last time you bellied up to the Kool-Aid bar?

    I've heard it helps in understanding and believing the Obama Back Flips in logic and electoral math.

    Repeat it enough and it'll be true (George W. Bush Playbook Page #241, paragraph 2, subsection A)

    Parent

    And Obama doesn't have baggage? (none / 0) (#67)
    by themomcat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:40:14 PM EST
    Rezco, Ayers, the Chicago Political machine that got him into the state senate and his pastor. What else is there? What are we gong to find out about what he did in college and law school? If you don't think that the deep pockets of the 527's aren't already digging, you have drank too much kool aid. "Change"? Not likely, just a different spin.

    Parent
    50 state my backside (none / 0) (#69)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:41:15 PM EST
    f he truly believed in a 50 state strategy he would't be afraid of a revote in Florida or Michigan. He is though.

    Obama will bring baggage. We already have Wright as evidence of that. The largest difference is that Hillary's baggage is prety much common knowledge. Obama's not so much.

    From where I'm standing Obama's new way of thinking isn't new. The idea that every American doesn't need health care isn't new(and if they do then why not mandate it and make sure it is affordable all at once.) Nor is the idea that we need to work WITH the GOP(and what has it gotten us s far(we've managed to conden Moveon but we are still mire in Iraq). It's great to holler change but hollering isnt enough unless you have a plan of action to back that up. I haven't seen that from the Obama cam. They seem quite happy to be vague in that regard.

    Parent

    Uhhhhh..... (none / 0) (#76)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:45:58 PM EST
    it is time for CHANGE...rise above ... and that is what Obama brings. I want to move ahead into the future, not back into the past...we can't go back we need fresh thinking. Obama brings that, We need to clean house,   ummmmm.... so what is his big plan for doing that?  Electing HIM isn't going to change squat.

    First, nothing will change.  Obama brings nothing new, not the future, not fresh thinking.  What is the new party 'grande maximus' plan for cleaning house?  ....

    I have no idea what people are even talking about with all of this change touchy-feely ooey-gooey lovey-dovey rhetoric.  It means nothing, it is nothing, it will be nothing.

    I want legislative change.  Obama does not bring that in any way, shape or form.

    Parent

    when was the last time (none / 0) (#79)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:47:28 PM EST
    the United States elected a president associated with "terrorists" and anti-American types?
    Oh wait - Hillary is too polarizing so Obama's our guy!

    Hellooooo Pres. McCain!


    Parent

    Obama is a Centrist (none / 0) (#80)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:50:25 PM EST
    The DC/Dem establishment and elites support Obama - and if they thought he'd "change Washington" they wouldn't be supporting him.


    Parent
    lilybart, if you believe in change so much (none / 0) (#95)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:04:55 PM EST
    why do you keep repeating the same crap about the 4-state pledge?


    Parent
    Since when is the Democratic Party (none / 0) (#100)
    by sancho on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:07:26 PM EST
    nominating a surefire GE loser (should they select and not elect Obama) constitute change? Sounds par for the course to me.

    Parent
    The Same Standards for Everyone (none / 0) (#105)
    by Truth Partisan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    "...we have to rise above all this petty crap and that is what Obama brings..."

    Er, do you mean Obama brings petty c---, or are you calling we in the blogs names?
    Please, why don't you go first with the rising above?
    Obama's first move to reach out to Clintonites...how about stop actually calling Clinton and her supporters names, and, I don't know, let me get crazy here, actually criticize the GOP for what they have done wrong?

    "...We need to clean house, get rid of everyone from the old ways of doing things..."

    Again, you go first!
    Will Axelrod throw out George Bush's playbook and Kennedy and Kerry resign as Obama surrogates?

    Parent

    Fresh thinking = same speech for 15 months? (none / 0) (#113)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:57:19 PM EST
    Obama brings nothing but divisiveness, and you're one example of it.  I don't go to Obama blogs to tell them to go to Clinton.  It does mirror his kind of arrogance though.

    He's taught that "old" = "bad."  Almost everything from him is simplistic.  

