home

That Was Then, This Is Now

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:13:49 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

AdamB is living in the past. In 2006, Barack Obama may have been the fresh face for Claire McCaskill in Missouri. But things change:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds John McCain leading Hillary Clinton by nine percentage points, 50% to 41%. He leads Barack Obama by an even larger margin, 53% to 38%.

Survey USA:

* John McCain 50%
* Barack Obama 42%

* John McCain 46%
* Hillary Clinton 47%

Time for Obama supporters to give a realistic argument for Obama's electability and downticket strength, not reprise bromides from 2006. That was then. This is now.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Sunday Open Thread With Obama On Fox | Obama: What's Not To Like? >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    That Was Then, This Is Now | 138 comments (138 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    fans of the candidate of "change" (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Turkana on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:17:39 AM EST
    sometimes don't realize that things do, actually, change...

    Indeed (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:19:27 AM EST
    But there is an down ticket electability argument to be made for Obama.

    That was not it.

    Parent

    i'm not sure about down ticket (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Turkana on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    because just as obama has both more upside and more downside potential, as nominee, i think he has more upside and more downside potential down ticket. he wins, he could sweep a lot of other people into office. he loses, and he could hurt what should be a big year for the house and senate.

    Parent
    In Colorado, NM, OR, ME, VA (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:30:38 AM EST
    and others, Obama helps down ticket.

    There seems no question on this to me.

    In MO, he does not help. That also seems clear to me. In PA, FL and OH, Clinton would be better than Obama.

    What I want is a REALISTIC discussion from all supporters on this.

    I will not hold my breath of course.

    Parent

    I think he's actually not appreciably stronger (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:35:37 AM EST
    in NM, and VA is now out of range.

    PA, FL, and OH are critical weaknesses for a Democrat to have.

    Parent

    those three states are victory (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:44:24 AM EST
    Carry those three and McCain loses.

    Parent
    polls have him 9 behind in va (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Turkana on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:53:09 AM EST
    and i think that's as good as it gets.

    Parent
    Me, Too (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:29:24 PM EST
    There will be no presidential coattails in Virginia.  There might be Mark Warner coattails.   But mostly I'm annoyed that I'm suppose to take on face value that Obama has a shot at expanding the map in Virginia, where he trails but ignore that Clinton trails only by 2 in KY (where McConnell is on the ballot).

    And if red states where Obama trails by eight or nine are in play, then are blue states where he leads by less than nine in play for McCain?  Because SUSA has him up only 7 in California and 2 in Massachusetts (he's shown repeated weakness in MA) and is only ahead (and that's by 1) in the last four NJ polls (including a tied SUSA)  and up by only 9 in the NY SUSA poll (one NY poll has McCain ahead).  In contrast, Clinton is up 13 in California, up in all but one NJ poll, and up 16 in NY.  See here.

    In the last month, Clinton has improved her standing or held her own against McCain, Obama has lost ground against McCain.  He is tanking among moderates and independents, the people needed  to turn all those purple and red states blue.  While Obama has had controversies, he hasn't been hit all that hard and the media continue to cheer him on by and large.   Clinton continues to get the crap beaten out of her by the media and yet she's the one not losing ground.

    I once thought that there was more upside and risk to Obama, now I only see risk.  His trends are terrible.  

    Parent

    Clarification (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:30:40 PM EST
    It should state that Obama is ahead in only ONE of the last four polls taken in NJ and that poll had his lead at only one point.  

    Parent
    other states (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by bigbay on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:56:06 PM EST
    he's also stronger in WA, OR, MN and WI. I think Clinton could win those states , but it would take more resources.

    No way he wins Virginia.

    Parent

    WA -- Clinton should get this (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by LHinSeattle on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:12:17 PM EST
    The margin of Obama's win was much narrower in the primary (which didn't count) than in the caucuses.

    Ron Sims, the King County (most populous co) Executive, is a Clinton supporter. Came out early on, and got some comments about supporting the wrong choice then. Not any more! He's also AA and well-regarded.

    E Wash is much more reagan-type and "redneck" rural. Plus some Latino population So HRC should be better there. BHO's negatives i.e. Wright, would pull him down on the E side of the state.

    Parent

    He could do what Clark did in 2006... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kredwyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:44:08 AM EST
    and tour the country helping get the down ticket folks elected.

    IIRC one of the things they showed in TX was that a lot of folks went to vote for him...and that didn't translate to down ticket votes. (note: I can't remember where I read that)

    Parent

    yep (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Turkana on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:55:13 AM EST
    people vote for him, and no one else. because he doesn't spend a lot of time talking about the importance of the party. his obvious impact helping bill foster was a notable exception.

    Parent
    It almost felt (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Lahdee on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:59:32 AM EST
    like "I can help down ticket when I want to now leave me alone." IIRC obamanation made a big deal of that "ability."

    Parent
    When A Big Part of Your Pitch Includes Unity (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:32:20 PM EST
    then it's hard to make a strong pitch for electing down ticket democrats.  Why do you need democrats if you can work with republicans.  

    Parent
    Obama and the TX downticket (none / 0) (#98)
    by ramasan on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:12:14 PM EST

    races that were ignored by his voters was reported by the Dallas Mornng News.

    Parent
    New Mexico? (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by cal1942 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    I certainly wouldn't believe he has any more downticket strength than Hillary in New Mexico where she won a narrow victory in the primary.  I thought I remembered seeing a poll a while back with Udall leading any potential GOP opponent by large margins. A few days ago I saw the opposite.

    In Virginia it's unfortunate that John Warner's last term ends in a Presidential election year.  Although Mark Warner's still polling strong against Gilmore I wouldn't bet any more than I could afford to lose.  An Obama candidacy could help there but I would be nervous about the big lead McCain has opened up against either Obama or Clinton.

    There's another part of the downticket story and that's the nature of a portion of Obama's supporters.

