home

Just For Fun: ARG Polls For OR And KY

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:34:16 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

While some are trying to rehabilitate Zogby, I won't do the same with ARG, which also has done better of late. In my view, these are not good pollsters (heck Zogby is not even a pollster in my view). But the Talk Left readership will enjoy ARG's latest OR and KY results:

KENTUCKY

Clinton 65
Obama 29

OREGON

Clinton 45
Obama 50

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< How Not to Make Friends For November | Kentucky By the Numbers >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Just For Fun: ARG Polls For OR And KY | 204 comments (204 topical)
    you're just toying with me! (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Klio on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:36:25 AM EST
    you scamp....

    BTD: you buried the lede. (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:54:40 AM EST
    The most salient point that Dick Bennett made is that contrary to popular belief Obama benefits most when turnout is low:

    "Conventional wisdom has it that Barack Obama's primary victories are based on his ability to increase turnout.

    A look at what happens when voter turnout increases in the primaries proves that this notion is wrong. In fact, Obama has had his greatest primary (and caucus) victories when turnouts have been low."

    --Dick Bennett


    Parent

    Hey, don't worry. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:00:58 PM EST
    That's just what we want - a nominee who only does well with low turnout.

    After all, we know how bad the GOP is at GOTV. And Democrats are totally NOT motivated to vote this year!

    I am so totally confident in our chances! We will beat McCain in a landslide with our super-excellent small turnout!

    MmmmMMMMmmm, grape Kool-Aid.

    Parent

    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:07:12 PM EST
    I really AM drinking grape Kool-Aid as I type this! (Sugar-free of course)  :)

    Parent
    Cue the MSNObama (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by heineken1717 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:37:18 AM EST
    "it doesn't matter" troupe.

    If Hillary wins KY by 30+, stays close in Oregon, she HAS to stay in this to the convention.

    but but....Hillary should drop out cuz she's (3.00 / 2) (#172)
    by thereyougo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:07:39 PM EST
    behind and I have John Edwards and all those SDs, and although I haven't gotten the required number to declare I'm saying I'm the nominee, she is a monster and should just go quietly. I wish someone close to her tells her nicely, especially when she wins by a landslide in the latest contest.{end of snark}

    Rise Hillary Rise ....and so she does!

    this is better than getting voted off the island.

    (-:

    Parent

    Heh. (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    BTD is trying to help us enjoy our Friday. Way to go! :-)

    Indeed (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:42:56 AM EST
    But who knows? Fact is ARG nailed West Virginia.

    Parent
    Interesting... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:45:45 AM EST
    I believe andgarden predicted 5-15 pt win for Obama in OR. This result would be within his prediction, and he is scarily good.

    Parent
    heh, thanks (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:52:39 AM EST
    Well, if it's any consolation, I got IN and NC wrong. Though I was correct that, upon hearing about the early vote in NC, Obama was destined to win, and big.

    Parent
    I remember how you bummed me out (none / 0) (#176)
    by Klio on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:16:07 PM EST
    with that, too.  Just as I was going out to the Indianapolis rally.  So maybe you helped me prepare ...

    Parent
    Another John Petty (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:43:09 AM EST
    great post
    Through 1968, the only election ever lost by any member of the Kennedy family was when RFK lost the Oregon primary to Eugene McCarthy.  The diffident and cerebral Eugene McCarthy, coming from the Adlai Stevenson wing of the party, seemed to fit the Oregonian electorate more closely than the hot and confrontational Kennedy.  Oregon has few minorities, and is relatively affluent.  As RFK remarked after his loss, "I do better with people who have problems."
    Sorry BTD (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:43:25 AM EST
    I'm in recovery from polls.  Saying the serenity prayer now.

    One Interesting Result (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:44:37 AM EST
    The "already voted" numbers in the OR ARG poll are almost exactly the same as SUSA.  SUSA had it 49-48 Obama, ARG has it 49-49.

    I don't know what this means (none / 0) (#128)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:02:40 PM EST
    Others say Hillary supporters are motivated, but doesn't make sense. Maybe it means Obamas support in the remaining is weak. I usually assume if someone is not committing its because they are not sure of their decision (whatever they are "buying.")

    Parent
    The polls (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Emma on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:46:04 AM EST
    make me manic depressive.  One day I'm up! :D  The next day I'm down.  >:(

    I'm sending BTD my therapy bill.

    I have suddenly started having horrible... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:55:18 AM EST
    TMJ pains - I know what you mean.  The good news for me is that wine and muscle relaxers are w o n d e r f u l.

    Sorry about your manic state!  Just try clinching your jaws really tight!

    Parent

    Too funny (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:56:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Maybe some people should send him (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:54:34 AM EST
    their med bills....hey, maybe everyone should send him the legal and illegal med bills :)

    Parent
    wonder what they will trot out (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:48:28 AM EST
    to mask this humiliation?
    the Edwards thing only works once.

    Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, perhaps? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:50:42 AM EST
    What will be bizarre is if he proclaims himself the nominee on May 20th after losing KY by 25-30 points and winning OR by only 5-10 points after being ahead by a huge margin just a little while before.

    It's not like HRC is outspending him 3-1 in any of these areas, yet she is managing to win huge victories and cut into his demographics.

    How can the SD's not pay attention?

    Parent

    I'm thinking they are working on Bill (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:58:17 AM EST
    Clinton to endorse Obama to "seal the deal."  <snk>

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:00:50 AM EST
    At that point, we'd know the rumors of mind-altering Kool-Aid would be true.

    "Here, Bill, let's have a drink and discuss the nomination..." :-)

    Parent

    After the drink though (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:05:05 AM EST
    Influence is a two way street when you're dealing with Bill Clinton.  Lots of people find it appealling to get into to bed WITH HIM instead.

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:07:42 AM EST
    I sure wouldn't mind.

    HRC is one lucky gal. ;-)

    Parent

    Spoken like grandma Vera (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:30:50 AM EST
    I was visiting my grandmother, who has now passed on, one day during the impeaching of Bill Clinton.  We sat together watching the news and I rose to get more coffee while saying with disgust, "I need Bill Clinton to preside, that is my relationship with him!  I don't care who he's sleeping with if it's legal.....he isn't sleeping with me!"  My 80 year old grandmother said, "He never asked me."  Such a sly smile too.