    Parent

    Tha would include: (none / 0) (#131)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:35:39 PM EST
    Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, half of the former Clinton administration who now backs Obama.

    Yes, let's start off with a clean slate.  Because without the "politics of old", rather, the ridiculous backing thereof, your candidate would not be no where NEAR where he is now.

    Spare us the change meme.

    Parent

    You Will Probably Get Your So Called Candidate (none / 0) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:17:51 PM EST
    for change but what won't change is the party of the president in the WH come January.

    Parent
    For God's sake (none / 0) (#149)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:27:43 AM EST
    are any of you people actually able to articulate just what you mean by change?

    I didn't think so.  The next thing you'll probably tell me is to read his "book."

    No one and I mean no one is talking about going back to the '90s except the usual empty headed Obama supporter.  Do you really think you can get away with that sing-along crap here?

    Problems and issues in society ebb and flow and in a political campaign those conditions of now and future are the subjects.  Candidates propose solutions to current problems and a plan for the future. I mean do you really think we'll decide all over again whether to go into the Balkans?

    Are you aware that the political situation and the political calculus are far different than the '90s?

    And just what "petty crap" are you talking about?

    Your claim that Obama brings 'fresh thinking' is laughable.  He's basically done knock-offs of Edwards' and Clinton's policy positions.  He wanted to say nothing at the start of the campaign until he was shamed into trying to develop policy. His economic team consists entirely of free market, free trade ideologues who would feel at home working in the Bush administration.  His initial take on the mortgage crisis was to give a $500 tax credit to homeowners who were behind and underwater. Hillary's staff put together a federal program that would put an end to the crisis, stabilize home values and give new life to the housing industry. The type of bold program needed to stop the bleeding and avert further economic disaster.  An earlier question on the sliding economy was answered by the Obama team stating that nothing new was needed and that his proposed tax cuts would suffice. Clinton (and Edwards who was still in the race) proposed programs to eleviate the immediate suffering of the unemployed, measures to make up lost revenue in the states, etc.

    Obama's proposals were out of the Bush book. Obama's unity, reconciliation, post-partisan schtick has the same value as Bush's Compassionate Conservatuive crap.

    You people have fallen for cheap sloganeering and an empty suit.


    Parent

    The Gallup Poll Stuff Is Hilarious (none / 0) (#8)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:53:26 PM EST
    As I've noted before, for some reason, Gallup has a definite day-of-week effect. Obama is generally up in polls taken over weekends, which show up early in the week.  Hillary is up in polls taken early in the week, which show up in late in the week.  

    So almost every week, we get the same stories.  Mon & Tues:  Obama Leads Clinton.  Thurs & Fri:  Clinton gains, ties.  Mon & Tues;  Obama Re-Takes the Lead.  Thurs. & Fri: Clinton Rebounds.

    Rinse.  Repeat.

    Which is not to say that Clinton might not be helped in Gallup's poll, but the cyclical nature to date makes me very leery.

    its meaningless beyond (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:59:26 PM EST
    symbolism.
    but symbolism is important.

    Parent
    Right. Gallup has been like the tide (none / 0) (#18)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:08:23 PM EST
    It ebbs and flows regularly, and always with leads of no more than 10%. But the polls margin of error is plus or minus 3%, so anything less than a 6% difference is just noise. I'll accept it as relevant only when one candidate can maintain a double digit lead for two weeks.

    Parent
    I think this is temporary (none / 0) (#19)
    by ajain on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    Team Obama is effectively creating the ineveitability narrative once again and there are a number of pieces that are feeding into that. But I think the fact that Hillary Clinton has managed to keep it positive for a few days is all to her benefit.

    None-the-less, I am buying into the meme that Obama has the SuperDels in his pocket and that he is slowly but surely aiming towards the General Election. All of which could be derailed if Hillary Clinton does some crazy magic in North Carolina and Indiana.

    And there's still the Rev. Wright on his tour (none / 0) (#21)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:13:29 PM EST
    on TV tonight, already being played a lot on cable, plus his speech at the National Press Club on Monday, and then the Detroit speech . . . and the Rev. is not going to do Obama any good with this.