    I've never bought into the idea that his campaign to attract neophytes and independents would expand the party.  Significant numbers of his supporters skipped past downticket races in Texas, a double digit difference compared with Clinton supporters. I've read a couple of articles and read some comments that indicate some of Obama's supporters believe that a GOP Congress would be desireable with an Obama Presidency. His campaign's appeal to neophytes and people confused by politics, I'm worried, dampens any downticket zeal. His campaign assaults on previous Democratic administrations are no help at all. My impression is that his pox on both their houses appeal is hardly a call for partisan passion.

    Obama's comparative weakness with core Democrats also bothers me when considering the fate of downticket candidates.  How many of these people will stay home in disgust?

    I know dues paying Democratic Party members who won't support the top of the ticket if he's nominated so the fear of rank and file apathy is IMO real.

    Parent

    realism? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Turkana on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:43:19 AM EST
    i think everyone needs revisit ionesco's rhinoceros...

    Parent
    Better clue us in. I've only seen (none / 0) (#150)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:35:39 AM EST
    Chairs.

    Parent
    In VA, he(or Clinton) will get upticket help from (none / 0) (#58)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:11:01 PM EST
    Mark Warner. The primary still seems like an aberration to me.

    Parent
    Uhhh (none / 0) (#109)
    by DaleA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:41:17 PM EST
    Both CO and NM have large Latino populations, a group that Obama does not appeal to. How then does he help downticket in these states? I for one have a lot of questions about Obama's chances in the West given that Latinos are not likely to vote for him. A diary at MyDd made the point, citing polling reported in the Spanish language press:

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/26/21443/2652

    Against McCain, Hillary gets 76% of Latinos. Obama looses with 43% to McCain's 52%. In the west, Obama is a clear drag on the downticket candidates.

    Parent

    down-ticket (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:29:02 AM EST
    not looking good to some folks in NC.  I imagine there were bricks under their chairs when they saw their faces spliced with Wright.

    Obama's biggest problem now is that he's a sprinter, not a long-distance runner.  He's been looking defeated lately while Clinton looks practically radiant.  She's truly a marathoner (to forward the bad metaphor.)  This is where experience matters--experience in facing adversity and loss and still going strong.  People see that in the clips they are showing on the news.  We're wired to want to associate ourselves with the candidate who looks healthy, energetic and strong (shades of the JFK sun tan debate)

    Speaking of bad, even MoDo sees it:

    It used to be that he was incandescent and she was merely inveterate. Now she's bristling with life force, and he looks like he wants to run away somewhere for three months by himself and smoke.



    Parent
    Do you really want to cite her? (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:33:27 AM EST
    I mean, jeez, in the same column she writes:

    The Nixonian Hillary has a ravenous hunger that Obama lacks. Literally -- at a birthday party in Philly for her photographer, she was devouring the chips and dip with two hands -- and viscerally.

    Sully will love that.

    Parent

    I see nothing wrong with double-fist fulls (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:48:32 AM EST
    of chips and dip. As long as the chips were sour cream and onion.

    Parent
    mo do (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Turkana on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:55:59 AM EST
    sliming both equally. it's almost charming.

    Parent
    She's disgusting (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:57:00 AM EST
    I have no idea why they publish this trash.

    Parent
    No, actually--I didn't want to give MoDo clicks (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:57:59 AM EST
    but I think it shows that the media is picking up on the fact that he's lost his glow, too.  To me, that MoDo also attacked Clinton (as per usual) gives this article some credence.

    The way this ties into BTD's post is what I said before: people want to ally themselves with perceived winners.  The fact that Clinton is radiant now, that she is projecting health and vitality and interest in the voters, will show up down ticket.  

    I worked in marketing for way too long to ignore this.  The appearance of being on top, of being a winner, draws others into the fold.  It is basic Darwinism to strive to be associated with someone who seems strong and will protect your pack.  Bush really keyed into this with all his chest thumping and weed wacking.  Obama had it, but he lost it along with the last few primaries. Now, Clinton has it in spades.

    We discount these factors at our own peril.  SDs are like everyone else.  They want to be on the winning team.  Perception is everything.  Obama looks tired.  Clinton looks like she's just getting started.  If the dem at the top of the ticket, the leader of the party, is seen as (heh) fired up and ready to go, then it has repercussions all the way down the line.

    Kerry depressed people.  Clinton can revive the democratic brand by defining us as fighters for the middle class.  We will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Parent

    Since it sets my teeth on edge (5.00 / 7) (#67)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:22:31 PM EST
    to listen to Obama these days, I generally mute the audio when he appears on my TV - although sometimes I force myself to listen in the interest of deciding for myself how I feel about what he's saying.  Even with the audio muted, I still watch, though, because there are things that can be learned from affect and body language that may not be as apparent when one is listening to someone speak.

    For fun, I decided to mute Hillary, too, and see what I could learn from that.

    Well, Obama looks tired, apathetic, annoyed, bored, and somewhat defeated.

    Hillary is glowing with energy and enthusiasm, happy to be talking to voters, looking like a winner.

    Sure, people will say I am seeing what I want to see, but it's not just me, and it's not just Clinton supporters who see it.

    I truly believe that this may be the first time in his life when what he wanted did not just fall into his lap, when opponents did not just bow out, when he could not force the opposition out.  People will say I am nuts, and there is no way Obama did not expect to have to wage a real battle to win the nomination, but I'm not saying he didn't expect it - I'm saying he had no idea what that really meant.

    His surrogates' continued calls for her to get out just seem like a version of Bush whining about what hard work it is being president.

    Not a ringing endorsement for Obama, in my opinion.

    Parent

    I think that's a positive. (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:44:49 PM EST
    Just like her downing a shot and been in Crown Point, IN.  That is humanizing.  And she's eating chips, not waffles or arugula.


    Parent
    Sprinter (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:10:19 PM EST
    is a perfect metaphor, Kathy.

    For me, the job of the president is for a marathoner.  Even Bush has that quality.  Hillary?  Definitely.  Obama?  No.

    My own personal opinion is that he parlayed an obvious sweep in the Potomac into being much more than it really was.  I'm sorry, but she can't win against 90% AA voter block in that area.  Not possible.  