    Parent
    Your bringing up Grandma Vera (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:54:39 AM EST
    makes me think of all those endorsers whose last name is "Kennedy" who claim to have a read on who JFK or RFK would support now.  

    Parent
    Funniest Post Today, (none / 0) (#108)
    by zfran on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:49:21 AM EST


    Parent
    "I'm thinking they are (none / 0) (#109)
    by zfran on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:51:24 AM EST
    working on Bill"     Funnyest today! Thanks.

    Parent
    The SD's Know What Is Going On....And They (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:08:07 AM EST
    need to remember, they are there to vote for who is the most electable and can win the presidency, and not worry about being called a racist.  I believe some of them are more afraid of being labeled a racist than in doing what is best for the party and America!

    BTW...signed your petition.

    Parent

    The SDs are terrified of bad press, too (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Kathy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:11:48 AM EST
    I wonder what the radio station in PA and all these petitions mean, and what the latest poll about the media needing to shut up, and the editorials about sexism, and the spectre of some really, really ticked off women, will do to them.  I see a huge backlash coming.

    You can't argue against popular vote very effectively.  Winning on a technicality might get you the win, but this isn't the ge, this is the nomination.  Different rules apply.  It's very funny to see all those folks screaming about the popular vote in 00 suddenly espousing the delegate numbers as gold.

    Parent

    What have you to report from (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:26:32 AM EST
    your calling campaign?

    Parent
    KY is solidly Clinton from my calls (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Kathy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:27:06 PM EST
    I switched to OR mid-week and it's been fairly even.  More than before, I've gotten some folks who won't tell me who they are voting for, which tells me they are tired of calls.  When I was calling WVA and I got the odd Obama supporter, I'd say, "Well, God bless you and have a good day!" just to be annoying, but I haven't tried that in OR....

    Whoever said OR is like an overgrown college town is pretty much right.  When visiting, I've spent most of my time in Portland, but these are, for the most part, folks who feel they don't really need the federal government.  I've often found that folks whose lives won't change one way or the other depending on who the next president is have the luxury of Hope (tm).

    Parent

    I prefer another commenter's sign off: (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:30:14 PM EST
    Thanks for voting Democratic.

    Parent
    "well, bless your heart!" (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Kathy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:33:54 PM EST
    is my usual response to KY-ers for Clinton.

    Parent
    Kathy (none / 0) (#206)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:59:44 PM EST
    Did you happen to listen to the guy on the radio from Wilkes-Barre today?  The emotion from the women calling in was raw.  There's something afoot.

    Parent
    Thank you! (none / 0) (#67)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:10:55 AM EST
    Tell your friends...;-)

    Parent
    I Did...And Hopefully They Will Tell Their (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:16:25 AM EST
    other friends...

    Parent
    You rock! Thanks again. :-) (none / 0) (#90)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:32:41 AM EST


    Parent
    da nada sweetie....lol (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:22:17 PM EST


    Parent
    What has been the net SD count (none / 0) (#112)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:52:27 AM EST
    since Tuesday?  I have heard it is more than 10-1 for Obama, but cant find it now.  

    Parent
    let's see (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:53:25 AM EST
    it would have to be someone who is smart, respected, intelligent. Certainly could not be the person who ran the campaign of the established candidate who was considered the candidate in november, who could not beat a freshman senator with a funny name. My guess is it will have to be someone else.

    Parent
    that was another media ruse (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Josey on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:04:47 PM EST
    >>>>the established candidate who was considered the candidate in november, who could not beat a freshman senator with a funny name

    The media set up Hillary as "inevitable" - code for "beat the B---h!" used by the Obama campaign very effectively along with race-baiting.

    Parent

    No., as someone said yesterday (none / 0) (#93)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:34:28 AM EST
    it must be a woman.  After his losing the 'working' vote, Edwards declared.  After losing Latino votes, Richardson declared.  Can't recall the third, but there was a pattern.

    Parent
    Nancy Reagan? (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by cosbo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:00:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Jane Fonda? (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by felizarte on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:09:42 PM EST
    Imelda Marcos?

    Parent
    Nancy Pelosi (none / 0) (#161)
    by ruffian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:50:00 PM EST
    Maybe

    Parent
    Oh, that would be so fitting. (none / 0) (#162)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:51:59 PM EST
    I am just as disappointed in her as I am in Obama.

    Set the d**n table, Nancy!!!!

    Parent

    I also thought it was interesting that women (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by chancellor on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:50:18 AM EST
    are favoring Clinton in Oregon by about 10 points. I wonder if we aren't beginning to see some of the backlash effect in Oregon and, if so, whether it will be enough to close the gap.

    Not me (none / 0) (#174)
    by 1jane on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:13:57 PM EST
    I'm a woman in Oregon and I voted for Obama. The Clinton office in my town is empty. She resonates with women over 60. Quote in today's Oregonian from a senior Clinton official from the Oregon campaign, "The only suspense now is to see if Hillary will be blown out by more than 20."

    Parent
    what a broad (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Kathy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:30:39 PM EST
    over generalization, to quote you.

    Perhaps you're getting a little older than you think.  You obviously need glasses to read some of the recent exit polling.

    I have a feeling you know this very well, though.

    Parent

    I kind of believe (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:53:53 AM EST
    the KY result. Not so sure about the OR result.

    I think of OR as being akin to a VT West, too well populated by ex-hippy types from CA.

    What a broad (none / 0) (#175)
    by 1jane on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:15:32 PM EST
    over generalization. I guess I'll put my Jimmy Choo's in the closet and go buy birkenstops.

    Parent
    Remember (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    If you're down in the polls you get depressed.

    When you're up in the polls you get complacent.

    Polls are never good.

    Oregon exit polls (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:23:20 AM EST
    there is a business not to invest in.  

    I still think (Thoughts on Oregon) (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:27:00 AM EST
    Oregon is just a big giant college town.  A lot of Obama supporters are trying to push it off as if he appeals to the non-black working class in Oregon, so that proves that the same folks in a state like PA or OH are infected by a history of racism.  Which Oregon is not.  Simply due to the fact that there have never been many black people in Oregon.

    First of all, quick fact on Oregon by quirk of process it was one of the last states to purge slavery laws off the books.  They just never got around to it cause it was never very relevant to begin with.  But there is in the east of Oregon some pockets of some real backwards intolerance, there's been known that some real creepy white supremacist folks have settled in a sort of untouched area of the west stretching between Oregon and Montana.

    I don't think any of that comes into play.  None of them would be voting for Clinton anyway.

    Anyway, the Oregon I know is Ashland Oregon, Eugene and Portland, and it's all just college creative class idealism everywhere you go.  The people whe move on, go to California.  The people who don't join the working class insofar as one exists in the form of the tourist industry.  And they still really do dream of getting published one day.  They're probably all bloggers definitely.

    Even in central Oregon, in Bend, a lot of it is just about skiing.

    The only area that I think might be good for Clinton is some of the suburb areas of Portland.  Beaverton, I guess.

    The bottom line is, I've also been to Pennsylvania and the working class is different.  You get a different feel the second you get off the plane and it had nothing to do with one area being more racially polarized than the other.

    That explains it. I've (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:35:30 AM EST
    over understood why OR was in the bag for Obama.

    BTW:  has Shakespeare endorsed anyone yet?  

    Parent

    I don't know (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:57:59 AM EST
    But I wouldn't be surprised if they do "Taming of the Shrew" this summer.


    Parent
    Shakespeare (none / 0) (#194)
    by christinep on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:54:32 PM EST
    I recall that Ashland has a Shakespeare festival every year. Perhaps, he'll endorse yet....

    Parent
    Beat the Press (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Petey on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:39:12 AM EST
    Both her OR and KY TV spots are perfectly done.  The OR spot is especially good in that it plays against the Obama press corp.

    -----

    I know everyone says we're going to lose Oregon, but if lightning somehow strikes and we win it, it's gonna shake up the world.

    Since Gerin took Penns' place, (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by eleanora on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:56:36 PM EST
    her ads have been just wonderful! He seems to have a good ear for what's going to sell the lunch-bucket Dems.

    Parent
    That is good. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:00:19 PM EST
    BTW, are you the same Petey that used to be on Kos? Born a little petey or something?

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#138)
    by Petey on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:08:08 PM EST
    "BTW, are you the same Petey that used to be on Kos?"

    Same, of course.

    I remember you well as a voice of sanity in '03 - '04, Ga6thDem.

    Parent

    Eh (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:21:28 PM EST
    it's good to run into you again. I always enjoyed your perspective, snarky as it was, you always had the common sense that most posters did not.

    Anyway, I've given up trying to reason with the orange mafia months ago. The whole Obama thing is like the Dean movement on steroids. And when it crashes the let down is going to be way worse this time. And it will crash.

    Parent

    THINK (none / 0) (#158)
    by anon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:45:59 PM EST
    You are correct about Dean result. Then remember how the Reps took down a war hero in about 7 days...Kerry A WAR HERO! Obama cannot win the general....THINK, people! Hillary can win the general!

    Parent
    Obama is on right now (none / 0) (#181)
    by DJ on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:23:41 PM EST
    and it is so painful to watch.  I cannot believe this may be our candidate.  I cannot handle four years of this.

    Parent
    How bad (none / 0) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:29:30 PM EST
    is it? Is he stumbling and stuttering all over the place?

    Parent
    um...ah....uh....the-the-the (none / 0) (#189)
    by DJ on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:33:46 PM EST
    and a little perspiration.  Certainly doesn't look presidential.  Not very nice of me but it's true

    Parent
    can you imagine if those numbers prove true? (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by kempis on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:42:45 AM EST
    The DNC will panic and shoo all the Superdelegates out of the holding pen with instructions to vote for Obama.

    Seriously, do y'all think that maybe we've been "had" by the DNC through this whole process? For whatever reason, they decided to bet the house on Obama early on. In the big picture, votes seem pretty meaningless because the system is rigged to give the pledged delegates and superdelegates final control.

    Had Hillary--OR Obama--managed blow-out wins, similar to Kerry's in 04, then we would have been assured that "we the people" selected the candidate. But I honestly wondered in 04 how much of the Kerry nomination was DNC engineered (and I supported him from early on--like a damned idiot, when I realized Clark didn't really have a prayer.)

    But for all the millions and millions of votes cast during this nomination process, the nominee is really being selected via backroom deal. The slow trickle of SDs declaring for Obama is a way to maybe sneak that reality past us.

    Pretty @#!&*^$ing depressing if you ask me....

    I have long suspected that Kerry's Iowa 'win' (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:52:11 AM EST
    was rigged. He went from like two percent to a big win in what seemed like days. It didn't add up then, and seeing how easily gamed this year's primary has been, it adds up even less.

    I don't claim to know who would orchestrate such a thing or why -- it seems counterintuitive since Dean was the loser of the '04 fiasco, but will come out on top of the '08 fiasco -- but I can't shake the creepy feeling about the whole thing.

    Parent

    he was (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:03:04 PM EST
    able to game IA and ride the momentum to the rest of the nomination. This year it has been different. Hillary has been punching Obama down in state after state. I think Obama thought that he could repeat what Kerry did in 04.

    Parent
    The DNC and lots of the SDs (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by RalphB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:08:57 PM EST
    have their eyes on Obama's huge fundraising and want to get in on that game.  From my standpoint, there's no other reason to throw support to a candidate who is such a long shot to win in November.  I hate to think it but this is more about the money than winning the presidency against McCain.


    Parent
    the money train scares me (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by DJ on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:35:58 PM EST
    If O-camp is in charge of all the money there could be payback for those SDs or others that support Hillary.  Especially with Obama trying to funnel all money through his organization.

    Parent
    I can't help but think Obama's ace is Oprah money (none / 0) (#179)
    by thereyougo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:21:42 PM EST
    , she's got tons of it and afterall you can't take it with you.

    Bloomberg, John Corzine Gov. Ahnold Schartzwhatever..all with tons of money and they want to be part of the political process and dont mind spending their dough.

    IMO when you get that much sucess and amass that kind of money, you realize you can't spend it all so, you give it back to society in some way.

    Parent

    That's a good point (none / 0) (#198)
    by stefystef on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:08:31 PM EST
    With Obama telling people not to give money to the outside groups supporting him or to any other organization except his tells me is triangulating...

    I thought only Bill Clinton did that.

    Obama- A politician in rock-star clothing.

    Parent

    money calls the shots (none / 0) (#205)
    by pluege on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:33:41 PM EST
    Obama's money vacuum is the root of all democratic party official and pol support for Obama.

    Parent
    The Democrats always play reactionary (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by wasabi on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:56:59 PM EST
    The Republicans were pushing the war in 2003-2004.  I think the Dem bigwigs thought HD would have little traction in the general against a "war president".  So who to pick?  Hmmmm... The war hero, Kerry.  The Republicans couldn't possibly make Kerry into an efitte pansy.  He was a war hero after all.

    Democrats, always one move behind. We need better strategeryists in our party.

    Parent

    Slow Trickle (none / 0) (#107)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:48:26 AM EST
    Sounds like a Prostate problem. Anyone know a good Urologist?

    Parent
    Then Again (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:56:42 AM EST
    Come November we may need a good Proctologist!

    Parent
    considering where the DNC's heads are at (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by kempis on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:30:33 PM EST
    I think a proctologist would be useful right about now.

    :(

    Parent

    Love this image. Spot on. (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:16:09 PM EST
    The DNC will panic and shoo all the Superdelegates out of the holding pen with instructions to vote for Obama.


    Parent
    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:59:08 AM EST
    Is anyone enjoying that Dick Bennett is taking shots at Poblano?

    Who's (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:03:44 PM EST
    Dick Bennett?

    Parent
    ARG pollster. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:06:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Saw that (none / 0) (#145)
    by spit on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:19:02 PM EST
    made me chuckle this morning.

    To be fair, I find both of them pretty unreliable.

    Parent

    Anybody (none / 0) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:22:45 PM EST
    who takes shots at poblano is a good guy in my book.

    Parent
    Gallup right now shows (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by zfran on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:06:48 PM EST
    Obama's 6 point national lead today is down to 4 points!!!

    National polls are pretty meaningless, (none / 0) (#144)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:18:53 PM EST
    though it's funny that even with the media and Obama himself proclaiming he's won the nomination he's basically in a deadheat with Hill.

    Let's nominate the stronger candidate and send BO packing.

    Parent

    Interfaith Alliance's Release Criticizing Obama (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by BoGardiner on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:18:05 PM EST
    This is a highly respected progressive group.

    Here's their website's press release with the Baptist president calling on Obama to stop distributing the Kentucky flyer:

    http://www.tialliance.org/news/35-press-releases/100-presidential-candidates-should-not-mix-religion -and-politics

    Off topic, sorry, but this is breaking and I haven't seen a better place to post this.  Normally this group's releases get picked up by the press, but I see it in only a couple small papers so far.

    Hope This Gets A Lot Of Play Before KY Vote (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:02:22 PM EST
    The Interfaith Alliance is opposed to candidates exploiting their religious beliefs to gain electoral support.  The Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, a practicing Baptist minister and President of the Interfaith Alliance, issued the following statement on the use of religion in presidential politics:

    "I am deeply disappointed that Senator Obama once again chose to distribute information about his religious beliefs in an attempt to score political points before a critical primary.   The candidates for president are running for Commander-in-Chief, not Pastor-in-Chief, and the Constitution clearly prohibits using religious convictions as a qualification for public office. There are so many serious issues facing this country from the war to health care to the economy. Presidential candidates need to spend more time outlining their vision for this country and less time trumpeting their religious bona fides."

    A very strong statement and a viewpoint that I definitely agree with 100%

    Parent

    What is David Axelrod's problem? (none / 0) (#163)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:53:42 PM EST
    He is running such a stupid campaign in places like PA, West VA, KY....if they don't think they can win the states send Obama in there, not some dopey flyer.

    Parent
    Not necessarily (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by wasabi on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    If they know they are going to get blown out, it will not look good to have Obama doing an all-out effort to win in KY, only to fall flat on his face.  It's much better to say, well we didn't try very hard, and that's why we lost.

    Parent
    what would this mean if true?? (none / 0) (#1)
    by athyrio on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:36:08 AM EST
    I know it is a long shot but just curious...

    Nothing. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by sweetthings on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:38:36 AM EST
    Unless it somehow influenced the Supers.

    Parent
    Let's see after Tuesday! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by felizarte on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:42:35 AM EST
    As for me, I have always believed that Clinton should stay all the way to the convention when the all the delegate votes have been tabulated and the nominee is officially proclaimed.

    Parent
    Nothing Will Influence (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by The Maven on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:55:21 AM EST
    the supers at this point -- the ones all rushing to support Obama recently seem to have completely immunized themselves against the concept of electability in November, the very reason for their own existence.  What are we to make, for example, of yesterday's Rasmussen poll for Arkansas, where Clinton now holds a 14-point lead over McCain, while Obama would lose by 24 (presumably in parge part to his 61% unfavorable rating in the state)?

    Are the supers looking at numbers like those, or that in most states, Clinton has been gaining ground versus McCain since March, whereas Obama is either just treading water or losing ground?

    Many of these supers are proving that they're less interesting in winning than in currying favor with what they perceive to be the incoming power structure.  And that's simply a dereliction of what they ought to be doing.

    Parent

    I think the Super-Ds have their fingers (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:52:14 AM EST
    up checking the wind on a daily basis.  If they thought for a minute Obama might not be the nominee, they would all run over to Hillary Clinton's side of the deck.  

    Parent
    Maybe Some of Them Do (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by The Maven on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:59:04 AM EST
    but it sure seems as though the steady parade we've been seeing of late have their fingers located someplace altogether different (cue imagery of one's own choosing here).

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#132)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:04:49 PM EST
    You give them much more credit than I do.  I feel Obama could commit murder at noon here on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of my workplace, and they would still make him the nominee.

    I hope you are right!

    Parent

    nothing is set in stone, thats the saving grace (none / 0) (#191)
    by thereyougo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:39:48 PM EST
    i suspect that even the pledged will leave Obama once the popular vote changes the outlook for the GE win.

    the SDs are fluid - remember.

    Parent

    Nothing is Right (none / 0) (#22)
    by Spike on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:54:21 AM EST
    This will be a split decision that will probably put Obama over the top in the pledged delegate race. And that will only influence the supers by encouraging remaining undeclareds to announce their support for Obama. Expect to see this week's wave of daily superdelegate announcements continue in the wake of next Tuesday's election.

    Parent
    'Wave'? It looks more like the opposite is true (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Ellie on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:19:58 AM EST
    On his own hype about solid support, Obama should have closed this long ago, at least before PA.

    The question begged whenever anyone asks why HRC is still in it is, why hasn't Obama shut it down?

    Parent

    It is not the declaration, (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:42:01 AM EST
    it's the vote when they are sitting on the floor with a delegation.  They can change their mind a dozen times.  (I almost wish for the old smoke-filled room so they'd have the same privilege I had--a secret ballot.)

    Parent
    What is over-the-top (none / 0) (#199)
    by christinep on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:14:58 PM EST
    Nothing is "over the top" until the roll call of the states at the convention. Prior to then, two candidates are campaigning with all its jockeying and complaining and predicting and claiming--unless someone drops out.  

    Parent
    I would think... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:46:33 AM EST
    ... that if Hillary finished within five in Oregon it would breathe some new life into her campaign, because it would suggest that it's not just "Appalachian rednecks" that Obama is slipping among, but white voters overall. Realistically, I still think he'll win there in low double figures, and remove the slight degree to which is he not yet inevitable.

    Parent
    BTD, just confess among friends (none / 0) (#3)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:37:12 AM EST
    Zogby is now your go to guy.

    Btw, did he accept your apology?

    Great, (none / 0) (#6)
    by NJDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:39:39 AM EST
    now my hopes will be up for Oregon.  I know it's ARG, but polls have a way of changing the psyche--once you see them, you can't pretend you didn't.  I try to be like Kathy and only pay attention to the ones I like :)

    I've read contradictory demographics about Oregon--does anyone have a reliable source to point to?  (sorry if I missed a thread about this already)

    Here are 2 resources (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by wurman on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:07:44 AM EST
    Wikipedia

    US Census quick summary

    Parent

    Those census.gov "quick facts" (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:33:32 AM EST
    on states are excellent; I've found them so useful this year and suggest others bookmark -- or just google census.gov and a state's name.

    Parent
    Thanks Wurman! (none / 0) (#100)
    by NJDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:36:42 AM EST
    I reviewed the 2006 Census and a few things popped out at me.  The population is 3.6% Asian and 10.2% Hispanic--that's a 14% voting block that is very strong for HRC.  Less than 2% is AA, and only 25% have a Bachelor's or higher degrees.  I'm not too sure what the average is nationally, but that doesn't seem crazy high.  

    Am I wrong?  Overall, these demographics don't look bad for HRC.  I know there's a lot of crunchy types, but not many as I thought...    

    Parent

    Sen. Clinton must overcome 2 major negatives. (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by wurman on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:20:15 PM EST
    [Disclosure: First, the timber industry "problem."  I worked in Oregon from 1993 to 2001 in jobs directly connected to timber. I have several boxes of Spotted Owl Helper in my pantry & happen to believe that the Barred Owl is genetically identical--which is proven by DNA.]

    The Clinton name is a household word in OR & it is a curse.  To some extent, the logging industry was gutted by decisions made when the Big Dog was president.  Logging was not just an economic/financial entity; it was a way of life & it has been eliminated.  The industry dropped from about 6.1 billion board feet in 1991 to about 3.8 bbf in 2000.  This correlates with some "false" problems with environmental issues: read "Spotted Owl" controversy here.

    Timber recovered under Bu$hInc, but will never be the cashcow it once was--about 5 bbf presently, often for export from private land.  As per a poster above, Tourism & burger flipping are major employers now.

    Sen. Obama benefits from the perception that he would or could do something different.  His "known unknowns" benefit him a great deal in OR.

    The NAFTA arrangement harmed many other economic & financial operations in OR.  Again, Sen. Clinton takes a "partial hit" on this because of Pres. Clinton's connection to that treaty.

    Once more, the unknowns about Sen. Obama benefit him with the OR Democrats.

    Another labyrinthine resource: Oregon Blue Book.  This links to the site map, not the home page which is not user friendly.

    Parent

    Though One Should Always Note (none / 0) (#134)
    by The Maven on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:05:39 PM EST
    that in the vast majority of states, the percentage of Hispanics/Latinos as a share of the registered voting population is considerably smaller than of their share of the general population.  One reason, among others, is that many of these individuals are not yet U.S. citizens.

    I suspect that the same is also roughly true for the Asian subgroup, though I can't recall ever seeing specific figures that would either back this up or contradict the hypothesis.

    Parent

    A question (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:54:17 AM EST
    How does Oregon declare a winner on May 20 when Oregon voters can mail in their ballots on May 20?

    wow (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Kathy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:58:37 AM EST
    that is a good question.  Is it mailed in on the 20th or do they use drop boxes?  Because someone from OR mentioned a few days ago that there were drop boxes all over the place.

    (and, if course I believe the KY poll because it is good for my girl, but think OR is waaaay off...)

    Parent

    Everything has to be in (none / 0) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:01:48 AM EST
    by the 20th.  Then machines start opening the envelopes and counting.  If it's not in on the 20th, does not get counted.  

    Parent
    Even if you mail it on the 15th? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:03:31 AM EST


    Parent
    You're right!! (none / 0) (#94)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:34:50 AM EST
    Link

    In Washington, postmarks DO count, but I suspect they won't count when we go to all mail-in, because how in the heck could they call ANY election on election night, otherwise...

    Parent

    Ballots (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Emma on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:00:50 AM EST
    Must by received by the 20th.  Not postmarked the 20th.  There are drop boxes all over the place for people to use on the 20th instead of mailing.

    Parent
    Ah (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:03:07 AM EST
    Then if you mail it on the 17th and it gets lost in the mail, then what?

    Parent
    tough luck... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:04:04 AM EST


    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:05:13 AM EST
    I assume it rarely happens anyway.

    So the reality is the campaign in ORegon is basically over already.

    Parent

    I wonder... (none / 0) (#65)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:09:52 AM EST
    how many people don't trust the mail and just drop their ballots off in the boxes?

    A lot of folks are last-minute here in the USA. ;-)

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#85)
    by Emma on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:28:15 AM EST
    it depends on how people vote.  I've heard that lots of people treat the 20th as voting day, and just drop off their ballots in the drop boxes on that day.

    I can't vouch for that, though, so yeah it could really be over.  Yesterday was, according to the Clinton campaign, really the last safe day to mail ballots.  Everything from here on in should (hopefully) be drop boxes.

    Parent

    Remember the postal carriers (none / 0) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:04:40 AM EST
    Union then becomes a key endorsement.  

    Parent
    OMG - who do they support? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:12:10 AM EST
    I guess the could "lose" ballots if they think that HRC is gaining ground....

    Parent
    I suppose that you could argue (none / 0) (#62)
    by Kathy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:08:31 AM EST
    statistically, the same amount of spoilage via undelivered mail would equal the same amount you normally get with traditional balloting.  What are we talking about here--one or two percent?

    If folks were truly concerned, they'd drop it in one of the collection boxes rather than mail it in.

    I wonder about the polls that say the race is close based on ballots already turned in.  If they don't open them until the 20th, then it's all self-reported as to how people voted, so even though I like the statistic that says the count is close on ballots already turned in, I am a bit dubious.

    One thing we've learned during this election is that people lie to pollsters.

    Parent

    75 % of Oregon ballots still out. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:45:28 PM EST
    Per the OR Sec. of State, as of 5/14 only 25% of ballots had been returned. Many people will decide this weekend. Both Clinton and Obama are back in Oregon this weekend.

    We have a very contested Dem. primary race for US Senate. And, since Rep. aren't very good at winning statewide office here, many of the Dem. primary races for state offices,( Att. Gen, Sec. of State, Treasurer) will pretty much be decided in the primary. Rep. opposition is slim to non-existent for the general election.

    And big municipal races in Portland. So, could be a very turnout this year.

    Hillary is on a live townhall tonight at 7 pm, on KGW-TV in Portland. Obama has a rally this weekend in the big Waterfront Park in downtown Portland.

    And we have heard quite a bit this week about RFK's campaign here in 1968. Even though McCarthy won, the stories are all about Bobby. Bill Clinton hit quite a few small towns that hadn't seen a presidentail campaign since  Bobby came through.

    Parent

    Handwriting analysis? (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:10:23 AM EST


    Parent
    my cat does a mean John Hancock. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Kathy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:12:50 AM EST


    Parent
    A friend is teaching her Pomeranian (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:14:08 AM EST
    to recognize the letters in the dog's name.  Is that possible?  It is a short name.

    Parent
    YES (none / 0) (#88)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:30:59 AM EST
    There was a program recently called Dog Genius that showed a German (I think) dog retrieving all sorts of things to order--and when given a new word it had never heard before, it went for the one new item out of the collection of 20 or 30 things.

    Parent
    yeah, but German shepherds are smart (none / 0) (#173)
    by Kathy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:11:23 PM EST
    Pomeranian?  I dunno...

    Parent
    Preaching to the choir (none / 0) (#186)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    but now I have a Swedish Vallhund herding-type dog--small enough for an old crone to lift if need be.

    Parent
    Makes (none / 0) (#95)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:35:25 AM EST
    sense to drop off the ballot rather than mailing it in.

    Parent
    Vote by Mail (none / 0) (#160)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:46:27 PM EST
    in WA (I'm actually reading this from the ballot I need to submit for Tuesday's school vote), the ballot, if mailed, must be POSTMARKED no later than election day (20th).

    Drop off locations are open until 8:00 PM election day.

    This postmark deadline being election day has always been the case for absentee voters. It must have worked all these years.

    On the really close races of late, they always say they are waiting on all the absentee ballots if they can't call the winner. (2004 Govenor's race, 2002 Senate race - Cantwell v Gorton)

     

    Parent

    An Oregonian commented here (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:04:20 AM EST
    yesterday that ballot must be in the drop box by May 20.  Ballots received earlier are verified for signature but none are opened and counted until May 20.  Hope they count faster than Lake Co., IN.  

    Parent
    Stop it, you are ruining everything with questions (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:55:29 AM EST


    Parent
    I am genuinely curious (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:56:04 AM EST
    What happened in 2004?

    Parent
    You mean what date did they finally get an (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:59:17 AM EST
    accurate count?  

    Parent
    I believe (none / 0) (#29)
    by spit on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:57:10 AM EST
    they can drop them off at a county office on May 20th, not mail them.

    Parent
    Is there a time when the drop off box closes? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:00:39 AM EST


    Parent
    As far as I know (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by spit on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:02:44 AM EST
    (and I'm not an Oregonian, so others probably know better than I do), they have to be received to a county elections office by 8:00 on the 20th.

    Parent
    that makes sense (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:04:24 AM EST
    but also is troubling.

    I would hope a postmark prior to a certain date should be good enough.

    Parent

    Ou commenter yesterday sd. postmark (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:07:27 AM EST
    is meaningless, as it is for absentee ballot in CA.  

    Parent
    It's the way that corporate America (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:35:54 AM EST
    runs, so I'm not surprised.  Try telling your mortgage company or credit card company to go by the postmark.  At least Oregon doesn't fine late voters.

    Parent
    They're bog-standard absentee ballots (none / 0) (#116)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:54:14 AM EST
    You don't have them in by close of business on election day, and you're done. I do believe that they are required to accept correctly post-marked overseas military ballots though. (Remember FL 2000)

    Parent
    In CA they are mailed out weeks (none / 0) (#123)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:59:54 AM EST
    in advance (4 to 6 weeks!) or you can pick up and we have multiple drop offs.  It's very user friendly.   Having weeks to vote is going to encourage much greater participation than one day polling where you have to deal with finding parking, finding day care, etc.

    Parent
    iirc, must be received by the 20th (none / 0) (#64)
    by Klio on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:09:04 AM EST
    not just postmarked but received.  I believe they can be delivered by hand on that day to various 'polling' places.

    Parent
    Last day to mail Oregon ballots is today. (none / 0) (#141)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:13:11 PM EST
    Oregon ballots must be RECEIVED by the county election office by 8 pm (PDT) on May 20th. Postmark is irrelevant. If your ballot isn't in by 8 pm, it doesn't count.

    Parent
    Easy answer (none / 0) (#183)
    by 1jane on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:24:28 PM EST
    The ballots are received, signatures verified on the outside envelope, then placed by precinct under lock and key until 8 AM on May 20. At 8 AM the big boxes of ballots already received are removed from the vault and taken to the tabulation machines. The machine rips each ballot open and the ballot is scanned twice. Once as a test and once for the count in addition to having a paper ballot to compare it to. As ballots are received on the 20th they are in the back of the line for counting. The elections department in my county will have staff on site with D and R observers until 2 Am.

    Parent
    All ballots must be in by 8:00 (none / 0) (#197)
    by seeker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:07:01 PM EST
    on Tues. unless you are in line at the election office at 8, in which case you can vote.  Counting starts at 8.  Often, but not always, results are available quickly.  Sometimes it takes a few hours.

    Ballots are disregarded if they arrive after 8 on Tuesday.  There is no waiting for ballots that arrive later.

    Parent

    Follow Zogby (none / 0) (#30)
    by ibextati on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:57:17 AM EST
    In PA primary Zogby's last poll had clinton by 10, she won by 9.4.

    In NC primary most polls had showed single digit lead for Obama, but zogby's last poll had showed Obama winning by 14 and Obama won by 14.

    In Indiana, Zogby had Obama winning by 2%, which was within the margin of error and Hillary ended up winning by 2.  

    I think lately Zogby is more reliable.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:01:15 AM EST
    Zogby had Obama winnning Ohio, CA by 13 etc.

    Lately, ARG has been pretty good, nailing WV, NC, PA and picking the winniner in Indiana.

    BTW, on Indiana, Zogby was REALLY off, in that he predicted a 10 point gap between Clinton and Obama among white folks and he did NOt predict the huge A-A turnout that wactually made Indiana close.

    He was off by 4 in Indiana, but by sheer luck, not by polling strength.

    The reality is ARg has been better than zogby in terms of actual polling.  

    Parent

    ARG* (none / 0) (#78)
    by ibextati on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:22:24 AM EST
    Why do you think that Real Clear Politics usually don't include ARG in their averaging? There reason ARG polling has an asterisk sign is because they tend to be Volatile in their polling.  

    Parent
    Why would they include zogby? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:35:35 AM EST
    I have never gvien credence to ARg and I do not in this post. but only a fool gives credence to Zogby.

    BTW, RCP gives credence to IA. RCP makes no sense in their judgments on that issue.

    Parent

    Zogby is a junk pollster. (none / 0) (#37)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    He puts his own assumptions in the results.  By the way, BO didn't actually win NC by 14 points.  Two counties in NC accidently counted his early votes twice, 15k votes, or one percent of the total.

    Parent
    andgarden? (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:59:39 AM EST


    What? (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    I think ARG is right this time. . .

    Parent
    you think Oregon could be within (none / 0) (#127)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:02:32 PM EST
    5?  I hope so, because I am still depressed after reading the Cokie and Steve Roberts piece.  Although many have been saying it here, I just did not want to believe how unfair the primary system really is and that we are putting forth the weaker of two candidates because of it.

    Parent
    We don't have to. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:05:25 PM EST
    We can still nominate Hillary.

    Parent
    Well in fairness (none / 0) (#35)
    by ajain on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:00:11 AM EST
    ARG was a good indicator of West Virginia. A primary that we don't seem to care about anymore.

    Luke Skywalker voice: (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:08:40 AM EST
    "I care!"

    Parent
    reaching... (none / 0) (#40)
    by diogenes on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:00:59 AM EST
    Since Obama is the presumed nominee, at this point his supporters are likely to stay home and protest voters will want to "send him a message".  Obama-leaning women will vote for Hillary as an expression of solidarity with women...as long as it means that they don't have to deal with her as the nominee.
    Face it-if Hillary couldn't parlay a four year head start, the massive Clinton machine, and the Clinton attack machine into a clear and convincing victory either in primary votes or in money raising, then maybe she is a fatally flawed candidate.
    Thought experiment-would readers here have gone for RFK or for Humphrey in 1968 if you could have voted in the primary?

    LOL! (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:05:02 AM EST
    The entire Democratic Party Establishment and the media have been pushing Obama down our throats this entire campaign, and yet HRC will still end up the winner of the popular and Democratic vote after June 3rd.

    I wonder whose candidate is REALLY fatally flawed here?

    Too freaking funny.

    Parent

    I think I see the fatal flaw in your (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    analysis.  You are looking for an honest "man" and are therefore centered on Obama.  

    Parent
    Clean Gene McCarthy (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:02:18 AM EST
    beat RFK in the primary in 1968.

    Parent
    Humphrey (none / 0) (#81)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:26:31 AM EST


    Parent
    RFK or Humphrey? (none / 0) (#86)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:30:06 AM EST
    Good question! At a recent campaign stop here in Oregon Pres. Clinton mentioned that while Teddy endorses Barack, RFK Jr. endorses Hillary because he said her ideals closely match his fathers'. Personally, RFK all the way, and Hillary of course.

    Parent
    There have been so many elections (none / 0) (#193)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:49:27 PM EST
    in my lifetime that I do not always recall who ran when.  I know my husband and I were very pro-Humphrey always.  And I liked RFK, but husband didn't.  

    Parent
    Re: Oregon (none / 0) (#89)
    by lilburro on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:32:01 AM EST
    "at this point his supporters are likely to stay home and protest voters will want to "send him a message"."

    I really don't think that's true.  Obama has been putting as much effort in GOTV in Oregon as elsewhere.  I'm sure Oregon will have a great turnout.  No excuses for Obama there.

    Parent

    Oregon (none / 0) (#102)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:41:52 AM EST
    Obama has been spending a boat load of money here in Oregon on ads. Add to that the almost non-stop campaigning being done for him on progressive talk radio by various hosts.
    You can do alot when you charge $14.00 a pop for people to hear you at one of Portland's biggest venues like Obama did recently!
    Hillary does more campaigning in ore small venues around the State and charges NOTHING. Silly Hillary!

    Parent
    I don't think HHH (none / 0) (#105)
    by brodie on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:46:28 AM EST
    was on the ballot in the 68 primaries.  He entered late (April) and was either too late for his name to be put on the ballot, or was unwilling to do so.

    RFK was my guy that year, though I was just a kid.  I did see RFK at a campaign rally in CA, the very day in fact of the OR primary.

    OR was McCarthy's most solidly staked out state, he'd been organizing there for 6 months and devoted a fair amt of resources there. The ORians just weren't Kennedy people -- they didn't seem to have problems that needed addressing.  

    Even the white working class acted more like the white middle class.  Things probably haven't changed much in 40 yrs.

    Parent

    I Like The Odds For Hillary....BTW, I Thought (none / 0) (#52)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:05:01 AM EST
    they don't even open ballots until May 20th, so how can they know how the votes are going?  Just wondering...

    Polling (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:05:49 AM EST


    Parent
    The pollsters are just asking the voters. (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:06:56 AM EST
    Not particularly reliable.

    Parent
    delegates left (none / 0) (#68)
    by iago on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:11:43 AM EST
    Wow I wonder how the remaining 235 delegates will split.

    What of the 366 Delegates from FL/MI? (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:17:10 AM EST


    Parent
    what of them (1.00 / 2) (#148)
    by iago on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:21:34 PM EST
    Clinton said they don't count.

    It's the 235 that are important to win. How do you see these 235 splitting between them?

    Parent

    They are the Untouchables (none / 0) (#91)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:33:04 AM EST
    And not in a good sense either; more like lepers. They are those of whom we shall not speak!

    Parent
    Zogby and ARG had crash statistics course (none / 0) (#77)
    by Prabhata on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:21:07 AM EST
    Those numbers are reasonable.  Both pollsters attended a remedial statistics class at an unnamed university.

    THINK (none / 0) (#80)
    by anon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:23:47 AM EST
    Hillary can win this. Obama cannot win the general. THINK or it's McCain. Help Hillary in whatever way you can.....she can win the general.

    how can she win the general (1.00 / 1) (#151)
    by iago on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:24:07 PM EST
    If she can't win the primary?

    Republicans are going to vote for a CLINTON?!?

    Parent

    I know tons of Republicans, particularly (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:29:44 PM EST
    women, intent on voting Hill in the GE.

    How's BO going to win a GE when he lost all the big electoral states(save his own), the swing groups, and the swing states?

    Parent

    we'll find out (none / 0) (#159)
    by iago on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:46:09 PM EST
    I think Obama as the nominee will make use of the electoral map.

    Parent
    Yup, that's what McGovern said. (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:55:14 PM EST
    Hopefully, we'll find out with Hillary.

    Parent
    How (none / 0) (#168)
    by iago on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    How can she realistically win? I'm open to real ideas.

    Here's the math she's dealing with:
    ----------
    Elected Delegates remaining: 235
    Clinton elected delegate tally: 1445 (1718 w/ supers)
    Obama elected delegate tally: 1600 (1884 w/ supers)
    Delta: Obama +155(166 if you count supers)

    Clinton would need to earn 195 of the remaining 235 elected delegates to TIE Obama's elected total and 201 to TIE his entire total.

    Parent

    You know the answer I am sure (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:07:34 PM EST
    SDs are not committed to their candidate until they case vote in convention. So any number until the convention is just that: a promise, not reality.

    Parent
    Correct. (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:16:29 PM EST


    Parent
    okay... (none / 0) (#180)
    by iago on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:22:07 PM EST
    So the Clinton plan is that if there is enough chaos at the convention she can take advantage of it and get the nomination despite not willing the majority of elected delegates.

    Then why do we care about the upcoming elections or Florida/Michigan? If those votes aren't going to win it for her why bother?

    Parent

    Because the people count (none / 0) (#192)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:44:10 PM EST
    No matter who they voted for.  I just signed a petition (Hillary's site) to count them--count carefully I said, count all votes carefully.  Or the DNC may come up short.

    Parent
    Teddy Kennedy was behind 700+ delegates (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by thereyougo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:55:48 PM EST
    from wikipedia:

    The 1980 convention was notable, as it was the last time in the 20th century that either major party that a candidate tried to get delegates released from their voting commitment. This was done by Massachuetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Carter's chief rival for the nomination in the Democratic primaries, who sought the votes of delegates held by Carter.

    Parent

    someone should remind teddy of that. (none / 0) (#203)
    by hellothere on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:48:19 PM EST
    i am sure he wants to forget.

    Parent
    Teddy Kennedy was behind 700+ delegates (none / 0) (#196)
    by thereyougo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:56:10 PM EST
    from wikipedia:

    The 1980 convention was notable, as it was the last time in the 20th century that either major party that a candidate tried to get delegates released from their voting commitment. This was done by Massachuetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Carter's chief rival for the nomination in the Democratic primaries, who sought the votes of delegates held by Carter.

    Parent

    Nice! (none / 0) (#201)
    by iago on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:00:41 PM EST
    I'm sure that helped the party.

    I don't remember Carter's 80-84 presidential term. Was he a good President those four years?

    Parent

    About as good as Obama will be in 2008-2012 (none / 0) (#204)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:19:08 PM EST
    If he is the nominee. Same basic results in GE.

    Parent
    Carter was 1977-1981 (none / 0) (#207)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:53:33 PM EST
    Reagan was elected in 1980 and served from 1981 until 1989.

    Parent
    Look at electoral vote projections (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    Before you post, you may come across as more knowledgeable. For a while now the projections show Obama losing badly to McCain in EV, and Clinton winning easily.

    And to answer your question: its not that Clinton gets republicans, its more that Obama can't get democrats.

    Parent

    how she wins the general (none / 0) (#200)
    by christinep on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:57:14 PM EST
    Its electoral votes by state, thats how.... Hillary does exceptionally well in the usual Dem states (most big states) and in swing states that could make the difference. Count Ohio, Florida, West Virginia. And, of course, there is Arkansas. Obama has some very noticeable problems in the traditional "must have" states as well as Ohio & Florida. (And, also, WVa & Ark.) His "Western strategy" is a real reach in view of McCain, the western republican opponent.

    Parent
    I like your style, first time commenter. (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:28:03 AM EST


    Parent
    Why SD's apartially immune. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Radix on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:35:34 AM EST
    Even if people don't vote Obama for President they are likely to vote Democrat on the down ticket. My two cents.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    BTD (none / 0) (#106)
    by CST on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:47:52 AM EST
    What is the projected turnout for OR and KY?

    I want to believe (none / 0) (#113)
    by Makarov on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:52:34 AM EST
    Hillary can win in OR, or at least keep it close.  The most important aspect of this poll to me was showing a statistical tie among those who've already voted. This is just like the SUSA poll that finished on 5/11.  

    Maybe Obama supporters are just procrastinators.

    I'm with you! (none / 0) (#156)
    by iago on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:43:37 PM EST
    I'm a NJ Devils fan and I'm with you.

    The Devils are a very good team and they are winning most periods of the game! It's unfair that they aren't awarded a win just because they don't have the best score at the very end of the game!

    Parent

    5 points, just 5 points diff in oregon! (none / 0) (#202)
    by hellothere on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:47:03 PM EST
    happy dance, clap hands! the weekend is coming.

    Just For Fun: ARG Polls For OR And KY | 204 comments (204 topical)