    Parent
    How so? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:17:45 PM EST
    If he had superdelegates in his pocket they would've already come out now.  And I don't believe Clinton has to win both NC and IN.  Winning IN would be huge and it's a foregone conclusion she'll lose NC.

    Parent
    Its only a hunch... (none / 0) (#32)
    by ajain on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    I think they aren't coming out for him because it will look like they are trying to push her out of the race and not giving her a fair chance to compete.

    Parent
    No offense but (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:38:55 PM EST
    it seems like they've all been trying pretty hard to get her to drop out. :-)

    Parent
    undecides have been pretty predictably going (none / 0) (#125)
    by thereyougo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:25:06 PM EST
    for her and SUSA has 17% for NC ,19% IN.

    Parent
    Too (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:21:12 PM EST
    bad the voters aren't going along with that narrative. Actually the narrative now is that Obama's in trouble and will lose to McCain.

    Parent
    Stupid voters! (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:22:03 PM EST
    What do they know about democracy?!

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#30)
    by Left of center on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:21:20 PM EST
    is an electoral train wreck just waiting to happen.
    Every day Obama looks more and more like George McGovern. http://www.mydd.com/images/admin/OM.gif

    I used to think Obama was a train wreck... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:25:37 PM EST
    ...waiting to happen, but then I just got this unexplainable warm feeling this morning. It was just this ovewhealming sense of hope.  I don't ##KNOW## how Obama will win in November and I don't have any evidence that he will win, but I have FAITH that he will win in November. Obama is my faith-based candidate.

    Parent
    faith-based candidate (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:30:30 PM EST
    credit for putting it in an honest frame

    Parent
    Capt. Howdy... stop resisting! (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:35:42 PM EST
    Join me and come into the light that is the Obama campaign!  ; )

    Parent
    you know . . . (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:39:41 PM EST
    by golly
    you're RIGHT.
    how could I not have seen it?
    whats that, in the sky, ITS THE UNITY PONY.
    coming for me!

    Parent
    If that unity pony in the sky (none / 0) (#75)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:45:56 PM EST
    isn't wearing diapers, I'd suggest you start moving fast before it gets overhead.

    Parent
    you ain't kidding! (none / 0) (#94)
    by ccpup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:01:54 PM EST
    I'm still trying to explain that unfortunate stain to my dry cleaner.

    And those were nice Dockers, too!

    Damn Unity Pony.

    Parent

    I'm From The ME Generation (none / 0) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:21:18 PM EST
    I want my pony before I join this faith based thing.

    Parent
    LOL -people who hope are cute. Like kids. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Prabhata on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:56:03 PM EST


    Parent
    yeah, the kind of kids (none / 0) (#90)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:57:59 PM EST
    you wanna smack.

    Parent
    Nice! Standing ovation! (none / 0) (#111)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:33:30 PM EST


    Parent
    (-: and take away their computers (none / 0) (#126)
    by thereyougo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:27:22 PM EST


    Parent
    OMG. (none / 0) (#35)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:22:53 PM EST
    [Twilight Zone music playing in head]

    Parent
    McGovern comparison is BS (none / 0) (#116)
    by magster on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:03:56 PM EST
    McGovern did not appeal to independents. Nixon's approval rating was in the mid 60's going into the election.

    Don't forget that McGovern has endorsed Clinton. McGovern has also spoken to the comparison and believes Obama has organized a much wider political coalition than he did.  The only thing he thinks is comparable is the potential for infighting within the party if he wins the nomination.  In other words, whether Clinton supporters rally around Obama after the nomination will help determine whether Obama is the "next McGovern". (See also Rahm Emmanuel quote from yesterday).  

    Parent

    Yes, he will be (none / 0) (#130)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:32:56 PM EST
    Because I for one will not be able to rally around BHO after all he and his ilk have done to Hillary.