    Then Wisconsin got people's hopes up.

    That was the peak.

    Now we're into the real primary season.  And he's a loser.

    Just my take, of course.

    Parent

    MoDo Sees Nothing (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:32:56 PM EST
    but her own hate and bitterness.  

    Parent
    Kathy, what does "bricks under their (3.00 / 1) (#120)
    by derridog on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:18:55 PM EST
    chairs" mean? I've never heard that saying before.

    Parent
    I think it's similar to (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by LHinSeattle on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:15:10 PM EST
    sh***ing bricks. Just my guess.

    Parent
    Oh. Okay. (none / 0) (#134)
    by derridog on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:22:43 PM EST


    Parent
    that's what I get for trying to be polite! (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:13:36 PM EST
    Of course, the only reason I started watching Futurama was the take where a brick drops out from Bender's behind, so...

    Parent
    Priceless moment in a great series N/T (none / 0) (#141)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:19:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Nixon's Head (none / 0) (#147)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:03:34 PM EST

    for Pres '08!

    Parent
    there isn't a down ticket argument now! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:32:13 AM EST
    Otherwise the superdels would have stampeded into Obama's camp.  

    Also, the Missouri polls are petrifying.  I lived for a year in St Louis and the state is almost certainly not going to vote for Obama based on the cultural attitudes I saw there.  It's a southern state coupled with a Yankee meaness.   Ohio normally votes in tandem with Missouri (not an iron rule but a good guide) McCaskill was lucky to win herself ( was there during 2006)...Obama winning there would be a miracle.

    post Wright/Ayers  Pre Wright/Ayers.

    AdamB probably knew all about it himself, he was a former student and clearly acts ina semi professional capacity for Obama right now.


    Parent

    (Just an aside: (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Eleanor A on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:29:41 PM EST
    Three states have voted for the winner in every Presidential election since 1960:  Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee.

    Whether candidates win elections because of these states or it's all just coincidence, I can't say, but I will point out that all three have significant rural and blue-collar populations.  As a Hillary supporter, I can't see Obama winning in my own state of Tennessee in a zillion years.  But I haven't seen recent polling data.)

    Parent

    My point is different (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:35:24 AM EST
    That post was so easy to demolish that it actually HURTS Obama, it does not help him.

    I just needed to find the latest two Missouri polls and it is left in complete tatters.

    Obama has a BETTER donwticket and electability argument than the one AdamB presented.

    Heck, I am going to write one and show them how it is done.

    Parent

    very well (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:50:05 AM EST
    I look forward to it.  

    For me the path to his success is based on a contrast with McCain as a character in a narrative.   There are no tricks about this.

    If Obama attaches himself to a historical narrative arc people might go along for the sheer entertainment value.   I think that is why he's set about to demolish the reputation of Bill Clinton and LBJ and Truman and bases a cultic significance to the two movie star Presidents: JFK and Ronald Reagan.

    To win he makes a Hollywoodish pitch 25 words or less about the arc of American History.

    Parent

    Yes. American History - a subject about (none / 0) (#34)
    by derridog on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:55:38 AM EST
    which he apparently knows nothing.

    Parent
    That would be fun...it would!! (none / 0) (#65)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:20:21 PM EST
    Just imagine a black man who has NO slaves anywhere in his family tree lecturing(and you know it will be a lecture!) Americans on the history and effect of slavery on black people in this country and why he is a historical figure. He won't have any family stories to illustrate it, unless his mother's family was involved with John Brown in Kansas, or be able to show any connection to the black struggle for equality in this country. I mean, what is he going to say?? "I am the son of a tourist who came and went. But my Mom supported the march in Selma while living in Hawaii!"

    Parent
    Obama does have ties to slavery (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:41:24 PM EST
    as his mother's family were slaveholders.

    Of course, that is sadly true for many AAs today, too.

    Parent

    Yeah, but isn't that the wrong side (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:27:23 PM EST
    for civil rights creds?? It's not like his family had to endure the Jim Crow laws, lynchings, lack of educational opportunity, extreme poverty or any of the other shapers of modern black American culture. He never sat at the dinner table and heard from his grandfather how very lucky he is because in his grandfather's day a black man wanting to go to higher education would have been limited to a few black colleges and one or two state universities that did admit blacks, if he didn't get lynched for being "uppity" first. He never heard about how it felt to have to walk six blocks to find a colored drinking fountain on a hot day, he never had anyone in his family who grew up as a second-class citizen. That is what I meant by he doesn't have the background to understand what it really means to be a black man in America. He slipped in through the side door without paying his dues.

    Parent
    I agree -- just giving the AA POV (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:59:04 PM EST
    that I've read . . . admittedly, quite a switcheroo from the prevailing AA POV I read before Iowa.  It used to be a problem for Obama with AAs that he did not share the heritage of slavery.  But then it became about -- well, apparently about skin color, after all, or else Obama was able to reassure them that he understood the heritage that he doesn't share.  

    I don't understand it, as it defies the decades of work to build understanding of Africology as a culture rather than about a skin color.  But I'm not AA -- and it makes as much sense to me as women saying they vote for Clinton because she's a woman.  (So am I, but I have voted for many a man over women who were awful on my issues.)

    In both cases, I suspect that it's either evading the question with pollsters and media in interviews -- or it's just something too complex for AAs or women to explain in a soundbyte.

    Parent

    My black friends are where I got (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:20:47 PM EST
    that particular point of view. They are running about 50-50 between Hillary and Obama. And they were raised in the South, where the Jim Crow laws really hurt.

    My friend Margaret and her siblings were taken in the early sixties to live in NY by her mother because there were more opportunities there for a black child. And they wouldn't have to run the gauntlet of KKK when they went to school, or to vote, or anything else. NYC was a beacon of freedom in the Jim Crow days. Margaret tells me that the lack of familial experience with that way of life is one of the things they(her friends who are for Hillary) don't like about Obama.

    She came home to FL years ago, and she remembers the bad old days well. It makes her mad that no one in Obama's family has a clue as to that sort of experience. Why? Because that experience, the decades of that experience, and the century or so of slavery, are what help define black culture in this country. It is at the root of many of the problems that afflict the black community and until one understands that one cannot really understand the black community.

    Obama is black enough, yes, by the color of his skin. But his life experience is more like a preppy white kid's than a black American's. Like Margaret said when she read that he claimed his mother got food stamps.."Yeah, but did he ever go to school with mayonnaise sandwiches?? Or with newspaper covering the holes in his shoes?"

    Obama claims much empathy for people whose lives he doesn't have a clue about. If he were a black man raised in America in a black community, he would never have ignored the people in the slums that his buddy put up. He would have been aware of how people use that sort of project to rip off the taxpayer at the expense of the poor whose housing suffers because of it. Because he would have known people in the same situation growing up, even if he didn't live in the projects himself. That is why he may be black enough in his skin, but not in his experience or background. It is all connected.

    Parent

    The difference with Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by cymro on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:27:09 PM EST
    ... it makes as much sense to me as women saying they vote for Clinton because she's a woman

    This highlights the difference with Hillary. She's not just any woman. In our opinion, at least, she is not a woman candidate asking for a "solidarity" vote from other women, she's a woman who is clearly the most qualified candidate for the position. I believe this is the motivation of most Clinton supporters.

    But maybe some women voters are not so sure about that difference, or who feel that the candidates are  about equal. Then her gender becomes a "tiebreaker" in the decision as to which candidate to support. So the women supporting her "because she's a woman" would not be doing so if there was a male opponent who they found more convincing.

    I imagine that analogous arguments work for AA's who support Obama.

    Parent

    That may be it (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:36:40 PM EST
    for those who, like BTD, see no differences between the candidates.  Makes some sense -- not to me, of course, because I see significant differences.  Then again, that may be because of issues with them as well as their issues that matter to me more because I am a woman and can see them.  So it is complex. :-)

    Parent
    I think that is unfair. (4.00 / 1) (#112)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:48:55 PM EST
    Obama is definitely "black enough" just as Hillary is "woman enough."  Playing those games here seems very small and mean.

    Parent
    That's probably true for almost everyone, black (3.00 / 1) (#117)
    by derridog on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:13:38 PM EST
    and white, whose ancestors have been here since the 18th or 19th centuries.

    Parent
    No, not really -- interesting to see data (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:37:40 PM EST
    on the percentages of people who were slaveholders.  

    Parent
    O:K. then. That was my question. (none / 0) (#151)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:39:24 AM EST
    Why, post PA, is Obama both more electible and better for down ticket candidates than Clinton?

    Parent
    There Are Negative Down Ticket Electability (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:15:11 PM EST
    arguments to be made also. It is too soon to know how the Rev. Wright ads (i.e. NC) targeted against candidates who have endorsed will effect the outcome of those races especially in purple and red states. If they work, it could will have negative effects down ticket for some time. The current very public racial tensions may also have an effect.

    My own slightly purple state is more conservative than not. A lot of our Dems are conservative Dems. We have a fairly sizable bible belt.  I guarantee that Rev. Wright and Ayers is not playing well in large segments of my state. The Reps. that are firmly entrenched will probably not be effected but what about our new candidates?

    Parent

    Don't forget the other issue (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by standingup on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:39:45 PM EST
    that will be a killer for Obama in Missouri.  Gun control will be used against him and not just in the rural communities.  I know of people who will vote against anyone on the basis of gun ownership and rights alone.    

    Parent
    If Hilary wins (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Saul on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:19:37 AM EST
    Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Puerto Rico I honestly believe that the SD and others  will seriously stop and say we need to re evaluate this.  Hopefully  if you do see some defections of ObamaSD to Hilary then you know the review has started.

    if that happens (3.00 / 1) (#31)
    by dws3665 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:54:42 AM EST
    and it very well may, you will hear more and more of the "we can't take away Obama's toy because the young and African American voters in the party WILL NOT STAND for it!" The word "riot" will make its way into the discourse even more than it already has, and not just from the mouth of Dimbaugh.

    Personally, I find that argument not only to be moderately insulting to African American and young voters, but simply dumb.

    Parent

    And, if it works on the SDs, we can kiss (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by derridog on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:57:55 AM EST
    the GE goodbye.

    Parent
    i think (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by dws3665 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:00:45 PM EST
    Pelosi already believes it, and I wonder about Dean.

    Parent
    I do think (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Eleanor A on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:45:57 PM EST
    people realize that, as AAs will be mad should Obama not get the nomination no matter what the reason, women will be mad should Hillary not get it.

    (In my own case, hopping, frothing-at-the-mouth mad if they don't come up with some reasonable resolution of MI/FL before the Obama coronation.  I don't condone rioting, but I'll be picketing my ass off in Denver if that occurs...)

    Parent

    I'd say a PA primary (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:27:40 AM EST
    is a decent test of your appeal to the Democratic electorate. We've got most of the important members of the coalition. I'd say Obama has a problem.

    Have to disagree unless (4.00 / 1) (#23)
    by independent voter on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:44:48 AM EST
    only Democrats will be allowed to vote in the GE

    Parent
    Obama had 4x the cash (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    the media saying she was a loser already and black voters riled up about Clintonite racism.

    He still lost.  He's in huge trouble.

    Parent

    Two big red flags (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:12:36 PM EST
    He did NOT get those registered voters to actually vote.

    He lost 2 out of 4 of the Philly suburbs with the "educated" middle class.

    Look for something interesting in NC.

    Parent

    Not really, no (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:53:38 AM EST
    So there aren't really that many independent voters. In the past, many registered Democrats have defected to republicans, mostly in the northeast (Scranton) and the west (Pgh burbs, Erie). Hillary carried those crucial Dems last week. We need to keep them because they are potential coalition breakers.

    Parent
    Andgarden (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:04:43 PM EST
    you are correct.  Clinton energizes the base and makes folks feel positive about the democratic brand again.  Why people forget the humiliation and trashing the brand has experienced over the last seven years is beyond me.  Clinton actually makes folks feel good about being democrats again.

    Obama has run against the brand.  He has trashed the party-or at least recent party elders.  He wants people to vote for Obama, not vote for the democrat.

    This is the down-ticket argument: who makes people feel good about the democratic party?  

    I don't see Obamacrats voting down-ticket dem.  They have been voting for their cherished republican senators and congressmen for years.  Does anyone seriously think that because Obama is at the top of the ticket, they'll turn their backs on the guy they've voted for in the last six elections?

    Clinton will get dems off their butts and into the polls come November.  That's why Kerry lost and why Gore lost: they could not energize the base and get them motivated to go to the polls.  If you get a dem to the polls, they'll vote for other dems.

    Easy peasy.

    Parent

    Indep Voters in PA (none / 0) (#99)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:24:23 PM EST
    Didn't 100,000 independents vote in Democratic primary in PA?

    Parent
    Hillary won Independents (none / 0) (#100)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:26:41 PM EST
    & didn't Hillary win the independents in PA?

    Parent
    If You Lose More Democratic Voters Than You Gain (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:24:43 PM EST
    Indies, it is a net loss anyway you look at it.

    Parent
    It' s a lot worse than that, actually (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by cymro on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:56:10 PM EST
    You will still lose even if you lose fewer Democratic voters than your gain in Indies. Consider this example, using nice round numbers for simplicity:

    Dem 40%
    Rep 40%
    Ind 20%

    If a candidate (say the Dem) gains 3/4 of the Ind voters (15%) but loses 1/4 of their base (10%), then we have:

    Dem 40% + 15% - 10% = 45%
    Rep 40% + 5%  + 10% = 55%

    In fact, in this example, the Dem would have to capture ALL the Ind vote just to reach a 50/50 tie. So to win, you must both retain your base and win over independents.

    In this regard, I've seen Obama supporters on Dkos claim that "we don't need" all the Clinton voters. I don't think they have really done the math to support that claim.

    Parent

    I've never understood (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by hlr on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:31:54 AM EST
    This 'red state appeal' argument regarding Obama campaigning for McCaskill, others.

    In 2006, Obama was dispatched to MD twice, to smooth over Black voters after Mfume was defeated by Cardin, and then, to campaign against Steele.

    He went to Richmond VA to allay Black voter hesitation over Jim Webb and his comments re: affirmative action.

    Am I supposed to believe that Obama was campaigning for McCaskill in SW Missouri? Or was it St. Louis, to fire up MO's Black base? That he is popular with Black voters is not in dispute, but what does this have to do with 'red state appeal?'

    I think we're talking about those states (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:34:45 AM EST
    that wouldn't even typically elect a Democrat as vice-Sheriff. That's where his huge caucus wins tended to come from.

    Parent
    I floated a theory (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:43:21 AM EST
    That the Democratic Party in some of those sates must look like neglected malnourished children to the local GOP.  

    I'd also suspect that ambitious moderates just join the GOP in those areas and that leaves the Dems in those states with aan unrepresentaive rump of radicals who don't know how to construct a winning argument or understand how the Dems function in places like Cal or NY or texas for that matter.

    West Coast and East Coast observers in the party might then misinterpret Obama's success there in Caucus's with true appeal among moderate or conservative Dems and GOP defectors.  Instead he's simply playing well with the hard core of the antiwar movement---which may be the defining characteristic of the party in some of those states.

    Just a theory though. i have no math to back it up.  living in Cal during teh nineties I was shocked by how conservative the rump of the GOP state party became after Wilson left office. They were maniacs. Arnold corrected that lunacy and adapted to the reality of a liberal/libertarian population.

    Parent

    Obama Did A Fund Raiser For McCaskill (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:48:24 PM EST
    in St. Louis. Bill Clinton did a fund raiser for her in MO too. My google skills are primitive and I lost patience wading through all the garbage to find out where. BTW Hillary threw a fundraiser for her in NY.

     Our primary showed Obama had little or no "red county appeal" and it was held prior to Wright and Ayers hitting the media.  He lost all the moderate and conservative counties. Many by a large percentage. We do not register by party, so if Indies and Republicans wanted to truly cross over and vote for him in large numbers in those areas, it would have taken absolutely no effort.

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:33:05 AM EST


    Parent
    Oh, I bet Obama plays well in Dittmer Missouri! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:34:55 AM EST
    parachute him in.

    Parent
    lol, Salo. Have you been run off DKos yet? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Teresa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:38:56 AM EST


    Parent
    nah I just exited stage left. (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:00:15 PM EST
    I didn't see the point in venting to the audience there at this point!  Always play to the audience.

    I'll return for the general though.  Although I shoot my mouth off about Obama's deficiencies if we are stuck with him we are stuck with him.
    I'm not interesting in arguing with a hardcore base.

    Parent

    the reason i don't buy the (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by english teacher on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:46:22 AM EST
    "obama coattails" argument is this:  was there a national ticket in '06?  no.  then explain the democratic party's success in the congressional midterms in the absence of obama.  if obama wins the general, it will be due to the repudiation of repubiscum governance in favor of democratic policy.  it will not be the effect of the charisma of one man.  obama would very much like us to believe that the democratic party's electoral success this year depends on him alone, democratic party policies be dam#@d.    

    McCain's (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:56:16 AM EST
    poll numbers are simply reflecting the division in our party right now.

    I don't put too much weight on that.

    One thing I found interesting about PA is that he is viewed as the eventual nominee, yet she won decidedly.

    It is impressive when someone gets the vote when even the people voting think she'll eventually lose.

    Very impressive.

    I hear a loud message in that stat.

    I do not follow your argument (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:02:58 PM EST


    Parent
    To heck with the media and party leaders (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:51:10 PM EST
    is what PA voters were saying in voting for Clinton, those who also said he had the nomination locked up with the media and party leaders in his corner.

    Or those voters saw that Clinton is closer on their issues than is Obama or the party.

    Either way, it's a worrisome sign -- short term for Obama, long term for the party.  (But it's a great sign for we-the-people, not following mediathink or party elite's orders.)

    Parent

    I think it's obvious . . . (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Benjamin3 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:16:45 PM EST
    if you're an Obama supporter, when you get the Clinton-McCain poll question, there's a good chance you'll hit the button for McCain . . and vice versa.

    This artificially inflates McCain's numbers while the Democratic fight goes on.

    Parent

    AdamB is a Clinton hater. He's made that quite (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Joelarama on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:03:45 PM EST
    clear in a few comments at DailyKos.  I discount political analysis from people I know to have extreme feelings about a candidate.  

    He's Obama's former pupil. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:07:49 PM EST
    and he in retrospect brilliantly conducted a censorious campign of information suppression on Dkos.

    he kept Obama's skeletons firmly closeted for months.

    Parent

    Yep, I watched his work at DKos, too (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:45:37 PM EST
    and AdamB has done a lot of damage to that blog -- and thus to the Dems.

    Parent
    Agreed. He's not credible. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:50:29 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't think polls against McCain are relevent (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by lilybart on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:29:30 PM EST
    at this point. No one has seen McCain on a stage with Clinton or Obama, so until that happens, until people get to know the REAL McCain and not just the fictional Maverick character they think they know, I am not concerned about any of these polls.

    and this daily poll thing is too much
    isn't there some daily Gallop poll? that is like weighing yourself everyday and not taking into account all the salt you ate that retained water or whatever. Daily polls are silly.

    I would feel the same way if Obama were doing better in MO polls because i don't think any of them are valid at this point, because people will be very surprised when they see them together, either DEM, with McSame.

    How ironic! (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by kempis on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:45:32 PM EST
    Given the state of the race now, many of the down-ticket dems' worries about Hillary being "too liberal" to lead the ticket are purely ironic. But naturally, the irony is lost at Daily Kos--a site that has itself become ironic considering they keep touting Obama as the more "progressive" AND red-state-appealing candidate. Somehow, to Kossacks, Obama's supposed to be a progressive and simultaneously a pragmatic centrist. (If anyone knows of an essay out there where an Obama-supporter logically addresses and resolves that contradiction, I'd love to read it.)

    Anyway this bit from the 2006 article really stood out as  ironic in light of current events:


    "...All their ads were Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, and me. They said I was more liberal than these guys, and that if I went to Washington I'd be supporting their agenda. I found that extremely difficult to overcome."

    Wow. I wonder how easy it's going to be to overcome ads like the one the GOP is running in North Carolina showing Reverend Wright bellowing "God damn America!" and then hugging Barack, who is then shown hugging the two Democratic candidates.

    What a difference two years and a little vetting make. In 2006, Obama looked like a guy who could win red states. Regarding Hillary, people once again underestimated the Clintons' ability to connect with voters despite their horrible press. And, foolishly, these down-ticket politicians had no idea who this guy they were praising was, what sort of loud and scary skeletons he'd have in his closet. Now we know. Now we see what kinds of ads they make.

    I bet that guy now is hoping Hillary, not Barack, leads the ticket. In addition to having bad, association-with-radicals problems, Obama, not Hillary, comes closer to making the sort of tonal gaffes that Teresa Heinz Kerry made when lecturing pig farmers about the virtues of organic farming. Arugula anyone?

    Don't you see? (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:01:06 PM EST
    Everything you say can be turned around against Obama because the truth is that they are both running the same kinds of campaigns:

    "Hillary Clinton has deliberately planted doubts amongst the working class that Obama is on their side."

    Alternative:  Barack Obama has deliberately planted doubts amongst the black community that Clinton is on their side.

    "And she did it after it became impossible for her to win without the superdelegates overturning the will of the party."

    The will of the party is pretty much equally split 50:50 for Obama vs. Clinton, so this argument is really silly.

    Your hyperbole about the Clintons being EEEEVIL just rings really ridiculous to my ears. You are looking at things through Obama propaganda, rather than seeing clearly and objectively.

    I do not pretend that Hillary is perfect or that she hasn't done negative things during this campaign. Neither should you about the Obama campaign. He has said that will 'do anything, say anything'; he has mocked her repeatedly; he has called her 'divisive' and 'status quo' and 'beholden to special interests'.

    Get a grip. There is no halo on Obama.

    BS shame on you! (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:06:08 PM EST


    Why so full of poison and hatred? (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:16:47 PM EST
    Is Sen Obama losing?

    More seriously you do realize your post is against the rules and spirit of this site, right?

    Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:23:07 PM EST
    ads and tactics in PA were nearly 90% negative.

    When is the last time you heard him even chant, "Yes We Can"?

    Sorry, but that is documented.

    Hillary stuck to the issues.  She won over PA on the issues.

    She beat him on the issues.

    I'm not sure about this down ticket benefit. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Teresa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:44:29 AM EST
    The Democrat running against Lamar! here in TN has endorsed Obama. I can see the same ad run in NC being run here. The Ford/Corker race showed us they will not hesitate to run that type of ad here.

    If he had endorsed Hillary, they couldn't do an ad like that because Bill Clinton is popular here. They'd still smear her but not in the "GD America" type of ad.

    BTD, I think you underestimate the Wright/Ayers connections. I don't really care but I do know how people here feel about it. It will matter in November.

    I agree re Dohrn/Ayers here (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:47:12 PM EST
    in her hometown, and many other Obama mistakes are going to hurt our first-term AA Congressperson here when up for re-election.  Maybe not in votes, with a district with a lot of AAs.  But donors, I dunno.

    Parent
    Dems in these situations (none / 0) (#145)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:47:02 PM EST
    are proving how big they are at being boobs.

    Parent
    Exactly! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:46:57 AM EST
    Not Missouri, Ohio, PA, FL, WV, KY, AR, etc.

    That is my point. The argument is in the West mostly.  

    Romney as VP crushes the argument (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:55:11 AM EST
    There are enough Mormons in the West to swing Nevada Colorado and there's certainly enough Mormon cash.

    There's also the Palin character in Alaska.  If McCain picks her, he'll hava a solid conservative running mate and he can make a pitch to disaffected Clintonites.

    Parent

    wouldn't Romney as VP... (none / 0) (#41)
    by dws3665 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:58:39 AM EST
    open some doors in the South, where McCain's conservatism is already suspect, and Romney's religion would be a negative?

    Parent
    I doubt it. (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:04:27 PM EST
    The baptists won't run away.

    Also Romney flips the NE states.

    NH is already showing signs of being McCain's.  Romnety could make picking off Connecticut or Mass a real possibility.  And indeed he could secure Michigan.  he connected with them in a surprising way.

    Given the current polling data at least.

    Palin is also a demographic poacher as well.

    Parent

    Romney's negatives (none / 0) (#95)
    by bigbay on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    they are really high; people don't seem to like him.

    Parent
    Romney as VP (none / 0) (#102)
    by cal1942 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:28:29 PM EST
    Any gain in the west (really not a loss compared to 2004 just a hold for the GOP) with Romney as a running mate would be offset by a nearly certain loss of MO (am I right MO Blue?) trouble in KY, W VA, etc.

    McCain lost MI to Romney because he made an incredible gaff a few days before the primary that was shown on local TV stations around the state over and over and over again for several days. He turned a 2 point and pick um race into (as I recall) a seven plus point loss.  Romney had stayed close because of his Michigan ties,  the McCain gaff was truly astounding.

    It was jaw dropping. When I saw it I thought this guy is truly stupid or has a burning passion to get his clock cleaned.

    Parent

    Romney won't flip MA. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:18:38 PM EST
    If anything, in MA Romney on the ticket would offset the loss Obama will take by being associated with Patrick. He'd help Obama, not McCain.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:34:59 PM EST
    it could hurt McCain down here but not enough. Right now he'd get at least 20 pts. on Obama. With Romney on the ticket he might go down to winning by 10 pts. Romney wouldn't be enough of a drag.

    Parent
    He has Downs. (none / 0) (#149)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:17:53 PM EST
    But that's what happens when you take the risk of popping them out at an older age.

    Parent
    Here's the question, then (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:55:44 AM EST
    is winning  two Senate seats, one in Alaska and one in Colorado, worth the gamble to losing all three eastern swing states? I couldn't answer yes in good conscience.

    The Presidency is just too important.

    Parent

    And Alaska? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ineedalife on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:54:27 PM EST
    I don't buy the impact of Obama on Alaska for a minute.

    Ted Stevens is imploding of his own accord. Clinton or Obama won't matter on the outcome of that race.

    Parent

    One in NM and OR and VA and ME? (2.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:04:11 PM EST
    I have been clear on this - there is more risk but more potential reward with Obama and his Media darling status is potent.

    Clinton will be slaughtered by the Media against McCain.

    Parent

    First of all (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    SUSA says that Hillary is slightly stronger in NM.

    Second, I don't think either really has a shot at VA. Third, Allen isn't going to beat Collins, period.  Fourth, Oregon is worth the price of actually winning the Presidency. I frankly think that the Presidency is worth up to 6 Senate seats. Maybe more.

    Parent

    andgarden is right (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by cal1942 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    about New Mexico.  Hillary won the primary there by a narrow margin.  I can't see BTD's implication that Obama would draw more downticket support there than Hillary.

    The west as an argument for an Obama candidacy is in some ways amusing.  Risk Pennsylvania and write off any chance at Ohio and Florida to pick up Colorado and secure Oregon is an argument that's truly astounding.

    Parent

    media slaughter (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by dws3665 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:13:05 PM EST
    The media has been slaughtering her against Obama, too, yet in some respects I think this has helped her candidacy.

    The same dynamics may not be in play in the general, but I believe that should (hypothetically) she flay McCain in the debates and then the media declare him the victor, it would again help her (a la NH).

    Maybe I'm naive, but I have to believe that the electorate has learned SOME lessons from 2000 and 2004.

    Parent

    Oh, and your Missouri SUSA (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:03:42 PM EST
    is out of date. Clinton narrowly leads McCain now.

    Interesting Demographics In That Poll On MO (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:01:28 PM EST
    Confirms for now many of the assumption we have been making. And disputes some of the CW.

    Clinton does better in the 18 - 36 demographic that Obama although both beat McCain McCain beating both in 35 - 49 by 29%

    20 % of A.A. will vote for McCain over Obama with 1% undecided
    30% of AA will vote for McCain over Clinton with 13% undecided
    Clinton wins big with Hispanics and Obama loses big (small pop)

    Clinton loses Indies by 9% and Obama ties. Clinton and Obama tied in appeal to Republicans. Clinton beats McCain by 24% more than Obama in Democratic voters.

    Clinton blows McCain out of the water on health care and Obama only leads McCain by 4%.

    Evidently people in MO are not fond of the Democratic position on immigration.  

    Parent

    Thanks, fixed (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:08:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:06:01 PM EST
    That is the argument o be made, not AdamB's silly post.

    so your argument is (none / 0) (#56)
    by dws3665 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:09:22 PM EST
    that by virtue of having won the primary or caucus, the victorious candidate will help downticket, whereas the other will not?

    I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Is there more of a demographic component to your thinking, or is it simply a "s/he won" thing?

    Al Franken (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:18:59 PM EST
    is like what we WISH Obama would be.

    Parent
    Al Franken (none / 0) (#66)
    by dws3665 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:21:09 PM EST
    is Obama-esque? I don't see that at all. I know the other candidates less well, so I'll take your word for it.

    I agree that Obama brings new voters into the party, and at present still has more appeal to independents, but I am not confident that it will stay that way. The more Obama loses his "new breed" luster, the less he will serve as a magnet for idealistic younger voters and independents.

    Parent

    In voter demos is what I took Dalton to mean (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:23:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:24:26 PM EST
    I was wrong. I totally disagree with dalton then.

    Parent
    when I have heard (none / 0) (#76)
    by dws3665 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:27:25 PM EST
    Franken speak, it has been much more on brass tacks democratic issues -- against Coleman as a Bush-enabler, pro-constitution restoration, etc., candidate. These are not themes that I hear Obama pushing in his speeches. Franken seems much more bare-knuckle brawler and HRC-like. However, I live in SC and don't have great exposure to the MN campaign.

    Parent
    Watching from a next-door state (none / 0) (#92)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    and reading the Twin Cities media, I'd say you are spot on about major differences between Franken's and Obama's campaigns, platforms, etc.

    One came from pop culture, one became pop culture.  That's all.  They may get the same voters, but the Midwesterners often vote for very different reasons in local/state races vs. presidential races.  I.e., GOP governors in presidentially blue states like MN.

    Parent

    Snow falls on cedars in Washington (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    state, and it has an Olympia -- but Olympia Snowe represents the great state of Maine.  The state that gave us the first woman nominated for the presidency by a major party, btw.  But that was her GOP, too.

    Parent
    SUSA has New Mexico Clinton 46-49 while Obama 44-5 (none / 0) (#87)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:52:08 PM EST
    against McCain.  Also, if one looks at Pollster's "poll of polls", it's Clinton 45.1-47.1 while Obama 44.2-50 against McCain.

    If one looks at the internals of the SUSA poll, it says for whites and others, Clinton and Obama are about the same against McCain while for A-A's (2% of the population), Obama is stronger (both get a big majority of A-A's though) and for Hispanics Clinton has a 30 percentage point advantage against McCain while Obama only has a 23 point advantage.  Given the fact that A-A's will make up a small % (according to SUSA 2%) of the voters in NM, while (according to SUSA), hispanics will make up 39% of the voters, it makes a lot more sense to say Clinton has the advantage in NM over Obama.

    Obama Campaigning For A Candidate (none / 0) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    in a moderate or conservative county would be a negative in MO. Even the fact that is on the top of the ticket, could do damage there. The only way he could possibly help would be by asking supporters to contribute to their campaign. Don't know how effective that is when you get down to the district level.

    Would it be acceptable to you Clinton (none / 0) (#97)
    by dem08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:11:50 PM EST
    supporters to consider Hillary's well known strength in rallying Republicans?

    The Clinton's are a known commodity. Bill's pardons, his business deals, all the left-over weariness of the Pugnacious Clinton years, did cost Democrats in past elections. Why should we think The Clinton's won't hurt Democrats this Fall.

    Will Obama be a strong "down-ticket" presence? I really doubt it. He has appeal to the affluent, the educated, and maybe to young voters, but young voters don't usually vote. Obama loses many women and white voters.

    However, it would be a miracle if Candidate Hillary doesn't ensure a strong Republican turn-out.

    That is what is so sad about so many Democrats saying we Democrats have "two strong candidates". The best hope is McCain himself, not any argument one can make for Obama or Hillary.

    Here In MO The Latest Poll Shows (none / 0) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:08:39 PM EST
    that 24% of Democrats will vote for McCain over Obama. Clinton up 1% over McCain and Obama loses by 8%.

    We also have a governors race and an anti-affirmative action amendment on the ballot. Who is on the ballot won't make a bit of difference here on Republican turn out. They will be out in force.


    Parent

    IMO (none / 0) (#146)
    by Eleanor A on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:48:36 PM EST
    We as a party MUST do something about the social-issue lightning rod ballot initiatives Republicans force every statewide election year.  Dems in state House and Senates are afraid to oppose these monstrosities, so they wind up skewing Fed and state elections.

    Something's gotta give, here.  

    Parent

    Yes, I agree (none / 0) (#118)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:13:38 PM EST
    At this point, it is a very complex picture with both Dem candidates flawed and risky in different ways. Depressing but real.

    Parent
    With the way wingnut radio (none / 0) (#131)
    by Benjamin3 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:23:02 PM EST
    has been bashing Obama lately, it's not a stretch to think that Obama will rally the republicans as well.

    Parent
    Clinton (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:37:23 PM EST
    won NM. Your post is flawed on that point.

    I can understand (none / 0) (#110)
    by cal1942 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:44:09 PM EST
    the Colorado Udall but the New Mexico Udall agrument defies results.  Clinton or Obama are a wash for Tom Udall.

    Smith has a solid lead in Oregon. I don't see anyone taking him down. His posturing as a moderate will keep him in the Senate no matter what Democrat is at the top of the ticket.  The same goes for Susan Collins in Maine.

    It should be understood that a portion of Obama supporters are not partisan Democrats.  These are people very likely to split their tickets if they bother to consider the rest of the ballot at all.  I believe people in this group are loathe to check a straight party ballot.

    I heard (none / 0) (#113)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:51:37 PM EST
    Ed Rollins on Morning Joe say that he thought it would be best for McCain if Obama was the candidate because he thought the GE would turn on Ohio and Pennsylvania again. He also was touting Huckabee as McCain's running mate, surprise, surprise, as a way to firm up the evangelical base.

    If he's right, and I don't know if his crystal ball is any better than anyone elses would not Hillary Clinton be the more electable candidate against McCain given her stronger showing in both of those states? Not looking for an argument, just asking.

    OY! Rasmussen shows Obama trailing McCain in PA (none / 0) (#121)
    by kempis on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:22:51 PM EST
    Take a look this:

     

    crap--can't get the "link" link to work (none / 0) (#122)
    by kempis on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:23:35 PM EST
    http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr27.html

    Excuse me, but two people in Oregon (none / 0) (#135)
    by caseyOR on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:19:47 PM EST
    are running in the Dem primary for Senator. Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley are running against each other. Right now, Novick is leading. And either Clinton or Obama could take Oregon in the GE.

    That Was Then, This Is Now | 138 comments (138 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment