home

SUSA KY Poll: Clinton By 36

Meanwhile, back at the polls, SUSA's KY Poll says Clinton by 36:

Hillary Clinton decisively defeats Barack Obama, 63% to 27%. In three SurveyUSA tracking polls over the past 30 days, there is no movement in the contest. Obama gains a little bit of ground in Greater Louisville, but loses an equivalent amount in other portions of the state.

Whites (90% of the vote) 67-23 Clinton. African Americans (8% of the vote) 71-15 Obama.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Obama Does The [W]Right Thing | Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    susa again (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:32:00 PM EST
    underestimates obama's support among african americans. although i do think breaking with wright might chip away at it. if so, and susa's numbers become more realistic, this race has turned upside down. a week from today, we'll know...

    Turned upside down? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:37:47 PM EST
    In three SurveyUSA tracking polls over the past 30 days, there is no movement in the contest.

    And even if it's true that SUSA underestimates African American support, how big of a factor can that be in Kentucky?

    Parent

    Not a factor at all (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:41:06 PM EST
    Give Obama an extra percent or 2 if you like.

    Parent
    funny, lol (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Lil on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:49:03 PM EST
    rhetorical question :) (none / 0) (#18)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:51:21 PM EST
    talking about the overall race (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    it's a given that clinton wins huge in ky and wv.

    Parent
    the tide has been turning for over a month (none / 0) (#56)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:31:14 PM EST
    Obama is the one who has to turn things around now.

    Parent
    he's far enough ahead (none / 0) (#58)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:35:05 PM EST
    both in pledged delegates and the popular vote that he really only needs run out the clock. clinton needs a genuine surprise or two. if she wins indiana by a larger margin than she loses north carolina, that would be a major story.

    Parent
    If he "runs out the clock" (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:44:15 PM EST
    winning nothing but NC by a much narrower margin than earlier thought, the clock will go into overtime.  The SDs won't be able to ignore that.

    What they do about it is another story. But it will make them very unhappy.

    Parent

    but that would be exactly the type (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:52:30 PM EST
    of game-chnger clinton needs. come close in nc, and get a solid win in indiana, and everyone will be talking. of course, some will just scream even louder that clinton has to get out of the race!

    Parent
    I'd guess (none / 0) (#109)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:14:05 PM EST
    that a clean win in Indiana wouldn't sufficiently trump a close loss in NC - the narrative would be that they split the contests.  If Clinton goes into the convention 7-3 in recent states it's pretty different than 9-1 for non-sabermetricians...

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#136)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:46:37 PM EST
    But there is a significant possibility that even if everything goes Clinton's way, enough SDs will stick with Obama to give him the nomination.

    Meanwhile, Bill Richardson is on Softballs predicting that a wave of SDs are about to endorse Obama. He's sad that the Clinton's are angry at him, but he had to endorse Obama "for the good of the country." No questions from Tweety about what happens if Obama keeps losing.

    Tweety has just asked if the term "Judas" shows that the Clinton's view of themselve is too "high...like divine right."  

    Concluding the interview of not-Judas, Tweety goes to a commercial with: "Is tonight the end of Wright's rule?"  Do you think he's burning incense and sacrificing a goat in the Green Room?

    Parent

    So Richardson Is Going Against The Will of NM (none / 0) (#145)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:57:40 PM EST
    voters?  And that is okay?  He is an A$$.

    Parent
    Obama wins on a tie (none / 0) (#82)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:48:16 PM EST
    His supporters will freak out more if he loses when tied.  Maybe Clinton offers him the VP spot and he goes for the 16 years in the WH instead of 8 - otherwise probably better for the party to chose him given my claim.

    Parent
    He is tied now. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:50:03 PM EST
    He won't be by the end of June.

    Parent
    Obam has to turn around the voting trend (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:47:42 PM EST
    If you think he can just run out the clock with the trend in this direction, his electability aura will be (is?) in shambles.

    Parent
    that won't matter (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:51:06 PM EST
    if he prevails in both popular vote and pledged delegates, i do not see the superdelegates overturning it. i think clinton has to have a credible popular vote argument, and even then obama's supporters will scream.

    Parent
    I know this is the CW (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:53:21 PM EST
    but I am not at all sure its true.
    the elected supers are one thing.  the others are a wild card.  they were invented to prevent this from happening.

    Parent
    i don't see them overturning (none / 0) (#102)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:02:10 PM EST
    someone who is leading in both metrics. it could happen, but i'd be stunned, and i think it could be very damaging to the party.

    Parent
    Are we counting FL and MI in this total? (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:53:55 PM EST
    Because if not, HRC supporters will scream.

    Very, very loudly.

    Parent

    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:00:36 PM EST
    HRC is ahead in popular vote if you count MI and FL.

    Parent
    of course (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:00:53 PM EST
    everyone has their own take on fl and mi, so people will scream, no matter what. but i do think clinton has to outperform expectations to create the media buzz that she's on a roll, and that obama's sinking. again- if she wins indiana by a larger margin than she loses nc, that would be a huge story, and all the talk will be that obama's in serious trouble. it's very much a battle of perceptions.

    Parent
    I owe you a beverage. (none / 0) (#103)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:04:34 PM EST
    You posted it faster.  :)

    Parent
    one more time (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:59:48 PM EST
    If Obama doesn't turn around the current voting trend, he will NOT be ahead in popular votes by the time the clock runs out.

    Counting Florida and Michigan (and yes I do count them) he is not even ahead right now.  He could win big in NC and get the lead back, but then he has to worry about Kentucky, West Virginia, Puerto Rico in particular.

    Hillary will be ahead in popular vote if Obama just runs out the clock under the current dynamic is the bottome line.

    Parent

    counting fl and mi is problematic (none / 0) (#104)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    i think there's a credible case for fl, but mi is too screwed up, no matter whose fault it is. but again- it will be about perceptions. if the same margins hold in the upcoming states, i think obama succeeds. if clinton outperforms expectations, she not onlt gets the popular vote to render michigan irrelevant, she also has a clear media storyline.

    Parent
    Michigan is problematic (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:49:48 PM EST
    because Obama, not being on the ballot, got zero votes.  You have to give Obama some portion of the "uncommitted" vote to make it tenable, and how do you decide, other than giving him all of it -- even though Edwards would have gotten a big portion if everyone had been on the ballot.

    Florida is not problematic.  Everyone was on the ballot, under identical conditions. The fact the delegates may not be seated doesn't change the fact that she won the popular vote big.

    Parent

    I know it's problematic (none / 0) (#108)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:10:50 PM EST
    But only for those who care about what the media thinks is fair.  Look can we just agree that best care scenario is for Clinton to pull out some more surprises but you need to give up on the notion that Obama gets to just run out the clock and survive this.  He certainly didn't seem to think he could do that today, did he?

    Parent
    look (none / 0) (#129)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:06:19 PM EST
    i'm no fan of obama, but i understand the dynamics. clinton does need something dramatic. of course obama's worried, because this could be exactly what he doesn't need. but we won't know until more states vote. if he still wins big in nc, and hangs on to mt, sd, and or, the headlines show a continuing split, with his previously won advantage holding. she needs to disrupt that storyline.

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#118)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:20:10 PM EST
    MI is not "too screwed up" to count.  There are ways to resolve it with the current vote totals that, with candidate and DNC support, would be seen as fair to both candidates.  One way is to allocate some portion of uncommitted votes to Obama, if not all.  

    There is no doubt the MI results are valid, i.e. HRC got this many votes "uncommitted" got this many, Kucinich got this many, etc.  The only issue, as far as counting the popular vote, is how to count the uncommitted voters. As an HRC supporter, I'll listen to HRC - up to a point. If she says she'll count 100% of uncommitted for Obama, 'nuff said for me. If she says 0% for Obama, I'll see her point, but I doubt I'll agree with the strategy (while in my heart applauding her position).  But MI voters have to be counted in some way.  Saying "it's too screwed up" to fix results in a Republican win in Nov.

    As far as delegates, there is no issue. The MI Dem Party is now doing what it promised back in January would happen, sending uncommmitted delegates to the convention. The MI Dem party clearly told voters in January that voting uncommitted means that you will be sending an uncommitted delegate to the convention.  Thus, there are this many delegates for HRC, there are this many uncommitted, and there are this many for Kucinich, etc.

    The MI dem party is proceeding with electing its delegates. The county conventions were April 19. There will be MI delegates at the convention, and they will be allocated according to the Jan 29th vote. Whether the DNC seats them is another matter.

    Parent

    it seems to me (none / 0) (#132)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:10:27 PM EST
    that obama will not agree to anything, as long as the race is contested. and the dnc doesn't seem inclined to lead. the key, then, is whether the vast majority of the party will accept mi, as is, and there's no way that will happen.

    Parent
    turkana, (none / 0) (#122)
    by sancho on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:26:39 PM EST
    are you saying the dem leadership is ok going with a clearly damaged candidate? b/c that's where i see your logic and this race heading, if i understand you correctly. obama cannot recover from wright. and people have to know that most of his delegates are empty ones--from red state caucuses. the wright flap gives them an excuse to do the right thing, as spike lee would say.

    Parent
    i'm saying (none / 0) (#130)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:08:13 PM EST
    that if obama wins the pledged delegates and the popular vote, the superdelegates will not overturn it, even if they see it as a losing bet, for november. because the alternative could be much worse- not just a loss in november, but a party torn apart.

    Parent
    Then We Don't Need SD's, As They Are Supposed (none / 0) (#146)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:00:07 AM EST
    to be the leaders, not the followers and are to consider who can actually win the election.

    Parent
    they're supposed to consider many things (none / 0) (#154)
    by Turkana on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:49:10 AM EST
    and i'm sure they will.

    Parent
    Didn't Dean say someone would have to (none / 0) (#115)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:19:12 PM EST
    drop out in June? Wouldn't that change things for supporters since neither may have enough to win?

    Parent
    I agree and have been thinking about that (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by kempis on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:29:54 PM EST
    Thanks to his running the board in February, Obama has already been riding out a structural delegate lead. Clinton has won the major primaries since March 4. Obamamomentum seems to have sprung a leak for a number of reasons, and matters appear to be getting worse for him, not better.

    Now instead of Obama having momentum and closing in on Hillary's leads in upcoming contests, the reverse is happening. And just as Obama scored victories by huge margins in Southern states with large AA populations earlier, Hillary is about to rack up some large-margin wins in WV and KY.

    It's almost a total reversal: Hillary has momentum and, in at least a couple of states, a large demographic advantage. She may finish with a May that looks a lot like Obama's February. Then what?

    If the DNC hands the nomination to Obama on that slight, caucus-driven, delegate-edge when he's shown that he's out-of-steam in April and May, it's going to be a controversial nomination. It would make much more sense to give it to the candidate with the most popular votes, the momentum, and the better performance in head-to-head polls against McCain. If that's not Obama, that will not set any better with Hillary's supporters than Hillary's being the nominee will please Obama's. (But I do trust Hillary to make good on her pledge to do what she can to encourage her supporters to vote for Obama. I'm not so sure I get the same vibe from him. After all, he's assured us that his supporters won't vote for her. Not that he's practicing the old politics of division or anything....)

    In the end, we'll discover whether the Dems really want to win. If they choose to give the nomination to a candidate who seems to be hitting some serious electability snags, they must be interested in something else.

    Parent

    What Clinton needs. . . (none / 0) (#106)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:07:29 PM EST
    is for a few delegates (super or otherwise) to switch their support from Obama to her.  Right now the narrative -- accurate, in my view -- is that she can't make up the deficit in either popular or pledged delegates by the end of campaign season.  She needs to start racking up additional delegates now, not when Obama has won by all the "democratic" measurements.

    Parent
    Well I think she can win the popular vote (none / 0) (#110)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:14:16 PM EST
    Maybe. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:18:00 PM EST
    Her odds of doing so are improving a little.

    Parent
    I was thinking about that too (none / 0) (#117)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:19:46 PM EST
    Is it still overturning whatever metric you use to determine the will of the people, if the SDs declare prior to the final primary?

    No one is yelling for the SDs to hold off until all the voting is over before deciding in order to have the metric complete. Rather each SD declaration has been greeted with joy by one side or the other. And while people talk about the SDs overturning the will of the people, its always talked about in the sense of a future event.

    Parent

    Dem Establishment Is Leaning Obama Regardless (none / 0) (#113)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:18:10 PM EST
    if she captures PV or is more electable.

    Per Charles Cook:

    One of the most salient arguments made these days by superdelegates is the fear of what would happen to the party if Obama were to be spurned.

    Even if they wanted to nominate Clinton, the fear of damage to the party is sufficient to argue against it. Between the newbies -- the young and new voters who are so enthusiastic for Obama -- and the black community -- who ironically were somewhat late to join the Obama bandwagon after his Iowa win -- the fallout from a spurning of Obama would be profound. correntewure

    This has been CW for a while. Definitely tunnel vision by not looking at the polls showing how many Clinton supporters will vote for McCain or stay home. You know how it is. Those pesky women will just get over it.

    Parent

    So they don't give a crap about her supporters? (none / 0) (#119)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:21:36 PM EST
    When did this become all about Obama and his supporters? She may have more votes than him, and doesn't she actually have more dems voting for her than he does?

    Parent
    No, they don't care about HRC supporters (none / 0) (#121)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:25:55 PM EST
    And it's maddening to me. Maddening, I tell you!

    Parent
    A woman scorned . . . . (none / 0) (#124)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:31:20 PM EST
    now what percentage of the Dem voting populaton is women? And then we have our Repub crossover women also . . .

    Here's hoping we all don't get hormonal at once  {GRIN}

    Parent

    You Sure Are Brave... :) (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:01:31 AM EST
    No movement? (none / 0) (#33)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:14:32 PM EST
    How is that possible?

    No one can win by 36 points.

    I'm guessing that Obama hasn't campaigned at all there. Polls always tighten when the election draws nearer.

    Parent

    Look at the Border Counties around KY (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by thomphool on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:18:57 PM EST
    and the rest of Appalachia, where the demographic profiles are similar.  The margins Clinton has put up there are in that range, if not bigger.  If you take out urban bases from many results, these are the sort of margins Clinton has put up.  The demographics of the state make this absolutely possible.  Obama won by 51% in the District of Columbia.  The favorable demographics of Kentucky and WV for Clinton is almost on the same level that the demographics of DC were favorable to Obama.

    Parent
    Wow. (none / 0) (#44)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:21:44 PM EST
    Thanks for the informative explanation. :-)

    Parent
    What AA voters in Kentucky? (none / 0) (#24)
    by stefystef on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:02:38 PM EST
    How large is the AA population in Kentucky?  It may not be significant enough to put Obama over.

    Parent
    Less than 10% (none / 0) (#42)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:21:35 PM EST
    8% of the primary vote (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:21:38 PM EST
    not enough to matter much.

    Parent
    Obama Better Hope He Wins Indiana (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:32:29 PM EST
    Because things get worse for him in WV and KY.  Although I believe he is up in OR.

    he's been up 10 (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:17:24 PM EST
    but bill clinton has been visiting some smaller cities, and we've yet to see any polls since that and since the latest wright episode. i would not be surprised if that lead has been halved.

    Parent
    Yesterday's SUSA Indiana poll (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:30:50 PM EST
    had Clinton up by 9. No way Obama wins there, IMHO.

    LINK

    Parent

    i saw that (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:36:23 PM EST
    but if she makes oregon competitive, that's another big momentum swing.

    Parent
    wasn't she down (none / 0) (#134)
    by ccpup on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:27:42 PM EST
    only 9 or 10 points in OR?  I don't remember the exact Poll or when it was taken, but I don't recall seeing an insurmountable lead by Obama.

    But I could be wrong.  It has been one of those days for me.  (sigh)

    Parent

    I am so glad (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:20:53 PM EST
    that HRC did not drop out the way the entire universe seemed to be screaming that she should.

    What if Obama were our nominee for sure, and all this Wright nonsense came out?

    [shudder]

    Honestly, I cannot believe Obama has even come close to gaining the nomination. He has very little experience and personal baggage that could fill a 747.

    Parent

    The irony (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:25:01 PM EST
    is that he expedited his run for prez because he worried that later he'd have "baggage".

    No wonder!  Obama is a baggage "magnet". None of it is his fault, of course.

    Parent

    IACF! (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:26:43 PM EST
    Seriously, is that why he says he ran now?

    If he'd waited, he might have been able to throw some of that baggage overboard without the repercussions he's seeing now.

    Parent

    Michelle said that he won't run again (none / 0) (#139)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:03:49 PM EST
    because "in six years we will be different people, and we might have lost touch with the ordinary people." Seriously, she said that.

    Parent
    She couldn't have said that (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by stefystef on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:25:27 PM EST
    Obama is only 46 years old.  He could run again, easy.  The only reason he wouldn't is because he is too prissy to try again.

    I hope that's not true because it proves that he is a self-absorbed narcissist.

    Parent

    It wasn't Michelle.. It was Obama.. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:40:36 PM EST
    I was misremembering who said it. He said in Iowa..in December of last year. Here is the link to one of the stories about it. "Obama hints he won't run a second time"

    In the story it says..

    It's now or perhaps never, Obama and his wife, Michelle, concluded, because, "We still remember what it's like to be normal," he told a crowd here six days before Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses
     
    And
    "My wife and I were talking the other day, and she said, 'We're not doing this again,' " Obama said. "Those of you who have met my wife or heard my wife, you know she doesn't mince words. I mean, she's a tough cookie."

    Obama said their stance has less to do with the grueling campaign schedule that separates the family for large swaths of time, and more with the couple's belief that eight years from now, they wouldn't be the "same people."


    That is the one I was remembering and why I thought Michelle said it. Oooops, my bad. Heh.

    Parent
    I thought it was because of (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:37:35 PM EST
    "the fierce urgency of now."

    Parent
    pfft (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:44:02 PM EST
    now the urgency just got a bit fiercer.

    Parent
    said.  I think they are making a huge mistake.  obama has no record, what has he done about the environment (one of their favorite issues)?  I don't get it.

    Parent
    I said it before elsewhere... (none / 0) (#151)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:01:40 AM EST

    ...if Berkeley, California were a state, it'd be Oregon.  It's like the Vermont of the West, kind of.  Lots of commie, crunchy lefties {snark} mixed in with the cowboys.

    Parent
    HRC (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:39:12 PM EST
    Just watching Hillary with the board of the Indy Star.  The political cartoonist asked her if she could ask a question of Obama, what would it be, and she said it would be "Why won't you debate me?"

    I [heart] her. It's official - I have a girl-crush on her.

    I tell you (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:41:40 PM EST
    that refusal to debate is not going to help him.  Unfortunately, I know what some of the questions would be, but he'll get them in a debate with McCain if he's the nominee.

    Parent
    Maybe every state newspaper (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:46:17 PM EST
    Including Kentucky, should ask for a debate now.

    Parent
    No, it won't (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:26:47 PM EST
    but debating Hillary again would hurt him worse. He can't hold a candle to her, and he knows it.  He is making the right call for himself.

    Parent
    Oh, I know he won't (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:42:19 PM EST
    But it sure helps Hillary if newspapers take up the call too. Then it really looks like he's ducking a debate.  He's already bowed out of NC and ignored Indiana.  Makes him look weak.

    Parent
    She has suggested a moderator-less (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:39:04 PM EST
    debate.  I suppose that none of the networks would televise it if one of their own wasn't allowed to ask really stoopid questions, though.

    Parent
    Me, too--only with me it's more (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by kempis on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:07:55 PM EST
    a middle-aged-lady crush. :)

    Thanks for that link. Great interview, and it reinforces my conviction that Hillary would make a great president.

    I see that Obama did an interview with the IndyStar's board, too, but unfortunately the link is dead. I was curious to compare them.

    Parent

    Hey - I'm 39 (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:50:19 PM EST
    and if I think I can have a girl-crush, then so can you!  :)

    Parent
    Holy Moly. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:43:13 PM EST
    If Hill wins Indiana, comes in close (single digit) or wins NC and then goes on to blow him out in KY, Obama is toast.

    I have my strawberry jam ready!

    Not fair! (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by katiebird on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:50:04 PM EST
    I'm sitting here trying to stay away from the candy machine and you're talking strawberry jam.  

    (ummm)

    Parent

    Hillary is (none / 0) (#152)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:03:40 AM EST

    hot buttered toast with apple jelly for me.

    Parent
    Perhaps this long campaign only served (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:08:33 PM EST
    to convince people that Hillary is the real post-partisan leader:  a combination of Captains Kirk, Piccard, and Janeway,  and logicons, Spock, and Seven of nine .  I just LOVE the Star Trek society that is obviously past gender, religion  and racial issues; even species.

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:17:10 PM EST
    Jeri Ryan will campaign for Hillary?

    Parent
    Well, that will get (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:23:13 PM EST
    the "fans of Seven of Nine" votes. Every micro-constituency counts!

    LOL

    Parent

    It'd make my head (none / 0) (#153)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:06:24 AM EST

    explode.

    Not saying which one.  

    YEOW.

    That was nasty.  But come on.  This is SEVEN OF NINE we're talking about here.  I would kill just to touch that outfit (Isn't it at the Smithsonian?  Or was it one of the ones auctioned off in the huge ST auction a couple of years ago?).

    Clinton has always reminded me of Janeway, my favorite Captain.

    Parent

    Hah, (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by abfabdem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:29:56 PM EST
    we might not have had Obama as an Illinois senator if Ms. Ryan's ex-husband had not been revealed to be a perv!  

    Parent
    I assume you know (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:46:47 PM EST
    that Jeri Ryan's ex-husband was supposed to be Obama's GOP opponent...until she filed papers in their divorce proceeding accusing him of trying to take her to sex clubs.

    And thus was born Allan Keyes, GOP candidate for Senate from Illinois.

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:50:59 PM EST
    That's why I said it! I would love the irony ;)

    Parent
    Feel the Keyesmentum!!! (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:52:57 PM EST
    I love that guy. You want to see flat-out fruitcakey wackazoid, you go listen to some Alan Keyes.

    Parent
    Jeri Ryan would be ok to campaign (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:18:11 PM EST
    after all she divorced her husband for precisely that reason; and then it will come out that Axelrod had something to do with the outing of the divorce papers.

    Parent
    But, but, but (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:38:34 PM EST
    I thought the Clintons were responsible for all such things. ;-)

    Parent
    not liking my party's tribalism n/t (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:43:40 PM EST


    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:49:42 PM EST
    Whoever wins this is going to have a heck of time bridging the gap.

    Parent
    I guess it'll all depend (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:58:26 PM EST
    on how badly people want a dem in the White House.  

    I do.  How about you?

    Parent

    I want a Dem in the WH (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:39:47 PM EST
    so badly, that if Obama wins the nomination, I'll vote for him.

    Parent
    Well, I'm afraid you would be getting a (none / 0) (#141)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:15:59 PM EST
    Republican either way --whether it is Obama or McCain.  I would personally prefer to have a real Republican for the next four years, taking the blame for the terrible economy and the problems in Iraq, than have some stumbling novice Democrat in there, whose "baggage" fills up every news cycle and whose economic advisor wants to privatize Social Security while his boss puts more Alitos on the Supreme Court because he doesn't care about ideology.  We could then kiss the White House goodbye for another 20 years and it would be all our own fault.

    Parent
    Hillary addressed this today (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:01:34 PM EST
    It's near the end of the video, but it's well worth the watch.

    LINK

    Parent

    Thanks for the link (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:12:07 PM EST
    I enjoyed watching it.

    Parent
    The Obama campaign (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:19:58 PM EST
    Has some responsibility for this you know.

    Hell.  I'll say not all, but there's a reason why this is happening.


    Parent

    I know. In fact, duh. So what? n/t (none / 0) (#66)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:39:36 PM EST
    not liking it either (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:58:59 PM EST
    in fact, despairing of it.

    but i do like that you're a fan of rilke.

    Parent

    The ideal (none / 0) (#72)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:43:31 PM EST
    alles, was uns anrührt, dich und mich,
    nimmt uns zusammen wie ein Bogenstrich,
    die aus zwei Saiten eine Stimme zieht.

    - the different parts of the party should speak together in harmony even though differently, like a double-stopped chord.  Th reality is more like a tug-of-war, and the horsehair won't hold out.

    Parent

    beautifully said (none / 0) (#140)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:15:40 PM EST
    on the subject of polls, my daughter who (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:08:09 PM EST
    lives in South Dakota got a poll call yesterday so they are starting to poll there now I guess...Here in Montana we are under water with Obama commercials, some of while are showing Republican endorsements which seems strange to me..

    I didn't know you were in MT (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:11:25 PM EST
    Lucky duck, it is pretty Red up there though.

    Parent
    Blood red and likely to stay that way sadly (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:19:45 PM EST
    You folks in Montana (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:42:58 PM EST
    voted for Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer. How red could you really be?

    I firmly believe that it's all about framing your positions so that people understand how they will benefit from what you're proposing.

    The Republicans are much better at selling their ideas than we are.

    Of course, they are usually lying about their ideas. LOL

    Parent

    We also have two Dem Senators (none / 0) (#138)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:03:01 PM EST
    and almost all of the major state offices are held by Dems. Montana was mostly blue for a long, long time--we just had a bad patch from 1988-2004 :)

    Parent
    How charming... (none / 0) (#70)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:42:27 PM EST
    So obama Has Had Several Wins In Red (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:08:32 AM EST
    States and his followers think he could win them in the GE?  Ludicrous.  And while I am thinking of it, what is the consensus on The Bradley Effect?

    Parent
    Meanwhile a strong endorsement (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:27:00 PM EST
    for HRC by Skelton (MO) and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

    Skelton Is Definitely Voting Based On (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:46:46 PM EST
    constituents preferences along with respect for Clinton. Conservative Dem in a conservative county. Firmly entrenched in seat but can't help think that an endorsement of Obama would definitely be frowned upon.

    Parent
    McCaskill is one of Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:47:38 PM EST
    biggest boosters.  You almost get the impression she's running for VP.

    Go figure.

    Parent

    That Decision Could Come Back And Bite Her (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:00:04 PM EST
    McCaskill not doing great in polls. Moderate and conservative counties all voted Clinton and I'm sure current revelations are not going over at all well. After Wright and Ayers, Obama has two chances to win MO. Slim and none. If Obama is the nominee and loses to McCain, many of her constituents might just hold her endorsement against her.

    Parent
    I heard she was not too popular (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:01:53 PM EST
    before she came out for Obama. Is that the case?

    Parent
    She had a tough time getting elected (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:06:07 PM EST
    and in MO she is almost dooming herself by supporting Obama after the recent Obama fallouts.

    Parent
    Yes, That Is The Case (none / 0) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:32:22 PM EST
    SUSA 11/20/07 Approval Ratings (last on I could find) Link

    48% Approve
    47% Disapprove

    She  votes with Republicans on Iraq and FISA and is extremely proud of her bipartisan credentials. She also voted with the Republicans on the Immigration Bill. That one I don't count against her because it was an extremely flawed bill. My take is she would vote against a good immigration bill if it was presented.

    Parent

    McCaskill pulls a Gore (none / 0) (#120)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:21:47 PM EST
    All due respect to Gore he sat down with his consultants and they all worried too much about Bill's favorability rating and couldn't figure out a way to embrace Bill's job approval rating.

    McCaskill may fret and think she needs to run away from Clinton's favorability rating and embrace Obama, but maybe it's occured to her now that she also ran away from competent government and that she may have misjudged her constituents' priorities on these issues.


    Parent

    McCaskill's Perkiness Is Working My Nerves... (none / 0) (#150)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:11:06 AM EST
    And what is with her saying she is endorsing obama because her kids talked her into it.  Can't she make an informed decision on her own; or is she trying to be one of those cool, hip mothers whose kids run over her?  I just don't get it.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:34:11 PM EST
    It will be funny if Clinton wins KY by 20, just to watch the blogs go on and on about how she blew a big lead, and the more people see Obama the more they like him.

    And if she wins by 40 (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:38:20 PM EST
    it will be because they're all racist f*cks.

    Parent
    McCain is cash-starved I believe n/t (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:45:06 PM EST


    McCain is cash starved (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:49:15 PM EST
    but who needs money when you're awash in the love of the media schmundits?

    Do not underestimate McCain. He is dangerous, in every way it is possible to be dangerous.

    Parent

    Well In KY Clinton Has A Chance To Beat (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:52:08 PM EST
    McCain. OTOH McCain trounces Obama.

    McCain 63%  Obama 29%

    McCain 48%  Clinton 46%

    If Obama is nominated we will see yet another (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:01:17 PM EST
    Democrat go down in defeat as the blue collar voters will move over to McCain...Thats a cold hard fact from where I sit...They will never accept Sen. Obama after this Wright issue...

    Well this is the kind of margin she needs in every (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:56:48 PM EST
    State, all it would take is for all Dems to turn out and push her margins and rip this out of Dean and the SD's hands.

    But,But,But (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Left of center on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:10:18 PM EST
    what about the delegates? Extra snarkiness

    Obama has both KY Dem Congressmen (none / 0) (#6)
    by magster on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    as superdelegate endorsements.  Go figure.

    Weird, but it did not help him (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:03:08 PM EST
    in Mass. to have the governor, both senators and who knows who else.  I always hate to hear commentators say Clinton won Ohio because she had Rendell...well why didn't Obama win MASS then?

    Parent
    IMO Clinton won Ohio for many reasons people here (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:26:42 PM EST
    were ticked off at the attacks on Bill Clinton, I know suprised me too, as a Racist heard it many times and they were hoping mad, add Hillary campaign swamped the State bugging every voters continuously, Obama commercials did him no favors, of course Strickland, Rep Tubbs Jones and State Senate Leader Miller.  Obama Nafta lie didn't help.

    Parent
    Prior to Rev. Wright (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by stefystef on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:03:50 PM EST
    I wonder how many SD will come out for Obama now?  I think this will slow down, all these SD making rash decisions.

    Parent
    aren't there 20 in waiting to drip (none / 0) (#54)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:30:02 PM EST
    out slowly in the lead up to . . . .

    Parent
    I guess they don't need to talk to their (none / 0) (#8)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:41:26 PM EST
    constituents!

    Parent
    This is a KY poll (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:48:52 PM EST
    BTW, the IN poll cited is already out of date. It was taken on the 23/24.

    It is silly to talk about that one now when so much changed in the last 5 days.

    When is their next one? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:57:50 PM EST
    If they don't do another before Tuesday... oh it will be interesting....

    Parent
    Misunderstand (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:01:18 PM EST
    Some one posted an Indiana poll I have chosen to ignore because it is out of date though publically released today.

    Nothing to do with SUSA.

    Parent

    anyone with a clue as to what the (none / 0) (#27)
    by jes on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:05:22 PM EST
    projected turnout might be?

    400K to 500K is probably the range (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by thomphool on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:14:20 PM EST
    Kentucky is closed, and 400K is about 56% of Kerry's vote total from 2004, which is on the lower end of the closed primaries this cycle.  500K would be 70%, which is about the high end.  

    So, if these numbers hold, a 150,000 vote margin coming out of Kentucky is reasonable, and it's very possible Clinton nets more votes out of Kentucky than Obama does out of North Carolina.  

    Parent

    Look to Scioto County (none / 0) (#47)
    by DaytonDem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:25:03 PM EST
    across the river in Ohio from March 4th primary for guidance. Outside of the Louisville metro area Kentucky is one big Scioto County.

    pretty simple answer (none / 0) (#61)
    by VicAjax on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:37:23 PM EST
    Racism is still pretty rampant in Appalachia.  To claim otherwise is just disingenuous.

    just ask George Packer.


    Very Disconcerting (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:44:33 PM EST
    But if it's OK to talk about how skin color is the most important reason why someone would vote for Clinton, then it really has to be OK to talk about how skin color is the most important reason why someone would vote for Obama.

    I have a lot of respect for Packer but I think he's being insulting and irresponsible even if he is also right.

    Problem is.  I also think Ferrarro was right.  Even if she was being insulting and irresponsible too.

    So.  Where do we go with this?

    Parent

    How about learning (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:49:06 PM EST
    for the future, that we should not use race and gender as weapons against people in our own party?

    Parent
    100% agree. nt (none / 0) (#91)
    by VicAjax on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:52:58 PM EST
    That's the spirit (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:44:55 PM EST
    It's a bastion of gender equality, though, right?

    Parent
    probably not... (none / 0) (#94)
    by VicAjax on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:54:01 PM EST
    But in this small slice of America, it's apparently a bit further along.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:57:34 PM EST
    unless there's reason to believe it's a major factor in this 36-point lead, it comes across an awful lot like excuse-making.  Of course there are racists in the electorate.

    Parent
    I hate this (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:14:35 PM EST
    But I have to point out that AAs are more homogenously aligned behind Obama right now than whites are homogenously aligned behind Clinton.

    If you "go there", then we go there.

    I prefer to make a very naive set of assumptions.

    All whites supporting Clinton (all 65% - 75% of them) are supporting her simply and only because they think she'll be a better president.

    All AAs supporting Obama (all 90% - 95% of them) are supporting Obama simply and only because they believe he'll be a better president.

    These two assumptions might be naive, but I think they are necessary in order to preserve discussion.

    Parent

    Sorry, but he's not (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Arcadianwind on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:19:36 PM EST
    losing Appalachia due to racism. It's because he's a phony, you know, plastic--as we used to say back in the 70s. Smoke and mirrors doesn't play well here. Racism is just an excuse for too many things.

    And racism exists in all states, look around, it just masquerades in different forms.

    Parent

    by that reasoning (3.00 / 1) (#125)
    by VicAjax on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:40:38 PM EST

    the millions of people who voted for him are just dupes falling for his phoniness?

    i grew up in Appalachia... i know directly that racism is alive and well there.  if you look at any map, it's a very distinct outline where he's not performing well... right around those mountains.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton won KY, WV, TN in the GENERAL (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Lysis on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:14:30 PM EST
    The Clinton brand has working-class appeal, and Hillary just might be stronger than Bill in that area.

    Her message appeals to them, not her race.  Believe it or not, some people just think she'd be the much better president.  They're not rejecting him, they're embracing her.

    Parent

    Appalachia may be (have been) (none / 0) (#126)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:45:09 PM EST
    backward, but you know it was never part of the 'deep south' country of Yazzir, Massa."  Lincoln called the people 'his' people, and they were not very friendly to Johnny Reb.  One characteristic
    of the mountain people was the insistance on judging each person on his own character (and ability to shoot straight), not the fact of slave or free, or rich or poor.  Did you know the first abolitionist paper was in Tennessee (I went to a school named for its editor)?

    The people of the hills and hollers were not very friendly to furriners--and fancy duds and manners were not much help.  Yes, I do know that not all those hill folks have a sterling character--but maybe those are the ones who descended on us after the war.  (My folks got there there in 1792.)

    Parent

    More evidence Hillary should just drop out (none / 0) (#155)
    by DWCG on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:24:22 PM EST
    /snark