    The McGovern comparison will be DOA if Obama wins the nom.  He will become the next noun.  Obama, n.: Political neophyte heaved upon a party in 'hopes' to win but loses due to party blindness.  Antonym:  George W. Bush

    Parent

    First (none / 0) (#150)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:46:36 AM EST
    tell me what McGovern's endorsement of Clinton has to do with the 1972 debacle?

    The comparison of the McGovern candidacy and the Obama candidacy is a apt because as we're seeing in this campaign the same groups that supported McGovern; elitists, youth, far left (aka Jacobins) are the same groups that support Obama.

    In fact the groups supporting both ended up as their very narrow base. That's what's happening to Obama.

    Neither McGovern nor Obama had the core Democratic base behind them.

    The Democratic Party is still trying to overcome the 1972 debacle.

    There is one difference between McGovern and Obama.  Obama isn't one tenth the man that McGovern was and is.

    Parent

    Rasmussen shows no movement?? (none / 0) (#39)
    by zebedee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:25:45 PM EST
    Rasmussen says their tracking poll has shown no movement since PA results. Not sure what the difference in their methodology is that would show such a divergence. We should know better tomorrow. If Gallup is right, the Wednesday result will fall off and HRC will be ahead, probably by only 1 or 2 points though.

    Although I trust Gallup a lot more than Rasmussen.

    Tied = Unite (none / 0) (#56)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:36:25 PM EST
    Okay, so if they are essentially tied how can we Democrats - who will support either Democratic candiate in the General Election  - convince those who will only support Hillary or only support Obama to see the light and realize that the only way the Democrats win in November is to unite?

    I've been backing that (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    for months.

    I see two problems:

    1. Obama's ego; and
    2. Obama's toxicity. I'm afraid that he would bring HRC down with him because of Ayers and Wright and Rezko and BitterCling.

    Maybe not, though. I certainly hope a serious effort is made towards getting them together.

    I suspect we'll know more in June as to whether or not this is realistic.

    Parent

    Unite (none / 0) (#84)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:52:25 PM EST
    Doesn't mean that both candidates have to join the Novermber ticket. I agree there could be problems [although I think both have big egos so that's a minor one in my view].
    I mean voters in general have to get over their hatred of the other side. Also, once we get to the Convention there has to be unity or we are dead. In other words, either Obama or Hillary has to accept the will of the Super D's or the voters and then announce their full support of the other candidate.
    I hope once the dust settles and either candidate announces a running mate and all other Dem politicians come together the voters will follow.

    Parent
    Democractic Speaker Nancy Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:41:18 PM EST
    thinks that a united Democratic party is not a good idea.

    Get with the program disco kittens!

    Parent

    Why in the world would I want to (none / 0) (#104)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:15:18 PM EST
    gather rounds a candidate whose supporters have stopped a nothing short of clling me a racst because I do not see Obama as the best choice? How people conduct themselves matters. I wouldn't old my breath waiting for unity.

    Parent
    So is (none / 0) (#107)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:27:14 PM EST
    A McCain win a better choice?
    In other words, 4 more years of Bush is acceptable to joining with some Obama supporters who say stupid things? Remember if Obama gets the nomination a vote for Obama is not a vote for his supporters. It's a vote for him and for a Democratic White House.

    Parent
    I remember it's a vote for him (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:01:54 PM EST
    and from what I've seen of his leadership and unifying only those who are for him, blindly, not caring for the details, working from 'faith' which matches his website opening to "believe" and "believe in" ...

      voting for him is something I actually have no interest in.
    I will vote for all the lower Dem ticket though, which is more than what so many 'new' democrats voting for Obama did in Texas.  

     

    Parent

    To me it is (none / 0) (#112)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:36:01 PM EST
    and you can partly take credit for that decision and others like you.

    Parent
    Not just stupid (none / 0) (#133)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:48:24 PM EST
    It's rabid, mindless, hatred.

    It's a "take her into a room and beat her up so she doesn't come out" kind of hatred.

    This election was about voter disenfranchisement, about trashing the last 2-term president with right wing lies to the detriment and destruction of the Democratic party.  And it's about that C**T in a pantsuit.

    If that kind of hatred is rewarded with an electoral victory it will never stop.

    And the continuation of what's happened in this election to beyond this election, is FAR, FAR worse than anything McCain could do in a mere 4 years.

    Yes, some Supreme Court nominations are coming up, but if the Democratic Congress would grow a spine, that won't be a problem.  If they don't grow a spine?  well THEY'RE the problem (AGAIN!).

    But no, I don't think we should reward this process by electing the weak candidate that the awful DNC and the even more hideous media wants.  

    Parent

    Also NC SUSA poll taken before Pa... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:45:51 PM EST
    ...had Clinton down only nine.

    closer in NC (none / 0) (#115)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:03:51 PM EST
    Well, I saw that they'd registered 65,000 more young people and 67,000 more AA's since January, so I think Clinton will work to keep the delegate count as close as possible but concentrate on Indiana for the win which is so important to both of them.

    Parent
    HEY BTD (none / 0) (#78)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:47:24 PM EST
    if you wanna make a new post

    Obama is giving an interview to the indianapolis star and they are steaming it live here

    another earth shattering Obama interview (none / 0) (#85)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:53:31 PM EST
    on his "hope and change" for America.
    Think I'll skip that tired old rerun.


    Parent
    No to Obama Groupies (none / 0) (#108)
    by pluege on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:28:24 PM EST
    I would separate Obama from Obama supporters (maybe foolishly) including his campaign staff. I think he bodes well for the dem future. His groupies however, including the "top librul, A-list blogs" are different story and are in fact a big problem. Aside from the annoyance, their shrieking harpie self-absorbed wingnut arrogance, and poor cognitive ability are going to be mucking things up for the foreseeable future.  

    But it's his leadership (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:05:43 PM EST
    They act that way because he and his staff encourage it.

    The mailers are consistently negative about her in personal terms, and at rallies, he complains to his audience about how she's treating him.  It's like sic'g dogs and he enjoys it.  You always see the 'heh heh' after he does it.

    Parent

    John Madden (none / 0) (#109)
    by flashman on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:28:30 PM EST
    would say, "Winning is a great deodorant." :)

    Gallup (none / 0) (#138)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:15:05 PM EST
    is sort of all over the place, isn't it?

    Apropos of a new meme.... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Oje on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:19:51 PM EST
    The Clinton campaign received no end of criticism for its campaign strategy to win early, win big, from blogs like TPM and dKos. Obama's genius staffers planned for the fifty-state contest two years in advance (NOT! MoveOn and Kerry's mailing lists did the strategic legwork), while the risible Penn did not have a plan that extended past Super Tuesday.

    Fast forward two months, and ask: who had a plan after the month of February caucuses? The Clinton campaign clearly articulated its goals and benchmarks in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Not only that, but it won each of these states as it said it could. In contrast, the Obama campaign has drifted on hot air of its own campaign's now-stale message of "change," and CDS bloggers who condemn Hillary at every turn.

    Even now, its entire campaign strategy seems to consist of drifting to the finish line with a pledged delegate "lead" -- as long as those pesky voters in Michigan and Florida do not count. Obama bloggers and staffers are now trying to claim he won the nomination in February. But, this is just their own partisan hackery that girds their specious attacks on Clinton as "damaging Obama."

    Clinton now leads in the popular vote, and she has reduced the "pledged delegate" difference to 9 votes (see estimates MyDD, 4-24). Plouffe has begun to make ridiculous comments about Obama's "winning coalition" that regards women and white working class voters as irrelevant to the Democratic party. Gee, I wonder when the laughter will subside (or start) at TPM headquarters?

    Of course she is and add 10 this polls is always (none / 0) (#143)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:27:24 PM EST
    wrong. SUSA had a poll 3 days ago asking Dems on who would you want to be top on the Ticket, Hillary of course was the choice and Gallup still had Obama up in the ozone.

    Gallup: Boost and Tie for Hillary in Daily Tracker | 151 comments (151 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment